|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 17:49:15 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Oct 19, 2004 17:49:15 GMT -5
As discussed on that site (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/opd/mmtbooklet3.html), in MMT 'Paul' is wearing a black carnation and is handed a bouquet of dead flowers. Pretty hard to explain away that as a just coincidence. They don't offer any explanation for it under the 'Truth' section. They also have a couple of reversals I hadn't heard before on this page: mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/opd/backwards.html At the end of "Walrus" it very clearly says "Paul is dead" when reversed.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 18:11:07 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 19, 2004 18:11:07 GMT -5
I'd say it was pretty clear: And of course the classic one: That is incorrect sir, because those college students you mentioned who it is claimed started the whole thing as a "joke" came one the scene a year later!! (after Glass Onion) There were NO people talking about clues yet. Much to John's frustration perhaps? Actually I agree with you in that walrus is tied in somehow with the Lewis Carrol poem. If you read it, and if John saw himself as that character in some way, it's not a real nice self image. The walrus charms the oysters away from safety, and once he does, the walrus and the carpenter devour them. Sheesh! Misinformation, or latched onto by the promoters of misinformation once they realized it was a red herring. It didn't lead anywhere that's true, everyone tried calling a reporter from The Guardian newspaper. (and drove him crazy)
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 19:16:54 GMT -5
Post by Girl on Oct 19, 2004 19:16:54 GMT -5
Interesting how the doll's head vanishes as well, isn't it?
As for the hand, it may or may not be an Indian sign of death, but it most certainly bears resemblance to the last rites gestures of the Christian church- as well as those of blessing.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 21:50:07 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 19, 2004 21:50:07 GMT -5
A minor problem that I see... the theory then the explanation. Problem here is... if you listen to the radio shows from the era that I posted here, that WA pic is claimed to be Paul by an Apple spokesman... On the bottom left of the poster, there is a picture of William Campbell before he had the plastic surgery to make him look identical to Paul.The explanation: This is actually a photo of Keith Allison who won the Paul McCartney 'Look-a-like' competition.Nope that's not correct.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 20, 2004 8:56:44 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 20, 2004 8:56:44 GMT -5
I'd say it was pretty clear: I'd say it's a streeeeetch. You start holding up mirrors against photos, you will find all kinds of strange images. Come on. That is incorrect sir, because those college students you mentioned who it is claimed started the whole thing as a "joke" came one the scene a year later!! (after Glass Onion) There were NO people talking about clues yet. Much to John's frustration perhaps? Baloney. There were people and critics trying to find hidden meanings in Beatle tunes for years and John was annoyed by it. There were those that said "Day Tripper" was about a prostitue and "Norwegan Wood" was about lesbian lovers. When asked about it at a news conference, Paul, annoyed, said they were writing about prostitutes and lesbians. I never said John was trying to confound the PID people in 69. He was doing it for the album critics who he thought were over-analyzing his songs. (Like "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" standing for LSD) He was fed up by it. Here is part of a write up on "I am the Walrus": Here are a couple of quotes from John and Paul about Glass Onion: Here we are 36 years later and people are still going crackers. They were playing around, teasing. People were analyzing Beatle lyrics long before PID and the Beatles knew it. Hell, look at Charles Manson. He took lyrics and turned them into some theory about an upcoming race war that lead to the murder of many innocent people. Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_the_Walrus
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 20, 2004 9:36:12 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 20, 2004 9:36:12 GMT -5
This excerpt is from Pete Shotton's excellent book 'The Beatles, Lennon And Me' (originally published as "John Lennon In My Life", 1983, Stein and Day Publishers :
From page 217:
"One afternoon, while taking "lucky dips" into the day's sack of fan mail, John, much to both our amusement, chanced to pull out a letter from a student at Quarry Bank. Following the usual expressions of adoration, this lad revealed that his literature master was playing Beatles songs in class; after the boys all took their turns analyzing the lyrics, the teacher would weigh in with his own interpretation of what the Beatles were really talking about. (This, of course, was the same institution of learning whose headmaster had summed up young Lennon's prospects with the words: "This boy is bound to fail.") "John and I howled in laughter over the absurdity of it all. "Pete," he said, "what's that 'Dead Dog's Eye' song we used to sing when we were at Quarry Bank?" I thought for a moment and it all came back to me: Yellow matter custard, green slop pie, All mixed together with a dead dog's eye, Slap it on a butty, ten foot thick, Then wash it all down with a cup of cold sick.
