|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 24, 2023 10:45:25 GMT -5
One of the things we might be asked, especially by someone new to this subject of PWR,
Is: WHY the clues (audio, visual…)?
‘If the Beatles did replace Paul you’d want to keep it under wraps as much as possible, wouldn't you?
Leaving clues doesn’t make any sense’.
Valid question.
If we travel back to that time frame we can look at it from the perspective
of ‘then’.
It’s a mind blowing, bold move to introduce this replacement onto the scene.
How do you know if people will buy it?
Will they notice right away. Or soon? Or in time?
If this thing did blow up in your face - and there are no clues -
then there would be outrage.
But, leaving clues would act as a fail safe.
(We did tell you! - just not directly)
Paul really die?
Softens the backlash blow. Or..
It might be presented as a game to the fans
- especially, as some have thought, JPM was still alive, and would only be out of the picture temporarily,
this makes even more sense.
Just a few of my thoughts.
Thoughts from you - newer ones (or older)?
|
|
|
|
Post by privyprincess on May 3, 2023 2:19:48 GMT -5
My guess is that the record label didn't want the truth getting out, but the Beatles did.
So they devised a way to sneak clues into their art so that the fans would at some point catch on.
Funny thing is, F@ul probably taught them how to backmask. He's always played all the angles. That's why nobody can get a good read on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramone on May 3, 2023 15:34:11 GMT -5
Yes, who knows.
Tied into all this is the did he die or not question.
Giving a listen to Sgt P. might help us.
Ex: @ 2.20 (the Paul part)
To me, this is the Paul we've heard on the earlier albums. Not Faul.
(Lovely Rita and other Paul songs seem the same)
The theory has been that he died before this album.
But, if that's him singing (and I think it is) Sept, Nov '66 death times becomes irrelevant.
So, stepping out of the picture - at least visually - Bill steps in.
And, according to one source, meant to be not permanent - but then became so.
So, all this could tie in as to why visual clues, etc were laid down in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by cayetana on May 16, 2023 16:33:50 GMT -5
Yes, who knows. Tied into all this is the did he die or not question. Giving a listen to Sgt P. might help us. Ex: @ 2.20 (the Paul part) To me, this is the Paul we've heard on the earlier albums. Not Faul. (Lovely Rita and other Paul songs seem the same) The theory has been that he died before this album. But, if that's him singing (and I think it is) Sept, Nov '66 death times becomes irrelevant. So, stepping out of the picture - at least visually - Bill steps in. And, according to one source, meant to be not permanent - but then became so. So, all this could tie in as to why visual clues, etc were laid down in the first place. To show he was “dead”, not literally but rather “dead” to the industry? He might have been behind the scenes but he was no longer a Beatle in the full sense? That’s the only explanation I can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by privyprincess on Jun 11, 2023 20:53:47 GMT -5
So I guess the question is...why get rid of the OG Paul, anyway?
He was popular with the fans, a good singer, musician, and performer, he had great rapport with his bandmates, and seemed willing to continue for the foreseeable future.
If Paul didn't die, why bring in the double? What does Faul possess that makes him a better fit for a role he was originally playing understudy for?
Did he like it so much that he refused to give the role back? Did he threatene to expose the whole thing?
Is he really Crowley's kid/apprentice?
I mean, Crowley did like himself a handsome dark haired apprentice. See Jack Parsons for more info on that.
But anyway...yeah. I think once we figure out what it is that makes Faul worthy of Paul's position moreso than Paul himself, we'll be getting somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Jun 12, 2023 18:26:31 GMT -5
"So I guess the question is...why get rid of the OG Paul, anyway?
He was popular with the fans, a good singer, musician, and performer, he had great rapport with his bandmates, and seemed willing to continue for the foreseeable future. "
Maybe he wasn't willing to continue - at least out in the limelight.
What could you do under those circumstances?
Leave publicly - and possibly ruin the whole thing for your bandmates. Think of the money situation for everyone involved. Apple , families etc.
Continue on as is and possibly be very unhappy.
Or, maybe continue on AND leave at the same time.
Let someone else step in.
And, and this seems so, if you liked the idea of contributing behind the scenes - you could.
