|
|
Post by timmyb52 on Feb 15, 2018 22:44:18 GMT -5
Why is the main premise of the album cover declaring they are "lonely"? What are they "lonely" about? The whole albums conception and message seems to be that someone has passed away or gone away...something has been lost that those who have remained behind miss. If Paul retired as some claim...then why are The rest of The Beatles treating it as if he has died...to never be seen or heard from again with death clues and messages? Celebrities die all the time...why is Paul's death so special? Why this long secretive aspect to it and continuing to inject death clues after so long a time has passed? Billy Boy is still doing it with every new album release to this day. What happened to Paul that makes his death so different and calls for so much secrecy surrounding it? Is it because Paul's death was not an accident...that he was murdered? Just some random thoughts...rant over. do not take it seriously, it was all a joke. Paul McCartney is the same man they call Billy. the Beatles liked to joke A long running joke that still persists to this day? One that Faul still engages willfully in? I respect your opinion letitbeatle...but IMHO I just have to disagree as it doesn't make much sense to me that it's all "just a joke". Where is your evidence to support the notion that this was all a "joke" perpetuated by The Beatles and their record company? |
|
|
|
Post by timmyb52 on Feb 15, 2018 23:02:59 GMT -5
Look at all of the photos from the start of Sgt.Peppers to the Sgt.Pepper release party...very,very few of them show us "Happy Beatles"...which is odd since the majority of fan released photos of the group show the group as happy and upbeat...even playful. After Revolver we have a dramatic shift in mood that is clearly present in photos,videos and music...it becomes more sad and depressing except for a few rare instances IMO. Not only does their looks and music change...so does their attitudes and outlook it seems. Is it just coincidence that the last "happy" type song we get from The Beatles after Revolver is "With A Little Help From My Friends"? IMHO...it appears that with Sgt.Peppers we have a band trying to appear and present themselves as they once were...that is happy and upbeat... but failing when looked at more closely and with some scrutiny. Peppers to me represents a band in some form of turmoil trying to present themselves as not in turmoil and just "faking the funk" or "painting by numbers" in a large sense. This becomes even more apparent after this point with the music becoming even more depressive...especially from John and George. Something major IMHO happened in between Revolver and Sgt.Pepper...something that affected them all dramatically. There are very few things in life that can cause this kind of dramatic change in people...but one of the most profound that we see with the start of Sgt.Pepper and continuing to the end is some sense of loss. |
|
|
|
Post by timmyb52 on Feb 15, 2018 23:21:09 GMT -5
The thing that bugs me is how did they happen on Faul at the right moment? I could see if Paul had been sick for a while and died, but, that's not what we're expected to think happened. I mean, he dies unexpectedly and whamo there's Faul to fill in? To a certain degree it makes no sense, what are the odds? If one has the money,motive and means...almost anything is possible.History is full of such acts...for example, we are now learning Hitler survived WW2, The Knights Templars survived,etc.We also have a long history of political figures using doubles throughout history many,many times. We also have instances of dead people returning to life...such as Emperor Nero, Jesus of Nazareth, etc. As for Faul coming in so quickly I would make the suggestion that Faul had been used before at some point...plus, we have enough time between September and the beginning of recording Sgt.Pepper to conceivably prep Faul as the replacement and to undergo any surgical changes that might have been needed at that time. A lot of money and peoples livelihoods {including Englands economy} would have been on the line at this time to not let The Beatles and the huge amounts of money generation to end so soon due to a members death. For me it would not have been hard for people with lots of power and connections to pull of a quick replacement in such an instance as we are describing. |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Feb 16, 2018 5:58:55 GMT -5
Well if you're going to make a psyco-social cinematic dissolve from real Beatles to a group of imposters, it's better to carry on the pretense that your
imposters are the real Beatles for a few albums - or until you've run out of real Lennon and McCartney songs.
If they made the switch in one go the difference would have been too jarring. What they've done is use the fake Beatles while the real Beatles are alive
between October 1963 to July 1964, then carried on impersonating the personas of the real Beatles for another two years, then changed the personas of the fake Beatles.
What you are saying about the change between Revolver and Sgt Pepper proves nothing timmyb52. And anyway, Tomorrow Never Knows from Revolver could fit on Sgt Pepper,
and She's Leaving Home vice versa - it's not that artistically dramatic. Plus it's Sir Faul on Revolver and Sir Faul on Sgt Pepper. That's why they made an
Urban legend/conspiracy theory about Paul dying in 1966 - because it's futile.
