I commented in the last post about Paul and John's attempts to clue broadcaster Larry Kane in on trouble that was happening to them in 1965. I found another example in 1965 of Paul talking with a teenage girl reporter and how his tone was NOT flirty as has been suggested but was more a desperate attempt to reach out to someone he thought might be able to help him.
The girl reporter was Ruth Anson who was one of two teenagers chosen from a pool of 3,000 applicants to be a "teen beat" reporter for ABC news in Los Angeles.
The relevant clip can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54mHF1SW3w0 at 0:30-0:34.
Ms. Anson asked Paul: "Paul, any definite plans for marriage coming up soon?"
Paul answered: "No, unless you'll marry me now."
It would seem as though he was talking playfully, but there is a sense of desperation in the tone of his voice.
So what was going on here? I found a passage in Larry Kane's book, Ticket To Ride where he summed up The Beatles' attitudes toward the fans and press and that was, "Trust and love the fans and be wary of the press." I think it's very possible that Paul saw a chance to reach out to the press by way of a young fan-reporter, if she was flattered by his comment and continued to talk with him. Unfortunately, Ms. Anson took the comment playfully and the opportunity for Paul was lost.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Paul and John Were Trying To Tell Him Something
In my June 25, 2010 post I said, "If you look at enough pictures of Paul during that period [when The Beatles were filming Help in 1965], you realize that Paul was having a very hard time. So I think that was when things were beginning to get serious and it culminated in his being ousted from the group in July, 1966. My sense of it is that they were threatening to remove Paul before 1966 . . . ".
Here are some photos during the period. [Notes: all photos are from secondary sources. The second photo (of Paul at a press conference on the 1965 American tour) is "flopped": backwards.]
I found confirmation of my theory in the book I talked about in my last post. In Larry Kane's Ticket To Ride, he got to interview The Beatles in Nassau when they were filming the Caribbean scenes for Help. He had the following exchange with John and Paul:
KANE: How are you doing?
LENNON: Well, look, all I can say, Larry, is, this thing's wide open. Anything can happen, man.
KANE: What is this 'everything can happen' business?
McCARTNEY: Listen--everything is wide open, anything can happen, man. It's a new phrase which sums everything up.
LENNON: Now look, Larry, all I can say is, this thing is wide open--anything can happen, man.
McCARTNEY: That's it.
LENNON: Anything.
McCARTNEY: See the way he said it?
They were obviously trying to clue Kane in on problems they were having. It seems as though at the time Kane was confused about what they were hinting to him and he moved on to talk about another subject. The question would be why Paul and John didn't alert the world about being harrassed, bullied and threatened and that is a question to be explored.
Here are some photos during the period. [Notes: all photos are from secondary sources. The second photo (of Paul at a press conference on the 1965 American tour) is "flopped": backwards.]
I found confirmation of my theory in the book I talked about in my last post. In Larry Kane's Ticket To Ride, he got to interview The Beatles in Nassau when they were filming the Caribbean scenes for Help. He had the following exchange with John and Paul:
KANE: How are you doing?
LENNON: Well, look, all I can say, Larry, is, this thing's wide open. Anything can happen, man.
KANE: What is this 'everything can happen' business?
McCARTNEY: Listen--everything is wide open, anything can happen, man. It's a new phrase which sums everything up.
LENNON: Now look, Larry, all I can say is, this thing is wide open--anything can happen, man.
McCARTNEY: That's it.
LENNON: Anything.
McCARTNEY: See the way he said it?
They were obviously trying to clue Kane in on problems they were having. It seems as though at the time Kane was confused about what they were hinting to him and he moved on to talk about another subject. The question would be why Paul and John didn't alert the world about being harrassed, bullied and threatened and that is a question to be explored.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Why We Care: An Aside
I was reading Larry Kane's book, Ticket To Ride Inside The Beatles 1964 Tour That Changed The World (Running Press, 2003.) Kane is a former radio station manager and television broadcaster and he travelled with The Beatles to every city on their 1964 and 1965 American tours. He got to know each of The Beatles well and there are several telling impressions he had about The Beatles. Here are two:
P. 172: "One of the untold stories of the early Beatles years was their outright appreciation for their fans, demonstrated by their attempts to guarantee them access when security said otherwise."
