Fun King
Help!
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
Posts: 59
|
Post by Fun King on Mar 3, 2004 3:36:59 GMT -5
We're talking about Paul dead, about Paul replaced, and such. Why? Put yourself in the place of a newbie, or just in the place of a regular Beatles fan unaware of all the strange things going on round '66.
In this thread I'd like to stablish WHAT are we traying to explain with such odd theories.
I'm writing s list of all the unusual FACTS that happened to Paul and his environment during late 66 and 67. This are the facts we try to explain:
1 - Beatles stop touring in the summer of 66. It would be very interesting if we knew (maybe you do, I don't) if there was a public announcement of the Beatles stopping their tours, and when it was done.
2 - Paul hasn't got any public appareance between september and december 1966 (More or less)
3 - When he does, that December, his look and aspect has changed a lot.
4 - His behaviour also has experimented changes. I'm trying to identify the source of an interview where someone (Derek Taylor, I think) says he's become much more organized during the period especified in point 2.
5- Also his attitude about drugs has changed 180 degrees.
6 - During that period (I think) he ends a long relationship with his girlfriend, and shortly after that he meets and marries another woman
7 - Brian Epstein dies
Any additions? Any corrections? Note that I haven't included any clues as facts. I haven't either included any musical change in style (Nor playing or composing), though that's arguable.
All ths points can be documented, wich I think would be good.
What do you think? Is this what we try to explain?
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 3, 2004 8:42:55 GMT -5
Any additions? Any corrections? Note that I haven't included any clues as facts. I haven't either included any musical change in style (Nor playing or composing), though that's arguable. Yes. See below. Not quite. Not true. When they returned to England in August, they announced that they'd be taking an extended break from touring and announced that they would all be taking separate, long-deserved vacations. This led to the rumor that they were breaking up. A myth propogated by the Church of Sun King. He was seen quite a lot in the nightclub scene in London. He also had documented appearances at various functions like awards shows, and there's even a picture of him, Petula Clark and Tom Jones at an awards show in mid-September. The Church of Sun King immediately declared that photo had either been doctored, faked, or post-dated, depending on whatever fit their theory of the moment. I don't see it. At least, not any more than the others. For every picture from that period you bring out saying "This isn't Paul," there's just as many that say "Yes, it is." And certainly his behavior, mannerisms and demeanor on film didn't change at all. Of course. He was in his mid-twenties, spending his spare time away from the other Fabs hanging out with the artist/nightclub scene of Swinging London, hobnobbing with a variety of celebrities and artists (and artistes) from the London social strata. His outlook on art, literature, and culture was broadening. I believe this is also the period where he moved out of the Asher's home and bought his own place. It's called Growing Up. See above. John has been quoted as saying he was very jealous of Paul's life at this time, when he himself was stuck at home with a wife and child. Not true in the slightest. It was during this period that he and Jane publically announced their engagement, then he started cheating on her with Francie Schwartz after he moved out of her folks' house. He started cheating on Jane (and Franice) with Linda following the Sgt. Pepper release press conference, took Jane to India with him when they went to the Maharishi's retreat, then broke up with both Jane sometime mid-'68. He broke it off with Francie sometime after the November '68 release of the White Album. In August of '67.
|
|
Fun King
Help!