"That's it!" said John. "Fantastic!" He found a pen commenved scribbling: "Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye...." Such was the genisis of "I Am the Walrus" (The Walrus itself was to materialize alter, almost literally stepping out of a page in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass') Inspired by the picture of that Quarry Bank literature master pontificating about the symbolism of Lennon-McCartney, John threw in the most ludicrous images his imagination could conjure. He thought of "semolina" (an insipid pudding we'd been forced to eat as kids) and "pilchard" (a sardine we often fed to our cats). Semolina pilchard climbing up the Eiffel Tower....," John intoned, writing it down with considerable relish. He turned to me, smiling. "let the f*ckers work THAT one out, Pete."
People were analyzing their lyrics long before PID, John knew it, and was playing with these people.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 20, 2004 15:40:11 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 20, 2004 15:40:11 GMT -5
Well to whom was he refering? I don't know, I don't think he had that level of disdain for his fans anyway. The press seemed to be the ones asking those questions, such as at the Revolver press conference, where they asked if Day Tripper was about a prostitute, and Norwegian Wood was about a lesbian. So yes you are correct. Anyway, Paul and John seemed to get a good laugh over it, the only time John looked angry was when they brought up the Jesus comment again.
Please understand, I'm not saying that John and the other Beatles didn't explain away many of those things, just that well.. a little truth mixed in with after the fact intentions that were different from the original intentions.
If you think the walrus mirror thing is a stretch fine, but I don't, oh well.. If you think subliminals aren't embedded in a LOT more places than you could ever possibly imagine, I suggest reading some of Wilson Bryan Key's books, you will be in for quite a shock. He's no stranger to controversy himself, and yes, he is accused of seeing things that aren't really there. Interestingly, he devotes a couple of pages in one book to the Pepper cover and album, saying it's full of death subliminals, just that it was done to make better sales. Interesting..
|
|
Harb
Help!
Posts: 74
|
Hi guys
Oct 21, 2004 4:56:24 GMT -5
Post by Harb on Oct 21, 2004 4:56:24 GMT -5
Ohh! My site got a mention! (Well, several). There's always new things appearing on the site with a couple new ones on the way. I was going to put the hair parting, height thing in a section titled 'Controversial Clues', but gave up on that idea. As for Keith Allison, that's the explaination I heard during my research and so used it. Who exactly is it then?
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 21, 2004 15:08:23 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 21, 2004 15:08:23 GMT -5
As for Keith Allison, that's the explaination I heard during my research and so used it. Who exactly is it then? Well, that my friend is the $64000 question, isn't it? But yes, it was claimed to be Paul in mustache and glasses by someone from Apple. You should download the old radio programs I posted and have a listen. www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/PID_MissHim/ (eight zip files, with mp3 files inside)
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 21, 2004 21:06:27 GMT -5
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 21, 2004 21:06:27 GMT -5
Well to whom was he refering? I don't know, I don't think he had that level of disdain for his fans anyway. The press semmed to be the ones asking those questions, such as at the Revolver press conference, where they asked if Day Tripper was about a prostitute, and Norwegian Wood was about a lesbian. Yes and when John said let those f*ckers figure that out I believe he was talking about the press, not the fans. How do I know this? Well I don't know for sure but I will say that thinking for yourself rather than believing everything you read is one way to begin to figure out the truth for yourself.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 22, 2004 8:45:46 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 22, 2004 8:45:46 GMT -5
Let us look back at the context in which he said it. He was responding to a letter from a student that said: "Following the usual expressions of adoration, this lad revealed that his literature master was playing Beatles songs in class; after the boys all took their turns analyzing the lyrics, the teacher would weigh in with his own interpretation of what the Beatles were really talking about. (This, of course, was the same institution of learning whose headmaster had summed up young Lennon's prospects with the words: "This boy is bound to fail.") John and I howled in laughter over the absurdity of it all."
