|
Post by Doc on Mar 20, 2004 20:14:41 GMT -5
ALso, Paul's fingers on the car, there are four. If you in your minds eye reverse that picture, you can see the spaces BETWEEN his fingers as people and the line depicting his hand as the roof (though exagerated) of the car. So it looks like 3 sillouetttes of people inside the car. Which probably means nothing. But yes, those desk top figures look like Palace guards.
|
|
|
WALRUS
Apr 3, 2004 6:41:57 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Apr 3, 2004 6:41:57 GMT -5
Yes, I recall that. Good one, FP!
Something about ONE, NINE, ON, NONNETTE, NEO, ONION is bothering me..........
The MMT drumskin is yellow on red, that color thing again.
The cursive letters for BEATLES on it, well, the distance from the mal-formed "T" to the "L" is exxagerated.
The final "S" could be a "3".
The word "the" is like a distorted pictogram.
The top of the big "L" in "LOVE" isclearly a "P". if you cover up the bottom loop of it.
There is something about all the "Loops" in the drumskin.
Cursive is a weird choice for a bass drum logo anyway, especially that scribbledly strange handwritting. Who's handwriting do you suppose is emulated in that drumskin anyway? Cursive to boot.
The "unfilled' Shoes on the stage are near a cymbal stand. The shoes are under a cymbal. (symbol) The SYMBOL is ABOVE the shoes.....................
A human heart "beats", you "beat" a drum.
There are 3 hearts on the MMY drumskin. The "V", the "E", and turned sideways, the funny L3 thing looks a little like one.
Actually, the top of a "heart" so drawn, IS A THREE.
The Three of clubs. Lonely hearts CLUB band.
There is a foot pedal for the bass drum on the front side. Odd. And the top of it is yellow, right under the "a" in "Beatles".
One might say this is stupid, and over analyzing. Analyzing to an absurd point.
The bass drum head is FASTIDIOUSLY prepared in Sgt. Pepper. Why would IT be, (despite the rustic approach to its preparation), be any less so? Why WOULDN'T it's sloppy, but intentionally so appearance, be another key to it all?
What is a "ley" line?
L-ONE-LY or L-on LEY
one and only lonely on land ley on ley ln if l= lattitude? n= north?
Time for bed.
|
|
|
WALRUS
Apr 3, 2004 5:39:39 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Apr 3, 2004 5:39:39 GMT -5
And now I fumble for connections.
"It's Sargeant Pepper's one and only, lonely Heart's Club Band."
One Only Lonely
On e On ly L on ely
On On On e ly ely
OnOnOn Ely Ely
Diana Dors
Ely On Dors
Elidors
Elidor?
Ononon On I On Onion Glass Onion
I ONE IX √ HE DIE
One, One, One, "X"ed out?
One and Only Lonely
|
|
|
WALRUS
Apr 2, 2004 0:29:01 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Apr 2, 2004 0:29:01 GMT -5
Specifically, no. After all the other "walrus" talk that's gone on before on these boards, I have no walrus per se ideas that persist. But these general ideas do: (1) What is the context of the four animals in total on MMT. There is a walrus, rabbit, and two other things I forget, some sort of a bird, Ringo, and another aquatic one---anyway, are the other animals any LESS significant than the Walrus? Of what meaning is their choice? (2) The Beatles are shown to be, we;;, "sheeps in ??'s clothing." A la the old cliché, "wolves in sheeps clothing." It is like pictorially saying: We are not WOLVES in sheeps clothing, WE are walruses, rabbits, what have you in Sheep's clothing. I.E. We are NOT exactly what we seem to be. There is a game we are playing by showing ourselves to all of you here in this video in "sheep's clothing". Notice what we are underneath---not wolves. WE are not the wolves, but we ARE playing a game with you. There ARE wolves, but they are not us. We are NOT exactly as innocent as sheep either. We have individuality in all of this. Here is how we each view our role in this. John is the walrus in sheep's clothing, George is the rabbit in sheep's clothing, etc. So, we are NOT exactly innocent as sheep. But don't see us as the wolves please. That we are dressing things up for you, we display for you here in this video................ Or, this means nothing........
