The Beatles Christmas Records
Ian Peel
out more. Especially about the 'psychedlic' era ones - so 1966's Pantomime:
Everywhere It's Christmas, 1967 's Christmas Time Is Here Again, 1968's The
Beatles 1968 Christmas Record and 1969's The Beatles' Seventh Christmas
Record... All the stuff I have dounf on the web so far has just been info
on bootleg collections of the records, as opposed to info their making
etc...
--
Ian Peel
http://www.ianpeel.com
Stephen Bruun
news:1025433687.6253.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
What is it you want to know? Mark Lewisohn's "Complete Sessions" book has
details about the recording dates (generally late October/early November).
There are no details about 1968 or 1969 because those were recorded
individually by the Beatles, and then edited together by a BBC DJ (as
opposed to the 1963-1967 messages, recorded at Abbey Road and edited by
George Martin).
In terms of serious down'n'dirty session details, I don't think such a study
has ever been done - if it has I'm not aware of it.
If you want to know what's on the records, I found a site that has
transcripts of all the records:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/2106/beatleschristmas.htm
I glanced at the 1966 transcript and it seemed accurate enough (having heard
the 1966 message). One drawback is that, when they sing, the transcript
just says "Singing" instead of giving the lyrics. This one has lyrics for
1966 and 1967:
http://brouci.host.sk/showpage.php?name=beatl38
http://brouci.host.sk/showpage.php?name=beatl39
but it's from an eastern European site and has a few errors; I don't think
that English was the transcriber's first language. The site may have the
others too; I haven't checked.
--
To reply, remove YOUR OWN EYES
Belkis
<.The Xmas records were a lot of fun, and quite a grand Jesture unto
and for the Fans. They were funny, crazy, satirical and in some cases,
pure working without a Net, let alone a script. They, were a fine
offering, and a acknolegedement of THANKS to the FANS, And very in
line with old fashioned Show business performers, A willingness to
embrace their fans wih comedic overture, that served the FANS and the
BEATLES. The Club Sandwich Newspaper Site that LINDA administrated,
was another kind jesture, and a note of respect and love for the fans,
and fine communication outlet, for those, who had Questions about the
LIFe. After Linda got ill it was discontined, Linda remembered the
simple fact, that fans make the career of a ACT, any ACT, newcomers
and dinosayers. Linda handeled it with, a great sense of understanding
and humour.
Danny Thomas
(J) : It's a clumsy remix. stage 444!!!
I always thought it was:
Interplanetary remix, stage 444
Dan
"Belkis" <Bli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:a2a6a603.02070...@posting.google.com...
Stephen Bruun
news:3d21...@news.zen.co.uk...
> 1967 Script
>
> (J) : It's a clumsy remix. stage 444!!!
>
> I always thought it was:
>
> Interplanetary remix, stage 444
As I think I mentioned in my earlier post, the transcript is from a
non-English website. John mumbles those words at best - sounds rather like
"inter-dancy remix." "Interplanetary" may be right but he slurs the
syllables. And to my ear, it sounds like "PHASE 444," rather than "STAGE
444." Anyone who owns the Beatles' "Free As A Bird" single can judge for
themselves...
Ian Peel
sense too...
What was the URL of Linda's site? Maybe it's accessible through
archive.org...
nowhere man
13.9e...@news.demon.co.uk:
> well "stage" sound much more like "take" to me... which would make more
> sense too...
it is 'take'
plain as a bell
Mister Charlie
> well "stage" sound much more like "take" to me... which would make
more
> sense too...
>
(interplanetary?)
Danny Thomas
news:afv2mp$hke6c$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
"Interplanetary Remix, Stage Four Hundred and Forty Four"
SLEEPING VILLAGE
>Danny Thomas <danny...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3d21...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> 1967 Script
>>
>> (J) : It's a clumsy remix. stage 444!!!
>>
>> I always thought it was:
>>
>> Interplanetary remix, stage 444
>
>As I think I mentioned in my earlier post, the transcript is from a
>non-English website. John mumbles those words at best - sounds rather like
He definately says It's a clumsy remix.
There's no mumbling about it. He just says it rather quickly.
After that I think you might be right about the Phase 444 if my memory serves me.
>"inter-dancy remix." "Interplanetary" may be right but he slurs the
>syllables. And to my ear, it sounds like "PHASE 444," rather than "STAGE
>444." Anyone who owns the Beatles' "Free As A Bird" single can judge for
>themselves...
Since February 13, 1998 - SLEEPING VILLAGE
http://users3.ev1.net/~sleeping96/index.html
Can you help me occupy my brain? --Paranoid as sung on the Paranoid album.
SLEEPING VILLAGE
That is right it is "take".
Honorable Judge Worm
"Santa Claus is a dead man, miss him miss him." Right after George stating
we have a guest and before Tiny Tim sez "Hello Beatles".
--
"Tear down the wall"
"
Mister Charlie
Yes, yes, that has been tossed out there. However restating it is not
going to make it any more so.
>
>
>
>
max.wurr
I'd bet my Cavern Club brick on it.
Max
"SLEEPING VILLAGE" <sleep...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3d23855a...@news.ev1.net...
ali assa seen
<YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote:
> If you want to know what's on the records, I found a site that has
> transcripts of all the records:
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/2106/beatleschristmas.htm
> I glanced at the 1966 transcript and it seemed accurate enough (having heard
> the 1966 message). One drawback is that, when they sing, the transcript
> just says "Singing" instead of giving the lyrics.
Accurate enough? It's such a disaster it almost makes me want to put up
my own site just to correct all the horrific mistakes! It's good enough
to help find edit points, though, which is what I'm using it for. Using
a four-track deck, I'm trying to put together highlights of the verbal
stuff and music from the Beatles xmas records, and intersperse that
with the full-length solo Beatle holiday songs (Wonderful
Christmastime, HC War Is Over, Ding Dong, the Ringo Xmas CD, etc...) to
compile a Beatles Christmas album that's predominantly music rather
than humor. The differences in production values makes for the biggest
challenge I've found so far.
- Dr Strangemonde
azaela
What's to know??? They were issued to fan club members every year
(1963-69). In 1970, the last year of the club, they put them all on
an album which was issued by Apple. the 1969 issue was mostly John
and Yoko, because the others couldn't be bothered doing anything.
azaela
> well "stage" sound much more like "take" to me... which would make more
> sense too...
>
> What was the URL of Linda's site? Maybe it's accessible through
> archive.org...
This was before the internet sport. Club Sandwich was the Wings Fun Club newspaper.
michael constantine
"azaela" <azael...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3847403c.02070...@posting.google.com...
> (1963-69). In 1970, the last year of the club, they put them all on
> an album which was issued by Apple. the 1969 issue was mostly John
> and Yoko, because the others couldn't be bothered doing anything.
Here's something "to know"....who did the cover of the 1968 release?
Stephen Bruun
news:ag9n3u$jnsn0$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> Here's something "to know"....who did the cover of the 1968 release?
>
the 1969 record.
michael constantine
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ag9n3u$jnsn0$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > Here's something "to know"....who did the cover of the 1968 release?
> >
> That was Julian, wasn't it? And Zak did some stick figures on the back of
> the 1969 record.
>
No...the cover is very detailed and somewhat intricate...I'm refering to the
British release.
Gennaro
are wrong. What kind of true beatles fan can't distinguish one voice
from the other? He can't tell that's Paul and John in Podgy and
Jasper? Very shabby work. C minus.
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message news:<afmu4u$ajj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
Stephen Bruun
news:6d73fa8b.02070...@posting.google.com...
> I read his '66 transcript and more than half of the line assignments
> are wrong. What kind of true beatles fan can't distinguish one voice
> from the other? He can't tell that's Paul and John in Podgy and
> Jasper? Very shabby work. C minus.
I'm pretty sure it's John as Podgy and GEORGE as Jasper - Paul only does the
introduction about the unlit fire in the center of the room. Jasper's voice
is pinched and adenoidal, like George's speaking voice at the time.
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
I don't think so. Always sounded like John and Paul to me (the intro
could always have ben recorded prior).
