|
Post by noodles on Feb 20, 2006 14:31:28 GMT -5
Is the author a member of the illuminati? Something written with that in mind, to control minds, like Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland...both authors were illuminists. He's supposed to have links to the US intelligence community. Not sure if there's anything solid to back that up but I'll have a search.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 15, 2006 13:47:53 GMT -5
I understand that WHATSHISNAME that attempted to kill Reagan was an avid reader....... (BTW, I sometimes think the Reagan thing was a fraud.... That it was perposely set up by Reagan and co. To either promote the book or demote it, I am not sure which. You may ask why I think this, It is because... Hinckley's dad was buddies with the then vice president George HW Bush. Coup d'Etat?
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 8, 2006 13:46:59 GMT -5
Certainly Purdie's stories don't make that much sense. He claims Ringo didn't play on any of the early Beatles records but at the same time claims he overdubbed/added to Ringo's drumming. But I just get this feeling there's something to what he's saying. Something more than a few overdubs on the Sheridan record. The WBK's stuff is very interesting. His books don't seem to have been published in the UK so I don't see them around but I picked up 'Subliminal Seduction' a while back. It's one of about six books I'm trying to read right now. *sigh* Plastic Paul you are right of course. Mr Best was very popular with the early Beatles fans but I don't think that matters when it comes to creating a formula that will have a wide appeal. I think his small scale popularity would have held them back once they were being pushed into the mainstream. That's what I'm theorising on anyway.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 7, 2006 15:34:38 GMT -5
Bernard Purdie is a legendary drummer that played on many great funk records which is how I first discovered him (I'm a big fan of funk music). He's also a rather legendary session drummer playing on numerous records. Purdie claims he played on many early Beatles records. He claims that Ringo didn't play on any of the early records although obviously he played with the band in concerts. He also claims other sessions musicians were brought in to add to Beatles records. www.jimvallance.com/03-projects-folder/purdie-project-folder/pg-purdie.htmlI suspect the Beatles were more manufactured than people realise. Watching early Beatles 'videos' and live clips they are presented very much as a squeaky clean 'boy band'. They even fit the same boy band formula the is used to this day. John being the edgy dangerous one, Paul the cute loveable one, George the quiet mysterious one and Ringo the goofy unattractive one (sorry Ringo). If you look at a more recent boy band (I'm not up to date on current bands) as an example New Kids On The Block worked like this. Obviously they had five members so the formula is slightly altered. Donnie was the John of the band, Jordan and Joey were the Paul, John played the George role and Danny was Ringo. Pete Best didn't fit this formula so he was removed fromm the band and replaced by someone who did. That's my theory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 26, 2006 12:44:02 GMT -5
Surely they had sun beds and make up and they could have easily faked a tan. I think all four McCartney's look about the same tanwise, these are just bad pictures.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 20, 2006 19:20:25 GMT -5
Yes, that's a great picture. Most of the Melody Maker Awards images we have are in black and white (and with Tom Jones leering at the camera). To recap: Paul McCartney - September 13th. Paul McCartney - Two months later. What the hell? He then morphs into this dude but ends up looking like this
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 20, 2006 14:49:58 GMT -5
Right arm. The picture's reversed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 27, 2006 18:18:53 GMT -5
Cheers JoJo.
It sounds like two different people to me regardless.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 27, 2006 17:53:55 GMT -5
MP3Modified by JoJo to give this a file a more permanent place.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 3, 2006 10:22:26 GMT -5
I was born up north too (in Durham) so I know northen accents pretty well too but the fact that the voice sounds so different to 'She's Leaving Home' and any real Paul vocals is the real issue here rather than my rather than my pointless accent change observations. I've just been studying this too hard.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 3, 2006 5:15:55 GMT -5
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 2, 2006 11:16:14 GMT -5
What do you mean by 'normal'? Do mean normal for people in oop north? It sounds very Scottish to me.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 2, 2006 5:01:26 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to say that lines sounds Scottish simply because the vocalist rolls his r's. He does it in other places in the song too but the two words 'your knee' are song with a faux Scottish accent much like the faux Scottish accents in 'The Wicker Man'. They definitely used a lot of vocal effects at that time to disguise and confuse. In some ways it makes it hard to compare vocals (precisely the point) but SLH and WI64 are the two that really show a huge difference. The fact that they're on the same album just makes me chuckle or freaks me out depending on my mood.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 1, 2006 14:54:17 GMT -5
It amazes me that people think WI64 is the real Paul MacCartney. It sounds so little like him it's ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is when you compare the the vocals from SLH with WI64. It's so obviously two different people. It's incredible that I've listened to this album so many times over the last twenty plus years and never heard the things I'm hearing now. The power of suggestion is something we need to understand.