P. 179: "So when people ask, 'What were they really like?' I have an easy answer. They were decent, caring nice people who were even richer in character than they ever would be in financial success."
And that's why--some 47-to-50 years later-- millions of people around the world still care about The Beatles.
P. 172: "One of the untold stories of the early Beatles years was their outright appreciation for their fans, demonstrated by their attempts to guarantee them access when security said otherwise."
P. 179: "So when people ask, 'What were they really like?' I have an easy answer. They were decent, caring nice people who were even richer in character than they ever would be in financial success."
And that's why--some 47-to-50 years later-- millions of people around the world still care about The Beatles.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Why You Need To Trust Your Own Senses
I was an original Beatles fan and I saw the group at concerts in Detroit in 1964 and 1966. As I've said in the introduction to my blog, my girlfriends and I KNEW that the voice on Penny Lane was NOT Paul's. We started seeing photos of "Paul" that we KNEW were NOT Paul. So when the 1969 "Paul is dead" rumors surfaced, many "old" Beatles fans took it as a possibility that his death may have been the reason for the change in appearance and voice.
Christopher Glenn, who was a radio personality in New York and later worked for CBS, appeared on The Mike Douglas Show in October, 1969 to discuss the rumor. Mike Douglas also had Paul McCartney's brother, Mike, in the audience. The relevant portion of the segment can be seen on the Youtube video at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCYh1pcrR4U .
Glenn outlined some of the clues on Beatle albums and then Douglas asked Mike McCartney if Paul was alive. McCartney began to talk naturally then adopted an upper-class British accent at 0:24-0:30 in the video with, "I find it very embarrassing that that you were just saying . . ."
At 1:47-1:48 in the video, McCartney talks about A Beatle being dead. (As I've tried to point out in several posts, somewhere along the line, The Beatles ceased to be persons in the eyes of many of those interested in exploiting their popularity and, instead, were seen as disposable, interchangeable parts of a worldwide phenomenon.) McCartney had to be aware of several members of the group being replaced.
At 3:05-3:15 Douglas and McCartney had this exchange:
Douglas: When was the last time you saw your brother?
McCartney: The last time? [He swallows and looks slightly to the right and down. He was grappling with his feelings, stalling for time. When a person looks down and to the right it usually indicates the person is self-questioning his or her feelings about something.] Was his funeral, I think.
(Laughter)
Douglas: No, really. When was the last time.
McCartney: I don't know.
Douglas: You don't know?
McCartney: Yeah, I mean, before I came, you know.
McCartney spent his time on the attack, ridiculing Glenn. But in the end, ladies and gentlemen, the original Beatles fans will tell you to trust your own senses. The Paul of 1969 (1968, 1967, the latter part of 1966, and 1970-on) is NOT the Paul we knew and loved as fans of The Beatles. The only questions that remain are what happened to Paul and who was behind it.
Christopher Glenn, who was a radio personality in New York and later worked for CBS, appeared on The Mike Douglas Show in October, 1969 to discuss the rumor. Mike Douglas also had Paul McCartney's brother, Mike, in the audience. The relevant portion of the segment can be seen on the Youtube video at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCYh1pcrR4U .
Glenn outlined some of the clues on Beatle albums and then Douglas asked Mike McCartney if Paul was alive. McCartney began to talk naturally then adopted an upper-class British accent at 0:24-0:30 in the video with, "I find it very embarrassing that that you were just saying . . ."
At 1:47-1:48 in the video, McCartney talks about A Beatle being dead. (As I've tried to point out in several posts, somewhere along the line, The Beatles ceased to be persons in the eyes of many of those interested in exploiting their popularity and, instead, were seen as disposable, interchangeable parts of a worldwide phenomenon.) McCartney had to be aware of several members of the group being replaced.
At 3:05-3:15 Douglas and McCartney had this exchange:
Douglas: When was the last time you saw your brother?
McCartney: The last time? [He swallows and looks slightly to the right and down. He was grappling with his feelings, stalling for time. When a person looks down and to the right it usually indicates the person is self-questioning his or her feelings about something.] Was his funeral, I think.
(Laughter)
Douglas: No, really. When was the last time.
McCartney: I don't know.
Douglas: You don't know?
McCartney: Yeah, I mean, before I came, you know.