Stephen Bruun
> > I'm pretty sure it's John as Podgy and GEORGE as Jasper - Paul only
> does the
> > introduction about the unlit fire in the center of the room. Jasper's
> voice
> > is pinched and adenoidal, like George's speaking voice at the time.
Mister Charlie <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:agg15q$la1dm$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> I don't think so. Always sounded like John and Paul to me (the intro
> could always have ben recorded prior).
Seems unlikely. The recording of the 1966 record sounds like a one-take
affair in many spots. During the Podgy sketch, you hear John very loudly
turning the page of the script, and during the Felpin Mansions sketch Paul
(sounding rather annoyed) corrects an inaccurate ad lib by John:
P: I hear the Baron likes the good old tunes.
J: Yes, I do.
P: So do I, COUNT, so do I.
(Remember that John was not the Baron, but rather Count Balder, the SON of
Baron Landsberg, the inventor of the rack.)
Multi-tracking Paul's introduction and him as Jasper seems to presume a
higher level of production than is evident elsewhere on the record. (Recall
that it was recorded not at Abbey Road's proper recording studio, but at
Dick James' demo studio.) The only special effect I can think of on the
record (apart from sound effects that could have been dubbed during the
recording, like an old radio show) is John's slowed-down laugh after "to her
Majesty!" which could have been accomplished simply by speeding up the tape
as it recorded the laughter.
Lewisohn says there is no detailed documentation of the session (again, it
wasn't at Abbey Road with its meticulous record keeping) but I still say
Paul was only the narrator and George was Jasper. Maybe someday, someone
who knows Paul can ask him and settle it for good....
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
Cool! A brand new Beatle disagreement! 'There is nothing new under the
sun' indeed!
michael constantine
> Seems unlikely. The recording of the 1966 record sounds like a one-take
> affair in many spots. During the Podgy sketch, you hear John very loudly
> turning the page of the script,
That is incorrect....when you hear the paper, it is because it was just
stated that they don't have any paper....get it?....it's a joke son...
Stephen Bruun
> That is incorrect....when you hear the paper, it is because it was just
> stated that they don't have any paper....get it?....it's a joke son...
It may have been left in as a joke, but I don't think the sound was
deliberate. Beatles' records, especially Christmas records, contain numerous
happy accidents that were left in or intentionally duplicated (e.g. "as much
as we've enjoyed melting them..."). The Christmas records were routinely
edited down from much longer tapes (read Lewisohn) so I suppose that if you
listened to the raw masters you'd hear more page-turning, throat-clearing,
"oops I'll just read that again" and so on. But then again that's just a
hunch because I've not heard the raw tapes.
michael constantine
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agi76j$lotis$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > That is incorrect....when you hear the paper, it is because it was just
> > stated that they don't have any paper....get it?....it's a joke son...
>
> It may have been left in as a joke, but I don't think the sound was
> deliberate. Beatles' records, especially Christmas records, contain
numerous
> happy accidents that were left in or intentionally duplicated (e.g. "as
much
> as we've enjoyed melting them...").
Those were not accidents...they didn't care for reading the prepared script
(if you recall, they didn't do their own Christmas record until 1965) and
made it their own.
The Christmas records were routinely
> edited down from much longer tapes (read Lewisohn)
I have....many times.
so I suppose that if you
> listened to the raw masters you'd hear more page-turning
I guarantee it's not page turing......
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agi76j$lotis$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > That is incorrect....when you hear the paper, it is because it was
just
> > stated that they don't have any paper....get it?....it's a joke
son...
>
> It may have been left in as a joke, but I don't think the sound was
> deliberate.
It most certainly was. Hence John's anouncement "Page 2" and "it's
someone's bad handwroter". There is *no* mistaking the humor involved
and intended in this bit.
Beatles' records, especially Christmas records, contain numerous
> happy accidents that were left in or intentionally duplicated (e.g.
"as much
> as we've enjoyed melting them...").
That's a funny spontaneous adlib. Why say it's an accident? It was
funny and stayed in.
The Christmas records were routinely
> edited down from much longer tapes (read Lewisohn) so I suppose that
if you
> listened to the raw masters you'd hear more page-turning,
throat-clearing,
> "oops I'll just read that again" and so on. But then again that's
just a
> hunch because I've not heard the raw tapes.
My hunch is your hunch is wrong.
>
>
>
>
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> "Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> news:agijhk$j8d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:agi76j$lotis$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > > That is incorrect....when you hear the paper, it is because it was
> just
> > > stated that they don't have any paper....get it?....it's a joke
> son...
> >
> > It may have been left in as a joke, but I don't think the sound was
> > deliberate.
>
> It most certainly was. Hence John's anouncement "Page 2" and "it's
> someone's bad handwroter". There is *no* mistaking the humor involved
> and intended in this bit.
But that's a completely different bit, and in fact a completely
different *type* of segment, so I don't think it's relevant.
> Beatles' records, especially Christmas records, contain numerous
> > happy accidents that were left in or intentionally duplicated (e.g.
> "as much
> > as we've enjoyed melting them...").
>
> That's a funny spontaneous adlib. Why say it's an accident? It was
> funny and stayed in.
That may well not be an accident, but there are other accidents that
were left in (e.g. "we had a quiet time making it").
Mister Charlie
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D2D12...@erols.com...
> Mister Charlie wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> > news:agijhk$j8d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:agi76j$lotis$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > That is incorrect....when you hear the paper, it is because it
was
> > just
> > > > stated that they don't have any paper....get it?....it's a joke
> > son...
> > >
> > > It may have been left in as a joke, but I don't think the sound
was
> > > deliberate.
> >
> > It most certainly was. Hence John's anouncement "Page 2" and "it's
> > someone's bad handwroter". There is *no* mistaking the humor
involved
> > and intended in this bit.
>
> But that's a completely different bit, and in fact a completely
> different *type* of segment, so I don't think it's relevant.
No, I think what you're talking about is the same bit. Maybe a bit
farther on, but a bit nevertheless.
>
> > Beatles' records, especially Christmas records, contain numerous
> > > happy accidents that were left in or intentionally duplicated
(e.g.
> > "as much
> > > as we've enjoyed melting them...").
> >
> > That's a funny spontaneous adlib. Why say it's an accident? It was
> > funny and stayed in.
>
> That may well not be an accident, but there are other accidents that
> were left in (e.g. "we had a quiet time making it").
How do you classify these as accidents? They were adlibs...you can hear
George waiting for someone to get the joke, and finally there's a small
laugh (Paul I think)...
They were just goofing through the whole process. How can you have an
accident on a record that was meant to be a personal Beatle greeting to
the fans?
michael constantine
Exactly.....The Beatles didn't want to read that scripted stuff....they took
what was written for them and twisted it.
I wonder if Brett has read any of John's books?
max.wurr
entirely crap and are of no real interest to anyone except women in their
fifties reliving their youths and saddos with nothing better to do. Forget
about it. guys!
"michael constantine" <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agko4k$m9di4$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
michael constantine
"max.wurr" <max....@whsmithnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d2df...@news2.vip.uk.com...
> Can we get off this most dull of dull topics? The fan discs were almost
> entirely crap and are of no real interest to anyone except women in their
> fifties reliving their youths and saddos with nothing better to do.
Forget
> about it. guys!
So what would you like to discuss?
Stephen Bruun
> > > Hence John's anouncement "Page 2" and "it's
> > > someone's bad handwroter". There is *no* mistaking the humor
> involved
> > > and intended in this bit.
> >
> > But that's a completely different bit, and in fact a completely
> > different *type* of segment, so I don't think it's relevant.
>
> No, I think what you're talking about is the same bit. Maybe a bit
> farther on, but a bit nevertheless.
The "page 2 . . . somebody else's bad handwroter" was in the 1964 message.
Podgy the Bear (with the sound of a page turning that started this whole
thing)was in the 1966 message. A bit farther on indeed! ;-D
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
Ah, of course you are right (been awhile since I've heard them....a few
Xmases ago). Nevertheless. It was a joke, and had no need of
explanation as it was understood to be a joke by almost the entire
planet.
