Let It Be and Bridge Over Troubled Water

Yet another Beatle thread.

I recently read that in 1980 John Lennon disavowed any involvement with composing Let It Be. He said:

That's Paul. What can you say? Nothing to do with the Beatles. It could've been Wings. I don't know what he's thinking when he writes "Let It Be". I think it was inspired by "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" [sic]. That's my feeling, although I have nothing to go on. I know that he wanted to write a "Bridge over Troubled Waters".

Let It Be and Bridge Over Troubled Water sure resemble some similarity, at least in the production (they seem to me very different in their structure though). But the former was originally recorded in January 1969, the latter several months later, in November 1969. At the same time, Simon & Garfunkel released the eponymous album in January 1970 and apparently they hadn't listened to Let It Be, released more than one month later as a single.

So it seems highly unlikely to me that Paul McCartney was inspired by Paul Simon's song (Lennon's comment seems incorrect) and that Simon was inspired by McCartney, unless the former knew about the Twickenham sessions and had a demo or something like that. Thus the similarity of the songs must be due to coincidence.

What do you think?

 

I think Lennon was simply mistaken and probably just had the two songs together in his head when looking back in 1980 because they were numbers 1 and 2 in the UK charts together for some time (BOTW kept LIB off the top spot)...

 

We must remember that the Get Back compilation (bootleg known as Kum Back), made by Glyn Jones, was aired on radio around September 1969, some time before Bridge Over Trouble Water was recorded. So, which one was first?

My guess: Simon could have heard Let It Be but McCartney couldn't have heard Bridge Over Troubled Water.

 

I remember reading an interview where Paul Simon discussed 'Let It Be', where he says that he was shocked when he first heard it, because of the similarity in style that it had to 'Bridge Over Troubled Water', and he said something like 'they've done it again'.

(EDIT): I found it:

In 1970, The Beatles’ “Let It Be” and Simon & Garfunkel’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water” dominated the charts and radio airwaves. Both have a hymn-like, solemn-yet-inspirational feel and acted as a salve for the end of the turbulent late 1960’s of war in Vietnam, riots, political assassinations, and the growing generation gap. It was almost like the world breathed a collective sigh of relief through these two songs that a new decade had begun.

According to David Browne’s book Fire and Rain: The Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, James Taylor, CSNY and the Lost Story of 1970, the similarities between the two songs were only too noticeable to both Garfunkel and Simon:

“Garfunkel [spending part of the year in Scotland] was concerned that the Beatles’ new release would deflect attention from his own signature song. Back in the States, Simon himself noticed the similarities. “The first time I heard ‘Let It Be’, I couldn’t believe that he [McCartney] did that,” he told Rolling Stone that spring. “They are very similar songs, certainly in instrumentation…They’re sort of both hopeful songs and resting peaceful songs.” Simon heard that McCartney had first offered “Let It Be” to Aretha Franklin – a plan Simon also had in mind for “Bridge Over Troubled Water.”

 

Did the radio programme reach a big audience? The bootleg, as far as I know, was released in January 1970 when Bridge had already been recorded.

 

One of my favorite Beatles songs. Never thought about the two songs being similar.

 

I don't know, but there were more than one station broadcasting the bootleg and I'm quite sure that people from the music business could have had access to it in a blink of an eye if they really wanted, knowing DJs personally.

I'm only saying that Simon could have had access to Let It Be before recording Bridge Over Troubled Water but I can't see how McCartney could have heard it before he composed Let It Be.

 

I've never heard that before in my life (that Let It Be was offered to Aretha Franklin). I'm quite skeptical about it.

 

A few relevant snippets of information:

Simon and Garfunkel were playing Bridge Over Troubled Water live in concert in 1969 (A November 28, 1969 version is on their Live 1969 CD).

For his second album - released in November 1969 - Joe Cocker recorded a version of Let It Be, though the song didn't make it to the final album. Maybe he'd been given a copy of Kum Back, or else the song was floating around as a demo.

Just to throw a spanner into the works, Billy Preston's That's The Way God Planned It single - surely heavily influenced by Let It Be - was released (on Apple, of course) in June 1969. (When I first heard the Beatles' Let It Be single in March 1970, I thought they'd ripped off Billy Preston!).

----------------------------------

Apart from that, John was simply wrong when he said that Let It Be was inspired by Bridge Over Troubled Water.

 

You may be correct, but the actual quoted words are definitely what Paul Simon said in an interview with RS; I don't know if the info about Franklin comes from that interview as well?

 

More info on Aretha's version:

Aretha Franklin recorded "Let It Be" in December 1969, and it was released on her album This Girl's In Love With You in January 1970, two months before The Beatles released their version. Aretha recorded it with the Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section. David Hood, their bass player, said that Paul McCartney sent demos of the song to Atlantic Records (Franklin's label) and to the Muscle Shoals musicians. Said Hood, "I kick myself for not grabbing that demo. Because I think they probably dropped it in the garbage. Our version was different. We changed it a little bit from his demo, where their version is different from that demo and from Aretha's version, as well. Just slightly, but little things."