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
Posts: 59
|
Post by Fun King on Mar 3, 2004 9:22:41 GMT -5
Not true. When they returned to England in August, they announced that they'd be taking an extended break from touring and announced that they would all be taking separate, long-deserved vacations. This led to the rumor that they were breaking up. Great ! That's better ! Then there was no public expression of not wanting to perform live anymore. Then, point 1 is confirmed. They stop touring FOREVER from that days on, though it was going to be just a vacation, at first. A myth propogated by the Church of Sun King. He was seen quite a lot in the nightclub scene in London. He also had documented appearances at various functions like awards shows, and there's even a picture of him, Petula Clark and Tom Jones at an awards show in mid-September. The Church of Sun King immediately declared that photo had either been doctored, faked, or post-dated, depending on whatever fit their theory of the moment. Well, I don't know if that's a Sun King. I've been looking in three different sites containing the Beatles' bio, and from that award show you mention until december, there's no mention to Paul in anyway until December. I don't see it. At least, not any more than the others. For every picture from that period you bring out saying "This isn't Paul," there's just as many that say "Yes, it is." And certainly his behavior, mannerisms and demeanor on film didn't change at all. Ok, so you don't think so. To me it really looks as a different man, but I accept that's arguable. Of course. He was in his mid-twenties, spending his spare time away from the other Fabs hanging out with the artist/nightclub scene of Swinging London, hobnobbing with a variety of celebrities and artists (and artistes) from the London social strata. His outlook on art, literature, and culture was broadening. I believe this is also the period where he moved out of the Asher's home and bought his own place. It's called Growing Up. I mean a visible change in the way he behaves in interviews, for instance. And I mean in TWO MONTHS. That's not growing up, that's the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" There are quites from Paul back from 66 where he states that he's not keen in drugs. It is a fact that he was rejecting LSD while the other three were taking it very often. Suddenly in 1967 he's the first one in stating in an interview he's taking heroin (Or was it cocain?) Not true in the slightest. It was during this period that he and Jane publically announced their engagement, then he started cheating on her with Francie Schwartz after he moved out of her folks' house. He started cheating on Jane (and Franice) with Linda following the Sgt. Pepper release press conference, took Jane to India with him when they went to the Maharishi's retreat, then broke up with both Jane sometime mid-'68. He broke it off with Francie sometime after the November '68 release of the White Album. Not true as the slightest? In mid 67 he meets a woman he marries with two years later. There are interviews back from 65 or 66 where Paul or Jane say they expect to marry soon. Anyway, thanks for your discussion. If we agree that the points above are false, then why should we think of any replacement? Hope you understand the purpose of this thread. Is there a real reason for all this?
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 3, 2004 11:37:04 GMT -5
Great ! That's better ! Then there was no public expression of not wanting to perform live anymore. Then, point 1 is confirmed. They stop touring FOREVER from that days on, though it was going to be just a vacation, at first. At the time they didn't know it was going to be forever. You're reaching. Don't just go by internet sources (which aren't the most reliable anyway). It's just as well documented that Paul was working on the Family Way soundtrack (yes, I know he only wrote one melodic riff that George Martin elaborated on, but he was in on the recording process), as well as taking a trip to Kenya with Jane Asher in November and at least one trip to Paris during that time. [sarcasm]Yeah, you're right, I've never seen artistic twenty-year olds, musicians in particular, undergo visible dramatic personality changes in such short time periods when they're released from tremendous loads of pressure.[/sarcasm] It was LSD, though lately he's admitted he tried heroin a couple of times and cocaine semi-regularly during that time period. Read the book "Many Years From Now" by Barry Miles. He obviously wasn't as much in love with Jane as he was with Linda if he was cheating on her with multiple partners. And again, when you consider that none of the Beatles stuck with their first wives, it's hardly that unusual. Even publically, Paul had a reputation for being quite the ladies' man during this period, and people kept wondering if he and Jane settle down. It's not that unusual, folks. But I don't believe there was a replacement, I do have documentation to prove what I'm saying, and you asked for clarification or corrections. Please, understand that I'm not trying to flame or antagonize, I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter the same as you are. Where I see people making false assumptions, I'm going to say something. Fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 3, 2004 12:29:41 GMT -5
The pictures of Paul in Kenya and Paris are the first ones that look drastically different from what we knew of Paul McCartney. I don't think anybody, even at the 60IF forums, were saying that Paul McCartney just vanished without a trace from September 11th to December 20th. No, the last images that believers and sketpics can agree is Paul McCartney is the September 13th pictures at the Melody Maker Awards. After that is where things go a bit... wonky.