The Walrus was Danny
> entirely crap and are of no real interest to anyone except women in their
> fifties reliving their youths and saddos with nothing better to do.
Forget
> about it. guys!
Oh dear, I'm a saddo. I haven't got the Xmas records, I always meant to buy
the Bootleg. My mate has most of them as he was in the fan club at the
time..and I all green and stuff...but I quite like this minueti of the fabs
output..it's all valid, utterly valid in fact.
When I'm a woman in my fifties I'm looking forward to it. Do I get the tits
as well?
Applause?
Danny
Stephen Bruun
> Ah, of course you are right (been awhile since I've heard them....a few
> Xmases ago). Nevertheless. It was a joke, and had no need of
> explanation as it was understood to be a joke by almost the entire
> planet.
I find that, in general, the Beatles' records need far less explanation than
a few people seem to think. Some folks see the deepest or most sinister
hidden meanings in one Beatle record or another. R. Gary Patterson, in his
generally excellent and highly readable book "The Walrus Was Paul," rightly
dismisses the "Paul Is Dead" rumors but seems to suggest that many of the
"clues" were, in fact, deliberately planted for some other reason that no
non-Beatle has ever been able to decipher. This, to me, sounds like more of
the over-analyzing that spawned the "Paul Is Dead" rumor in the first place.
For instance, Patterson discusses at length the symbolic significance of the
Beatles facing eastward on the "Abbey Road" cover - the east being sunrise,
renewal, etc. etc. But hasn't he seen the alternate cover pictures? They
were photographed six times, going across the street BOTH ways. If a
different picture had been chosen, would we be hearing about the symbolic
significance of them facing WEST?
The Beatles were a group of moderately educated guys in their 20s with
astonishing musical talent and quick wits. This did not make them
superhuman geniuses, as events proved (e.g. the Apple Boutique).
Considering how quickly the Beatles tended to get bored (John especially -
look at the philosophical hopscotch he played between 1967 and 1975, jumping
from one cause or world view to another), I can't believe they'd have had
the foresight or the attention span to concoct any kind of "hidden message"
and then actually stick with it for at least three years or so, even as the
band was crumbling around them from late '68 onward.
They made some great music that puts to shame most of what comes out even
today, and their influence is all but universal. Odds are their legacy will
last for centuries. But "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" and we need to
sit back and listen to the music for its own sake instead of imagining some
eerie purpose underneath it. The music's great, after all - isn't that
enough?
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
michael constantine
record or another. R. Gary Patterson, in his
> generally excellent and highly readable book "The Walrus Was Paul,"
rightly
> dismisses the "Paul Is Dead" rumors but seems to suggest that many of the
> "clues" were, in fact, deliberately planted for some other reason that no
> non-Beatle has ever been able to decipher.
What if...the clues were planted in case the Beatles popularity
dwindled?.....if you look at the timing of "The Rumor" one could say it was
put out there since insiders knew the band was breaking up.......what if....
ali assa seen
<YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote:
> They made some great music that puts to shame most of what comes out even
> today, and their influence is all but universal.
No, no! You're supposed to hate *all* of today's music! How'd you get
in here?
- Dr Strangemonde
Stephen Bruun
> What if...the clues were planted in case the Beatles popularity
> dwindled?.....if you look at the timing of "The Rumor" one could say it
was
> put out there since insiders knew the band was breaking up.......what
if....
An interesting theory, but highly unlikely, given the actions by the members
of the group at the time. Paul McCartney went into seclusion, partly to
record his solo album, and partly to decompress amidst the Allen Klein
debacle. It was this suddenly low profile that fed the death rumors, and
led a Life magazine reporter to track him down in Scotland. After throwing
a bucket of water at the journalist and photographer, he reluctantly posed
for a photo and said "The Beatle thing is over. It has been exploded." This
story appeared in late 1969, months before the "official" announcement of
the breakup, but there was Paul admitting in a major national magazine that
"The Beatle thing is over." Everyone ignored it, being preoccupied with the
"Paul is Dead" story, but it demonstrates that Paul was not trying to
suppress rumors that the group was splitting up.
John, meanwhile, was at work on highly uncommercial projects like the
"Wedding Album," Ringo put together a very non-rock-and-roll album of
standards, and George would proceed to make one studio album during the next
three years. Couple this with the constant bickering (John climbed a wall
at Paul's house and smashed a window while George and Ringo watched - and
there's a photo of John climbing the wall) and it seems extremely unlikely
that these four people could, in the midst of the fighting, agree on a
sales-boosting publicity stunt. They couldn't even be bothered to get
together to wish the fans a merry Christmas (the 1969 message being a
montage of individual greetings) or agree on a final mix for the "Get
Back/Let It Be" album.
The Beatles in 1969 were a band in chaos, steeped in bitterness. In the
years since that time, tempers cooled and the boys were able to look back
with a sense of perspective. They've told us much, through interviews, the
"Anthology" series, and so on, but none of them have ever fessed up to any
plot, even though it's difficult to imagine what harm it would do to any of
their careers to make such an admission. They've admitted to drug use,
marital infidelity, John admitted beating the hell out of several people,
and so on, but there's no record of any of them having a laugh over that
fast one they pulled in 1969. Paul has admitted to being Percy
Thrillington, too, as if that were ever in doubt, and George has disclosed
his many sessionman nicknames (L'angelo Mysterioso etc.). Internal Apple
documents, never intended for public viewing, discuss the rumors in tones of
concern rather than conspiratorial giggling. Some of these documents are
now reproduced in the Anthology book.
Furthermore, many of the "clues" date back to 1966, on albums that were
released months before the alleged "car crash," and years before the group's
popularity began to "slip" (if you can call it slipping that their singles
were only hitting #2 instead of #1 in the UK charts). The Beatles
themselves often had little control over the fine details of the album
covers where many of the clues lie (although they sometimes provided vague
ideas and had some degree of veto authority in the UK).
Consider that the album that became "Let It Be" was recorded in early 1969,
during the 1966-1969 period in which they were supposedly planting clues.
Yet the album contains few if any such clues (some have suggested the red
background behind Paul's photo on the cover indicates blood). Certainly
there are far fewer clues than on the White Album (which preceded it by only
a few months) or Abbey Road (which really started the death myth). But it
wasn't RELEASED until after the rumors had subsided. Still, if it was
recorded during the clue-planting phase, the clues would have been in there.
The "clues" would appear to be the result of imaginative interpretation
rather than calculated intent, and John's "another clue for you all" line in
"Glass Onion" was intended to RIDICULE those who look for such clues, rather
than to urge them on. John frequently said that his lyrics had no deeper
meaning except perhaps to comment on his own life.
michael constantine
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agn1t2$mnqq7$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > What if...the clues were planted in case the Beatles popularity
> > dwindled?.....if you look at the timing of "The Rumor" one could say it
> was
> > put out there since insiders knew the band was breaking up.......what
> if....
>
> An interesting theory, but highly unlikely, given the actions by the
members
> of the group at the time.
The group didn't have to set it in motion...there were plenty others that
could of.
Paul McCartney went into seclusion, partly to
> record his solo album, and partly to decompress amidst the Allen Klein
> debacle. It was this suddenly low profile that fed the death rumors, and
> led a Life magazine reporter to track him down in Scotland. After
throwing
> a bucket of water at the journalist and photographer, he reluctantly posed
> for a photo and said "The Beatle thing is over. It has been exploded."
This
> story appeared in late 1969, months before the "official" announcement of
> the breakup, but there was Paul admitting in a major national magazine
that
> "The Beatle thing is over."
What he is refering to is the "cult" of Beatles...in the previous paragraph
he says "we want to go on making good music" and that obviously refers to
the group.
> Furthermore, many of the "clues" date back to 1966, on albums that were
> released months before the alleged "car crash,"
The "clues" date back to Sgt. Pepper....anything before is a reach.
The question was once asked here by a friend about the black
carnation...that really has no good explanation.
Stephen Bruun
> The group didn't have to set it in motion...there were plenty others that
> could of.
