Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

End of I Am the Walrus.....

1,299 views
Skip to first unread message

Allison Dawn Kolody

unread,
Sep 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/13/96
to

Question for everyone - my friend and I, who are both big fans, were
sitting around listening to I Am the Walrus one sunny day. But we got inot
a bit of an arguement at the end of the song, where the vocaists are
"singing" their little bit over and over and over... you know, right at
the end. Well, he told me that they were saying "Everybody smokes pot" -
that really high sounding voice in particular. I disagreed - I don;t
think that is waht it says and I have never heard or read anything to make
me think differently. So, can someone help me out???


Frank

unread,
Sep 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/13/96
to

Allison Dawn Kolody <adko...@acs.ucalgary.ca> informed us:

Male voices:
Oompah, Oompah, stick it up your jumper

Female:
Everybody's got one, Everybody's got one.

Hope this helps.

-Frank


Hank Dole

unread,
Sep 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/14/96
to

Although it does sound like "Everybody smokes pot", they really are singing
"Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper", and "Got one, got one,
everybody's got one"! (This from page 127 of The Beatles Recording Sessions
by Mark Lewisohn)

Allison Dawn Kolody <adko...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.94.960913...@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>...

Yoda328

unread,
Sep 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/15/96
to

In article
<Pine.A41.3.94.960913...@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Allison
Dawn Kolody <adko...@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes:

>Question for everyone - my friend and I, who are both big fans, were
>sitting around listening to I Am the Walrus one sunny day. But we got
inot
>a bit of an arguement at the end of the song, where the vocaists are
>"singing" their little bit over and over and over... you know, right at
>the end. Well, he told me that they were saying "Everybody smokes pot" -
> that really high sounding voice in particular. I disagreed - I don;t
>think that is waht it says and I have never heard or read anything to
make
>me think differently. So, can someone help me out???

Okay, here's the deal with that. There are two looping sounds that are
played over each other. One is of people saying "Oompa oompa, stick it to
your jumper" and another saying "Got one, got one, everybody's got one."
Your friend is right in that is does SOUND like they're saying, "Smoke
pot, Smoke pot, everybody smokes pot." The actual intention of the Beatles
is not really known. These two sounds could be played to create the
other..the Beatles never actually SAID that's what they were trying to
do...


William Barefoot

William Barefoot
Yod...@juno.com
http://home.aol.com/Yoda328

Nina Isaia

unread,
Sep 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/15/96
to

Hank Dole wrote:
>
> Although it does sound like "Everybody smokes pot", they really are singing
> "Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper", and "Got one, got one,
> everybody's got one"! (This from page 127 of The Beatles Recording Sessions
> by Mark Lewisohn)
>
> > Question for everyone - my friend and I, who are both big fans, were
> > sitting around listening to I Am the Walrus one sunny day. But we > > got in a bit of an arguement at the end of the song, where the > > vocaists are "singing" their little bit over and over and over... > > you know, right at the end. Well, he told me that they were saying > > "Everybody smokes pot" -

> > that really high sounding voice in particular. I disagreed

I beg to differ. I haven't read anything about it, but I suspect they
put that in as a bit of a joke to see if they would play it on the
radio. It says, "Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot."
They couldn't come right out and say it plainly.
I've heard the "Oompah, oompah, stick it up your joompah." story. I
think that was part of the effect of saying it with out saying it. John
told someone to sing this, and someone else to sing that, and when it
gets all put together, you get the hidden message.
Just my own personal theory.

Bert Boswell

unread,
Sep 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/16/96
to Allison Dawn Kolody

That's what I always thought also!
Can't verify it though.
Bert

Bobby Briggs

unread,
Sep 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/17/96
to

On Sep 15, 1996 17:25:34 in article <Re: End of I Am the Walrus.....>,

'Nina Isaia <nis...@earthlink.net>' wrote:


>I beg to differ. I haven't read anything about it, but I suspect they
>put that in as a bit of a joke to see if they would play it on the
>radio. It says, "Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot."
>They couldn't come right out and say it plainly.
>I've heard the "Oompah, oompah, stick it up your joompah." story. I
>think that was part of the effect of saying it with out saying it. John
>told someone to sing this, and someone else to sing that, and when it
>gets all put together, you get the hidden message.
>Just my own personal theory.

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. :-)

-Henry Stewart (hee hee)

saki

unread,
Sep 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/17/96
to

In article <323C9E...@earthlink.net>,
Nina Isaia <nis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I beg to differ. I haven't read anything about it....

Oh dear.

