|
Post by JoJo on Aug 22, 2004 9:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 26, 2004 20:59:20 GMT -5
That's a great article, JoJo. It seems unlikely that a friend of the Beatles would make something like that up, or tell it to an acquaintance at a party without a good reason. And it was well before the rumor became public knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 26, 2004 21:10:43 GMT -5
Yes, the time that he reported hearing this was well before the college DJ or whomever he was became famous for starting the rumor. Also surprising to see the publishing of hearsay of a topic like this in the NY Times, usually you would see something like this in the likes of the National Enquirer.
My theory... rank speculation of course, but.... At the time this "friend of the Beatles" told him this, assuming he did of course, was that at that early date, it wasn't presumed to be a secret that was intended to be kept for all time! The assumption at the time was that it was intended to be a short term thing, that the secret would be out in due course, so there was no need to worry about sharing it with people in "certain circles". Well the change in plan became clear a little later on.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 26, 2004 21:16:06 GMT -5
Yes, the time that he reported hearing this was well before the college DJ or whomever he was became famous for starting the rumor. Also surprising to see the publishing of hearsay of a topic like this in the NY Times, usually you would see something like this in the likes of the National Enquirer. My theory... rank speculation of course, but.... At the time this "friend of the Beatles" told him this, assuming he did of course, was that at that early date, it wasn't presumed to be a secret that was intended to be kept for all time! The assumption at the time was that it was intended to be a short term thing, that the secret would be out in due course, so there was no need to worry about sharing it with people in "certain circles". Well the change in plan became clear a little later on. Sounds plausible. I would really like to know who that Beatle "friend" was and whether he or she is still around to confirm the story. I wonder if J Marks (assuming that's his real name and he's still alive) would ever reveal his source. Regardless, this story confirms for me that PID and PWR.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Aug 28, 2004 17:00:31 GMT -5
That was pretty scary I thought PID was silly before this. Jay Marks was a good friend of Linda's. I already read in the book "The Walrus Was Paul" that Robey Younge said that Jay Marks told him he overheard Paul was replaced, I thought this deejay was just pulling our leg as Jay was friends with Linda. I still believe he probably isn't dead, but this shifted me a bit. I just wish the name of the Beatle "friend" became known. He may have been just joking, eh? [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 29, 2004 18:36:19 GMT -5
That was pretty scary I thought PID was silly before this. Jay Marks was a good friend of Linda's. I already read in the book "The Walrus Was Paul" that Robey Younge said that Jay Marks told him he overheard Paul was replaced, I thought this deejay was just pulling our leg as Jay was friends with Linda. I still believe he probably isn't dead, but this shifted me a bit. I just wish the name of the Beatle "friend" became known. He may have been just joking, eh? [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] I think all the big players in 60's era rock know the secret, but aren't telling the public. That may explain Paul's cool reception at the Concert for George.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Aug 30, 2004 16:24:52 GMT -5
I think Jay's "friend" may have been joking, whether he is alive or not. I don't believe something like that would be discussed that openly. I also find it hard to believe most major rock figures "know" about it too. Interesting, though.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 30, 2004 17:49:16 GMT -5
I think the cool reception by George's fans has a very logical and, dare I say, down-to-earth explanation. The overt bitterness George had toward Paul/Faul was more than evident over the years. Even a cursory viewing of the Anthology DVD's shows, at times, open disdain by George toward P/F. (As evident by the interview sequences where all three were together at the same place) It's not an illogical jump to assume that dye-hard George fans would feel the same bitterness toward P/F blaming him, as Geroge did, for the band's later woes and breakup.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 30, 2004 18:15:22 GMT -5
Well it's quite true that we can't see into their heads to see why they gave him what was obviously a cool reception. And I'll agree that when they were sitting together talking in Anthology, George at one point deliberately (or maybe he didn't hear him perhaps) ignored Paul, and you could see Paul was a little pissed. So yeah, the bad feelings (for whatever reason) were still there. It's human nature to side with your friend, and if your friend is not real cool with someone, you tend to cut them (out) as well. However, I'm of the opinion that the real close ones like the Stones, who knew Paul both before and after could not possibly not know, they met him in person! Remember, there was Mick, clapping along to "All You Need Is Love".