 

Further info stated by Jerry Wexler (Aretha's producer):

Jerry Wexler: "Paul McCartney had sent me an acetate of ‘Let It Be’ with a note that it was written for Aretha. We recorded it. Afterwards, though, Aretha told us to hold up the release. She liked the melody but wasn’t sure what the lyrics meant. Time passed and the boys from Liverpool were tired of waiting. They put me on legal notice that we no longer had right of first release. They cut it themselves and, of course, enjoyed a huge hit. By 1970, Aretha saw the light and allowed us to include it, along with ‘Eleanor Rigby,’ on This Girl’s In Love With You."

NOTE: Even with her hesitation, Aretha still beat the Fab Four by a couple of months. Her album came out in January 1970, while The Beatles issued “Let It Be” as a single in March.

 

It's just John taking the piss out of Paul for a song he had nothing to do with and which is massively popular to millions of people. Those 1980 interviews are so weird because he could be alternately gushing in his praise of Paul (i.e. when discussing "All My Loving," "Hey Jude," etc) and then cutting like this.

And I always have to laugh when he says "nothing to do with the Beatles...it could've been Wings." What the hell does he think about "Revolution 9" then?

 

Oh, I wasn't doubting you at all. I was doubting Paul Simon, but I'm apparently mistaken. : Carry on.

 

Yep, "Revolution 9" would have been great if done by Wings ...

 

Do you think that he intended it for her and never actually sent it to her, or do you think that he was just making that up for the press? I haven't found the source for that part of the quote, so I don't know for sure that he said that part.

 

It seems so obvious now that you have said it; what a missed opportunity.

 

Both songs have hymn-like qualities but I never compared them. It's two notable classics.

 

My opinion: There were a lot of gospel-inspired chart hits in the late 60s. Both McCartney and Simon were just picking up on the latest sounds, and they wrote their respective songs independently of each other. McCartney wrote "Let It Be" in late 1968/very early 1969. Simon likely wrote "Bridge" in mid-1968. Although it is possible timeline-wise, I doubt Simon heard any bootleg version of "Let It Be".

I also think that Paul did NOT write "Let It Be" specifically for Aretha. Paul definitely wanted the Beatles to do it from the start, in January 1969. He does not mention anything about Aretha doing a version on any of the Nagra tapes. But then afterwards, Paul was getting sick and tired of waiting for the Get Back/Let It Be project to get released, and he didn't want the song "Let It Be" sitting around any longer. So he probably got the idea that Aretha would be able to do a fine version of it. And only then, in late 1969 did he send her (or Jerry Wexler) a demo of the song.

 

I don't see any way the two composers could have influenced each other in creating these songs and they are very different compositions, though both shared a similar 'end of decade' vibe.

Paul Simon is, iirc, on record as citing gospel music as an influence on Bridge....McCartney seems to have felt the same influence on LIB. Gospel music had returned to mainstream airwaves in 1969, via the Edwin Hawkins' Singers Oh Happy Day, which also influenced George Harrison's My Sweet Lord. It is highly likely that both Simon and Macca heard this record and that it influenced their thinking.

 

I for one never thought one influenced the other. They both have a gospel flavor, but as was pointed out, that was already in the air by that point. FWIW, "Let It Be" via Kum Back was released and on the radio (at least here in Detroit) right about the time Abbey Road was released. I'm sure any major radio market in the US was no different. Art Garfunkle could have heard it. But again, I don't believe it was an inspiration for "Bridge...", which was much more profound and relevant to the tremultuous times than "Let It Be"was.
Now maybe Phil Spector took some liberties with the arrangement of the released version, particularly the album mix.
That seems more likely.

Whatever the case, Simon & Garfunkle had the last laugh.
"Bridge Over Troubled Water" beat out "Let It Be" for "Record of the Year" in the 1970 Grammy Awards.

 

Just another case of John Lennon being John Lennon...in other words, a jerk.

 

There was much more of a gospel influence creeping into the pop charts during the late 60's. Apart from Aretha's records, Paul would have been aware of Dusty's 'Son Of A Preacher Man', Elvis' 'If I Can Dream' and Edwin Hawkins Singers 'Oh Happy Day' which was of course, the main influence for George's 'My Sweet Lord'.

 

Yeah Eddie he could be that at times, but John's opinion could change almost daily and as I've posted before, he liked the song until the Beatles went sour.

Here's part of an old post of mine that I just dug up:

That's the deal Arnie. Between September to December 1969 John totally soured on the Beatles. Most of the negative comments John made that everyone thinks were Johns firm opinion of Beatles things like the Let It Be movie and Abbey Road etc., are generally contrary to what John said as he was living through these events. His caustic comments really got going in December 1969.

Ah, nothing is as it seems when it comes to the Beatles. "John famously hated "Let It Be " ? It depends on which day you asked him about it.

John quoted in NME June 21st,1969 :
"In all this new Beatles stuff there's obviously McCartney hits there... and there's one beautiful ballad called "Let It Be" which is a cert for somebody.A cert.And there's quite a few cert hits on it for other people."

And..John hated the movie,right ? Same interview:

John: Anyway, we got a fantastic film out of making our next LP. It really is incredible."

John was really pretty famous for saying one thing one day and something completely different about Beatles things and his bandmates on a different occasion. John was still talking up the Beatles in Sept 1969 but by December the rot had really set in with him. So , originally he mentioned he was excited about putting the Abbey Road medley together with Paul, but later he disowns it as Paul and George Martin's baby,etc,. etc.

(To be fair though, I think John was commenting on a longer edit of the movie before some of the bits with him and Yoko were cut out)