Post by ticket2ride on Jul 10, 2013 23:13:05 GMT -5
I was watching Your Mother Should Know on youtube - it's a long time since I've seen the video. Although the one I watched is supposedly HD the quality is not good. However, I was reminded of something I observed when I saw the video played on a late night music show back in the 80s - all the Beatles are wearing red roses except for Paul.
It looks like he is wearing a black rose and he is the only one to accept a bouquet of flowers that could very well be a wreath. He also does extra dancing and mugging for the camera. Even the title seems to hint that Paul's mother should know his true identity. Although I did give an alternative view to the one in the physical changes thread, I still have one foot in the Paul is Dead camp.
I just can see no reason why Paul should be differentiated so much in the videos, promotional material etc that came out with and after Sergeant Pepper. I know somebody put forward an ebook that claims Paul's death was spiritual hence the imagery from Sergeant Pepper onwards but it's fair to say that the Beatles who changed the most under the spiritual changes that seemed to be the result of LSD etc were George and John. Why not put the black roses, death imagery etc around them?
My skeptical side is also reined in by what we increasingly know of the multiple links between musical groups and govt agencies, agitators and murderers of the 60s and govt agencies, or those funded by them. When I became aware of this some time ago - for example back in the mid 90s I renewed my interest in the Doors and was fascinated to find out the military connections of the group members especially Jim Morrison as well as those of other so called 'rebel' musicians of the 1960s. As researcher David McGowan (do I have his name correct?) has pointed out, those musicians were singing about chaos and conflict but never challenged the ethics and morality of the military/political order. There were no war protest songs from most of them - just a negativity that encouraged chaos without any purpose at the end of it.
Before that I always wondered why the Beatles seemed to squeak through all the troubles that happened in the lives of other musicians and were simply portrayed as having intellectual and artistic links rather than ones with individuals such as Charles Manson. I suppose it's a bit like Angela Lansbury - a real power in Hollywood and always portrayed in the best light but her daughter travelled with the Manson family and she is supposed to be a witch who wielded a lot of power behind the scenes in Hollywood.
It looks like he is wearing a black rose and he is the only one to accept a bouquet of flowers that could very well be a wreath. He also does extra dancing and mugging for the camera. Even the title seems to hint that Paul's mother should know his true identity. Although I did give an alternative view to the one in the physical changes thread, I still have one foot in the Paul is Dead camp.
I just can see no reason why Paul should be differentiated so much in the videos, promotional material etc that came out with and after Sergeant Pepper. I know somebody put forward an ebook that claims Paul's death was spiritual hence the imagery from Sergeant Pepper onwards but it's fair to say that the Beatles who changed the most under the spiritual changes that seemed to be the result of LSD etc were George and John. Why not put the black roses, death imagery etc around them?
My skeptical side is also reined in by what we increasingly know of the multiple links between musical groups and govt agencies, agitators and murderers of the 60s and govt agencies, or those funded by them. When I became aware of this some time ago - for example back in the mid 90s I renewed my interest in the Doors and was fascinated to find out the military connections of the group members especially Jim Morrison as well as those of other so called 'rebel' musicians of the 1960s. As researcher David McGowan (do I have his name correct?) has pointed out, those musicians were singing about chaos and conflict but never challenged the ethics and morality of the military/political order. There were no war protest songs from most of them - just a negativity that encouraged chaos without any purpose at the end of it.
Before that I always wondered why the Beatles seemed to squeak through all the troubles that happened in the lives of other musicians and were simply portrayed as having intellectual and artistic links rather than ones with individuals such as Charles Manson. I suppose it's a bit like Angela Lansbury - a real power in Hollywood and always portrayed in the best light but her daughter travelled with the Manson family and she is supposed to be a witch who wielded a lot of power behind the scenes in Hollywood.