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 16, 2008 2:40:07 GMT -5
"BLUE", by Joni Mitchell
Blue, songs are like tattoos You know Ive been to sea betore Crown and anchor me Or let me sail away Hey blue, here is a song for you Ink on a pin Underneath the skin An empty space to fill in Well therere so many sinking now Youve got to keep thinking You can make it thru these waves Acid, booze, and ass Needles, guns, and grass Lots of laughs, lots of laughs Everybodys saying that hells the hippest way to go Well I dont think so But Im gonna take a look around it though Blue, I love you
Blue, here is a shell for you Inside youll hear a sigh A foggy lullaby There is your song from me
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 17, 2004 2:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 6, 2006 7:20:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 6, 2006 0:30:08 GMT -5
Well, yes, the lyric at the end of the chorus: "I'm in Love with You", is double tracked. On the left side you will hear the McCartney-esque voice, on the right, Peter Tetteroo mixed with that voice. Except at the very end, the next to last time or so, Teterroo's voice continues on that lyriic in the left channel alone......Peter sings most all of the song without help, and this other voice only comes in at the spot doubling that lyric. Well, maybe, I don't think it is a Beatle---I'll risk saying that. The voice has more of that tenor ring like Paul and or William; Tetteroo's voice quality thicker like a Cat Stevens or a Doby Grey(though not similar in style or accent, I am thinking only of the basic tone quality). Actually there is a certain way that the unidentified singer approaches the clinched vowel sound in "you", tense and closed, that reminds me of either James Paul in "What You're Doin'" or, actually, even John Lennon in some high note spots, for instance in Mr. Moonlight.
It's probably one of the Tee Set members who happens to just sound that way.......if I listen to it anymore tonight I will hear Carol Burnett.
Off-topic----I listened to Todd Rungren's song "I Saw the Light " and then Carole King's song "Jazzman", and in some spots-----well, listen yourself and see if you hear what I mean, the similarity. And that's bizarre. It's that unisex "tenor" that results when singers of either sex sing nasally through the "alto overlap"range : middle C to F or so.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jan 7, 2007 23:05:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jan 7, 2007 22:31:25 GMT -5
Turn me off, dead man, turn me off, dead man..... This face is cold and blue. What is sticking out thru the eyes? Black poles? There is a nose, a mouth, an ear. Found after how many days? Probably an "actor" in make-up with a camera trick or two; portrayal of a corpse head. Which sounds like "horse head......." Whiskers? Cat? Or Walrus? Irish rhyming slang........i.e.Harry the Horse is Bury the Corpse.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 4, 2006 21:29:06 GMT -5
Maybe they just got greedy 'cos they figured that songwriters made a lot of money if they kept producing the hits that Tin Pan Alley was famous for! That way they could keep the hits more "empire"ical. Hmmmm.....but then, what about "Parliament Funkadelic?" OMG! Bootsy! Say it isn't so, old chap!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 23, 2006 2:01:13 GMT -5
www.brillbuilding.com/history4.html In 1966, the Inch Corp., reportedly owned by the Queen of England, bought the land on which The Brill is located and became the building's new landlord. In 1973, at lease renewal time, the Brill family walked away from the building because they couldn't afford the terms of the new lease. This was the beginning of the end for the music industry in the building. When The Inch Corp. took over it quickly canceled all the current leases in order to negotiate new ones. Stupid move. The City was about to go bankrupt, there was a glut of first class office space on the market, Times Square was a toilet and the Inch Corp wanted to play hard ball with music publishers? Things got so bad in the building that The Times noted in 1976 that it was two-thirds vacant and had recently had a shooting. In 1979, Aaron Diamond and George E. Transom, Jr., bought the property and began rehabilitating it after years of deferred maintenance. In 1998, Allen V. Rose, brought Diamond's interest in the property. The Brill Building is Tin Pan Alley's most favorite relic, and the place where more American and world wide hit songs were written. And so the Queen purchased it in 1966.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 27, 2006 0:42:00 GMT -5
BOWIE LOOKS LIKE MICK JAGGER Bowie has a lighter, Norman (see Viking-Danish) coloring and features. You know, the more I see these sill Jaggar/Knotts comparisons, what I can see is a similarity of source genetic material. Jaggar has very nearly the same relative "pieces" of the face, but the way they fit together is undeniably, sorry to the late Mr. Knotts, more handsome. But Don was a lot better at portraying a deputy police officer than Mick might have been. I must note; why does Bowie's nose seem more tapered, carved , and aquiline later on than in that early picture? Do we all lose our nose fat after 20? Is that why I had a short bulbous honker when I was 17, but now it looks more narrow, even almost thin toward the top? Am I going to have a pointy, wizardly shaft when I reach my December Years? Oh gawd I hope they have over-the-counter Botox by then.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jun 4, 2004 0:23:38 GMT -5
Those shoes together with the line of the shadow under the bass drum. That line is at a slant. Now, maybe the picture's orientation is angled lopsided, but if the stage is supposed to be parallel to the "frame bordes" of the photo? It's not. I guess one needs to see the full pic. But as it appears, the stage floor slants with regard to the frame.
Either the whole frame is as crooked as a Batman fight scene camera angle, or that stage itself was built on a bias; it rakes from left to right.