>...but I suspect they


>put that in as a bit of a joke to see if they would play it on the
>radio. It says, "Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot."
>They couldn't come right out and say it plainly.

They didn't even come out and say it obliquely.

That's not what it says.

Read Lewisohn's "Recording Sessions" for details, if you dare. :-)

You can learn from books....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"We didn't ask for miracles, but they were our concern...."
-----------------------------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu * dl...@midway.uchicago.edu

Sarah

unread,
Sep 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/17/96
to

In article <51cs59$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Frank
<fra...@worldnet.att.net> writes

>Allison Dawn Kolody <adko...@acs.ucalgary.ca> informed us:
>
>
>>Question for everyone - my friend and I, who are both big fans, were
>>sitting around listening to I Am the Walrus one sunny day. But we got inot

>>a bit of an arguement at the end of the song, where the vocaists are
>>"singing" their little bit over and over and over... you know, right at
>>the end. Well, he told me that they were saying "Everybody smokes pot" -
>> that really high sounding voice in particular. I disagreed - I don;t
>>think that is waht it says and I have never heard or read anything to make
>>me think differently. So, can someone help me out???
>
>Male voices:
>Oompah, Oompah, stick it up your jumper
>
>Female:
>Everybody's got one, Everybody's got one.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>-Frank
>
I think it depends on what you are *expecting* to hear. If you listened
for 'Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot' this is what stands out.

Otherwise, you get the 'Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper' and
mumbling from the rest.
--
Sarah

Eric Johnson

unread,
Sep 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/18/96
to

Hank Dole wrote:
>
> Although it does sound like "Everybody smokes pot", they really are singing
> , and "Got one, got one,
> everybody's got one"! (This from page 127 of The Beatles Recording Sessions
> by Mark Lewisohn)
>
> Allison Dawn Kolody <adko...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote in article
> <Pine.A41.3.94.960913...@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> >
> > Question for everyone - my friend and I, who are both big fans, were
> > sitting around listening to I Am the Walrus one sunny day. But we got
> inot
> > a bit of an arguement at the end of the song, where the vocaists are
> > "singing" their little bit over and over and over... you know, right at
> > the end. Well, he told me that they were saying "Everybody smokes pot" -
> > that really high sounding voice in particular. I disagreed - I don;t
> > think that is waht it says and I have never heard or read anything to
> make
> > me think differently. So, can someone help me out???
> >
> >"Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper"????????? What the hell is
that?! I've never heard that in IATW. Boy, that Lennon sure had fun
with people. As to "Got one, got one,
> everybody's got one"! I think he probably meant an opinion about this very subject. You know, assholes are like opinions, everybody's got
one?
Say Lennon did mix in 'everybodys' fucked up' at the end of IATW, which
was a big enough public supposition at the time the song came out that
the Beatles had to deny it to the press. Would any of the Beatles,
especially Lennon, admit it? No, because then the song would be
censored, or have to be remixed and reissued, etc. I think the Beatles,
in their heyday, were arrogant and talented enough to try and slip a lot
of stuff by their unsuspecting, dim witted public with a wink and a nod,
and did! And I think it's great!!

-Eric

Wincom

unread,
Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96
to

dl...@midway.uchicago.edu (saki) wrote:

>Oh dear.

What part??


saki

unread,
Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96
to

In article <3241b...@eclipse.wincom.net>, Wincom <wgo...@wincom.net> wrote:
>dl...@midway.uchicago.edu (saki) wrote:
>
>>In article <323C9E...@earthlink.net>,
>>Nina Isaia <nis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>...but I suspect they
>>>put that in as a bit of a joke to see if they would play it on the
>>>radio. It says, "Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot."
>>>They couldn't come right out and say it plainly.
>
>>They didn't even come out and say it obliquely.
>
>>That's not what it says.
>
>>Read Lewisohn's "Recording Sessions" for details, if you dare. :-)
>
>>You can learn from books....
>
>What part??

Page 127.

Happy reading!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Though I've said it all before, I will say it more and more...."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu * dl...@midway.uchicago.edu

Chris

unread,
Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96
to

"Rigby" <sout...@dreamscape.com> writes:
>Wincom <wgo...@wincom.net> wrote in article
><3241b...@eclipse.wincom.net>...
>: dl...@midway.uchicago.edu (saki) wrote:
>:
>: >You can learn from books....
>
>: What part??
>
>The pages, usually. Sometimes there's information on the cover, but not
>enough to get by on.

Yes, but can you really believe all that you read?