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 30, 2004 21:30:07 GMT -5
I think Jay's "friend" may have been joking, whether he is alive or not. I don't believe something like that would be discussed that openly. I also find it hard to believe most major rock figures "know" about it too. Interesting, though. The only problem with that theory is that 1) Jay certainly would have picked up on the person's lack of seriousness, if it were told as a joke. 2) Who would make up such an elaborate story for a joke or any other reason? Certainly not a close friend of the Beatles. 3) Like JoJo said, the unidentified individual probably thought the replacement was a temporary situation and therefore not necessary to keep it quiet forever. And he or she was probably a little drunk or stoned and let it slip out without thinking.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 31, 2004 20:41:04 GMT -5
Let me take what Jojo said a step further. The Stones not only met the Beatles in person they were in the early years friendly competitors. If my memory is correct, it was the Beatles who lent one of their original songs to the Stones which became one of the Stones' early successes. That type of interaction would, by definition, make them guilty of, if nothing else, complicity to the replacement. I just can't see Mick (who had a very real love/hate relationship with the Beatles and took public snipes at them) or particularly Keith (who spent the last four decades in a drug/alcohol stupor--see "Pirates of the Caribbean" for a GREAT Keith impersonation by Johnny Depp) not letting something slip either intentionally or unintentionally concerning the replacement. Knowing their reputations, I have a feeling they would take the opprotunity to plant replacement clues of their own if for no other reason than plain, old fashion jealousy.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 31, 2004 22:04:31 GMT -5
I just can't see Mick (who had a very real love/hate relationship with the Beatles and took public snipes at them) Can you give us an example of this? I don't recall Mick taking this attitude. P.S. Mick and John were quite close in the 70's and used to hang out quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 31, 2004 22:08:30 GMT -5
Knowing their reputations, I have a feeling they would take the opprotunity to plant replacement clues of their own if for no other reason than plain, old fashion jealousy. Of course the Stones knew what was goin' on, but jealousy? If PID were true, then I don't think they'd be jealous of what the Beatles were having to go thru.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Sept 1, 2004 9:50:40 GMT -5
Mick was very jealous of the Beatles' successes. Even after 1966 he took pot shots at them, even once commenting of having to compete with a "cartoon" musical group. Not quite the most appropriate actions from the "grieving friend."
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Sept 1, 2004 11:01:45 GMT -5
I think we would also need to apply the old "media hype" filter on things like this...some writers are quite capable of putting things in people's mouths, or to spin things a bit to make their comments either more caustic, or less caustic, in order to tell the story they wish to tell in their articles. Let's face it, this is a fact we've had to deal with in mass media for several decades, so it wouldn't surprise me a bit if someone decided to spin a statement and take it out of context a bit in order to incite more press coverage...look at the John Lennon statement of 1966 for example. That one comment, made to a friend and taken out of it's original context, generated a landslide of press coverage and interviews...not to mention a lot of hate and disgust to the point of having Beatles Bonfires...jeesh if I could only have 1/100th of all the stuff that was torched over that stupid reporter's spin.
I think there must be some understanding between popular artists who are friends with each other that they don't take quotes about each other which are printed in news articles seriously. I think they have all had some kind of lessons of their own when it comes to dealing with the media. And I think it's quite obvious, especially in the times in which we are living now, that hardly anyone actually 'reports the news' because they are too busy 'making the news' and aspiring for those good ratings and pulitzer prizes and what-not. As far as any of this goes, I have chosen to rest in the knowledge that The Beatles were friends with several other well-known artists and musicians and just leave it at that...the media will have their way with anyone they choose and there isn't a whole lot we, the viewing/reading public, can do about it other than just take what they say with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 1, 2004 15:28:06 GMT -5
Well it's easy to throw sand in the face of this one, a story told by someone who's a friend of a friend, etc. But it does make you go hmmm... Hey this place got busy all of a sudden, what happened, LOL. ;D
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Sept 1, 2004 17:35:33 GMT -5
We be jammin, mon...dat be what happnin ;D
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Oct 16, 2004 11:24:31 GMT -5
Revolver: Thanks for highlighting the excerpt from that article... cleared up a lot for me.
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 17, 2004 22:24:28 GMT -5
Revolver: Thanks for highlighting the excerpt from that article... cleared up a lot for me. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] Yes, I thought that anecdote just seemed to stand out from the rest of the article. It was odd to be included in an essentially anti-PID piece, since it provided some credible evidence to support PID. And it showed the rumor started two years earlier than most people thought. It might have been the impetus for Linda to try and hook up with Paul, once she heard he was going to break up with Jane. Of course that means she knew from the beginning that he was a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Oct 21, 2004 2:27:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I had heard of that anecdote since I got interested into the PWR mythology, but I never saw the actual article until now. The writer may have been stretching the truth a bit though, and if he wasn't, that's pretty incredible that they mentioned Paul dying "last November" a full two years before that was believed to be the date on the Pepper drum.
As far as the Stones go, I believe that if PID/PWR is true, then the song "Ruby Tuesday" is actually a tribute to Paul (Ruby Tuesday = Bloody Tuesday)
She would never say where she came from Yesterday don't matter if it's gone While the sun is bright Or in the darkest night No one knows She comes and goes
Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I’m gonna miss you...