Yet so many of the "clues" derive from the Beatles' lyrics. Obviously the
lyrics were under the Beatles' sole control.
And Richard Hamilton would have to have been in on it, because many of the
death clues are from photographs included on Hamilton's "White Album"
poster. BUT . . . Paul McCartney has said that the photographs used on the
poster were provided by the Beatles themselves, and Paul watched Hamilton
assembling part of the collage. So once again the Beatles themselves are
planted dead center in the creation of "clues."
Also, if the idea was a sales gimmick, it didn't work. The Beatles, in the
UK (which is where their 'people' were based) had had six #1 hit singles in
a row in the time leading up to "Abbey Road." After that album's release,
they never hit the top spot in the UK again. Not a SERIOUS commercial
slump, but there was certainly not a boost. (Although one could argue that
there was a sales-boosting scheme, but it didn't work.) One flaw, to me, of
the "planted rumor" scheme would be that no perpetrator has been identified.
Given the ENORMOUS number of books that have been written by everyone who
ever shook hands with a Beatle, one would think that, somewhere in there, we
would have seen a book by the person who started the "Paul Is Dead" hoax.
Also, the "Paul Is Dead" story began in earnest with a graduate student's
thesis, which came to the attention of Russell Gibb, a Detroit disc jockey.
Has anyone come up with a proven chain of persons and/or events that would
have caused an Apple Corps insider to plant the rumor through a Detroit disc
jockey?
> > Furthermore, many of the "clues" date back to 1966, on albums that were
> > released months before the alleged "car crash,"
>
> The "clues" date back to Sgt. Pepper....anything before is a reach.
The fact that half of the tunes on "Revolver" contain death references is
more of a reach than the fact that Paul is barefoot on "Abbey Road"? Paul
sitting in a coffin-like trunk on "Yesterday and Today" is more of a reach
than "Walrus is a greek word for death"? EVERYTHING is a reach, seems to
me.
> The question was once asked here by a friend about the black
> carnation...that really has no good explanation.
McCartney has said they ran out of red carnations. Now of course one could
argue that there is no way the Beatles would have gotten the wrong number of
carnations . . . but then again, anyone who knows about the making of
"Magical Mystery Tour" will know that logistical nightmares and screwups
haunted the entire production. Finding three red carnations and one black,
it makes sense to give the odd one out to Paul, because he was the lead
singer on the track in which they wore the flowers - it sets him apart from
the otherwise identically-dressed members of the band. If it had been three
black carnations and one red one, I'm sure someone out there would say how
it symbolized blood.
My view is that the "Paul Is Dead" saga has taken on such a life of its own
that, even though almost no one truly believes Paul died and was replaced,
many people are so swayed by the lists of clues that they are convinced they
must mean SOMETHING. An understandable point of view, and oddly romantic
and mysterious, but I personally can't go for it. The Beatles, as a group,
were in no condition to be manufacturing clues in 1968-69, and their
personal involvement would have been crucial for many of the "clues" to make
sense. Given the tell-all atmosphere that followed the breakup, it seems
very difficult for me to believe that someone else close to the Beatles
would have perpetrated the hoax and then not TOLD anyone about it. After so
many years, and so many revelations, I can't imagine why anyone would have a
reason to keep that a secret even today. For this reason, I tend to be very
skeptical that there is a Paul Is Dead "Deep Throat" out there.
But, as I said, it's an interesting idea, and if more evidence turns up to
support it, then it could point in some fascinating directions. It's
certainly a lot more grounded in reason and reality than, say, Timothy
Leary's "avatar" theory of the group's origins.
Dale Houstman
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agpf8k$nl2cb$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > The group didn't have to set it in motion...there were plenty others
that
> > could of.
>
> Yet so many of the "clues" derive from the Beatles' lyrics. Obviously the
> lyrics were under the Beatles' sole control.
>
> And Richard Hamilton would have to have been in on it, because many of the
> death clues are from photographs included on Hamilton's "White Album"
> poster. BUT . . . Paul McCartney has said that the photographs used on
the
> poster were provided by the Beatles themselves, and Paul watched Hamilton
> assembling part of the collage. So once again the Beatles themselves are
> planted dead center in the creation of "clues."
All this matters only if you you believe that there really were any "clues."
I remember this when it was a fresh story, and I thought it was fun but
obviously specious. My opinion hasn't changed much over the years. Of course
the Beatles controlled their lyrics, but the belief that there are clues to
Paul's death hidden in them - and in the packaging - is little different
from people seeing Mother Mary in a pie tin, or shapes in the clouds, or
beings in the constellations: the human mind is infinitely hungry for such
things, but that doesn't mean they exist outside the delusion.
>
dmh
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> "Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:agj4gj$lrh49$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> > > That may well not be an accident, but there are other accidents that
> > > were left in (e.g. "we had a quiet time making it").
> >
> > How do you classify these as accidents? They were adlibs...you can hear
> > George waiting for someone to get the joke, and finally there's a small
> > laugh (Paul I think)...
> >
> > They were just goofing through the whole process. How can you have an
> > accident on a record that was meant to be a personal Beatle greeting to
> > the fans?
> >
> >
>
> Exactly.....The Beatles didn't want to read that scripted stuff....they took
> what was written for them and twisted it.
> I wonder if Brett has read any of John's books?
Yes, all three of them. And funnily enough I don't recall any of them
being written by George.
It still sounds to me like George misreads "We had quite a time" and "We
had a quiet time". He follows it with "Actually, we didn't", and if he's
making a joke, I'm lost as to what it is. He just seems slightly
confused.
Brett A. Pasternack
> Also, if the idea was a sales gimmick, it didn't work. The Beatles, in the
> UK (which is where their 'people' were based) had had six #1 hit singles in
> a row in the time leading up to "Abbey Road." After that album's release,
> they never hit the top spot in the UK again. Not a SERIOUS commercial
> slump, but there was certainly not a boost.
You make this sound much worse than it was...they only released TWO more
singles! And one of those, "Something"/"Come Together", was two songs
that had already been on an album, which was not typical for the
Beatles. "Let It Be" stopped at #3, and then they broke up. (No, it
would not be fair to count the scattered releases years later as part of
a "slump".
Brett A. Pasternack
I don't think most people who heard the bit even *noticed* the rustling
paper, let alone took it as a joke.
Stephen Bruun
news:uj176f1...@corp.supernews.com...
> All this matters only if you you believe that there really were any
"clues."
> things, but that doesn't mean they exist outside the delusion.
My point exactly. The Beatles could barely stand to be in the same room
together by the last year or so, let alone put together an intricate series
of obscure clues. I was responding to the hypothesis that someone ELSE in
the Beatles' circle - not a Beatle himself - started the death rumors to
stir up publicity (although the Beatles needed little help in that regard,
between weddings, drug busts and bed-ins). Many of the principal "clues"
rely on words written, or pictures provided, by the Beatles themselves, and
therefore it seems unlikely that there really were clues planted without the
Beatles' knowledge. Since the Beatles themselves weren't planting clues
either, that leaves no one to participate in the conspiracy. Hence, the
"clues" are (in my opinion) a series of after-the-fact observations,
coincidences, etc. rather than evidence of any actual conspiracy, whether by
the Beatles or by their inner circle.
Stephen Bruun
> Stephen Bruun wrote:
>
> > Also, if the idea was a sales gimmick, it didn't work. The Beatles, in
the
> > UK (which is where their 'people' were based) had had six #1 hit singles
in
> > a row in the time leading up to "Abbey Road." After that album's
release,
> > they never hit the top spot in the UK again. Not a SERIOUS commercial
> > slump, but there was certainly not a boost.
>
> You make this sound much worse than it was...they only released TWO more
> singles!
You're correct, I'd briefly forgotten that "Long and Winding Road" was not a
UK single. Still, considering that, prior to "Abbey Road," the Beatles had
not missed the #1 spot in at least one chart since 1962. (While "Please
Please Me" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" didn't hit the top in "Record
Retailer," those records WERE #1 hits on other national charts.) In Beatle
terms, two non-chart-toppers in a row was unprecedented.