The joy of Pepper and a great many of The Beatles tracks is the extreme stereo mixes. To their (The Beatles and co) advantage the mixes help confuse peoples brains and stop you focusing in on the sound of the vocal but when you pan left or right (depending on which track) you can often as not find a clear vocal track with little and sometimes no music (parts of BJW are accapella).
Listen to SLH right channel - just one verse - and then listen to WI64 left channel. Clearly two different people. How can people not have noticed the difference? What else have we not noticed while we've been living our lives on this planet?
If you listen to WI64 left channel all the way through it's clearly a voice impressionist. His accent wanders on this and on LR, particularly on LR but on WI64 he wanders the farthest when he does a Scottish accent singing 'grand children on yrrr knee'. I guess that may be deliberate but if you study both you'll see what I mean.
I'm fairly she SLH is the real Paul although I need to study some more. I'm fairly sure ADITL is an impressionist albeit a different one from other tracks. I'm guessing they were using several at that time before Stage 3 Paul stepped into play shortly before the 'White Album'.
Another funny thing when you start examing the vocals is how the different 'Paul' vocalists have different vocal ranges. One track he can hit the high notes and on others he can't. Again how did people not spot this?
Also is there a female vocalist credited for LITSWD? Because I hear one in the chorus.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Aug 29, 2006 15:28:08 GMT -5
Noodles, I'm going through all of my photobuckets to see what I can come up with. I think it was you that found several of the interesting ear pictures I've seen lili so I'm sure you can find some more. You seem to have a knack for it. This is one of my favourites. There seem to be several of these Beatles Monthly pictures where they just thought '"Sod it!!" and painted the ear out. His teeth look like freshly molded plastic too.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Aug 28, 2006 6:17:55 GMT -5
There surely must be a few more pictures knocking about in which faux Paul is showing his real ears. Anyone have any?
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Aug 28, 2006 4:29:23 GMT -5
How is it that the Pepperpots released "Don't Tell Me You Don't Know" as a single? Was that common for knockoff bands? This actually charted... Evidence?
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Aug 25, 2006 12:09:24 GMT -5
What would they sue for? Using the word 'pepper'? Even if they did have a case I can't imagine Bill Shepherd would want to draw attention to his cheesy Beatles cash-in right when his career with the Bee Gees is taking off. Music sheets aren't issued as a matter of course. They issued if there's a market for them. There's thousands of albums that have no music scores of any kind There's certainly nothing unique in it. ASCAP,BMI, etc exist to collect money from radio plays, live performances, etc. A cheapy cash in on the Beatles (or any band) would be very unlikely to receive any radio play or any live performances. It would presumably be cheaper and easier not to bother registering records like these. Thanks for posting, guitargaz. If you can provide any evidence to back up what you're saying it would obviously be appreciated. Any pictures of Mr Shepherd especially studio stuff would be gratefully appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Aug 13, 2006 8:52:22 GMT -5
4KH wrote: "Greg (Gregvw@aol.com) says: Actually, they had three different album covers for this same record: one with five (5); one with two (2)' & one with one (1) picture, all picture from the five picture album. Now, THAT'S Creative packaging. The Beat, alias the Mercy Beats, alias the Mersey Beats of Liverpool, alias the Liverpool Beats produced at least three different albums, that had different songs. The two others are "A Hard Day's Night - The Merseybeats of Liverpool" (almost sounds like a Beatle album title!) and "The Mersey Hits -The Mersey Beats of Liverpool." It looks like the records were produced in Canada under the Arc International Record Co. label and one cut "I'll Keep You Satisified" was charted for eight weeks or more by leading Canadian radio stations including Toronto's CKEY. Any more info out there??? (11-05-2003)" You'd think the Beatles would have sued for such a blatant rip-off. I think the fact that they didn't says something: That it may have been an inside job. An 'in-house' spin off. Of course, they may not have been organized enough, at that point, to be filing lawsuits. Sued for what? Unless they covered 'A Hard Days Night' without clearing the publishing then there would be nothing to sue for. Not based on what we know from that post at least. Source for Bill Shepherd's death comes from several Bee Gees sites. This one states 'late 1980s'. I'm pretty sure I read it was 1988 on one site. Bill Shepherd source
