Backing Up A Little To Prove Paul Was Replaced

Alot of people for some reason have a hard time believing that Paul was replaced.  But fans around the world were and still are deceived and I've found two sources (one conclusive) to prove it.

In the bonus material on The Unseen Beatles DVD (BBC video, 2006), there is an interview with Maureen Cleave  whose "more popular than Jesus" interview with John Lennon set off the storm of controversy in America in the summer of 1966.  She was talking about the two things that made The Beatles special:
      "They had the fascination of repetitive siblings.  You think how interesting twins are.  And triplets even more interesting.  And as for quads.  'Cause they all looked quite similar.  And they were completely different.  And so you stared at them waiting for the differences to come out.  I think that was part of their fascination."  (at 1:46-2:01 in the interview.) 
If you looked at the four Beatles at the time, they did not look quite similar and part of the fun of being a Beatles fan was finding which Beatle you liked best.  So I believe Ms. Cleave was talking about the differences in the replacements (for Paul and John.)  Physically, there were differences and the differences in personalities were sometimes even more pronounced.

But the--as they say--gold standard to prove there were replacements of The Beatles is found in the interview with George Harrison by Dick Cavett in 1970 that you can view at:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8gRroI6fo .  Cavett was telling Harrison that of the other Beatles, he had only met John Lennon:
     George:  "You didn't meet the other eight?"  (1:08-1:09)
     Cavett:   "No.  Were there that many?"        (1:10-1:12)
     George:  "Yeah, there were hundreds."        (1:12-1:14)
     Cavett:   "I only--ahh--I know John . . ."      (1:14-1:16)
     George:  "Yeah, you know, the eighteenth Beatle."  (1:17-1:18)
     Cavett:   "There were rumors that The Beatles weren't always the same person.  In fact, there was one
                     rumor it wasn't even the real four of you who came over here in one trip.  They just sent . . ."
                    (1:18-1:27)
     George:   "We just sent four dummies out there."  (1:27-1:28).

So there you have it, folks.  Whoever was driving The Beatles onward kept a surreal and cynical arm's length distance from the fact that the band was made up of human beings and that the fans deserved to know the truth.  For Paul, the result might have been fatal.

One More Please Comment Update

I tried several times to find out why the comment section of the blog wasn't working and, finally, with a little help from Google blog help I have it fixed.

If you want to comment, click on the comment line below the blog (if you are the first one to comment it will say 0 comments) and type in your message.  I have the verification section on (where the squiggly characters appear) to stop spam.

All civil comments are welcome!

                                                                   ---paulumbo

Why Didn't The Beatles Record in America in 1966?

I was reading a book called, Recording The Beatles:  The Studio Equipment and Techniques Used To Create Their Classic Albums by Kevin Ryan and Brian Kehew (Curvebender Pub., 2006).  The authors had access to the EMI Archives.  They talked about how The Beatles were planning to fly to the United States and record in Nashville what ended up to be the Revolver album.  The authors said that didn't work out and The Beatles stayed in England.  Why didn't they come to America?

In The Beatles L.A. press conference of August 28, 1966, they discussed not being able to record in America, without mentioning when or what album they would have been working on.  You can find the discussion in the Youtube video at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irw1OCWp1Gs .  Here is what George and (possibly) real Paul said:

Question:  (1:19-1:22):   Are you ever going to record in the United States and why haven't you yet?
Paul:         (1:22-1:31):   We tried, actually, but it was a financial matter.  A little trouble over that one.
                                      No, we tried, but ahh---
George:    (1:31):           ---Detail and politics---
Paul:         (1:31-1:34):   Hush, hush  [and Paul sucks in his breath to indicate it was a big problem.]
George:    (1:34):           ---and [or no] dice---
George:    (1:35):           No comment.

What financially would have kept the extremely rich and influential Beatles from recording in the U.S.?  It would seem that from the cross-talk between Paul and George they were stopped from coming to America and that politics--read the English government--was involved.  Again, in this extremely important time period of early-to-mid 1966, it needs to be explored why The Beatles were being prevented from travelling where they wanted, when they wanted.

Please Comment Update

I hate to bring myself personally into this blog because, although it's MY research, I am not the point of this blog:  finding out what happened to Paul McCartney IS.  It is a little weird for anyone to speculate that I might be a shill or part of a government-funded disinformation operation.

I  am waiting for people to comment on this blog.  If you have tried and haven't been successful, try sending a message to my gmail account listed at the top of the blog:  dee.paulumbo@gmail.com.

