Anthology Episode 6 Clue: "Now he's gone"

[revolver]

There's a subtle clue in Anthology 6 on the DVD, chapter 4 around 23:41. They're playing "For No One" while showing a montage of the Beatles live performances.

Right as Paul sings "She knew someone, but now he's gone" they cut to a clip of Paul looking right at the camera for a second before he looks down. It could have been a coincidence, but I think it was intentional.

This was also the same episode (around 1:00:20) where George talked about something that happened in '66 that caused him to lose interest in being fab. He could have been referring to his trip to India, or was it really the loss of Paul?

It was also interesting to watch George Faul and Ringo around the table talking about the Beatles last tour. Every time Faul would talk about what "he" had done on the road, I could almost see the discomfort and/or annoyance felt by George and Ringo. George was constantly interrupting Faul as if to prevent him from slipping up or just to stop the lying for a second.

[JoJo]

This was also the same episode (around 1:00:20) where George talked about something that happened in '66 that caused him to lose interest in being fab. He could have been referring to his trip to India, or was it really the loss of Paul?

When you read the text in the Anthology book, it seems unremarkable, but when you see how he says it in the video, he seems to be deciding what to say, there's a hesitation.

"After what happened in1966, (misses a beat or two) everything else seemed like hard work. It was a job, like doing something I didn't really want to do, and I losing interest in being 'fab' at that point."

It was also interesting to watch George Faul and Ringo around the table talking about the Beatles last tour. Every time Faul would talk about what "he" had done on the road, I could almost see the discomfort and/or annoyance felt by George and Ringo. George was constantly interrupting Faul as if to prevent him from slipping up or just to stop the lying for a second.

Yeah I noticed this too, my opinion was that George was trying to bail him out when he saw him struggling. That's just George IMO, he really was a kind and gentle soul.

[revolver]

JoJo said:

When you read the text in the Anthology book, it seems unremarkable, but when you see how he says it in the video, he seems to be deciding what to say, there's a hesitation.

"After what happened in1966, (misses a beat or two) everything else seemed like hard work. It was a job, like doing something I didn't really want to do, and I losing interest in being 'fab' at that point."

Here's the audio clip of George's comment. It definitely seems like he had to check himself a bit to avoid saying too much about "what happened in '66".

[DarkHorse]

Revolver said:

.
It was also interesting to watch George Faul and Ringo around the table talking about the Beatles last tour. Every time Faul would talk about what "he" had done on the road, I could almost see the discomfort and/or annoyance felt by George and Ringo. George was constantly interrupting Faul as if to prevent him from slipping up or just to stop the lying for a second.

Yes this was very noticable.

After George died, Faul began performing an enormous amount of Beatles' songs live. Much more than he had before. I saw him live in 1990 and most of the songs he performed were Wings songs or solo stuff with a few Beatles' songs added in there. But on the tour of 2002(George died in Nov. of 2001), he began performing Beatles' songs like crazy and I thought how it was interesting that this obvious change happened after George died. This was before 60IF and PID so it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me other than I thought that George might be upset that 'Paul' might be dishonoring John by performing so many Beatles songs. I just thought he was scared of George. Couldn't quite figure it out because they were childhood friends and buddies within the Beatles. After 60IF and PID, it makes perfect sense. They weren't his songs and he was afraid of George's disapproval of performing them. It becomes clear now.

[JoJo]

Interesting Darkhorse, because I remember listening to Howard Stern interview Faul a couple of years ago, and he said something like: "Hey you do a lot of Beatles songs now, that's great!" And then: It's just Ringo around now, who cares what he thinks, haha!" (ok, Howard is not real diplomatic or sensitive, I know..) BUT, insensitive or not, he stumbles on the truth without realizing many times..

I may have this interview saved, I'll look around..

[DarkHorse]

JoJo said:

Interesting Darkhorse, because I remember listening to Howard Stern interview Faul a couple of years ago, and he said something like: "Hey you do a lot of Beatles songs now, that's great!" And then: It's just Ringo around now, who cares what he thinks, haha!" (ok, Howard is not real diplomatic or sensitive, I know..) BUT, insensitive or not, he stumbles on the truth without realizing many times..

I may have this interview saved, I'll look around..

...and this was what I was thinking about also. I was remembering Howard talking about how he went to the concert and how much of the Beatles' stuff 'Paul' was performing .

[LarryC]

DarkHorse said:

Yes this was very noticable.

After George died, Faul began performing an enormous amount of Beatles' songs live. Much more than he had before. I saw him live in 1990 and most of the songs he performed were Wings songs or solo stuff with a few Beatles' songs added in there. But on the tour of 2002(George died in Nov. of 2001), he began performing Beatles' songs like crazy and I thought how it was interesting that this obvious change happened after George died. This was before 60IF and PID so it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me other than I thought that George might be upset that 'Paul' might be dishonoring John by performing so many Beatles songs. I just thought he was scared of George. Couldn't quite figure it out because they were childhood friends and buddies within the Beatles. After 60IF and PID, it makes perfect sense. They weren't his songs and he was afraid of George's disapproval of performing them. It becomes clear now.

I'm not a whiz for legal details such as this, but didn't Paul go into some sort of litigation with Sony Music and Michael Jackson to be able to perform certain Beatles songs along about that time? I seem to recall hearing or reading about it...and if this were the case it may not have had anything at all to do with George's approval or disapproval, but rather that the 'owners' (dammit) of the rights to the music had to buy off on it? I always thought it was crazy how people could not own the rights to their own creations, or because they didn't own them they couldn't perform them. Case-in-point Mel Blanc who did all the Looney Tunes voices. He created them telling his kids bedtime stories, but after he introduced them to Warner Brothers he was prohibited from performing any of them anywhere else but for Warner Brothers Studios...without their expressed approval.

One thing I noticed myself throughout the Anthology when it comes to George, he seemed to be uncomfortable in some of the interviews, like he really didn't wish to relive the Beatles Schtick. There was one scene where it looked as though he may have been entertaining the idea of telling the cameraman to get the heck out of his face.

The bit around the table...I can see how you have reached your conclusions. My own take on it, and this is per my initial impression, was that the whole conversation was like being forced...as if nobody really knew what to talk about. There seemed to be a great deal of dead space and fumbling...particularly in the features episode when they are talking about meeting Elvis. You almost get the impression that they probably had discussed what they were going to say beforehand, forgetting a script, and as soon as the cameras were rolling their minds turned to mush and they fell into the old Deer Eye syndrome. If you've never done any impromptu TV work such as interviews as such, you probably can't relate...but to go in front of cameras without a formatted script of some kind, it's dang difficult to present a discussion around the table like that without quite a bit of babbling and so forth, even for people who do this sort of thing all the time. The three of them were definately not on the same page of thought during the around the table talks IMO.

[kazu]

This is all I found about the Sony/Jackson deal.

ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031210.html

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47023,00.html

I don't really think IMO that the Sony thing has much to do with doing Beatle songs in concert. Initiallly he was trying to stay away from Beatle songs and being associated with the Beatle image. The Jackson bought the catalog and screwed McCartney and Yoko Ono. At that point, why do Beatle songs and give Jackson money. Doing the songs now really may not give Jackson money, but I mean after so many years, he is probably over the whole "I want my own identity" thing. Also, he may have thuoght of doing the songs earlier, but he didn't go on tour for a decade. In May 2001, before George passed, the Unplugged CD contained more Beatle songs including "And I Love Her".

You know, if anything, discussions like this are cool because you get to exchange info like when things happened and who did what.