If you look at the pic, cock your head down to your right soldier, and study the big "L" (or "P") and the word "the" near it, and forget it's English meaning, it looks like Arabic. I don't know Arabic. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 8, 2006 1:48:00 GMT -5
I tried to tell everybody that it seemed like every now and then, something truly funny was going on with the photographs. T'ah! NOW, do you believe me? Clearly, they've stretched his neck in photoshop. The rest of it looks natural, though. ;D
|
|
|
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 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¿
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 29, 2004 4:17:28 GMT -5
Well, the handwriting for "Everywhere It's Christmas" reminds me of what I remember of samples of JMP's hand, the few I've seen on these boards. See the letter, "Y"? Well, the letters and imboldened, thickened, whatever, so its maybea play off of his actual writing. They maybe have found that phrase in a sample of his handwriting. Or imitated it. Then, dressed it up to be "mod" and "hip."
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jan 30, 2006 19:24:24 GMT -5
I have to say that there is something to the na-na-na repetitive mantra...not only as mind control to the youth, in alot of children's songs that do this. But also even in some other forms of music...lulling people into a trance-like state, an altered state, to open one's mind to mystical meditations. Why do you think the Beatles went to India? If they were part of the Illuminati's plan to infiltrate Western standards to open them to the eastern mystical ways, they were planted to go to India and be influenced by Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhist practices. Alot of the Children's writers were illuminists like L. Frank Baum and Carroll and I'm sure other famous children's fable writers were influenced with the occult and mind control. I'm a sure believer that most, if not all who are famous have been or has become part of the system. Jude 4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and Our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 6 "And the angles which kept not their first estate (proper domain), but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 8 "Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." There is a reference in Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daugthers of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." The "sons of God" are called Nephillim, the fallen angels that did not stay in the domain which they were created, and went after "strange flesh", they mated with the women and a race of strange flesh, the Philistines were created. They were giants and had extra digits on their hands and feet. As strange as it sounds, these creatures were a race of people. Could it be that some occultists believe they are some strange race of people...trying to control the minds of "earth youth"? The elitists, perhaps those who believe they are Atlantians, surviving the continent of Atlantis, or trying to re create a new Atlantis...a New World Order... Pardon for interjecting a bit of supposition. I agree with all what you have said above. The "spirits" in Tartarus mentionedonly in summary form in the King James, are discussed in much greater details in Enoch, Jubilles, Jasher, and a couple of others, the Wisdom of Solomon, I think, but no matter. The point is, their intellectual activity maybe continuing even now. They are "in chains", as it were, or, spiritually unable to rise back to our surface level in corporeal form. But they would like to. They are aware of some grim outcome for themselves in the future. So, for now, I suspect they settle for involving themselves in men's affairs the only way they can acheive---through ESP contact with enlightened, and possibly powerful humans, on the surface. This done through ritual and mental co-op on land. Which has made me wonder if there is a deeper level in the mind of a few for: As above, so below. The "demons", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon, are the disembodied spirits of the human-angel hybrids that were products of the "angels choosing the daughters of Adam". A hard to believe concept isn't it? [Though bible text says that the "angels in heaven niether give nor are given in marraige", this may not refer to "angels who are NOT in heaven." After all, it was said that that particular band of angels left their first estate, which upon study really means that they changed the condition they were in---they shape-shifted into something that could mate with the daughters of men.] But the demons are surface bound and attach themselves to places and people. They were once alive in near human bodies. They are the undead, with long memories of having been human, and what they have witnessed human doing in the last 6 thousand years. Scary, but THEY know history better than the history books. God always leaves a witness, even it is a demon. For one day the very demons will spill their accounts as well. Though demons are thought to lie, I think that the truth of their thoughts can be read by God. The demons that torment people can be told to go away, be banished, scolded into acquiescence. They are malevolent, mischeivous, and bitter about the condition they cannot escape. But they WERE human at one time. They are subject to sterner authorities, and the Bible places authoritive word over them in the possession of Christ and his Body. When ordered away by Christ, the demons responses sound cowering, terrified, even pathetic. Almost sorry for their inability to control themselves. Not so with the angels who left their first estate. They are wild, untamable, and are in supernatural bonds far below us. They are not sorry and they don't have any compunctions about controlling themelves. The angels in the pit were never human and are far more powerful than the land roving demons. The implication in various texts from my readings of them, is that they are vengeful and zealously impatient to get out and wreak maximum havoc on mankind. They resent us and are jealous of us. Revelations states that they will released for a brief season commanded by Apolyon their cheif. Some feel that time is near. I do not know. It won't be pretty when it happens. My main point, is that these ranks of entities may possibly be playing a major part in the "conspiracy." By virtue of their immense mental power and covert nature, they could make pawns of high-level humans in the game. This kind of control goes undetected. What we see as a rotten eggs CEO, or a dark shady Senator, is really an unwitting front man for a cadre of unseen tyrannical enfants-terrible. This is of course conjecture based on assorted bible texts, and extra-biblical texts not always considered valid by church authorities. I don't in any way discount the very real participation of humans in these latter day conspiracies-----guilt is guilt and there are enough evil men. But, sometimes, the real brains of the operation, when you can't determine the leading men involved, just MAY possibly be 4,000 miles under. Beam me up and out, Scotty.........