McCartney spent his time on the attack, ridiculing Glenn. But in the end, ladies and gentlemen, the original Beatles fans will tell you to trust your own senses. The Paul of 1969 (1968, 1967, the latter part of 1966, and 1970-on) is NOT the Paul we knew and loved as fans of The Beatles. The only questions that remain are what happened to Paul and who was behind it.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Conspicuous By Her Absence
I am reading English singer Marianne Faithfull's autobiography, Faithfull: An Autobiography (with David Dalton; Little Brown, 1994). She and her husband John Dunbar were friends of Paul.
There is a story floating around that Paul had a romantic relationship with Maggie McGivern, who was, supposedly, a nanny for Faithfull and Dunbar's infant son, Nicholas. Their son was born in November, 1965 and McGivern, according to the story, would have become the Dunbar's first nanny soon after that, because the story talks about Paul and McGivern's relationship turning serious during The Beatles' recording of the Revolver album, six months after Paul and McGivern's first meeting.
Interestingly, Faithfull never mentions McGivern in her memoir. Since there are later photos with McGivern and the Paul replacement, who McGivern did have a relationship with, you wonder whether she pushed back the time of the relationship to give a continuity between Paul and the replacement.
There is a story floating around that Paul had a romantic relationship with Maggie McGivern, who was, supposedly, a nanny for Faithfull and Dunbar's infant son, Nicholas. Their son was born in November, 1965 and McGivern, according to the story, would have become the Dunbar's first nanny soon after that, because the story talks about Paul and McGivern's relationship turning serious during The Beatles' recording of the Revolver album, six months after Paul and McGivern's first meeting.
Interestingly, Faithfull never mentions McGivern in her memoir. Since there are later photos with McGivern and the Paul replacement, who McGivern did have a relationship with, you wonder whether she pushed back the time of the relationship to give a continuity between Paul and the replacement.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Lost Beatles (continued)
In the last post, I described the Bob Bonis photograph collection book I read. Again, I don't think Paul or John came to America on the last Beatles tour of 1966.
In my December 7, 2010 post, I told you about the website that has photographs from the book. It's at: http://www.nfagallery.com . (And, again, this isn't an advertisement for the site or book.)
They've changed some of the photographs, but if you take a look at the Paul McCartney labeled photos [click on photographs on the left of the site and then click on Paul McCartney], you can see in photos #6 and 15 from Cincinnati; #17 from Philadelphia; and #25 from Detroit (all from the 1966 tour, although the Detroit photos are mislabeled at first as 1965), the subtle differences in the facial features of "Paul." It wasn't Paul.
In my December 7, 2010 post, I told you about the website that has photographs from the book. It's at: http://www.nfagallery.com . (And, again, this isn't an advertisement for the site or book.)
They've changed some of the photographs, but if you take a look at the Paul McCartney labeled photos [click on photographs on the left of the site and then click on Paul McCartney], you can see in photos #6 and 15 from Cincinnati; #17 from Philadelphia; and #25 from Detroit (all from the 1966 tour, although the Detroit photos are mislabeled at first as 1965), the subtle differences in the facial features of "Paul." It wasn't Paul.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Lost Beatles
I recently read The Lost Beatles Photographs The Bob Bonis Archive 1964-1966 by Larry Marion (!t [HarperCollins] publ., 2011). Bonis was the tour manager for all three of The Beatles' U.S. tours. He loved photography and took almost 900 photographs of John, Paul, George and Ringo. I pored over the photographs and have grimly concluded that Paul (and John) never made it to America on the 1966 tour.
In the mockumentary about The Beatles, The Rutles All You Need Is Cash, they interviewed Mick Jagger. He said that The Beatles played so far away from the fans that they could have put anyone on stage and who would know the difference? I believe that is what happened to Paul (and John) in 1966.
The common timeline of Paul disappearing has been sometime in September, 1966. From what I saw in these photographs, I would push back the date to AUGUST, 1966.
In the mockumentary about The Beatles, The Rutles All You Need Is Cash, they interviewed Mick Jagger. He said that The Beatles played so far away from the fans that they could have put anyone on stage and who would know the difference? I believe that is what happened to Paul (and John) in 1966.
The common timeline of Paul disappearing has been sometime in September, 1966. From what I saw in these photographs, I would push back the date to AUGUST, 1966.