When he said f*ckers, he was referring to this literatur master and all like him who would try to find the hidden meanings in their songs. Not so much the fans, but the critics and high brows that thought they knew what the Beatles were actually writing about.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 22, 2004 9:54:37 GMT -5
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 22, 2004 9:54:37 GMT -5
Not so much the fans, but the critics and high brows that thought they knew what the Beatles were actually writing about. I agree.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 22, 2004 23:07:01 GMT -5
Post by TotalInformation on Oct 22, 2004 23:07:01 GMT -5
FAUL called the drug reference in 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' "obvious' in his recent interview in UNCUT magazine. And I believe it was in the late 90s when FAUL said in a radio interview that "we used to put clues" in the songs...
The longer the populace accepts lies such as FAUL = Paul , the more crackers it gets...
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 23, 2004 7:25:40 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 23, 2004 7:25:40 GMT -5
The longer the populace accepts lies such as FAUL = Paul , the more crackers it gets... ;D ;D ;D And he's still leaving clues in songs. Like in Rinse The Raindrops.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 23, 2004 10:28:08 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 23, 2004 10:28:08 GMT -5
FAUL called the drug reference in 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' "obvious' in his recent interview in UNCUT magazine. And I believe it was in the late 90s when FAUL said in a radio interview that "we used to put clues" in the songs... Thanks, I had forgotten about that. Yes Lennon said in the 1980 Playboy interview (again) that it was based on the picture drawn by Julian. And yet here comes along Sir Paul later on with a statement like that. Of course by making the statement that they put clues in songs, what naturally follows is that it was for (any other) reason than what we discuss here. But, it also steps away from "no clues" as well.. Talking about the clues before discussing any alleged changes in appearance puts the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 12:36:12 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 24, 2004 12:36:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 14:08:15 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Oct 24, 2004 14:08:15 GMT -5
my sound monitor is off...
is he singing:
believe the record mirror, let it be¿<br><br>or, beneath, or bereave¿<br><br>Meaning, perhaps, the bass drum head¿<br><br>lonely hearts¿
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 14:12:32 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 24, 2004 14:12:32 GMT -5
My first impression was "read the record mirror".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 14:43:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2004 14:43:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 16:56:35 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 24, 2004 16:56:35 GMT -5
It seems to say that it started publication in the eighties. The above clip is from one of the Let It Be Nagra tape rolls. (1969)
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 19:11:49 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Oct 24, 2004 19:11:49 GMT -5
Although my impression is that tjhe singing voice is of a later vintage--say 80's or 90's even---compared to the original vocal. No offense----all my regular singers are getting older--just like I am, and I hear it as the years go on. Actually, I like it. Good singing is not, to me, all about having a pure, young, teeny bop voice. Voices are like wine. But, that's just me.
I loved Judy Garland in her last ten years (maybe not late 1968-69 when she died) but in her 1954-1965 years she was at her richest vocal sound, AND interpretation, IMO.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 20:00:56 GMT -5
Post by Morph on Oct 24, 2004 20:00:56 GMT -5
My first impression was "read the record mirror". That's what I hear as well. Pepper drumskin reference?
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 21:34:48 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 24, 2004 21:34:48 GMT -5
It's interesting that you say that, because the voice remains consistant, is that what you are saying? In other words, there's not much difference between a 1969 Paul and an 80's-90's voice. Perhaps the final product was a little different, after Phil Spector was done with the polishing. I'm thinking of Broadstreet's remakes of pre '67 songs, there's something a little "off" there, and perhaps it can't be blamed on aging? (that was mid 80's I believe)
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 24, 2004 21:38:44 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 24, 2004 21:38:44 GMT -5
That's what I hear as well. Pepper drumskin reference? Could be, and then he says "let it be". Like stop dwelling on it? That's far afield of the intention of the song, whatever it is perhaps. I think maybe it was an impulsive thing, and could mean anything, yes I know.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 27, 2004 20:13:38 GMT -5
Post by TotalInformation on Oct 27, 2004 20:13:38 GMT -5
It seems to say that it started publication in the eighties. The above clip is from one of the Let It Be Nagra tape rolls. (1969) I googled a bit the other day and found an article from the Record Mirror dated 1968. But it still is an interesting turn of phrase nevertheless.
|
|