And one of those, "Something"/"Come Together", was two songs
> that had already been on an album, which was not typical for the
> Beatles. "Let It Be" stopped at #3, and then they broke up. (No, it
> would not be fair to count the scattered releases years later as part of
> a "slump".
I certainly wasn't referring to the reissued singles, or to the posthumous
UK single releases like "Yesterday" and "Back In The USSR."
The figures do indicate, however, that the slight decline in sales did not
begin until AFTER all of the "death clues" had been put on the market -
which means they weren't in response to an EXISTING decline.
Poluka
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agpf8k$nl2cb$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > The group didn't have to set it in motion...there were plenty others that
> > could of.
>
> Yet so many of the "clues" derive from the Beatles' lyrics. Obviously the
> lyrics were under the Beatles' sole control.
Hey Folks = its an old question, the PID thing but its answered here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=893538164&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=0&indexURL=0&rd=1
Mister Charlie
Never had to be a joke for the 'people'. An inside joke is still a
joke.
Belkis
<>JOHN LENNON, QUIPPED in a Magazine article in the UK Winter of 65-
reprinted in the USA Spring 66, that PAUL DIED, and The BEATLES as a
ROCK & ROLL BAND DIED after "YESTERDAY" ws recorded, released and HIT
#!. it was a typical "OFF THE CUFF" Lennon black-british humour, that
everyone in the U.K. got, but The rest of WORLD, namely the USA Didn't
get. The "QUIP", turned into MYTH, and a great marketing Hoax,
perpetuated by bothe Beatle fans, and Haters. Especially In America.
The "Accident" of Nov 1966 did Occur, but no One was beheaded. The
closet Paul came to dying, (Maybe) Was when Lennon Punched Macca in
the mouth during he promo Shoots-Film for Paperback Writer and
Rain.We are talking about the Black & White Ed Sullivan Film. The
reason they are ALL Wearing Sunglasses on the Interior Studio promos
was to Cover Macc's Black Eye, and his missing right tooth. Its
evident in the film. Look at the Close Ups. Macca's Mouth is swollen,
and his lip movements,( thou lip synched) The Make up can't cover up a
swollen mouth and black eye. The most dangerous part of the BEATLE
TRIP ws in the Marcos Mess In the Phillipines, and the Memphis 66 gig.
if Paul was dead, he sure has got a great Stand In. In the end WHO
really cares? The MUSIC Is What COUNTS!
LyptonBriskO.B.E
<>Paul is dead. I saw Paul a fornight ago, and he and Heather said,
Paul was dead. Watch the "FREE AS A BIRD" Video, or watch the BEATLES
ANTHOLOGY AGAIN. The Story is right Before or Behind your eyes.
michael constantine
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agpf8k$nl2cb$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
> > carnation...that really has no good explanation.
>
> McCartney has said they ran out of red carnations. Now of course one
could
> argue that there is no way the Beatles would have gotten the wrong number
of
> carnations . . . but then again, anyone who knows about the making of
> "Magical Mystery Tour" will know that logistical nightmares and screwups
> haunted the entire production. Finding three red carnations and one
black,
> it makes sense to give the odd one out to Paul,
Have you ever tried to get a black Carnation? Many years ago I wanted to
dress as "Paul is Dead" for a Hallowe'een party. Black carnations just
dont't exist.
michael constantine
> michael constantine <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agpf8k$nl2cb$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
the
> UK (which is where their 'people' were based) had had six #1 hit singles
in
> a row in the time leading up to "Abbey Road." After that album's release,
> they never hit the top spot in the UK again. Not a SERIOUS commercial
> slump, but there was certainly not a boost.
It did work.....album sales went through the roof....I have an article from
a Philadelphia newspaper from '69 stating just that.
Dale Houstman
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
was scarcely worth mentioning.
When this stuff was on the radio and in the media, everyone I knew thought
it great fun but never took it seriously.
It was the natural outgrowth of "album art gazing." In the 60s there was the
feeling that the rockers were all in on something with you, that we shared
the same thoughts and dreams. Those big beautiful LP covers seemed to be the
front pages of a revolutionary newspaper. Everything was radiant with
significance.
It is now hard to recall the sensation of a world in which everything
actually mattered.
dmh
Mister Charlie
michael constantine
What makes you say that?....it's one of the funniest parts of the 66
message. Everyone I know heard it......
TomTom
HOLLIES SOLD More recordings than the BEATLES Or STONES. The BEATLES
and STONES were much BIGGER in the US. EMI Sales figures (At The time)
Factually Stated the HOLLIES had OUTSOLD the BEATLES In the UK.
michael constantine
"TomTom" <Ts...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:550f1442.02071...@posting.google.com...
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
max.wurr
> <>The arguent is IRrelevant, In the 60s, in the UK-CommonWealth, THE
> HOLLIES SOLD More recordings than the BEATLES Or STONES. The BEATLES
> and STONES were much BIGGER in the US. EMI Sales figures (At The time)
> Factually Stated the HOLLIES had OUTSOLD the BEATLES In the UK.
Please state your source.
Stephen Bruun
news:a2a6a603.02071...@posting.google.com...
> <>JOHN LENNON, QUIPPED in a Magazine article in the UK Winter of 65-
> reprinted in the USA Spring 66, that PAUL DIED, and The BEATLES as a
> ROCK & ROLL BAND DIED after "YESTERDAY" ws recorded, released and HIT
> #!. it was a typical "OFF THE CUFF" Lennon black-british humour, that
> everyone in the U.K. got, but The rest of WORLD, namely the USA Didn't
> get. The "QUIP", turned into MYTH, and a great marketing Hoax,
> perpetuated by bothe Beatle fans, and Haters.
What magazines were these? It would be interesting to see what else John
said at the time!
> The "Accident" of Nov 1966 did Occur, but no One was beheaded. The
> closet Paul came to dying, (Maybe) Was when Lennon Punched Macca in
> the mouth during he promo Shoots-Film for Paperback Writer and
> Rain.We are talking about the Black & White Ed Sullivan Film.
The promos were shot in May 1966, six months before any accident in
November. In the spring of 1966 (some sources say late 1965), Paul was in a
bike accident and smashed his face onto the concrete. I've seen more than
one Paul quotation discussing the accident. In the "Paperback Writer"
promo, you can see his broken tooth and badly swollen lip. Elsewhere, I've
seen it written that the only time the Beatles came to blows during the fame
years was when John and George had a go during the "Get Back" sessions in
January 1969. Don't remember where I saw it, though.
> In the end WHO really cares? The MUSIC Is What COUNTS!
Well said! For me, anyway, the "Paul is Dead" story is an amusing
diversion, and would have made a fine chapter in Mackay's "Popular Delusions
and the Madness of Crowds" if the book had been written in the 1970s rather
than the 1840s. I think it's a good example of the "butterfly effect" of
chaos theory - the seemingly insignificant event (such as the placement of
flowers on an album cover) having repercussions decades later.
Stephen Bruun
news:eeaa9085.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Hey Folks = its an old question, the PID thing but its answered here:
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=893538164&r=0&t=0&showTut
orial=0&ed=0&indexURL=0&rd=1
Ah yes, the "Carry That Weight" book, with its complicated conspiracy of how
the British Government covered up Paul's death so they could keep the tax
revenues coming in. An entertaining fiction, but I don't think there's
anything to it.
There was a thread about this book a while back, with a few people saying
they found the book SO credible that it just might be true. That's a mark
of good writing, surely, but it can lead to inaccurate perceptions of
history - like Peter Shaffer's intriguing but largely discredited suggestion
that Salieri was indirectly behind the downfall and death of Mozart.
There are other "Paul Is Dead" books out there - "The Walrus Was Paul,"
"Turn Me On, Dead Man" - that discuss the death rumors in a historical
rather than fictional setting.
Stephen Bruun
> HOLLIES SOLD More recordings than the BEATLES Or STONES.
How does that make the argument irrelevant? The argument wasn't about
whether the Beatles were outselling this or that group, but whether the
Beatles' sales were slipping (and whether rumors of the breakup contributed
to any decline).
