I found a VERY interesting interview that The Beatles did at the Theatre Royal, Glasgow on April 30, 1964. Remember our Paul and our John had just been with the group a little less than 6 months, so it's a very early, very telling interview.
A woman interviewer talked with Paul and John, a man interviewer talked with George and Ringo. Here is the most relevant part of the interview:
Interviewer: (at 2:45-2:47) Do you find any difficulty in keeping up you public image? Just . . .
George: (2:47-2:48) No.
Ringo: (2:48) What image?
George: (2:49-3:01) It's our image is just . . . us, you know, as we were. We don't try an' make an image. It just happened. So we don't have to keep it up, we just remain ourselves. Don't we, Ringo?
Ringo: (3:01-3:04) Well, we do: [giggles] it's the other two we're worried about. [John or Paul throws something at him.]
This half-veiled reference to the new Paul and new John would have sailed over most fans' heads, but this was a candid, off-hand acknowledgment of new members to the group.
See and hear the interview at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXJCAeHRdUo
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Friday, April 29, 2016
The Man Of A Thousand Voices
Faul sang the song "The Fool On The Hill", recorded on September 25-27 and October 20, 1967 for the Magical Mystery Tour album, released in late November, 1967. Ever wonder who Faul was singing about? I'm guessing our Paul.
For audio examples of Paul "doing accents", listen to:
1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=782X8OE4AEA where you can hear a 23-second clip of Paul in 1964 greeting the New York disc jockey Murray the K with a black man's accent.
2.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR1OMA61FL0 with Paul doing a hilarious mocking of their song, "That Means A Lot". The Beatles tried to record the song on February 20 and March 30, 1965 and in the March 30th. session, Paul started singing the song with a heavy Liverpool accent and then shifted to singing it (deliberately, of course) off-key.
3.) Another audio excerpt is from what came to be known as Paul's Christmas Album--an acetate recording Paul put together in late 1965 as a gift to his bandmates. Listen to a short clip of Paul doing an impressive American disc jockey accent at: http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2015/12/24/asknat-concerning-paul-mccartneys-christmas-album .
For printed proof of Paul's talent for imitation I found:
1.) The Los Angeles radio station KRLA's fan magazine of the 1960's KRLA BEAT interview of Paul by Derek Taylor. Taylor had been the public relations manager for The Beatles and in 1965 was an independent PR agent. The interview was published April 21, 1965:
Derek: I think it's often surprising that with a face like yours . . . sort of angelic face . . . the face of a delinquent choir boy, someone once said . . that you have actually got many voices. One of them you might call a "colored voice." That was your "colored voice" in "She's A Women", wasn't it?
Paul: No, it was my green voice.
Derek: What would you call your anti-lovely voice?
Paul: I don't know . . soppy, I suppose.
Derek: Away from song-writing since you're now actors . . .
Paul: Me James Cagney one, isn't it?
Derek: Yeah, he's playing a James Cagney face, which isn't recording too well on tape. Could you give us a James Cagney line?
Paul: No, I'm afraid not.
Derek: Would you do us a quick imitation of any of your friends?
Paul: Any of my friends? I couldn't, really. I'm not very good on imitations.
Derek: You don't like being prompted to do it.
Paul: You're right.
2.) And then there's the Maureen Cleave interview published in the Evening Standard, March 25, 1966 where she described Paul as a ". . . terrible tease, an excellent mimic."
My point? Faul claimed that he wrote "The Fool On The Hill" about a Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi-like person--apropos the Beatles visiting the Indian guru in 1967 in Bangor, Wales.
Sounds possible except that the Magical Mystery Tour album that contained "The Fool On The Hill" track had a booklet accompanying it that had a drawing of Paul beneath the words "Fool On The Hill" and the last letter of the title touches--or is meant to split-- Paul's head. (See image below.)
Remember the lyrics:
Well on the way
Head in the cloud
The man of a thousand voices
Talking perfectly loud.
The lyrics suggest a man--who is not traveling alone in a vehicle--[someone heard him talking], is close to getting home and--when you add in the song's current descriptions of him--had some sort of life-changing experience.
But also implies that--as of the recording of the song in 1967--the person was still alive.
