|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 10, 2006 9:53:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Apr 10, 2006 12:39:13 GMT
Aaaah! They covered their arses by making it an April Fool's joke.
That's what LIFE magazine did in 1966 when they did their UFO article.
Despicable.
"'Paul McCartney' admits to being an imposter
Saturday, 01 April 2006
By Markus Hernandez
LONDON (Reuters) - Since 1966, crazed rumors have been spreading among Beatles fans who claim Paul McCartney to be dead. For many years, 'clues' were believed to have been put on album covers to show hints that Paul McCartney was indeed dead. And now, the few that have believed all these years are having their day - billy McCartney has admitted that he is not who he seems.
This morning at 7:38 AM, McCartney admitted to the world that he had been playing a game all these years. Billboard reporter Dennis Harry was the first to know. 'I'd done previous reports with billy,' Harry says. 'He called me up one morning and said there was something important. I ran right over.'
'There are varying degrees of truth in the stories,' says Paul. 'My birth name was William Campbell, as many have speculated - but there was no look-a-like contest. [That's] complete hogwash.' But why, after all these years, has Campbell decided to show himself? 'I've made many happy and I am ready to retire. After my last tour, I sat down with Heather and we decided that it would be best to let the fans know. They deserve it.'
According to Campbell, the real Paul McCartney died in 1966. 'There was a car crash in, I believe, August,' Campbell recalls. 'I was a studio musician that artists would call if they needed someone to play something or another. At the time, I had worked with George Martin before and he told me that he really enjoyed my work. Next time, he said, that he needed a favor, I'd be the first to know. I had no idea what that statement would lead to!'
Like the rumors have stated, Paul McCartney did indeed die in 1966. A fatal car crash tragically took the lives of Paul and a woman (who will not be named at this time). Brian Epstein, the Beatles' manager, made a decision that in order to keep the progress in the band, something had to be done. Everything was kept in order to make sure the accident stayed quiet. But, something had to be done - who would play the 'cute' Beatle?
Campbell gives us the answer. 'I got a call from Brian Epstein at four o'clock in the morning. [He] said that George had referred me to him. He said he had a life changing experience waiting, and that he needed me ASAP at his record store - NEMS, I believe.'
And, the transformation began. Rapidly, Campbell agreed to go into recontructive surgery to make himself look like Paul McCartney. The head surgeon refused to comment, but one of his assistants did. 'I think we did a pretty decent job. We managed to make the bloke look just like Paulie himself - the only problems were, although plastic surgery can alter skin, we didn't have the technology at that time to change bone structure. If you look at some of the photos after 1966, you can see that William's facial characteristics - especially his chin - are much different than the real Paul.'
But, William was not just a stand-in. Campbell recalls, 'After a while, I think we were beginning to get afraid that I didn't sound enough like Paul McCartney. That's one of the head reasons we retired to a studio band in 1966. Since I was a natural righty, I always had trouble playing live with the boys. Luckiliy, the fans usually couldn't hear us anyways. Regardless, during the studio, I always played righty unless there was a sit-in photographer. Brian took utmost attention to keeping it a secret.'
Beatles fans around the world are shocked, but many are relieved. The owner of a popular 'Paul Is Dead' website commented, 'It's more of a relief than anything. We had faith all along, and it was only a matter of time before the world found out.'
Although we were not able to physically interview Ringo Starr, we did receive an email from him. Starr states, 'I was never informed of William's choice to come out. It's been bothering us since 1967 - it just never felt right, lying to so many people. When George died, it killed me inside to know I was the only Beatle left.'
Ringo also stated that it was John's idea to put clues in album covers. 'The level of guilt was amazing,' Ringo wrote. 'You can't just replace someone that's been your best friend for your entire life. It doesn't work that way.'
At least now we know the truth. Campbell also told us, 'Paul is buried in a Liverpool cemetary. Since McCartney is a fairly common last name, nobody bothered to notice. I thank George Martin for giving me the opportunity of a life time, and I apologize to anybody I've let down or disappointed. I'm just glad to get it off my chest.'