I won't get into a shouting match with anyone on any discussion board.  I am interested in finding serious researchers to comment on these posts and also join as subscribers, if you want.  But, again, it's not about me, it's about Paul.

Was There More Said But Unheard in the Dylan Documentary Segment With John Lennon?

In my November 19th. post, I described a segment in Bob Dylan's documentary, Eat The Document where John Lennon makes a very pointed comment on English upper-class exploitation of musicians (and of The Beatles in particular, I believe.)  On the Youtube video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=695_AAQUmLk , the poster of the video says that the Lennon/Dylan segment "came in at just over 21 minutes."  If it is assumed that the film crew filmed the entire limousine ride than about 23 minutes have never been seen by the public because the total travel time between John's Weybridge home the Mayfair Hotel would take 44 minutes according to mapquest.com. 
John's attempt to subtly clue people in to what was happening with The Beatles may be lost forever.

Please Comment!

I began this blog on April 30th. of this year with the sincere hope that I can help solve the mystery of Paul's replacement and what happened to the man.  If you read the entries and have something to say about them, Please Comment!  I would love to hear your additions, corrections, or critiques on what I've written.  The idea is to keep the momentum going until we have the answers.  There are only solutions as John Lennon said and we can help find them.  Add to the discussion and let's find the answers.

Here, There and Everywhere Update

In my November 19th. post, I discussed the song Here, There and Everywhere and how I thought John sang lead while on the album they listed Paul as lead.  How could they "tweak" John's voice to sound more like Paul's?  I found the answer in George Martin's book, With A Little Help From My Friends  The Making of Sgt. Pepper (1994, with William Pearson).

Martin describes how he changed the recording tape speed of When I'm Sixty Four, Lovely Rita, and Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.  It's my speculation that this was done to make the voice of the man who replaced Paul sound more like Paul's.  For Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Martin says:
     "The vocals on 'Lucy" weren't recorded at normal speed.  The first was recorded at a frequency forty-five cycles, our normal recording frequency being fifty cycles.  In other words, we slowed the tape down, so that when we played it back the voice sounded ten per cent higher:  back in the correct key, but thinner-sounding . . . ."

And how about Here, There and Everywhere?  I found an entry in Mark Lewisohn's book, The Complete Beatles Chronicles, (1988, 1992) where Lewisohn talks about further work that was done on the recording on Thursday June 16, 1966:
     "A 14th take was created by reduction onto which Paul superimposed his lead vocal, slowed down on the tape to sound speeded up on playback."  Paul wouldn't have needed his own voice speeded up to sound like himself, but a speed-up of JOHN's voice would sound more like Paul's.

The mystery is why John was substituted for Paul on the track and why they listed the lead as Paul.  Part of the continuing mystery.

Other Pauls in America, 1966: The Bob Bonis Collection

At the Not Fade Away Gallery website, http://www.nfagallery.com/ , take a look at the Paul photos taken by Bob Bonis who was the US tour manager for The Beatles on all three US tours.  The photos were part of an exhibition, The British Are Coming!, which was shown at the gallery from March 3-May 17, 2009.

Under catalog search at the left of the website, click photographs, then click Paul McCartney in the drop-down menu.  There are 13 photos.  As a point of comparison, photos 3 and 12 are of Paul--the REAL Paul--in 1964.  When you look at photos 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 from 1966, there are subtle and not-so-subtle differences in how Paul looks.  The #9 photo (a coincidence?) is a doctored photo of Paul with a massive chin and a comment on how walrus-like Paul looks.  Take a look.

There has been speculation in the Paul replaced/Paul dead groups as to whether Paul even made it to America in 1966.  If you go just by these selected photos by Bonis, the answer would be no.

Paul's Illness on the American Tour, 1966

In my previous post of November 26th., I talked about John's sarcastic comment about (obviously) The Beatles being pushed to perform when they were ill.  I found a reference that confirms this.  In the introduction for Read The Beatles:  Classic and New Writings on The Beatles, Their Legacy and Why They Still Matter (Penguin Books, 2006), author June Skinner Sawyers is discussing The Beatles' 1966 American tour:
     "The climate at the concerts had changed, too.  Bomb threats, clashes between fans and police, and even death threats signaled an ominous turn.  It got so bad that Paul McCartney began vomiting before going on stage when the fear became overwhelming."

I haven't seen a reference before this that talked about health problems Paul had in 1966.  He claimed to be "dead fit" in a New Musical Express interview in June, 1966.  But  it's very possible that it was more than nerves that contributed to Paul vomiting and may have been one of the reasons he was stepping out--or was shoved out--of the group in 1966.