> The BEATLES
> and STONES were much BIGGER in the US. EMI Sales figures (At The time)
> Factually Stated the HOLLIES had OUTSOLD the BEATLES In the UK.
It's been said before, but, what's your source for the EMI sales figures?
From 1963 to mid-1969, here are the statistics from UK's Record Retailer:
BEATLES
21 charting singles, 17 #1s
13 charting EPs, 8 #1s
12 charting LPs, 9#1s
STONES
15 charting singles, 8 #1s
3 charting EPs, 3 #1s
8 charting LPs, 3 #1s
HOLLIES
19 charting singles, 1 #1
3 charting EPs, no #1s
7 charting LPs, 1 #1
Now perhaps "commonwealth" sales were very different (e.g. Hollies sold much
better in India and Jamaica), or perhaps Hollies fans just didn't all buy
the records at once, which would explain the comparatively poor chart
performance. But unless the record-buying habits of the Hollies' fans were
very different from those of Beatles' and Stones' fans, the above UK chart
figures would appear to indicate that, while the Hollies reached a level of
success that very few groups ever achieve, the Beatles and Stones were at a
level above even the Hollies, the Who, and other major British groups of the
1960s.
Rich Diakun
Ouch! That would hurt!
Gat
Ah, the butterfly effect! But did the butterfly flap its wings because there
was a hurricane coming? :)
Cheers,
Gat
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
news:agsoad$8d8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
SLEEPING VILLAGE
>Belkis <Bli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:a2a6a603.02071...@posting.google.com...
>> <>JOHN LENNON, QUIPPED in a Magazine article in the UK Winter of 65-
>> reprinted in the USA Spring 66, that PAUL DIED, and The BEATLES as a
>> ROCK & ROLL BAND DIED after "YESTERDAY" ws recorded, released and HIT
>> #!. it was a typical "OFF THE CUFF" Lennon black-british humour, that
>> everyone in the U.K. got, but The rest of WORLD, namely the USA Didn't
>> get. The "QUIP", turned into MYTH, and a great marketing Hoax,
>> perpetuated by bothe Beatle fans, and Haters.
>
>What magazines were these? It would be interesting to see what else John
>said at the time!
>
>> The "Accident" of Nov 1966 did Occur, but no One was beheaded. The
>> closet Paul came to dying, (Maybe) Was when Lennon Punched Macca in
>> the mouth during he promo Shoots-Film for Paperback Writer and
>> Rain.We are talking about the Black & White Ed Sullivan Film.
>
>The promos were shot in May 1966, six months before any accident in
>November. In the spring of 1966 (some sources say late 1965), Paul was in a
>bike accident and smashed his face onto the concrete. I've seen more than
>one Paul quotation discussing the accident. In the "Paperback Writer"
>promo, you can see his broken tooth and badly swollen lip. Elsewhere, I've
>seen it written that the only time the Beatles came to blows during the fame
>years was when John and George had a go during the "Get Back" sessions in
>January 1969. Don't remember where I saw it, though.
Can you tell me more about this fight?
Since February 13, 1998 - SLEEPING VILLAGE
http://users3.ev1.net/~sleeping96/index.html
Can you help me occupy my brain? --Paranoid as sung on the Paranoid album.
saki
> One flaw, to me, of
> the "planted rumor" scheme would be that no perpetrator has been
> identified. Given the ENORMOUS number of books that have been
> written by everyone who ever shook hands with a Beatle, one would
> think that, somewhere in there, we would have seen a book by the
> person who started the "Paul Is Dead" hoax.
This is an excellent point.
> Also, the "Paul Is Dead" story began in earnest with a graduate
> student's thesis, which came to the attention of Russell Gibb, a
> Detroit disc jockey. Has anyone come up with a proven chain of
> persons and/or events that would have caused an Apple Corps insider
> to plant the rumor through a Detroit disc jockey?
No, there's been no such discovery.
The "graduate student's thesis" story is erroneous. The first printed
reference to the Paul death hoax was September 17, 1969 in the Drake
University Times-Delphic, the weekly newspaper.
Tim Harper's article was based on information provided by his friend
and associate Dartanyan Brown, who had heard bits and pieces of the
rumor of Paul's death and the "clues" from folks he roomed with at
college. Harper has told me he published his article not because he
believed the clues were true but because he thought the story was
interesting and wanted to see whether others had more info about the
story's origins.
I interviewed Dartanyan Brown (now a music professor) as well; he said
that the rooming house he frequented that summer inlcuded music
students from the UK as well as the US. He thought that the students
who talked about the rumor came from California, but he didn't know
where they'd first heard about the hoax. He said that no one in his
circle believed that any of it originated with the Fabs.
Tim Harper's article was "borrowed" almost verbatim by a student at
Northern Illinois University, who published it in that school's
newspaper. The story then traveled to Russ Gibb, who says he can't
recall whether he read about it in a local underground paper or a
student publication; he discussed the hoax during his WKNR-FM radio
show on October 12, 1969 and invited callers to phone in and offer
clues of their own.
Gibb's show (and perhaps the hoax's propagation via student newspapers)
sparked the interest of Fred LaBour, a student at the University of
Michigan, who wrote his own version of the hoax. LaBour built upon
previous printed versions by adding in clues that he himself made up,
as he's since admitted. Most of the "Abbey Road" clues are entirely
LaBour's invention; earlier versions of the hoax as reported by Harper
et al didn't include them because "Abbey Road" hadn't yet been
released.
With Gibb's and LaBour's contributions, press reports of the hoax began
to get picked up by mainstream news sources, resulting in queries
directed at Apple and McCartney. Macca was obliged to appear outside
his High Park Farm in Campbeltown to disprove the rumors of his demise.
By early December 1969, the hoax was basically a non-story, though it's
continued to attract fan interest in subsequent years and there are at
least a couple of useful books about it.
There's an rmb FAQ about it here:
http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html
----
"...and we are all together...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Stephen Bruun
news:3d323427...@news.ev1.net...
> Can you tell me more about this fight?
Like I said, I can't remember exactly where I saw the tidbit about John and
George fighting during "Get Back." Lennon corroborates it. On either
"Imagine: John Lennon" or "Anthology" (possibly both) John talks about the
sessions and says "we came to blows."
LyptonBriskO.B.E
<>Actually, the story that rfueled the "MYTH of Paul is DEAD" emanates
from the 1980 JApanese Poy bust. According to Diplomatic sources, the
Japanese Police and Govt. held Paul in Jail for TEN DAYS OR Whatever,
not because of the POT, but in their opinion the FINGERPRINTS of 1980
PAUL, Did not match the FINGERPRINTS of the 1966 PAUL. Where Else, and
Why would a British M.B.E., be Held under such circumstances? the
bottom line is Paul is still the same Paul from LiverPool. THEe rest
is pure BullFROGs. But, the "I Buried Paul" line in SFF, is on the
ORIGINAL 4 TRK Tape. Very CLEARLY Spoken by John Lennon. It can be
found on The John Barrett tapes, the EMI Engineer, who had a
mysterious death after he assembled/compiled the EMI Beatle Vault
Tapes.
max.wurr
Chinese water torture?
"michael constantine" <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agkuap$ml1mk$1...@ID-81922.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "max.wurr" <max....@whsmithnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3d2df...@news2.vip.uk.com...
> > Can we get off this most dull of dull topics? The fan discs were almost
> > entirely crap and are of no real interest to anyone except women in
their
> > fifties reliving their youths and saddos with nothing better to do.
> Forget
> > about it. guys!
>
> So what would you like to discuss?
>
>
Stephen Bruun
news:41718b4a.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Actually, the story that rfueled the "MYTH of Paul is DEAD" emanates
> from the 1980 JApanese Poy bust. According to Diplomatic sources, the
> Japanese Police and Govt. held Paul in Jail for TEN DAYS OR Whatever,
> not because of the POT, but in their opinion the FINGERPRINTS of 1980
> PAUL, Did not match the FINGERPRINTS of the 1966 PAUL. Where Else, and
> Why would a British M.B.E., be Held under such circumstances?