Rigby

unread,
Sep 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/21/96
to


Wincom <wgo...@wincom.net> wrote in article
<3241b...@eclipse.wincom.net>...
: dl...@midway.uchicago.edu (saki) wrote:
:
: >You can learn from books....

: What part??

The pages, usually. Sometimes there's information on the cover, but not
enough to get by on.


--
"Here's this kid trying to give me his utterly valueless opinion when I
know for a fact within four weeks
he'll be suffering from a violent inferiority complex because he isn't
wearing one of these of these nasty things."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Larie's Marvelous Home Page - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6935
The Apple Scruffs Beatles Page - http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/8664
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rigby

unread,
Sep 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/21/96
to


Chris <CWI...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> wrote in article
<1780813902...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>...
: "Rigby" <sout...@dreamscape.com> writes:
: >Wincom <wgo...@wincom.net> wrote in article


: ><3241b...@eclipse.wincom.net>...
: >: dl...@midway.uchicago.edu (saki) wrote:
: >:
: >: >You can learn from books....
: >
: >: What part??
: >
: >The pages, usually. Sometimes there's information on the cover, but not
: >enough to get by on.

:
: Yes, but can you really believe all that you read?

No, but usually the pages are the most reliable part. The cover tends to
have all sorts of controversial statements to get you to open the book in
the first place.

Rigby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Here's this kid trying to give me his utterly valueless opinion when I
know for a fact
within four weeks he'll be suffering from a violent inferiority complex
because he isn't
wearing one of these of these nasty things."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

saki

unread,
Sep 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/21/96
to

In article <1780813902...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>,

Chris <CWI...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> wrote:
>"Rigby" <sout...@dreamscape.com> writes:
>>Wincom <wgo...@wincom.net> wrote in article
>><3241b...@eclipse.wincom.net>...
>>: dl...@midway.uchicago.edu (saki) wrote:
>>:
>>: >You can learn from books....
>>
>>: What part??
>>
>>The pages, usually. Sometimes there's information on the cover, but not
>>enough to get by on.
>
>Yes, but can you really believe all that you read?

Nope. :-)

But you can believe some of it.

It's up to you to decide which part!

Sean Daugherty

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:52:46 GMT, Eric Johnson
<Eric.J...@ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:

>Say Lennon did mix in 'everybodys' fucked up' at the end of IATW, which
>was a big enough public supposition at the time the song came out that
>the Beatles had to deny it to the press. Would any of the Beatles,
>especially Lennon, admit it? No, because then the song would be
>censored, or have to be remixed and reissued, etc. I think the Beatles,
>in their heyday, were arrogant and talented enough to try and slip a lot
>of stuff by their unsuspecting, dim witted public with a wink and a nod,
>and did! And I think it's great!!

Yeah, but it was banned anyway, and John pr'bly figured it would be.
HOWEVER, and this is not taken into account by many, John had a
devious mind. If you asked him what, say, "I Am The Walrus" really
meant, or if "Lucy In The Sky..." really stood for LSD, and he'd tell
you the truth, *more or less*. LITSWD was inspired by Julian's sketch,
a well known fact, but whose to say John didn't latch hold of the
L-S-D initials? And, even if the freak-out at the end of IATW was
spontaneous, whose to say he didn't, later, realize what it sounded
like? John loved messing with people's minds, and the best way, as any
good politician will tell you, is not put too much effort into it, so
it looks deliberate.


saki

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

>On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:52:46 GMT, Eric Johnson
><Eric.J...@ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
>
>>Say Lennon did mix in 'everybodys' fucked up' at the end of IATW, which
>>was a big enough public supposition at the time the song came out that
>>the Beatles had to deny it to the press.

Just curious. Can you cite any such denial? I've never heard this one
before and would like to know where the denial was printed, just for
future reference.

Many people take this for "Everybody smoke pot", which is also not
what it says.

>>Would any of the Beatles, especially Lennon, admit it?

Well, what you're saying then is that whether they confirm or deny it,
it makes no difference to the accuracy of the lyrical transcription.
:-)

So how do you find out for sure? Consult one of the Mike Sammes
Singers, perhaps, who sang this passage in the song?

>>No, because then the song would be
>>censored, or have to be remixed and reissued, etc.

But the song already mentioned "knickers", which got Auntie Beeb's own
knickers in a twist. :-) The Beeb was pretty overwrought about things
they thought were lyrically salacious or inappropriate. They didn't
like "A Day In The Life" because Paul sang about going upstairs to
have a smoke...which the BBC assumed, in its wisdom, was about pot
smoking (again, it was not). Yet the line "I'd love to turn you on"
was apparently not the cause of the BBC's banning of the song...go
figure!