Last Updated ( Saturday, 01 April 2006 )"
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Apr 11, 2006 13:48:02 GMT
I wouldn't bank on that piece being legit since it only appears on one particular website. Keep on searching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 11, 2006 18:43:05 GMT
I wouldn't bank on that piece being legit since it only appears on one particular website. Keep on searching. No, everything is good. No more needs to be said. I am content in these matters. |
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant on Apr 12, 2006 4:43:53 GMT
that's probably as close as we'll come to the real thing....
it's a good thing we've got april fool's day huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 12, 2006 6:14:27 GMT
that's probably as close as we'll come to the real thing.... it's a good thing we've got april fool's day huh? May our Holidays and folly-days bring fowl, beast or ham in, But we'll enjoy them all, Christmas, New Year's, F-Easter famine. Mr. Hallmark says hi. |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Apr 12, 2006 12:44:57 GMT
Well perhaps with F-Easter they'll resurrect him, eh?
(You should work for Faulmark Mr. Perplexed!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 13, 2006 3:59:45 GMT
Well perhaps with F-Easter they'll resurrect him, eh? (You should work for Faulmark Mr. Perplexed!) Logos Gone Wild.......... |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Apr 13, 2006 16:24:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jilli on Apr 14, 2006 4:38:15 GMT
Does this mean we are breaking for lunch?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 14, 2006 8:06:50 GMT
Does this mean we are breaking for lunch? Sure. Let's see where the potato chips fall. |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Apr 14, 2006 12:43:27 GMT
The "compleat" history of potato chips: www.geography.ccsu.edu/harmonj/atlas/potchips.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Emerick"Geoff Emerick (born 1946) is a recording studio audio engineer, who is best known for his work with the Beatles albums Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The White Album and Abbey Road. The first album he did with the Beatles working as main recording engineer was Revolver, and "Tomorrow Never Knows" was the first track he worked on, after having taken over the engineering duties from Norman Smith who was promoted to record producer. Emerick, like Beatles producer George Martin, brought an adventurous and experimental attitude to his work. In addition to his ground breaking work with the Beatles, Paul McCartney and Wings (Band on the Run), Emerick also produced albums by the Zombies (Odessey & Oracle), Badfinger (No Dice), Elvis Costello (Imperial Bedroom, All This Useless Beauty), Split Enz (Dizrythmia), and Nellie McKay (Get Away From Me). Geoff Emerick has just published a 400-page book (March, 16th, 2006) called Here There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles (Gotham), co-written with Howard Massey, which tells his personal view on how it was working with The Beatles in the studio."There's a review of it in the next post. Read some of the book here: www.billboard.com/bbcom/bookshelf/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002158255 |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Apr 14, 2006 23:14:22 GMT
"BEATLES ENGINEER TELLS RECORDING TALES
By Scott Bauer, Associated Press
Just when it seemed that everyone who had any role in the rise and breakup of the Beatles had written a book or two, along comes a name familiar only to hardcore fans.
Luckily for the rest of us, Geoff Emerick is able to spin an entertaining tale of his life behind the control room dials during Beatle recording sessions at EMI's Abbey Road studio in London.
Emerick's story, as told in "Here, There and Everywhere" is a charming one, in a "Forrest Gump" sort of way. Hired at 15 by EMI, he started his career as an assistant engineer and found himself very much in the right place at the right time.. He was lucky enough to get tabbed to sit in on the first Beatle recording session in 1962 before being promoted to engineer at 19 and taking on a larger role in the famous Beatles sessions, including 'Revolver' and 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'.
Although Emerick is not as familiar as Beatles producer George Martin, he makes a strong case that he, too, was integral to creating the band's sound that has become so well-known. Much of that required bending protocol and finding ways to create in studio what band members heard in their heads.
'EMI had rules for everything,' Emerick writes, describing the button-downed environment of the studio at the time he was hired. 'In a few short years' time I'd be breaking just about all of them.'
Emerick's description of the lengths he traveled to meet the band's demands are engaging. He is adept also at breaking down the recording industry lingo into language that can be easilly understood by those whose audio engineering skills don't extend far beyond knowing how to press 'Play' on a CD player.
Emerick was the fly on the wall at these sessions, privy
to the arguments, bursts of creativitiy and painstaking ayttention to musicianship that marked the Fab Four's recording career.