My understanding is that the fingerprint issue is a myth. Anyone else who
showed up at Narita Airport with half a pound of pot would have been in jail
for ten YEARS. Compared to any other foreigner showing up with that much
dope, Paul was not held for a suspiciously long time - he was let go almost
immediately (compared with what he could have faced). They didn't keep him
for a few extra days because they suspected he wasn't Paul - they let him go
almost right away because he WAS Paul.
> But, the "I Buried Paul" line in SFF, is on the
> ORIGINAL 4 TRK Tape. Very CLEARLY Spoken by John Lennon.
He says "Cranberry Sauce," twice. You can also hear it on Anthology 2, high
in the mix. He rolls the "r" in "Crrrranberry" and draws out the "c" in
"Sauuuccccce."
> It can be
> found on The John Barrett tapes, the EMI Engineer, who had a
> mysterious death after he assembled/compiled the EMI Beatle Vault
> Tapes.
Mysterious death?!?!? Do you know WHY John Barrett compiled the vault
tapes? He was an EMI engineer who came down with TERMINAL CANCER. When he
was too sick to work as an engineer, but still wanted to make himself
useful, it was suggested that he keep himself busy by cataloguing the
Beatles' then-poorly organized tapes. Everyone knew he had cancer BEFORE he
started going through the tapes. And if the tapes contained some big
mysterious secret, that would be worth killing him over, then (1) why let
him listen in the first place and (2) why haven't the tapes been destroyed?
Mister Charlie
Sure. Lipton, sure. It is in fact just the opposite...you can CLEARLY
hear 'cranberry sauce', not just once but twice.
Fingerprints? Bullfrogs?
whew.
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
just toss crap off the top of their heads?
Sir Paul
Yes, I have read the book and when you put the facts as taken from
historical pages together with the theory in this story, it leaves
more than little doubt in your mind about it being a "rumor."
There has been way more energy in proving it wrong than getting to the
truth.
I cite the bogus "research" that "proves" it was a rumor started by a
couple of guys in the midwest, pretty laughable. Maybe if this same
research would just find the two guys who started all the rumors about
the Kennedy assassination involving more than one person?
Not only did the book convince me but there are way to many clues in
the music. Some things claimed to be clues are not, such as the 28if
stuff. But how in the heck can you get around Lennon singing directly
to your ear "here is another clue for you all - the Walrus is Paul."
You gotta work hard not to see that one.
michael constantine
rfueled the "MYTH of Paul is DEAD" emanates
> from the 1980 JApanese Poy bust.
I was busted for Poy years ago....I was up to my fingers in the stuff....
michael constantine
> That's alright...why let facts get in the way when these posters can
> just toss crap off the top of their heads?
>
>
Damn crap heads....
michael constantine
"Sir Paul" <bo...@slingshot.com> wrote in message
news:130ba10.02071...@posting.google.com...
No good answer for the black carnation either....
Rich Diakun
you get around Lennon singing directly to your ear "here is another clue for
you all - the Walrus is Paul." You gotta work hard not to see that one.>>
You gotta work hard not to see how by 1968 John Lennon was fed up with the
stupidity of the people who called themselves Beatles fans. Apparently, it
hasn't abated much in the decades since the band broke up.
I guess even Lennon's own statements about this aren't enough to convince
you, so I won't bother going to trouble of actually looking them up in some
book. I'll paraphrase from memory as best I can: Lennon had pretty much
"had it" with the stupidity and b.s. of some supposed Beatles "magic" when
they were touring. He was tired of going on stage and only seeing crippled
people in wheelchairs in front of the stage. He was tired of government
officials wanting a piece of him and the band everywhere they went -- it all
REALLY came to a head with the incidents in The Phillipines with the Marcos
family. He was tired of his statements to interviewers being taken out of
context and blown out of proportion -- especially the "bigger than Jesus"
mess. He was especially tired of people poring through the lyrics of his
songs looking for "mystical clues". His first poke at people tearing apart
the song lyrics to find special meanings was the song "The Word." It was a
none-too-subtle poke at people who sought higher meaning from Beatles songs,
but most of those people missed the point. After "I Am The Walrus" was
released, the clue-freaks came back with a vengeance. What was that all
about? What were the deeper hidden meanings? Was there some meaning in the
movie to which of the Beatles was wearing which costume in "I Am The
Walrus"? What did John mean by "the egg men"? and so on and so on, ad
nauseum. When Lennon sang in "Glass Onion" that "here's another clue for
you all... the Walrus was Paul", he was basically flipping the finger to all
of the clue-freaks. He was essentially saying, "Look, you idiots... there
is no higher meaning to this. I'm not some messenger from space aliens or
some God with a prophecy to spoon-feed you so that your empty and
directionless life will suddenly have meaning. It's freaking art. That's
it. No more. No less. So, there!"
Unfortunately, people never understand when they're being made fun of and
laughed at. Look at all the airheads who thought Frank Zappa's "Valley
Girls" was a GOOD song about them. Uh.... dear, sweet miss clueless... he
was making fun of you. Please be embarrassed and go hide under a rock until
you stop beign so vapid.
Likewise with "the walrus was Paul." Uh... dear acid-freak loser... he was
making fun of you. Please get the point and disappear until the chemicals
have left your bloodstream and you make the choice to join the rational
world.
That's all he was saying. Nothing more. Nothing less.
- Rich
Stephen Bruun
> couple of guys in the midwest, pretty laughable.
A question here - Does the "Carry That Weight" book have a disclaimer
anywhere, identifying it as a work of fiction? XLibris, the publisher of
the book, categorizes the book as "Fiction." To me, that's rather strong
evidence that the publisher does not intend for the book to be taken
literally. Has the author been plastering the airwaves and/or internet with
furious protests that his historical work has been wrongly labeled as
fiction? If not, that's rather strong evidence that the author does not
intend for the book to be taken literally. Were the publisher and author
THREATENED into labeling the book "fiction"? If that's the case, why was it
allowed to be published AT ALL? That's a big problem I have with a lot of
this X-files stuff - if it's a big secret that no one dares reveal, then how
the hell did so many BOOKS manage to get published about it?
> Not only did the book convince me but there are way to many clues in
> the music.
Persuasively written fiction is still fiction. Isn't it possible that you
are convinced, not because it really happened, but because the writer is
really good?
> But how in the heck can you get around Lennon singing directly
> to your ear "here is another clue for you all - the Walrus is Paul."
> You gotta work hard not to see that one.
Not really. John frequently ridiculed people who read too much into the
Beatles' music. He said "whatever people make of it is valid, but it
doesn't necessarily have to correspond to my thoughts about it, OK? This
goes for anyone's 'creations,' art, poetry, song, etc. The mystery and s**t
that is built around all forms of art needs smashing anyway." It was a
deliberate poke in the eye, to give 'em something to REALLY obsess about.
And another thing - since when, ever, does "the Walrus was Paul" mean "Paul
is Dead"? You gotta work hard to equate "Walrus" with "Death." Some people
say "Walrus" is the Greek word for "death." The Greek word for "death" is,
actually, "THANATOS," a word that is not spelled or pronounced anything like
"WALRUS."
Finally, if John was so eager to expose Paul's death that he deliberately
planted clues (that the record company didn't catch, for some reason) - then
why did he DENY the rumors when asked point-blank in late 1969? Surely
there would not have been any kind of retaliation against Lennon. Consider
that, by late 1969, the group (real Paul or not) was allowed to fragment and
they never worked together as a quartet again, and the breakup was announced
to the world by spring 1970. So, clearly, by 1969/1970 the powers the be
were willing to allow the Beatles to break up.
If the death rumors are true, Paul's brother and father and aunts and
cousins were certainly easy to fool because NONE of them EVER said anything
about his death and replacement.
In short, I have to say I'm not convinced that Paul is Dead.