I think as Bill stepped onto the scene visibly JPM was doing the usual in studio.
That's why his talent is still there audibly. (Pepper, and at different times later). But Bill doing more as time went on.
But, what happens if the whole thing blows up in your face?
In another thread about 'Clues - Why?' - the clues are a failsafe as it were.
|
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Jun 12, 2023 19:41:04 GMT -5
So I guess the question is...why get rid of the OG Paul, anyway? He was popular with the fans, a good singer, musician, and performer, he had great rapport with his bandmates, and seemed willing to continue for the foreseeable future. If Paul didn't die, why bring in the double? What does Faul possess that makes him a better fit for a role he was originally playing understudy for? Did he like it so much that he refused to give the role back? Did he threatene to expose the whole thing? Is he really Crowley's kid/apprentice? I mean, Crowley did like himself a handsome dark haired apprentice. See Jack Parsons for more info on that. But anyway...yeah. I think once we figure out what it is that makes Faul worthy of Paul's position moreso than Paul himself, we'll be getting somewhere.
I think they needed a performance Paul who had more fingers than OG Paul, who I think still wrote much of the music and sang on some songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by cayetana on Jun 25, 2023 8:14:27 GMT -5
"So I guess the question is...why get rid of the OG Paul, anyway? He was popular with the fans, a good singer, musician, and performer, he had great rapport with his bandmates, and seemed willing to continue for the foreseeable future. " Maybe he wasn't willing to continue - at least out in the limelight. What could you do under those circumstances? Leave publicly - and possibly ruin the whole thing for your bandmates. Think of the money situation for everyone involved. Apple , families etc. Continue on as is and possibly be very unhappy. Or, maybe continue on AND leave at the same time. Let someone else step in. And, and this seems so, if you liked the idea of contributing behind the scenes - you could. I think as Bill stepped onto the scene visibly JPM was doing the usual in studio. That's why his talent is still there audibly. (Pepper, and at different times later). But Bill doing more as time went on. But, what happens if the whole thing blows up in your face? In another thread about 'Clues - Why?' - the clues are a failsafe as it were. This. What if he himself was reluctant to continue? Didn’t feel like going on with all the touring and everything that comes with it? Wanted to lead a quiet life (more or less) and concentrate on writing songs? But as he didn’t want to ruin it for the other three and the fans etc he agreed to be replaced by someone we call Bill. No idea if that’s what happened but at least it makes some sense. |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Jun 25, 2023 9:48:35 GMT -5
We notice in the Frost interview (now in color)
He mentions retiring - not once but twice in the span of 5 min.
About 1.40 and 4.25 and on.
Interesting how he mentions retiring - but, writing songs for other people.
This is 1964 - and he mentions retiring in a couple years.
And, of course the changes we see happening are in two years.
Coincidence.?
Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by cayetana on Jun 26, 2023 9:24:58 GMT -5
We notice in the Frost interview (now in color) He mentions retiring - not once but twice in the span of 5 min. About 1.40 and 4.25 and on. Interesting how he mentions retiring - but, writing songs for other people. This is 1964 - and he mentions retiring in a couple years. And, of course the changes we see happening are in two years. Coincidence.? Maybe. So that’s basically what Apollo was saying: that JPM didn’t die but chose to take a long vacation, and so the clues allude to that and not death (well, death in a fugitive sense maybe, him being dead to the industry). Although some of the clues are quite dark… I mean, the skull which can be found in the MMT booklet? “Paul is bloody”? And where and when (and why) did the car crash story appear? We see the Shirley Temple doll holding a car on the Pepper cover, we see a car in both Strawberry Fields and I Am the Walrus. Surely not a coincidence? But then what does it have to do with JPM retiring? Or is it a hint at Tara’s accident? Apollo said Tara’s death had a huge impact on JPM… “Paul didn’t die, part of him did” and “There was a deep love between the man known as Paul and Tara Browne”. Maybe he’d been thinking of retirement for a while and Tara’s death was the final straw, he thought, that’s it, I want out? And so hiding the clues in the artwork etc was their way of telling us? See, we did tell you? I don’t know if it was a fail safe though, my guess is they just wanted us to know even if the label didn’t (what privyprincess said above). |
|