And while Emerick clearly enjoyed the band most during their heyday, his displeasure with their behaviour toward the end - including the arrival of Yoko Ono - is clear.
Emerick has his favorites and biases. He clearly adores (F)aul McCartney, often compimenting him on his ideas
and the musical direction he provided the band.
McCartney was best man at Emerick's wedding.
John Lennon gets less favorable treatment, taken to task for being impatient, inattentive to details and, of course, further disrupting the Beatles 'family' by bringing [glow=red,2,300]ONO[/glow] into the studio.
George Harrison, who is initiallly a subject of derision - Emerick considers his guitar playing subpar - grows into a musician Emerick admires and respects.
Ringo Starr is described often as an afterthought to the group's work who is brougt in only at the end to shake a tambourine or perhaps struggle through his one alloted song per album.
The strength of the book comes not from unveiling any new Beatles gossip, but from offering a glimpse into the band's life that very few people had firsthand.
Unable to put up with the disintegration of the group, which Emerick seems to take personally, he left in 1968 during the recording of 'The White Album', only to be enticed back to engineer the band's final effort, suitably titled 'Abbey Road'.
Emerick briefly describes his post-Beatles career, most notably his work on McCartney's 'Band On the Run' .
Perhaps the greatest compliment to be paid is that Emerick is able to re-ingnite interest in those old Beatle songs - especially those where he points out abnormalities that made it onto the final cuts - motivating listeners to pull out their dusty LPs and give them another spin."
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 15, 2006 5:24:55 GMT
"BEATLES ENGINEER TELLS RECORDING TALES By Scott Bauer, Associated Press Although Emerick is not as familiar as Beatles producer George Martin, he makes a strong case that he, too, was integral to creating the band's sound that has become so well-known. Much of that required bending protocol and finding ways to create in studio what band members heard in their heads. 'EMI had rules for everything,' Emerick writes, describing the button-downed environment of the studio at the time he was hired. 'In a few short years' time I'd be breaking just about all of them.' It seems like I read somewhere, and posted about it but have no idea wher that is, that was was specific protocol for how close a microphone could be to a bass drum, and how loud the bass could be, and on and on, not to mention a dress code that appears to have included dress shirts and ties. This was EMI's way of doing things. Formal, rigid, perscribed, "by the book." Kind of a military approach. Was EMI somewhat connected to the military? Emerick and the boys, and George Martin, went out on the creative limb sometimes and did things a bit differently. Off protocol. Not quite "by the book."....... ........thereby liberating a place of respect for the possible achievements resulting from free-wheeling creativity. Loosen the reins; new methods and outcomes will emerge. I 'spose it all started with George Harrison saying to Geo. Martin: "I hate the tie you're wearing........" |
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Apr 15, 2006 6:52:54 GMT
"...the real Paul McCartney died in 1966. 'There was a car crash in, I believe, August..." At L.A on the Blue Jay Way..... BTW Mark Lewinsohn's book (the more accurate between the "official" Beatles biographies) DOESN'T report about the Melody Makers Award on September..... Interesting article even if a joke.... home.comcast.net/~john-perkins/paulisdead/#linksInteresting that too... |
|
|
|
Post by beatled on Apr 16, 2006 7:32:52 GMT
"...the real Paul McCartney died in 1966. 'There was a car crash in, I believe, August..." At L.A on the Blue Jay Way..... BTW Mark Lewinsohn's book (the more accurate between the "official" Beatles biographies) DOESN'T report about the Melody Makers Award on September..... Interesting article even if a joke.... home.comcast.net/~john-perkins/paulisdead/#linksInteresting that too... Yeah I'll be getting that Mark L. book, but thank you for that link BP, that was a great read! I'd say it was worth the $14.95. The author was originally from England, he now lives in California, and works as a researcher in nuclear fusion, with a sideline as a keyboard player in a band called "Jukebox Heroes". I'm not sure where he stands on the PID issue, obviously this is "fiction" with the standard disclaimer. My only complaint is that while he claims to have the documented Beatle history correct, thus giving it an "aura of authenticity", he misstepped once or twice.. A character remarks that "Paul" didn't appear in any interviews after Sept. of 1966", but actually he did, sometime in early to mid 1967, on the BBC. A PID piece of fiction is hard to resist.. The villain is a greedy corporation named "Charm" which takes over all the Beatles' business affairs just before Paul dies in a car accident, and then supplies the replacement, someone already in their employ. (a Mr. William Shears) Mr. Shears s a skilled mimic, able to manifest any accent he wishes, and was a mimic/impersonator on stage, in NY and elsewhere until "Charm" hired him, for purposes he won't disclose to the other Beatles in one scene from the book. All the elements of a mystery/action novel are here, a protagonist who stumbles across something important in his job as a journalist, a budding love interest with a helpful policewoman, (or is she helpful?) a race to beat the bad guys, etc. It was fun, a quick read paperback that almost makes you wonder if it could have happened that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 16, 2006 7:59:52 GMT
Yes, it opens up some new angles.