|
|
|
|
Post by letitbeatle on Feb 16, 2018 6:03:06 GMT -5
do not take it seriously, it was all a joke. Paul McCartney is the same man they call Billy. the Beatles liked to joke A long running joke that still persists to this day? One that Faul still engages willfully in? I respect your opinion letitbeatle...but IMHO I just have to disagree as it doesn't make much sense to me that it's all "just a joke". Where is your evidence to support the notion that this was all a "joke" perpetuated by The Beatles and their record company? Maybe you're right, or maybe I'm right, if that were true there is no one who can confirm it, Ringo will never say it, Mal Evans and Neil Aspinall are dead. It's something you'll never know; I think something happened with the Beatles in 1966, something that changed them, but I made comparisons and the face of Paul & 'Faul' fits perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by timmyb52 on Feb 16, 2018 23:33:34 GMT -5
Well if you're going to make a psyco-social cinematic dissolve from real Beatles to a group of imposters, it's better to carry on the pretense that your imposters are the real Beatles for a few albums - or until you've run out of real Lennon and McCartney songs. If they made the switch in one go the difference would have been too jarring. What they've done is use the fake Beatles while the real Beatles are alive between October 1963 to July 1964, then carried on impersonating the personas of the real Beatles for another two years, then changed the personas of the fake Beatles. What you are saying about the change between Revolver and Sgt Pepper proves nothing timmyb52. And anyway, Tomorrow Never Knows from Revolver could fit on Sgt Pepper, and She's Leaving Home vice versa - it's not that artistically dramatic. Plus it's Sir Faul on Revolver and Sir Faul on Sgt Pepper. That's why they made an Urban legend/conspiracy theory about Paul dying in 1966 - because it's futile. Maybe it proves something and maybe it doesn't...that's up to the individual to decide. Another point I wish to make is that besides the changes in The Beatles sound.look and mood after Revolver is the need to find out the meaning of life... a need to know if there was life after death...which led them to India. Again I ask...what spurned this need for answers to life's biggest questions as it relates to the soul and life after death at that particular time? Are we supposed to assume The Beatles all coincidentally just started becoming curious about spiritual subjects such as this at the same time...out of the blue? Or is it rather that something dealing with death and how short life really is sparked this need for answers concerning life and death within the group in 1966? IMHO...I do not see a dramatic change in The Beatles until 1966 with the conclusion of Revolver and the start of Sgt.Peppers. And while I respect the different theories others have concerning replacements,etc. Personally, I see no full replacement of any member until 1966 and that is with JPM. Nor do I personally believe any other Beatle was replaced except for him in 1966 as the evidence for other replacements in the group appears very thin to me and lacking substance. I'm not saying it's impossible...just unlikely IMHO. I also see no valid reason for why The Beatles and their record company would wish to create a "death hoax" controversy just to sell more records or bolster the image of the group...it creates far more problems in the long run than the short term profit generation would seem to warrant IMHO. Just look at how often the Beatles had to deal with being asked questions about a "death hoax" after the break up that they would have rather be forgotten and never brought up again? Why create a "death hoax" conspiracy just to have it keep following you no matter how many times you try to dispel it over and over again? I personally don't think that The Beatles along with their record company would create something like this "just for kicks" knowing how many problems it would create for them later down the road...unless...there is actually some truth to the rumors that someone {JPM} died. As for Revolver...sure, Tomorrow Never Knows could fit on Sgt.Peppers...but that is all since it is nothing more than a sound collage. Let me reverse this on you and ask how many songs on Sgt.Peppers could you see fit on Revolver? Hardly any songs on Peppers could fit on Revolver because they are so different in sound,style and mood. Again I ask myself...what was it that caused this dramatic shift in sound,style and mood within the Beatles normal formula of music creation and recording? Why the sudden shift from simple love songs to more subject heavy songs with meaning? |
|
|
|
Post by timmyb52 on Feb 16, 2018 23:45:06 GMT -5
A long running joke that still persists to this day? One that Faul still engages willfully in? I respect your opinion letitbeatle...but IMHO I just have to disagree as it doesn't make much sense to me that it's all "just a joke". Where is your evidence to support the notion that this was all a "joke" perpetuated by The Beatles and their record company? Maybe you're right, or maybe I'm right, if that were true there is no one who can confirm it, Ringo will never say it, Mal Evans and Neil Aspinall are dead. It's something you'll never know; I think something happened with the Beatles in 1966, something that changed them, but I made comparisons and the face of Paul & 'Faul' fits perfectly. Sadly...you are most likely right on that point...we may never know the truth about what happened in "66" or have any one confirm it.The only thing we can hope for is that someone will eventually say something, or we will get more substantiating evidence that cannot be easily ignored that will help us piece together what exactly happened. |
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 11, 2019 3:11:17 GMT -5
I was thinking about the drum skin being the headstone and I was thinking about how "Ringo" is really the one introduced on the album as "Billy Shears"…and I realized that, of course, as the drummer, "Ringo" would always be looking at the backs of the other band members…and I was wondering if somehow that ties in to "Paul" turning his back (to us, the audience) in the album art.…the (densely obfuscated) message being conveyed with Pepper is pointedly Ringo-specific and reiterated with Ringo (1973) and Rotogravure (1976). The Beatlemania-era wax dummy "John" and "George" appear oblivious to whatever waxy dummy "Paul" is consoling morose waxy dummy "Ringo" about. If we're looking through the eyes of the drummer, "Paul" is the only one still facing the audience and it's the rest of the band who have turned away. |
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Aug 28, 2019 1:48:15 GMT -5
the "3" is certainly a good find. and, in answer to 'was faul hanging around before paul's big fade' is yes, more or less. he did appear with them upon the arrival of the group for its first u.s. tour  |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Aug 31, 2019 17:10:10 GMT -5
Hi everyone,
Recently I was doing some research into the Sgt.Pepper album photo shoot and I noticed the number 3 on the drum under the T in SGT. which appears like a small squiggly symbol
in red from a distance but close up looks like a 3. This can be seen on all photos with the drum including the actual album cover itself. I have had other people look at it without telling
them what I thought it was and they all said it was the number 3. This resembles the drumskin seen in MMT with the message LOVE The 3 Beatles.
I don't think this has ever been noticed before or mentioned by any other PID message board or fan. The first pic is at a distance and the second pic is a close up.
Thoughts?
HE = helium. 3 atoms of helium form one atom of carbon. Sun makes carbon and goes 'red pulse'. Earth is fried. |
|
|
|
Post by B on Sept 1, 2019 16:27:40 GMT -5
he did appear with them upon the arrival of the group for its first u.s. tour View AttachmentUtter rubbish.  |
|
.jpg){kind=icon}
