Let It Be 50th Anniversary -Twickenham Rehearsals: What and how?

Ha! You're probably right, LOL.

 

No harm in trying!

 

Preston was a good musician, I like his solo work, and it sounds like he was a swell person at Twickenham.

That said, his tinkle-tinkle electric piano work was like nothing the Beatles did before or since and it sounds completely out of place in the canon. It's one of the reasons why they shelved the Get Back LP, moved on to a completely new album project, and only allowed him to play a gentle bit of quiet organ for a couple of days on Abbey Road.

 

You mean more than Sgt. Pepper's was? Revolver? Or the oh-so-praised U.S. Rubber Soul album? A piano sound???

The Beatles ain't freaking Star Wars or Marvel dude, it's real life here.

 

I have the “Inspired by John Lennon 1965 Casino”. Wonderful guitar!!!

 

There is no scat-jazz tinkle-tinkle electric piano on those albums. Traditional piano of course, electric organ, of course. But Billy Preston's brand of electric piano is an oddball sound/style that is part of the reason why the Get Back LP was scuttled and all attempts to resurrect it fail. It just doesn't feel like a Beatles album. Sloppy, yes. Depressed mood, evident. But more than that, it's that Billy Preston riffing where he doesn't belong, tinkle-tinkle electric piano akimbo, completely out of place.

 

I have so many versions, including several in stereo (Apple on), that it will be nice to have it officially, but I am anticipating something much cooler from Jackson.
Michael Lindsay Hogg only had clumsy to work with film footage and time limitations. If all the footage is now digitized and music is available, who knows what Jackson could come up with=so yes that should be first, but the audio package for Let it Be LP-I have no problem with it coming out sooner-we'll see.

 

I get that. But after being vetoed by the group in the summer and fall of 1969, it seems rather odd that Glyn compiled a final album in January 1970 with the "same old crap" while adding the newly recorded I Me Mine and deciding to include a 1968 version of Across The Universe. Yes, in the heat of the moment John and Paul may have suggested certain takes (this discussion must have happened before the Rooftop concert and final studio session the next day), but that doesn't mean Glyn couldn't have gone the extra few steps and search out better recordings. His last comp was mixed in 3 hours. Doesn't sound like he went that extra mile, does it? Finally, I'd be shocked if anyone in the Beatles camp thought including I'm Ready "Rocker"/Save The Last Dance For Me was a good thing. Ron

 

This makes such no sense I don't even know where to start.

 

Not a single track feels like the White Album which preceded it or Abbey Road which followed it. Two of the most epic albums in music history, this one sandwiched between them, and it’s a meandering dud.

Start there.

 

Yes, we've heard this from you before - the reason that Get Back/Let It Be got pushed back was because they didn't like Preston's Rhodes playing. Have you managed to come up with quotes - or just a single quote - from any member of the band or the production team that supports your position? Not only have I never come across anything that shares your view from any of the primaries, I don't think I've come across a single review or piece of published writing that feels the same way. I think you're on your own here.

 

The recording of the Get Back/Let it Be was a completely different process to either of those albums. The "no overdubbing" concept meant that they needed a keyboard player in the room. The fact that it was a Fender Rhodes was down to the fact that McCartney requested one from Fender and it was air shipped to them - at great expense - at Apple in London. That's one major reason why the album is different.

And, while I don't like it as much as the others, it's certainly no dud.

 

We will disagree.

I look forward to the movie, but not an update to the album. Let It Be Naked is as close as it's going to get for me. It's my least favorite Beatles album. Turns out, studio production is a good thing. The innovations the Beatles developed with George Martin were sorely missed here. And allowing outsiders to join the band, not good either.

 

So the album was shelved because of the sound of the Rhodes which McCartney arranged to have in the studio.
Got it.

 

In part, yes. McCartney and the other Beatles shelved lots of songs because they weren’t good enough. I doubt the cost of shipping would ever be a deciding factor in the creative process. Not Guilty cost a fortune in studio time, got beat out by Honey Pie.

The Get Back project was scuttled because it wasn’t up to Beatles standards. It just didn’t sound right. Adding a fifth Beatle wasn’t a good idea.

 

. . . AND Billy Preston’s scat jazz tinkle-tinkle style.

 

I think if anything ruined recordings from January of 1969, it was George on the wah-wah. but that was mostly from rehearsals. When they got to Apple-he was back with more appropriate fills and leads. If they didn't like Billy's playing-I doubt he would have done so much with George in the years that followed.

 

While I'll agree with this..(GM being on the sidelines hurt)...it was at the Beatles request. Had nothing to do with Billy Preston and his style of playing. A poorly planned project that can be blamed on the fabs themselves.

Bern

 

Your claim about Billy Preston's playing being a reason why they shelved the project makes no sense for multiple reasons:
- They didn't shelve the project. Let It Be, the LP, came out in May 1970.
- The Get Back 45, the Let It Be 45 and the Let It Be LP all have Billy Preston playing on them, which they could have mixed out or overdubbed with someone else playing any organ, piano or keyboard they wanted. They didn't. They retained his playing.
- They got Billy back to play on some of Abbey Road

If what you meant is that you don't think that Billy Preston's playing complements the Let It Be material, that's an entirely valid and legitimate point. Many may agree with you (although I don't). If you genuinely mean that they didn't complete a project (which they did...) because of Billy's playing, then I think you're just making stuff up for a laugh.

 

I'm with you on that one. I'm a fan of George's playing but much of his guitar work in Jan 1969 was quite one-dimensional. He had a new trick and wanted to use it and boy did he use it to death, often without any subtly and at the detriment to everything else that was going on. No wonder there were tensions around George being told what to play. I would have told him to shut the ____ up it's no wonder that Paul and John did. Thank god the novelty wore off, much of George's playing on Abbey Road is sublime.

 

Yeah, it would've sounded much more Beatley if George Martin had just done a vari-speed harpsichord overdub or something.

 

Oh, someone should add the harpsichord instead of Billy's keyboard solo on the song "Get Back". That could sound interesting...

 

The Billy Preston story makes no sense. They put out Get Back/Don’t Let Me Down, featuring him prominently. They credited him on the label. He was brought in to play on the next set of sessions that eventually ended up on Abbey Road.

 

Plus Lewisohn will reveal that Billy was the ONLY person allowed to take digestive biscuits out of George's stash without the need to ask permission.

 

It doesn't get any more delusional than that! So, the reason why The Beatles decided to go out of their way and credit Billy Preston by name on both sides of the Get Back/Don't Let Me Down single, was not to acknowledge his contributions to the songs, but to shame him? Yeah, right...

UK Apple





The credits even appeared on the US pressing!





Edit: I see now that Tom Daniels pointed out the same thing above!