In the month that followed, Paul would show up at a Pink Floyd light show concert in London, " dressed like a sheik," wearing a hood and sporting his mustache. He would go to Paris and Kenya, always accompanied by Mal Evans, but keeping a relatively low profile.
Fun King, here's the quote I believe you were looking for, spoken by Beatles' press officer Tony Barrow:
"Paul is now leading a very organised life. The other three don't know what they're doing. They wait for others to tell them, but Paul always knows. You ring him up and he will say, 'No, not Thursday, I am dining at eight. Not Friday, because I have got to see a man about a painting. But, Saturday's okay.' It isn't that he's changed, but out of all of them, he's developed the most."
|
|
Fun King
Help!
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
Posts: 59
|
Post by Fun King on Mar 3, 2004 13:06:59 GMT -5
Yes, I think that's the quote I meant. Thanks, Wings !
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 3, 2004 15:25:57 GMT -5
Can someone post that 9/13 pic?
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 3, 2004 16:06:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 3, 2004 16:13:30 GMT -5
That guy looks 100% Paul to me.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 3, 2004 16:16:24 GMT -5
Right, there is no question that the man on 9/13 is indeed Paul McCartney. Any point after that is where we get into the debate.
|
|
Fun King
Help!
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
Posts: 59
|
Post by Fun King on Mar 4, 2004 3:32:01 GMT -5
But I don't believe there was a replacement, I do have documentation to prove what I'm saying, and you asked for clarification or corrections. Please, understand that I'm not trying to flame or antagonize, I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter the same as you are. Where I see people making false assumptions, I'm going to say something. Fair enough? Thanks, AU. I appreciate that. I'm trying to get the truth also. And before we carry on let me state that I don't believe Paul was replaced or dead, but I have some doubts. I think, in the end, we will deal with some subjective points, like thinking if 66 and 67 Paul look like the same person or they don't. I guess you'll always find someone who says they're not. But, if all the above is true, what is this forum about? Why do many people believe Paul was replaced or dead?
|
|
|
Post by ZM on Mar 4, 2004 7:00:42 GMT -5
A myth propogated by the Church of Sun King. He was seen quite a lot in the nightclub scene in London. He also had documented appearances at various functions like awards shows, and there's even a picture of him, Petula Clark and Tom Jones at an awards show in mid-September. The Church of Sun King immediately declared that photo had either been doctored, faked, or post-dated, depending on whatever fit their theory of the moment. Just a specification AU, the only doubt of SK about that photo with Tom Jones and Dusty Springfield (not Petula Clark) was about the date of that photo, because it sounds strange that Grammy Awards show was performed on tuesday. SK was the first, in the first forum, to discover that in the site www.beatlesonvideos.com/ there was a picture of Paul and Ringo dated September 13th 1966. In that site there are the others picture of Paul during november 66 (for me is Faul) in France, Spain and Amboseli Park in Kenya. Another notice about Paul in that period is about his presence at a concert of Pink Floyd at Roundhouse London on 15th october 1966. He was dressed as an arab (Peter Jenner said). But I can't find pictures of the event until now.
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Mar 4, 2004 9:49:33 GMT -5
I've had a friend check out the music papers archive in Manchester Library for me.
The date on the Sept 13 picture is the date that Melody Maker was published, not the date of the awards ceremony. The magazine simply alluded to "last weekend's awards", meaning it could have been on Fri 9th, Sat 10th, Sunday 11th.
Hope that clears that one up.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 4, 2004 13:53:28 GMT -5
Right, there is no question that the man on 9/13 is indeed Paul McCartney. Any point after that is where we get into the debate. There's no question looking at the pic that it's the real Paul to me. However, eventhough the date is stated as 9/13 doesn't mean it's correct. So if they can create a fake Paul, surely those in the Beatles organization can cover their steps and that means lying about dates to fit a story.