For audio examples of Paul "doing accents", listen to:
1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=782X8OE4AEA where you can hear a 23-second clip of Paul in 1964 greeting the New York disc jockey Murray the K with a black man's accent.
2.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR1OMA61FL0 with Paul doing a hilarious mocking of their song, "That Means A Lot". The Beatles tried to record the song on February 20 and March 30, 1965 and in the March 30th. session, Paul started singing the song with a heavy Liverpool accent and then shifted to singing it (deliberately, of course) off-key.
3.) Another audio excerpt is from what came to be known as Paul's Christmas Album--an acetate recording Paul put together in late 1965 as a gift to his bandmates. Listen to a short clip of Paul doing an impressive American disc jockey accent at: http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2015/12/24/asknat-concerning-paul-mccartneys-christmas-album .
For printed proof of Paul's talent for imitation I found:
1.) The Los Angeles radio station KRLA's fan magazine of the 1960's KRLA BEAT interview of Paul by Derek Taylor. Taylor had been the public relations manager for The Beatles and in 1965 was an independent PR agent. The interview was published April 21, 1965:
Derek: I think it's often surprising that with a face like yours . . . sort of angelic face . . . the face of a delinquent choir boy, someone once said . . that you have actually got many voices. One of them you might call a "colored voice." That was your "colored voice" in "She's A Women", wasn't it?
Paul: No, it was my green voice.
Derek: What would you call your anti-lovely voice?
Paul: I don't know . . soppy, I suppose.
Derek: Away from song-writing since you're now actors . . .
Paul: Me James Cagney one, isn't it?
Derek: Yeah, he's playing a James Cagney face, which isn't recording too well on tape. Could you give us a James Cagney line?
Paul: No, I'm afraid not.
Derek: Would you do us a quick imitation of any of your friends?
Paul: Any of my friends? I couldn't, really. I'm not very good on imitations.
Derek: You don't like being prompted to do it.
Paul: You're right.
2.) And then there's the Maureen Cleave interview published in the Evening Standard, March 25, 1966 where she described Paul as a ". . . terrible tease, an excellent mimic."
My point? Faul claimed that he wrote "The Fool On The Hill" about a Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi-like person--apropos the Beatles visiting the Indian guru in 1967 in Bangor, Wales.
Sounds possible except that the Magical Mystery Tour album that contained "The Fool On The Hill" track had a booklet accompanying it that had a drawing of Paul beneath the words "Fool On The Hill" and the last letter of the title touches--or is meant to split-- Paul's head. (See image below.)
Remember the lyrics:
Well on the way
Head in the cloud
The man of a thousand voices
Talking perfectly loud.
The lyrics suggest a man--who is not traveling alone in a vehicle--[someone heard him talking], is close to getting home and--when you add in the song's current descriptions of him--had some sort of life-changing experience.
But also implies that--as of the recording of the song in 1967--the person was still alive.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
An Update On My Primer For Listening To Backmasked Songs
In my January 22, 2016 post, I described how I listen to YouTube video songs backwards. I have found a technique that sometimes improves the vocal clarity of the track. Here it is:
1.) When you have your track on Audacity, before you reverse it (#22 on my January 22nd. "tutorial"), click on the "effect' button at the top, scroll down and choose "vocal reduction and isolation".
2.) The "vocal reduction and isolation" box will appear. The first line of the box says, "action: isolate vocals", Click "ok".
3.) It will say "applying vocal reduction and isolation". This takes about half a minute.
4.) Then, again, click on "effect" at the top of Audacity.
5.) Click on "reverse" from the list.
6.) Plug in your earbuds, click on the green triangle play button, and listen to the backward track.
This doesn't remove all the instrumentals, but it does provide clearer vocals on some songs. Give it a try.
1.) When you have your track on Audacity, before you reverse it (#22 on my January 22nd. "tutorial"), click on the "effect' button at the top, scroll down and choose "vocal reduction and isolation".
2.) The "vocal reduction and isolation" box will appear. The first line of the box says, "action: isolate vocals", Click "ok".
3.) It will say "applying vocal reduction and isolation". This takes about half a minute.
4.) Then, again, click on "effect" at the top of Audacity.
5.) Click on "reverse" from the list.
6.) Plug in your earbuds, click on the green triangle play button, and listen to the backward track.