>>I think the Beatles,
>>in their heyday, were arrogant and talented enough to try and slip a lot
>>of stuff by their unsuspecting, dim witted public with a wink and a nod,
>>and did! And I think it's great!!

They did less than you think. It appears the Fabs thought more highly
of their art than to use it constantly as a massive in-joke. Most of
the time they were trying to communicate to us feelings and
philosophies on quite a higher plane. If you're missing that aspect of
their music, you may want to listen again. You can never hear the
Beatles too many times, IMHO. :-)

Eric Johnson

unread,
Oct 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/4/96
to

Sean Daugherty wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:52:46 GMT, Eric Johnson
> <Eric.J...@ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
>
> >Say Lennon did mix in 'everybodys' fucked up' at the end of IATW, which
> >was a big enough public supposition at the time the song came out that
> >the Beatles had to deny it to the press. Would any of the Beatles,
> >especially Lennon, admit it? No, because then the song would be
> >censored, or have to be remixed and reissued, etc. I think the Beatles,

> >in their heyday, were arrogant and talented enough to try and slip a lot
> >of stuff by their unsuspecting, dim witted public with a wink and a nod,
> >and did! And I think it's great!!
>
> Yeah, but it was banned anyway, and John pr'bly figured it would be.
> HOWEVER, and this is not taken into account by many, John had a
> devious mind. If you asked him what, say, "I Am The Walrus" really
> meant, or if "Lucy In The Sky..." really stood for LSD, and he'd tell
> you the truth, *more or less*. LITSWD was inspired by Julian's sketch,
> a well known fact, but whose to say John didn't latch hold of the
> L-S-D initials? And, even if the freak-out at the end of IATW was
> spontaneous, whose to say he didn't, later, realize what it sounded
> like? John loved messing with people's minds, and the best way, as any
> good politician will tell you, is not put too much effort into it, so
> it looks deliberate.

Exactly.
I actually imagine Lennon, for instance, after IATW was completed,
adding to the mix or distorting it enough to sound like what he wanted.
Sure we know technically what the words were, but distort them, slow
them down, etc. and what do they sound like?
He was a clever one, as they all were in their way, and capable of
virtually anything.

-Eric

Curt Deitz

unread,
Oct 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/8/96
to

This may be off base or entirely wrong, but answer my question in
regards to the discussion above...doesn't the end have something to do
with JFK's death? I thought I read that somewhere a while ago.

saki

unread,
Oct 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/8/96
to

In article <325ADA...@unicom.net>, Curt Deitz <cde...@unicom.net> wrote:

>This may be off base or entirely wrong, but answer my question in
>regards to the discussion above...doesn't the end have something to do
>with JFK's death? I thought I read that somewhere a while ago.

It had to do with death and destruction in "King Lear", the Shakespeare
play; the radio program captured during this sequence of the song was a
BBC production that John thought sounded interesting for inclusion in the
song's final cacophony.

Perhaps there's an analogy with JFK's death, but only peripherally.
--
-------------------------
"There are seven levels."
-----------------------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu * dl...@midway.uchicago.edu

sugr...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2018, 7:12:26 PM6/10/18
to
I think it sounds like everybody smoke pot .......the Beatles say the it was an Indian chant .

sugr...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2018, 7:13:38 PM6/10/18
to
To me it sounds like everybody smoke pot ......The Beatles say it's an Indian chant .

Nil

unread,
Jun 10, 2018, 9:15:09 PM6/10/18
to
On 10 Jun 2018, sugr...@gmail.com wrote in rec.music.beatles:

> I think it sounds like everybody smoke pot .......the Beatles say
> the it was an Indian chant .

"Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_the_Walrus

Will you see this response? Doubtful - drive-by googlers never do.

cuppajoe2go

unread,
Jun 10, 2018, 10:00:24 PM6/10/18
to
> I think it depends on what you are *expecting* to hear. If you listened
> for 'Smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot' this is what stands out.
>
> Otherwise, you get the 'Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper' and
> mumbling from the rest.
> --
> Sarah

Thank you, Sarah (wherever you are)...nailed it.