An covert, off-shore private company so elusive, so powerful, so
far-reaching, that the best intelligence networks in the world still can't pin it down........
I am enjoying it, I've read half but will finish tomorrow.
The use of working Beatle song lyrics into narrative dialog--well, we've seen that before. It rings both corny and, well, "Charming" at the same time.......
Fascinating that the intel gathering of "Charm" is so inexplicably down to the minute and private..........
As a rationale in some ways, it almost makes sense, though it makes for a little tortured logic sometimes (and I should know);
but all in all, it makes me wonder if there could have been
a big messy secret involved with contracts for the Beatles in 1966.....
The initial meeting between Brian, the boys, and "Charm" was
like an expository scene right out of James Bond, one of the later Roger Moore episodes.......no offense for Asians please, but the 6foot tall East Asian lady in the shapeless oriental garment with the very non-Asian last name who automatically knows the precise answer to every question, reservation, and concern of NEMS and Brian, etc------is she any relation to (BUH-BUH-BUH-BLAM!) Ms. Ono?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 17, 2006 8:22:01 GMT
Well perhaps with F-Easter they'll resurrect him, eh? (You should work for Faulmark Mr. Perplexed!) .......when you only want to send the very best! HAPPY HOLIDAYS.........FROM Nº 9.........  |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Apr 17, 2006 16:52:50 GMT
Nice pic Falstaff! And your face is illuminated (illuminati?) like the faces on "Meet the Beatles" too.
Happity hippity hoppity haulidays to you! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jilli on May 3, 2006 4:51:38 GMT
does anyone know if April fools day is a world wide thing or is it an American thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jilli on May 3, 2006 5:16:05 GMT
ok im here to answer my own question... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fool's_Day The origin of this custom has been much disputed, and many theories have been suggested, e.g. that it is a farcical commemoration of Christ being sent from Annas to Caiaphas, from Caiaphas to Pilate, from Pilate to Herod, and from Herod back again to Pilate, the crucifixion having taken place about the 1st of April. It has been suggested that Europe derived its April-fooling from the French [1]. They were the first nation to adopt the reformed Gregorian calendar, Charles IX in 1564 decreeing that the year should begin with the 1st of January. Thus the New Year's gifts and visits of felicitation which had been the feature of the 1st of April became associated with the first day of January, and those who disliked or did not hear about the change were fair game for those wits who amused themselves by sending mock presents and paying calls of pretended ceremony on the 1st of April. However, it is unlikely that this explanation of April Fool's Day’s origin is correct. Well before 1582, when King Charles IX of France brought in the new Gregorian calendar, French and Dutch references from respectively 1508 and 1539 describe April Fool's Day jokes and the custom of making them on the first of April. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Aug 4, 2006 11:54:28 GMT
Everything happened in the September of 1966.
It was a pinnacle month, with the coinciding of a million mystic energies and vibrations.
The TV world went to color in 1966 (by and large it had been gradual, but the new TV season of 1966 saw the greatest simultaneous shift to color filming that ever happened.)
The world saw many such changes at that time.
Who can post them all?
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Aug 4, 2006 15:43:13 GMT
Everything happened in the September of 1966. Let's do the time-warp again! |
|