This doesn't remove all the instrumentals, but it does provide clearer vocals on some songs. Give it a try.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Some Words About The Paul-Is-Dead Research and the Parameters of My Research
The internet has made possible the discovery and discussion of differences in The Beatles' looks throughout the years. There are websites that show a long series of photos of Paul. There were differences. What to make of this?
When I was a young Beatles' fan in 1966 I was puzzled by the changes in voice and looks of Paul. Being a young teenager, I didn't know what to make of it. And--mercifully--since American producers, record executives, disc jockeys, radio station managers et al. knew enough about the backstage machinations of The Beatles, they manufactured or promoted groups like The Monkees to draw young baby boomers away from the disasters that played out with The Beatles.
Looking at photo after photo of "Paul" for my research, I have concluded--along with more than a few people--that there could have been upwards of eight, nine, or more "Pauls".
The Beatles became a commodity--a product--that was amassing millions of dollars for the English government and a handful of people. It became important to maintain a façade of lightness and happiness with The Beatles. And, as I've speculated in an earlier post, I think some group of manipulators wanted The Beatles to become the Pied Pipers of boomers, leading us along to a psychedelic world of recreational drugs, free sex, and lowest-common-denominator rock and roll.
I found a website that chronicles the extensive changes in The Beatles' "personnel". Unfortunately, the website wants people to believe that a Paul, a John, a George and a Ringo were CLONED and that that accounts for the many Pauls, Johns, Georges and Ringos. I conclude that outrageous claim is either: 1.) goofy; or 2.) and attempt to make people ridicule the reality of multiple members in the group. There is a slang expression called "weasel words": words that are inserted into a sentence to destroy the meaning of it, in the same way that a weasel can suck the insides out of an egg, while leaving the shell intact. Dropping the word "clone" into a serious discussion of changes within The Beatles is the essence of the weasel word concept.
I found one post reacting to that website where the person thinks that people exploring this mystery are followers of Lyndon LaRouche [!] I have heard the man's name and an odd or end of what he is (or was) up to, but I can state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a La Rouchee.
Then there are the endless sneers from people who don't want to know the truth or are trying to keep other people from wanting to know the truth.
The fact is, there is a truth to be found, and with enough genuine researchers out there, the truth WILL be told.
The parameters of my research are with the man I call "our Paul": the Paul that American fans heard and loved from 1964 until a little more than half way through 1966. I chose to concentrate there initially because that was the Paul that American teeny boppers knew. Except for the songs on the first Beatles album and some early publicity photos, Americans never heard or saw the real Paul.
But when you think of it, our Paul is a good choice to focus the research on because he was in the group during the height of The Beatles' popularity, so there are many more clues as to his true identity made by himself and others.
As for the other Pauls . . . I could speculate why there were so many of them, but, I really don't know. When you see videos of their live performances, though, you will notice there were just three Pauls out there: The real one, our Paul and the current one (because I think the current one had touring time in 1966.) I think these were the Pauls with enough musical talent to be seen singing and playing in public. The others would show up in an occasional photo or interview but not on stage.
And believe me when I tell you that REAL research into this mystery will go on---until we get to the truth.
---paulumbo
When I was a young Beatles' fan in 1966 I was puzzled by the changes in voice and looks of Paul. Being a young teenager, I didn't know what to make of it. And--mercifully--since American producers, record executives, disc jockeys, radio station managers et al. knew enough about the backstage machinations of The Beatles, they manufactured or promoted groups like The Monkees to draw young baby boomers away from the disasters that played out with The Beatles.
Looking at photo after photo of "Paul" for my research, I have concluded--along with more than a few people--that there could have been upwards of eight, nine, or more "Pauls".
The Beatles became a commodity--a product--that was amassing millions of dollars for the English government and a handful of people. It became important to maintain a façade of lightness and happiness with The Beatles. And, as I've speculated in an earlier post, I think some group of manipulators wanted The Beatles to become the Pied Pipers of boomers, leading us along to a psychedelic world of recreational drugs, free sex, and lowest-common-denominator rock and roll.