Don’t question why she needs to be so free She’ll tell you it’s the only way to be She just can’t be chained To a life where nothing’s gained And nothing’s lost At such a cost
There’s no time to lose, I heard her say Catch your dreams before they slip away Dying all the time Lose your dreams And you will lose your mind. Ain’t life unkind?
Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I’m gonna miss you...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 21, 2004 10:32:58 GMT -5
I agree with Wings. Ruby Tuesday seems to me about Paul mainly...and Jane, with a line or two about Faul. I was discussing this a few weeks ago with someone else on this board and she came up with some interpretations and I added some myself:
She would never say where she came from(The mysterious Faul) Yesterday don't matter if it's gone(Faul's existence replacing Paul doesn't matter because Paul isn't around anymore) While the sun is bright(?) Or in the darkest night(?) No one knows, she comes and goes(?)
Goodbye Ruby Tuesday(Goodbye Paul) Who could hang a name on you?(Who could replace you and your uniqueness? OR who could identify you when you are mangled and bloody from the car wreck?) When you change with every new day(The changed Paul in the form of a double, Faul is there with the Beatles everyday but he looks and sounds different) Still I'm gonna miss you(Mick misses Paul because he was friends with Paul and John)
Don't question why she needs to be so free(This is Jane and her need to be free from playing Faul's girlfriend) She'll tell you it's the only way to be(Jane's attitude) She just can't be chained(Jane felt chained to her fake life with Faul) To a life where nothing's gained(Nothing's gained because she didn't love Faul and didn't receive any benefit from pretending to be his girlfriend) And nothing's lost, at such a cost(Nothing's lost in the eyes of everyone else who thinks she is with Paul, but the cost is her sanity, her freedom)
Goodbye Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I'm gonna miss you(All about Paul)
"There's no time to lose", I heard her say Catch your dreams before they slip away Dying all the time Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind Ain't life unkind?(Not sure if these lines are about Paul OR Jane and her grief over Paul)
Goodbye Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I'm gonna miss you
Anyone care to comment on these interpretations or even interpret the lines I left blank?
Oh and btw, Ruby Tuesday was written and/or released in 1967 which would fit perfectly with the timing of everything.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Oct 22, 2004 0:54:08 GMT -5
Don’t question why she needs to be so free She’ll tell you it’s the only way to be She just can’t be chained To a life where nothing’s gained And nothing’s lost At such a cost
There’s no time to lose, I heard her say Catch your dreams before they slip away Dying all the time Lose your dreams And you will lose your mind. Ain’t life unkind?
There's two ways I interpret this part. Number one, Paul didn't really die, but he had to get out of the shallow, demanding life of being a famous pop star. Perhaps he had the perfect oppurtunity to allow a replacement to fill in while he took off for some remote tropical paradise. But then, that wouldn't really fit in with the initial catch of the song: its title. Ruby Tuesday indicates the Stupid Bloody Tuesday.
The way I'm starting to see it is that Paul was too good for the life they were all leading, and that's why he was taken away (in an accident or whatever). It's a rationalization, such as saying "he's in a better place now." Then again, it really wouldn't explain the last lines.
I'd be interested to hear an official explanation behind the meaning of Ruby Tuesday, if there is one.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Aug 2, 2005 3:03:22 GMT -5
One could take the "Ruby Tuesday" song as evidence that Paul was still alive but in a disabled or altered condition so that he could not be presented in public or did not want to be.
One of many such "Paul is Hidden" clues (perhaps) in Beatles material / interviews and that of other "insider" groups.
Then there's "WELCOME THE ROLLING STONES" on Sgt. Pepper --written on Shirley Temple doll with ruby shoes.
|
|
|
Post by mysteryboy on Jun 28, 2007 22:26:49 GMT -5
That's a great article, JoJo. It seems unlikely that a friend of the Beatles would make something like that up, or tell it to an acquaintance at a party without a good reason. And it was well before the rumor became public knowledge. JoJo, you have super-human abilities to find gems like this! I hope you don't mind me kicking this up to the front. I've never seen this before. New York Times? I would think the editor would have had to have a source before letting this go to print, unless the it was supposed to be a comedy piece. I would love to know which section of the Times this was printed in... I don't get the feeling that his source was joking. Not exactly the thing one would say at a Beatles party unless it were true. And it fits so well with the time line and events, though I do believe it was September rather than November. The writer's last sentence is telling. It doesn't appear that he is dissing PID at all as he sends his congrats to "whoever you are". Really great stuff and I hope this is investigated more here. I can't find any traces of the writer, though I suppose he was using assumed name. The story attributed by the friend of the Beatles sounds quite serious and deadpan. Extraordinary find.
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Jun 29, 2007 10:56:53 GMT -5
rebump
|
|