Sir Paul
> "LyptonBriskO.B.E" <LBr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:41718b4a.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gat" <g...@gatmusic.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<vUlY8.17788$rU2.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > > Ah, the butterfly effect! But did the butterfly flap its wings
> because there
> > > was a hurricane coming? :)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Gat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> > <>Actually, the story that rfueled the "MYTH of Paul is DEAD" emanates
> > from the 1980 JApanese Poy bust. According to Diplomatic sources, the
> > Japanese Police and Govt. held Paul in Jail for TEN DAYS OR Whatever,
> > not because of the POT, but in their opinion the FINGERPRINTS of 1980
> > PAUL, Did not match the FINGERPRINTS of the 1966 PAUL. Where Else, and
> > Why would a British M.B.E., be Held under such circumstances? the
> > bottom line is Paul is still the same Paul from LiverPool. THEe rest
> > is pure BullFROGs. But, the "I Buried Paul" line in SFF, is on the
> > ORIGINAL 4 TRK Tape. Very CLEARLY Spoken by John Lennon. It can be
> > found on The John Barrett tapes, the EMI Engineer, who had a
> > mysterious death after he assembled/compiled the EMI Beatle Vault
> > Tapes.
>
> Sure. Lipton, sure. It is in fact just the opposite...you can CLEARLY
> hear 'cranberry sauce', not just once but twice.
>
> Fingerprints? Bullfrogs?
>
> whew.
Actually hearing "cranberry sauce" is quite a stretch for many
reasons. First, it makes no sense whereas "I buried Paul" does. And in
the first 45 rpm records it is "I buried Paul" with no doubt
whatsoever. Even more convincing to me is:
held Paul in Jail for TEN DAYS OR Whatever,
> not because of the POT, but in their opinion the FINGERPRINTS of 1980
> PAUL, Did not match the FINGERPRINTS of the 1966 PAUL. Where Else, and
> Why would a British M.B.E., be Held under such circumstances?
Now that is pretty convincing in itself.
Steve Denison
"LyptonBriskO.B.E" wrote:
> ...but in their opinion the FINGERPRINTS of 1980 PAUL, Did not match the FINGERPRINTS of the 1966 PAUL....
Being a bass player/guitarist, it would make sense that his fingerprints
wouldn't match, he's probably grew a few more layers of callouses on his
fingers in the 14 years. I would tend to think that his fingerprints
NOW wouldn't match those of 1980, either.
Stephen Bruun
> reasons. First, it makes no sense whereas "I buried Paul" does.
NOTHING in "Strawberry Fields Forever" makes sense - same with "I Am The
Walrus" and, for that matter, "Revolution 9."
> And in
> the first 45 rpm records it is "I buried Paul" with no doubt
> whatsoever.
So the master was altered to sound like "Cranberry Sauce," and the record
company that was desperate to cover up Paul's death actually issued a record
that reported Paul's death "with no doubt whatsoever?" Did they want it
covered up or not?
Even more convincing to me is:
> held Paul in Jail for TEN DAYS OR Whatever,
> > not because of the POT, but in their opinion the FINGERPRINTS of 1980
> > PAUL, Did not match the FINGERPRINTS of the 1966 PAUL.
Exact source for this information? Who is the "diplomatic official"? Who,
exactly, is able to provide detailed copies of the 1966 and 1980
fingerprints? "I heard some guy has them" is an anecdote, not evidence.
Where Else, and
> > Why would a British M.B.E., be Held under such circumstances?
> Now that is pretty convincing in itself.
Paul was held because he brought an enormous amount of drugs into the
country. In 1976, he had been refused entry into Japan because of past drug
convictions. In other words, they'd warned him. To then show up at the
airport with half a pound of pot would have been a slap in the face to the
Japanese government - they'd wanted to keep him out in 1976, then changed
their minds as a show of good faith, and then he does THAT. And as I said,
most people would have spent a LOT MORE than ten days in jail for that kind
of offense. And if the fingerprints proved he wasn't Paul McCartney...why
the hell did the Japanese LET HIM GO instead of adding identity fraud to the
drug charges against him? Why does New Paul's autograph look like Old
Paul's autograph? Didn't Paul's many close relatives notice the
substitution? How huge does this conspiracy have to get? How much must it
have cost to buy off EVERYONE who has ever known Paul closely? Why hasn't
ANYONE involved in the cover-up come forward? If the Beatles' unity was
important enough to the UK government to permit this vast (and expensive)
conspiracy, why did the UK government allow the Beatles to break up and
never reunite while the four remained alive? It just doesn't hold water.
Mister Charlie
No. However with every post you are very convincing in that you are one
very mentally damaged person, or you just like to make waves for
amusement.
Nil
news:3D34C0F6...@calstate.edu:
> Being a bass player/guitarist, it would make sense that his
> fingerprints wouldn't match, he's probably grew a few more layers
> of callouses on his fingers in the 14 years. I would tend to
> think that his fingerprints NOW wouldn't match those of 1980,
> either.
I don't believe it works that way. Your fingerprints are recorded from
the face of the outermost finger section, between the joint and the
tip. If you have layers of callous all over THERE, you have very weird
technique! Besides, they only need to match a certain number of
features between the fingerprints in order to declare them identical.
Much of the print can be obscured yet still be identifiable.
I've never heard this story about his fingerprints not matching. Is
this verified? I'm skeptical.
Brian Fried
"Nil" <redn...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Xns924DF0E9...@204.127.202.16...
> I don't believe it works that way. Your fingerprints are recorded from
> the face of the outermost finger section, between the joint and the
> tip. If you have layers of callous all over THERE, you have very weird
> technique! Besides, they only need to match a certain number of
> features between the fingerprints in order to declare them identical.
> Much of the print can be obscured yet still be identifiable.
Much of the print can be quite different and still be identifiable as a
match: thanks, in part, to CSI and a nunber of mystery writers focusing on
forensic science, it's come out that fingerprints are matched by a small
number of points that varies from law enforcement agency to law enforcement
agency (the FBI have the highest, IIRC, at 7 or 9 points total). As long as
these selected curves match -- and, keep in mind, they are quite small --
they declare a match. DNA is being preferred over fingerprints these days
because some states' use of 3, 4 or 5 points is now considered so small that
any 'expert' can raise doubt over determination.
There's also the incredible possibility of the fingerprints not being taken
right at any one time -- that, apparently, happened in a handful of cases,
if I recall correctly.
Stephen Bruun
> this verified? I'm skeptical.
>
Rumor!" by Hal Morgan and Kerry Tucker (Penguin Books, 1987), pp. 84-85.
They say that the fingerprint rumor is not true, and add:
"According to the rumor, the ten-day holding period was unusually long and
was caused by the confusion over McCartney's fingerprints. In fact, by
Japanese law he could have been held for up to twenty days before being
arraigned, and, if convicted, he might have faced a sentence of up to seven
years. McCartney was lucky to have been released as quickly as he was and
to have left the country with no criminal charges against him."
Poluka
Yes, I was hooked on poy for years after Paul McCartney introduced me
to the stuff. I couldn't seem to kick it. Bob Dylan introduced it to
him and the rest of the band. It was the poy that made us do "Pepper"
and "Mystery Tour." I wrote the words and the boys wrote the music,
all under the awful bonds of the stuff. I took no credit for my work
with them and no money. I wrote the words and sttod in after the UK
government paid me well for my effort under the "secrets act."
EMI paid me handsomely too.
I have not touched the stuff in some time now and it no longer
matters, my story is an open book. My name is really Campbell and you
can read about me here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=893538164&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=0&indexURL=0&rd=1
Rich Diakun
"Poluka" <techno...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:eeaa9085.02071...@posting.google.com...
Belkis
<>Well, A Interesting conversation. A Possible topic for producers of
CSI or the Forensic Science Teachers to take on At Quantico. Look at
the Cover on "WINGSPAN", Then, if you are Interested Do a search of
ALL his HAND PALM SHOTS, then report your findings. I Imagine, there
is still yet another book on its way, probably about his Eyebrows and
his Various disguises etal. :-)
Alien
Paul is a "VERDANT" from the Sun, and the Planet X, at least, thats
what a DNA printout Defines. Hes very Alive, thou he is almost 13,000
light years of age. I'd say, by looking at him, hes holding up very
well! He uses "Celestial Space Face Powders", and quite naturally
"Hooked on POY"! :->)