I found a website that chronicles the extensive changes in The Beatles' "personnel". Unfortunately, the website wants people to believe that a Paul, a John, a George and a Ringo were CLONED and that that accounts for the many Pauls, Johns, Georges and Ringos. I conclude that outrageous claim is either: 1.) goofy; or 2.) and attempt to make people ridicule the reality of multiple members in the group. There is a slang expression called "weasel words": words that are inserted into a sentence to destroy the meaning of it, in the same way that a weasel can suck the insides out of an egg, while leaving the shell intact. Dropping the word "clone" into a serious discussion of changes within The Beatles is the essence of the weasel word concept.
I found one post reacting to that website where the person thinks that people exploring this mystery are followers of Lyndon LaRouche [!] I have heard the man's name and an odd or end of what he is (or was) up to, but I can state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a La Rouchee.
Then there are the endless sneers from people who don't want to know the truth or are trying to keep other people from wanting to know the truth.
The fact is, there is a truth to be found, and with enough genuine researchers out there, the truth WILL be told.
The parameters of my research are with the man I call "our Paul": the Paul that American fans heard and loved from 1964 until a little more than half way through 1966. I chose to concentrate there initially because that was the Paul that American teeny boppers knew. Except for the songs on the first Beatles album and some early publicity photos, Americans never heard or saw the real Paul.
But when you think of it, our Paul is a good choice to focus the research on because he was in the group during the height of The Beatles' popularity, so there are many more clues as to his true identity made by himself and others.
As for the other Pauls . . . I could speculate why there were so many of them, but, I really don't know. When you see videos of their live performances, though, you will notice there were just three Pauls out there: The real one, our Paul and the current one (because I think the current one had touring time in 1966.) I think these were the Pauls with enough musical talent to be seen singing and playing in public. The others would show up in an occasional photo or interview but not on stage.
And believe me when I tell you that REAL research into this mystery will go on---until we get to the truth.
---paulumbo
Friday, January 22, 2016
Another "young Faul" Photo
Mirror.co.uk is the online edition of The Daily Mirror, a British tabloid newspaper. In a June 18, 2012 article commemorating Paul McCartney's 70th. birthday--and remember, there really was a real Paul McCartney who, if he had lived until 2012, which I don't think he did, would have been 70 years' old--they had a positively intriguing photo of the current Faul in a group student photo.
There is no way of knowing where this was taken, when this was taken or even if it is a genuine group photo, but it definitely is an image of the young Faul, so again, you have to figure the man is getting the urge to get his own story out there.
There is no way of knowing where this was taken, when this was taken or even if it is a genuine group photo, but it definitely is an image of the young Faul, so again, you have to figure the man is getting the urge to get his own story out there.
Other Voices, Part 21: The Pink Floyd's 1967 "Arnold Layne"
The Pink Floyd (later just Pink Floyd) was a London psychedelic rock-pop band. Their first single was called "Arnold Layne", recorded January 29, 1967 and released in the UK on March 10, 1967.
It wasn't the first song I would look for backmasking on, but someone in a YouTube comment said there could be a Paul-Is-Dead clue in the video of the song and I listened to the song---and found backmasking.
The YouTube video of the song [see it at-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQTFRq1hjtM ] has The Pink Floyd assembling, disassembling, and dressing and undressing a 3-sectioned mannequin. The only direct hint the song is about a Beatle is at 0:30-0:31 in the video where the mannequin is "standing" on the trunk of a Volkswagen BEETLE.
The song is about a cross-dresser who steals women's clothes off clotheslines, is caught, and spends time in jail for doing it.
My theory about what happened to our Paul is that the British government wanted him out of the group and arranged some sort of plot to get their hands on him. It could have involved cross-dressing--or something else.
The song itself is a boring tune when you hear it forwards. Backwards, it has a very nice melody. So nice, I'm thinking The Pink Floyd was hoping it would be played backwards.
The producer of the song, Joe Boyd, said that the song was a complex recording with some tricky editing. Boyd said the instrumental section, for example, was a separate effort that was spliced into the final mix.
The instrumental "separate effort section" at 1:15-1:29 is a very reminiscent sound-alike of The Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows" from the Revolver album.
Put in context, here is what you hear backmasked on "Arnold Layne":
At 1:12-1:14 - Paul
1:15-1:29 - The "Tomorrow Never Knows" sound-alike segment
2:22 - Paul
2:25-2:27 - Paul would not
The Pink Floyd's Syd Barratt, who wrote "Arnold Layne", had mounting problems with the English social regime, so he probably knew enough about Paul's problems to want to comment about them.