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 16:35:26 GMT -5
FUN KING, Uni did a really good job regards to the equally good queries and points you listed. I would like to add, re: 'Paul's look changed between the last gigs (mop top image) and the end of '66 (hip, cutting-edge psychedelic rock star.) One must put it in historical perspective in the sense that ALL FOUR Beatles consciously changed their "Look," and furthermore continued to do so for the remainder of their collective career, and beyond. Also, regards to their joint (pun) decision to stop touring, it was common knowledge amongst the inner-circle by the final show in Aug. '66. In fact, Paul himself told a member of the entorage to specifically cassette tape that night's show, as it would be the last. Then, by November, Eppy was in self-imposed denial concerning the end of touring and in fact according to Peter Brown's book he had a tenative tour list for British dates for Xmas '66. Which was promptly trashed, as 'the boys' made it clear they would not care to tour further. Also, just as an aside, wasn't it Paul in 'Let It Be' who stood alone as the only Beatle making the case to John and George to get back (pun) to small, intimate club gigs again? He really wanted them to perform (rightly so) and if he had been a covert imitation, would not have argued the case to play before the general, scrutinizing public.
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 4, 2004 18:41:18 GMT -5
The pictures of Paul in Kenya and Paris are the first ones that look drastically different from what we knew of Paul McCartney. Can anyone provide some pictures from the Kenya trip where Pauls face isn't either covered by a video camera, or so out of focus that you can't even tell who is in the pictures? The ones that SK posted were all so bad, I couldn't make any clear observations from them. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Mar 5, 2004 3:47:14 GMT -5
There's no question looking at the pic that it's the real Paul to me. However, eventhough the date is stated as 9/13 doesn't mean it's correct. So if they can create a fake Paul, surely those in the Beatles organization can cover their steps and that means lying about dates to fit a story. See the post above yours, DH - I had a friend do me a little research last week.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 5, 2004 5:27:42 GMT -5
I've had a friend check out the music papers archive in Manchester Library for me. The date on the Sept 13 picture is the date that Melody Maker was published, not the date of the awards ceremony. The magazine simply alluded to "last weekend's awards", meaning it could have been on Fri 9th, Sat 10th, Sunday 11th. Hope that clears that one up. EXCELLENT, Curious!! Thank you!!
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 5, 2004 9:07:25 GMT -5
See the post above yours, DH - I had a friend do me a little research last week. Pretty cool!!!
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Mar 5, 2004 9:47:20 GMT -5
I'd been meaning to get up to Manchester myself for ages, to get this bit of research done, but as it looks as though I won't be getting any holiday time this year at all, I decided to enlist the help of a good friend.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 5, 2004 13:11:46 GMT -5
Here's a picture of him returning from Kenya that I found in the same book as the Melody Maker shot, but it's somewhat grainy.
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 5, 2004 14:28:40 GMT -5
Looks like Paul with a mustache. Huh.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 5, 2004 14:37:51 GMT -5
Paul's lips look very strange in that pic. Especialy the botom one. Here, I zoomed in:
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Mar 5, 2004 16:51:06 GMT -5
Gawd I don't know why they would even publish such a grainy, low quality pic like that one to begin with. His lower lip reminds me of my son when he was small and had just eaten an ice cream bar or something, vanilla icecream outlining the bottom of his lower lip. HAHA.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 7, 2004 1:13:12 GMT -5
It's interesting, because the rest of this book (The Beatles: Unseen Archives) has high quality black and white photographs taken by the press. However, this one is so grainy, which seems to indicate something else. Perhaps it was taken by Mal Evans, who occampanied Paul... er, Faul... uh, this guy to Kenya.
And I'm sorry, but I just can't see the same man from the Melody Maker awards two months prior in that picture. This is clearly "Sgt. Pepper" Paul, whoever that may be.
|
|