Gary, on the Pepperpots "blind alley"

[DarkHorse]

Bill Shepherd bio below. Btw, no mention of the Pepperpots. That's not outrageous but maybe it could be mentioned that he produced a joke album with Jimmy Fraser. No harm and wouldn't take away from his credibility as a recording producer.


Bill Shepherd

* Genre: Easy Listening
* Active: '50s, '60s, '70s
* Instrument: Arranger, Director, Accompaniment

Biography
As a recording artist, Bill Shepherd has released such successful albums as the pop instrumental LP Shepherd and His Flock in 1959 and, in 1968, the Aurora LP. It is as an engineer, and later a producer/arranger, however, that he had a major impact on popular music by virtue of his association with the Bee Gees. The British-born Shepherd had first achieved notice in the pop world in 1959 with his work as producer/composer on a film called Idle on Parade, which attempted to put Anthony Newley into a kind of rock & roll comedy vehicle. He also worked with legendary producer Joe Meek during the early '60s and cut a song with Gene Vincent, conducting the orchestral accompaniment for the American rock legend in 1963 before emigrating to Australia in 1964. Shepherd joined Festival Records and first began working with Barry, Robin, and Maurice Gibb in 1965 on their recording of Arthur Alexander's "Every Day I Have to Cry" and the Barry Gibb-authored B-side, "You Wouldn't Know." Shepherd departed Australia for England in 1966, and by 1967 was back working with the Bee Gees, this time under the auspices of manager/producer Robert Stigwood. He was responsible for many of the arrangements and the conducting of many accompaniments on their '60s recordings, from small string ensembles to 30-piece orchestras, in effect serving the same function with this group that George Martin had with the Beatles. Shepherd's good professional relationship with the group in those years, along with his musical range, allowed him to work in any of the idioms in which they chose to record, from psychedelia to pop ballads, and he was, at least as much as guitarist Vince Melouney or drummer Colin Petersen, a full-time member of the group in everything but name. Indeed, in those years the group often toured England and performed on-stage with an orchestra in tow, and Shepherd was very much the architect of their sound. In 1968, Shepherd also released an album entitled Aurora on which he conducted a soft pop chorus in performances of songs composed by the Gibb brothers. He remained closely involved with all of the group's work up to and including To Whom It May Concern, which was their last album done in England. Only on the rather more ambitious double-LP Odessa did he cede any of the arranging chores, in that instance to Paul Buckmaster. Although his relationship with the group ended in 1972, Shepherd's arrangements and conducting for the group are still spoken of highly by all concerned. ~ Bruce Eder, All Music Guide

[beatlies]

I wonder if the Pepperpots, in addition to being a musical practice act for Phil Ackrill/"Neil Aspinall," may have been a kind of recycling bin for songs written for the Beatles that weren't good enough to make the cut as official "Lennon-McCartney"-written songs that would appear on Beatles or Cillla Black albums. "Maybe I Will" sung by "Billy Pepper" is bascially a decent song, although copied from an earlier jazz classic "Maybe I Will or Maybe I Won't." If the Beatles had behind the scenes tin pan alley-type ghostwriters, and I think they did, these cadres must have also produced some also-ran "overflow" songs that could be used for specific functions elsewhere. I can see the Beatles recording the song "Maybe I Will" if it were musically improved and refined a little here and there.

[guitargaz]

I wonder if the Pepperpots, in addition to being a musical practice act for Phil Ackrill/"Neil Aspinall," may have been a kind of recycling bin for songs written for the Beatles that weren't good enough to make the cut as official "Lennon-McCartney"-written songs that would appear on Beatles or Cillla Black albums.

No it wasn't - as the songs were mostly compositions by Bill Shepherd and Jimmy Fraser - and the other names were not involved - it was a studio based project based on exploiting the Merseysound in the mid 60's. I have said all this - and will continue to say all this if you keep coming up with these theories about the Pepperpots. While it is an irrelevant blind alley, it is my duty to try and put history straight - at least that is what other posters have said about revealing the truth of PID etc. I guess that is true in this case. I will occasionally get frustrated when these theories about the Pepperpots are continually retrod - but will endeavour to continually put the information to you.

[beatlies]

guitargaz said:

I wonder if the Pepperpots, in addition to being a musical practice act for Phil Ackrill/"Neil Aspinall," may have been a kind of recycling bin for songs written for the Beatles that weren't good enough to make the cut as official "Lennon-McCartney"-written songs that would appear on Beatles or Cillla Black albums.

No it wasn't - as the songs were mostly compositions by Bill Shepherd and Jimmy Fraser - and the other names were not involved - it was a studio based project based on exploiting the Merseysound in the mid 60's. I have said all this - and will continue to say all this if you keep coming up with these theories about the Pepperpots. While it is an irrelevant blind alley, it is my duty to try and put history straight - at least that is what other posters have said about revealing the truth of PID etc. I guess that is true in this case. I will occasionally get frustrated when these theories about the Pepperpots are continually retrod - but will endeavour to continually put the information to you.

What were the names of the musicians who sang and played the instruments on the Pepperpots albums?

What were the names of the men in the Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots album cover photographs?

[guitargaz]

What were the names of the musicians who sang and played the instruments on the Pepperpots albums?

What were the names of the men in the Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots album cover photographs?