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 3, 2005 4:47:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 10, 2004 0:26:09 GMT -5
OK, William Whozit, as our Protagonist in this magical mysterious story by Dr. Soose (to avoid confusion with the late, good doctor) must evolve through a series of "Soozical" circumstances that propel him from relative naiviteé to being more wordly-wise. He must be accompanied by a select two or three (three works) "personages" who are coincidentally resourceful for the journey, and be given some props, attributes, and "magic coins" to make his way. He must be met by a number of staunch opponents, adverse circumstances, and perplexing charactors along the path. The middle of the book must include a couple of large, full double page renderings showing the fanciful environs in which all these individuals live and grow. One chief villain with bad breath, a nasty costume and an unappealing physicality is a must.
In the end, the William Whozit charactor reaches revelation, reinvention, and renewal. All this done in 60 pages of lively, imaginative full color cartoons scaled for easy reading by the innocent.
And the name of where they all reside has to be "Nespin's Tower". So, there has to be a high tower, high atop a craggy, rocky tor, Seuss-style. And there are tor-mongers, tor-tulls, tor-tusses, and tor-mentors.
I leave it with the "staff."
(I've always wanted to say that...hehehe......indulge my lapse into "grandness" just this once...)
Make me the "Grand Perplexi-Tor"............
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 8, 2004 21:45:02 GMT -5
Each possess a leonine (lion-like) gaze....as does Michael York.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 5, 2004 2:49:35 GMT -5
Well, no offense to Ringo, as he was favorite of many, but hearing of that look-a-like winner, why, I think it must have been a Funny Girl.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 20, 2007 2:38:04 GMT -5
That's why I feel that the only selection on SPLHCB that probably is Paul is " She's Leaving Home". You can hear the sadness in his voice, the quaver. His voice sounds tired. Bill & the other vocal imitators never bothered to imitate that. For reference: She's Leaving Home - 2002 U.S. Tour I don't want to start, or continue the trend of posting admirations for Faul, but 'Little Willow' is a really nice slow song on Flaming Pie. Well that's 100% proof for me. Sir Paul sang the original track for "She's Leaving Home." It was not JPM originally. Sir Paul is using a little more vibrato and I think the tempo is a bit slower (fine with me) so the interpretation is a little different; but to me, that is the exact same set of vocal cords from 1967 Pepper; hence, Bill. Kudos to Wix for recreating the string accompaniment perfectly and playing it so smoothly. Nice nice job.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 20, 2007 2:36:13 GMT -5
Bill is a talented man, no doubt, he seems to have a more refined voice because he speaks with head tones, rather than a "throaty" voice that JPM and John and George had. If Bill had proper training, he could have had an opera voice. There are moments throughout his career you can detect that. He has more "vibrato" in his voice than JPM had. So for those who are big fans of Bill and his music, I didn't mean to say Faul/Bill was some horrible croaking toad, but that his voice is clearly different coming from a different "placement" in his head as opposed to a "throaty" voice. Just want to clear that up and not cause any anger or dispute. They are unique, but they are not the same... I think Paul sang more nasally, with a bit of air in the tone, and off the cords. Except when he did the Little Richard screaming style. Bill does have a great head voice, a very smooth shift to head tones. Very evident in Chaos and Creation, the song "Certain Softness", very smooth, very even, no "break." "Honey Pie" "Can You Take Me Back" "Too Much" "Jenny Wren." And, oh yes, "Here There and Everywhere." What do I mean? Sir Paul sings that one? Oh, well, yes, parts of it.......... Like when Deborah Kerr and Marni Nixon were in the studio, prerecording songs for "The King and I" movie------ Marni said in her biography: "We worked it out where she sang the lower notes, and when it got to a certain word, or syllable, she pointed at me and I knew how to take over the phrase seamlessly, and no one could ever tell the difference....." Or Bette Midler on her tour, or Kenny Rodgers on his tours.... Surrogate singing happens. And you don't even need a test tube. Just good EQ. Of course I could be wrong. But it's a clever theory. Show biz is full of trickery, my friends. And that's why we love it so..........because a good show must go on.
|
|