Norbert K

unread,
Jun 11, 2018, 7:05:35 AM6/11/18
to
On Thursday, October 3, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, saki wrote:
> >On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:52:46 GMT, Eric Johnson
> ><Eric.J...@ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
> >
> >>Say Lennon did mix in 'everybodys' fucked up' at the end of IATW, which
> >>was a big enough public supposition at the time the song came out that
> >>the Beatles had to deny it to the press.
>
> Just curious. Can you cite any such denial? I've never heard this one
> before and would like to know where the denial was printed, just for
> future reference.
>
> Many people take this for "Everybody smoke pot", which is also not
> what it says.
>
> >>Would any of the Beatles, especially Lennon, admit it?
>
> Well, what you're saying then is that whether they confirm or deny it,
> it makes no difference to the accuracy of the lyrical transcription.
> :-)
>
> So how do you find out for sure? Consult one of the Mike Sammes
> Singers, perhaps, who sang this passage in the song?
>
> >>No, because then the song would be
> >>censored, or have to be remixed and reissued, etc.
>
> But the song already mentioned "knickers", which got Auntie Beeb's own
> knickers in a twist. :-) The Beeb was pretty overwrought about things
> they thought were lyrically salacious or inappropriate. They didn't
> like "A Day In The Life" because Paul sang about going upstairs to
> have a smoke...which the BBC assumed, in its wisdom, was about pot
> smoking (again, it was not). Yet the line "I'd love to turn you on"
> was apparently not the cause of the BBC's banning of the song...go
> figure!
>
> >>I think the Beatles,
> >>in their heyday, were arrogant and talented enough to try and slip a lot
> >>of stuff by their unsuspecting, dim witted public with a wink and a nod,
> >>and did! And I think it's great!!
>
> They did less than you think. It appears the Fabs thought more highly
> of their art than to use it constantly as a massive in-joke. Most of
> the time they were trying to communicate to us feelings and
> philosophies on quite a higher plane. If you're missing that aspect of
> their music, you may want to listen again. You can never hear the
> Beatles too many times, IMHO. :-)
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Though I've said it all before, I will say it more and more...."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu * dl...@midway.uchicago.edu


Don't forget the excerpts from King Lear which add quite a big to the weirdness of the song.


Dennis Myers

unread,
Apr 3, 2023, 9:39:16 AM4/3/23
to
...I have to say that I once read (somewhere) that Harrison want to add something, something everyone does, to the tail of the song, and got in the chant "get f*cked, get f*cked, everybody get f*cked."

Curtis Eagal

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 12:51:49 PM4/4/23
to
On Friday, September 13, 1996 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Allison Dawn Kolody wrote:
> Question for everyone - my friend and I, who are both big fans, were
> sitting around listening to I Am the Walrus one sunny day. But we got inot
> a bit of an arguement at the end of the song, where the vocaists are
> "singing" their little bit over and over and over... you know, right at
> the end. Well, he told me that they were saying "Everybody smokes pot" -
> that really high sounding voice in particular. I disagreed - I don;t
> think that is waht it says and I have never heard or read anything to make
> me think differently. So, can someone help me out???

In the documentary for the "Love" show, when trying to recreate the chant into the fade, both the "Oompah, Umpah" line from an old song, and the "Got one, got one" lyrical versions were considered - and it was Yoko who decided rather than selecting one as correct, singers would perform both alternate lyrics simultaneously.

Either way, it aurally transmutes into the intended message, neatly tying together the musical and lyrical elements, like the refrain in "Yellow Submarine" and the title "Paperback Writer." The "Goo goo g'joob" interjection is functionally related, so that once the mind clears it of being gibberish, the meanings have significant alignments.

So chasing literal semantics leads in different directions than appreciating the subliminal aural crossovers.

Allowing the live broadcast of the "King Lear" performance to bleed into the mono mix posed a problem when trying to mix for stereo later.

The musical flourish using horns after the lyric "See how they fly" approximates a quasi-verbal continuation,

'...On An -
Astral -
PLANE!'

The scene for their television special was filmed at an air field, with a plane serendipitously flying in the background, masterfully edited with their magical transformation into Carrollian creatures. The policemen are symbolic ministers of Justice, which is the cardinal virtue alluded to by the song, musically based on a wailing siren. McCartney has explained for the day of shooting the wall sequence, the masks were on a table and each grabbed one at random - except then Paul himself was in the Walrus costume, making broad arm movements in isolation, while the other three sat together on the wall.

In the film the song begins when Mister Bloodvessel has succumbed to his Envy for the Courier, ineptly taking over his job by addressing the bus passengers as an impostor host. The weird chords of the opening riff commence, and the band is viewed within a tunnel-vision circular border - then Paul abruptly points to Ringo for starting his drum part, augmenting the implied musical message with percussion suggesting,

'...The Famil'ar -
Part Of It!'
0 new messages