I have covered this several times in several posts. Please look back. I am unsure what you want this to strand to prove - other than some bizarre idea that it was a Beatles/Parlophone 2nd team training up Paul's replacement. Or that Billy Pepper was a psuedonym for Bill Campbell. I am really not sure why some of you would believe far fetched ideas about this when the facts I have given you are much more logical and believable. But of course they don't fit the "theory" which means they are boring. The continual pressing of me for "evidence" or "proof" when other strands consist of shall we say often less than solid suppositions which appear to be accepted without question is somewhat puzzling.

[eyesbleed]

guitargaz said:

But of course they don't fit the "theory" which means they are boring. The continual pressing of me for "evidence" or "proof" when other strands consist of shall we say often less than solid suppositions which appear to be accepted without question is somewhat puzzling.

For some of us, there's only one thing that's accepted as fact.
JPM had a replacement... period.
Did he die in 66? I dunno
As far as some of us are concerned, this is a very simple yet tragic explanation.
There was some sort of accident in late 66 that took JPM out of the game.
At the time, The Beatles were the #1 group in the world, so, to keep the money flowing, this 3 yr plan was put on the table, probably by the crown.
The Beatles were the #1 money draw for the UK at the time, so it would make sense that a lot of people would want to keep that thing going.

OR..... JPM was having some problems & simply wanted out.

[guitargaz]

JPM had a replacement... period.
Did he die in 66? I dunno
As far as some of us are concerned, this is a very simple yet tragic explaination.
There was some sort of accident in late 66 that took JPM out of the game. At the time, The Beatles were the #1 group in the world, so this 3 yr plan was put on the table, probably by the crown. The Beatles were the #1 money draw for the UK at the time.


Umm.... I don't think this is a "simple explanation" at all. In fact it is very convoluted and the more boring explanation is much simpler. So you think this was done "probably by the crown"! By the crown ! Well you cannot be English as you have a very quaint view of the powers of the crown or its influence. Even in the 1960's the "crown" had no influence on politics or trade despite what royalists would like to tell you. And to use the money angle is very shaky indeed - I don't think the #1 money draw angle holds any water at all in 1966. And this means how many people are now involved in this conspiracy? The Queen and her advisers, the Government, the record company, the group themselves and all the management. This gets more unwieldy the closer you examine it. I think you'll have to come up with a better back story than "the crown" which is a meaningless term. And laughable to English people. Sorry but you can't be serious about this reference to the "crown".

[plastic paul]

Yes, but everything is done "on behalf" of the Monarch though isn't it Gaz?

[fourthousandholes]

(Plastic Paul is English, for what it's worth.)

[guitargaz]

"Yes, but everything is done "on behalf" of the Monarch though isn't it Gaz?"

Constitutionally but not in reality. I don't think any English person (let alone British) would believe the monarch has any influence, and certainly not for this sort of plot. So I am not saying I don't believe the PID theory, just that the "crown" is not a sensible perpetrator of such a plot.

[plastic paul]

I understand your point, but what i'm trying to say that if it was an Military Intelligence operation then that could just as well be said that it was being done for "Her Maj."

[eyesbleed]

Well, ya know, that's what we do around here.
Discuss the possibilities as to how & why this all happened.
The crown theory is just a theory.
It's simple in that it all comes down to the money. Gotta keep that money flowin' as usual. It's all about the money... simple.
That's where I was comin' from with that.

And yes, I think a lot more people in the entertainment industry are aware of this than you might think. I wouldn't be surprised if it was pretty much "common knowledge" within the industry.
It's not that big of a secret.... all anybody has to do is compare a few pictures.

[guitargaz]

Unfortunately it is common knowledge in the industry that this is a bit of a joke/myth/hoax. I don't think anyone takes it seriously - until you come up with some better evidence - the few photos I have seen are unconvincing to me. I have been a Paul watcher since I was about 6 - from the early days in 1963 ish up to seeing him 2 rows from the front in his last tour and making eye contact several times as I sang along with everyone else. Yes his face changed - a lot of people do from their teens to their twenties and thirties. John to me looks so different in New York just before he was shot to how he was in the early days. Ringo looks different too. Drugs, drink, sun, cigarettes all take their toll - hairstyles, facial hair - weight gain or loss. To me he looks like the same Paul.

Not to say there are no conspiracies - Kennedy assassinations, Moon landings etc were all ridiculed until some compelling evidence was found and they become accepted - and then things change and they are sometimes less convincing in the face of new techniques. I just have not seen anything that convinces me yet - but that's allowed isn't it? I am not trolling here to upset you guys - but I am allowed to be skeptical surely?

[eyesbleed]

Well, that's interesting how certain people can look at all the same pics & not see more than one person.

All of my old hippie friends grew up with & still worship The Beatles. PID is the last thing any of them want to believe, but every one of them will admit to seeing 2 very different people after just a few minutes of picture viewing.

And young-uns are able to tell Bill from JPM every time.
There's never any confusion as to which is which either.
Paul is always Paul & Bill is always Bill.
Again... it's simple.

I certainly don't understand how some folks can't see this once it's pointed out, but that's fine.... whatever.
You'd probably enjoy the Funhouse forum coz they don't notice anything funny goin' on either.

[B]

bump