P.S. In the post just preceding this one, I give you complete instructions on how to convert a YouTube video-audio into an mp-3 audio, upload it onto the popular Audacity audio tool and reverse it so you can listen to all the "Other Voices" tracks I've found that are telling a ugly tale about what happened to our Paul.
If you want to go digging into 1960's British groups' tracks and find other backmasking, please let me know what you find.
---paulumbo
It wasn't the first song I would look for backmasking on, but someone in a YouTube comment said there could be a Paul-Is-Dead clue in the video of the song and I listened to the song---and found backmasking.
The YouTube video of the song [see it at-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQTFRq1hjtM ] has The Pink Floyd assembling, disassembling, and dressing and undressing a 3-sectioned mannequin. The only direct hint the song is about a Beatle is at 0:30-0:31 in the video where the mannequin is "standing" on the trunk of a Volkswagen BEETLE.
The song is about a cross-dresser who steals women's clothes off clotheslines, is caught, and spends time in jail for doing it.
My theory about what happened to our Paul is that the British government wanted him out of the group and arranged some sort of plot to get their hands on him. It could have involved cross-dressing--or something else.
The song itself is a boring tune when you hear it forwards. Backwards, it has a very nice melody. So nice, I'm thinking The Pink Floyd was hoping it would be played backwards.
The producer of the song, Joe Boyd, said that the song was a complex recording with some tricky editing. Boyd said the instrumental section, for example, was a separate effort that was spliced into the final mix.
The instrumental "separate effort section" at 1:15-1:29 is a very reminiscent sound-alike of The Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows" from the Revolver album.
Put in context, here is what you hear backmasked on "Arnold Layne":
At 1:12-1:14 - Paul
1:15-1:29 - The "Tomorrow Never Knows" sound-alike segment
2:22 - Paul
2:25-2:27 - Paul would not
The Pink Floyd's Syd Barratt, who wrote "Arnold Layne", had mounting problems with the English social regime, so he probably knew enough about Paul's problems to want to comment about them.
P.S. In the post just preceding this one, I give you complete instructions on how to convert a YouTube video-audio into an mp-3 audio, upload it onto the popular Audacity audio tool and reverse it so you can listen to all the "Other Voices" tracks I've found that are telling a ugly tale about what happened to our Paul.
If you want to go digging into 1960's British groups' tracks and find other backmasking, please let me know what you find.
---paulumbo
A Primer On How To Listen To Backmasked Songs
At present it is complicated to put audio in blog posts, but I'll tell you how I listen to YouTube video songs backwards.
- Download the audio tool Audacity at: http://audacityteam.org/ . As of this writing (January 22, 2016) you'll be downloading Audacity 2.1.1 . It's free and it's easy to download.
- Find the song-video on YouTube.
- Click on the video.
- Right-click on the address bar (where it says https://www.youtube.com ---et cetera.)
- Click copy.
- Click the home button in the upper left of your screen and go to: www.youtube-mp3.org and click on the sample video and X it out.
- Right click and paste the YouTube address.
- Click "convert video".
- It will say, "video successfully converted to mp 3".
- Click on download.
- At the bottom of your screen it will ask if you want to open or save the song. Save it.
- It will tell you the download has completed. Click the X on the right.
- Click X on the upper right of you screen, taking you to the Audacity icon on you start screen.
- Double click on the icon and click on the double square on the upper right of the screen to put the Audacity tool on the right of you start screen.
- Double click the files icon at the bottom left of your start screen.
- The "This PC" screen comes up with a list of 6 folders.
- If the "This PC" screen fills your start screen, click on the square icon at the top right of the screen. This will put that screen to the left of the Audacity screen on your start screen. Double click on the downloads folder.
- Click on the song in your download list and drag it to the right and drop it in the Audacity screen.
- X out the download screen and click on the rectangle (maximize) symbol on the upper right of the Audacity screen.
- The Audacity tool will fill your screen.
- Click on "effect" on the top line of the tool.
- Click on "reverse" in the list.
- If the track is in stereo, I like to listen to it first in stereo and then in mono. To listen in mono, click on "tracks" on the top line of the tool and click "stereo track to mono".
- Plug in your earbuds, click on the green triangle play button and listen the backward track.