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Jul 30, 2006 13:53:19 GMT -5
Some of you have been wondering if they were a real band. I personally googled names, the company "pickwick international incorporated" that was on the sleeve etc, they all were real. Why doesn't someone try to play detective and track down the Pepperpots company, thier associates, maybe even the band members? What happened to Billy? So what did you find via Google? Obviously Pickwick were real. I picked up a nice 'Close Encounters Of The Third Kind' disco record on Pickwick just this week. Roger Easterby (who did the sleevenotes) went on to produce various dreadful UK pop bands such as The Sweet, Vanity Fare and Chicory Tip. Bill Shepherd went on to work with the Bee Gees and Jimmy Fraser (who wrote a number of the tracks on both albums) formed the Fraser Hayes Four who did the musical interludes for the 'Round The Horne' UK radio comedy series. Tracking down info is very difficult. The nature of Pickwick means there's very little info on it. No one is very interested in labels such as this as most of what they did was just exploito stuff or reissues. Even Wikipedia's page on Pickwick is scant on info. Bill Shepherd died in the 1980s. Jimmy Fraser apparently moved to Miami. No idea where he is now. No idea what happened to Easterby although if he is still alive he should be findable.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Jun 7, 2006 6:35:19 GMT -5
I don't have any definite evidence that they're the same guy yet but everything's reading right. There's no singles by this band which is very odd for a real signed pop band from Liverpool in that era not to put out a few singles. This is the way real bands are generally promoted. Fake bands don't need to be promoted. All we have is two LPs on two different arms of the same budget label. Budget labels don't generally sign proper bands, they prefer to cash in on pre existing pop bands. The title of the album, the screaming Beatles fans cover photo on the first LP, the mop tops on the second, the Beatles covers that open each side of each album, the long blurb on the back about Liverpool, The Beatles and other Merseyside bands all fit the idea that they're just cashing in the on the Beatles. There's barely a mention of Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots on either album blurb, no mention of what their names are, or what instruments each member plays, when and how they got together and no mention of any achievements between albums. The writer even calls the band 'Billie Pepper and the Pepperpots' on the second album. Also we have a Bill Shepherd label match. The album cover photos aren't exactly entirely convincing either. I have a certain interest and knowledge on budget labels, easy listening, library/production music and session musicians. In fact it was a mid-Seventies picture of Shadow's drummer, library and session musician legend Brian Bennett being passed off as a double for Brian Epstein that caused me to make my first post on this forum. These guys would do a big orchestral easy session one day, and then some cheesy no-name covers record the next, then they'd be working with some big pop artist and then they'd be in the studio recording production music (premade soundtracks for the broadcasting industry). It fits that the same Bill Shepherd who penned and possibly played on tracks for the Billy Pepper LPs is the same guy who recorded 'Cowboy Favourites' and those other records.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Jun 6, 2006 13:55:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 7, 2006 12:29:43 GMT -5
I think it's been pointed out before that that Bill is covering his chin, unlike Paul. It was probably to keep the facial differences less noticeable. But it does make him stand out as the only Beatle striking a noticeably different pose than on the red cover. I can remember staring at the sleeve of this album many years ago think 'why is Paul's arm in the wrong position?' ;D That angle is a little too revealing for them I guess. Re: the 4/5 floors thing. There are five floors in both pictures. The first picture is taken at a slightly different angle plus the higher floors are more out of focus (different lense?). If you have a vinyl copy of the album you can see the the fifth floor. John's hands are slightly different and presumably dropping the mandatory 'clue'. Also Paul and John look so happy in the first picture. Not even a fake smile for the second.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 8, 2006 15:11:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 8, 2006 14:14:30 GMT -5
Oh my!
|
|