Quote
bye bye johnny
Shine On Till Tomorrow: The Beatles’ Breakup at 50

How petty infighting snowballed into rock’s most legendary split

By Rob Sheffield
April 10, 2020


PA Wire/AP

[www.rollingstone.com]

The photo is from the 'Our World' sessions. The BBC segment was produced by Derek Burrel-Davis, and by one those weird co-incidences that happen I met him (but didn't know the Beatles connection at that time), but then later worked with his daughter (who had gone to the rehearsals). Derek had been given a 'guide' acetate of the track several days before the show. When I mentioned this to his daughter they, almost literally, took his house to pieces looking for it because of it's huge interest. It was never found.

But she anyway had an acetate of the actual broadcast (the single had quite a lot of work done on it the next day) which I was able to borrow.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

The Beatles' handwritten 'Hey Jude' lyrics sell for $910,000 at auction (Reuters - APRIL 11, 2020)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Artist Paul McCartney’s handwritten lyrics to The Beatles’ hit song “Hey Jude” sold for $910,000 on Friday, nine times its original estimate, auction house Julien’s Auctions said.

Before the sale, Julien’s Auctions music specialist Jason Watkins had described McCartney’s hastily scribbled notes for a 1968 studio recording of “Hey Jude” as very rare and valuable.

Bjornulf

Quote
bye bye johnny
Shine On Till Tomorrow: The Beatles’ Breakup at 50

How petty infighting snowballed into rock’s most legendary split

By Rob Sheffield
April 10, 2020


PA Wire/AP

[www.rollingstone.com]

Paul (Billy Shears) is dead because his man on the lapel is on a different side than Ringo and John's. Also, Ringo has his hand on Paul's shoulder - a sign of death in some Eastern countries. The man at the far left is an undertaker. George and John's thumbs are pointing at Paul.

Its a cool article. I mean, in the end a ton of things could have happened. Really, when you look back on it, it makes sense. Not that they didn't reunite but that they desperately needed a break. Even when describing their earlier "break" between Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's, they never really "did't see each other". They went on a retreat together. In that 10 year span, and definitely the 6 year one started with Ed Sullivan, they literally always saw each other. You'd get sick of anyone like that. They were just the first to "not last". Almost all the other bands also basically broke up after 10 years for one reason or another: The Who and Zeppelin to drummer deaths but also clearly on a decline. The Stones are really the only ones who lasted, but they also changed band members, changed band managers. I'll give them the credit but there's a lot of things there that change the momentum, and also just the unstoppable power of Mick Jagger to be "the best".

It really is like Joe Walsh says in the Eagles documentary (another band that died after 10 years): "when you look back on it now, it seems like a well crafted story. It was anything but, then." The Beatles make sense now on paper in retrospect. That they probably WOULD have gotten back together in the mid 80s or early 90s to a completely new generation. There wasn't really anymore hate, they were all truly adults now and had spend a considerable amount of time apart. I can't see them coming back together in any less than 5 years, and they lasted 10 before John died and they never did. The band became an albatross and no one can really have changed how and why it happened. You change anything and you probably don't get something else. It all happened the way it was probably supposed to, but we just never got John to live on the way he should have. Thats really the only regrettable thing I see in the Beatles history.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

Quote
georgie48
Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

So which relative of John Lennon stayed with Brian Jones in 1959-or thereabouts?

Do tell.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48
Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

So which relative of John Lennon stayed with Brian Jones in 1959-or thereabouts?

Do tell.

I can't until "Charles" put the lights on green. I know it may appear absurd, but that's how things currently are. Some "high up" already have a "problem" with me knowing ...

Quote
georgie48

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48
Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

So which relative of John Lennon stayed with Brian Jones in 1959-or thereabouts?

Do tell.

I can't until "Charles" put the lights on green. I know it may appear absurd, but that's how things currently are. Some "high up" already have a "problem" with me knowing ...

The same "Charles" who told you the Beatles wrote "Because" as a tribute to Brian Jones...only to confess later it just was a joke??

After a three-page thread here discussing the absurd claim, you posted an email from him.

In summary, he said...

My "Because" story is a total b*llshit!

To reassure you, I fooled other mates and the majority worked well!

[iorr.org]

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
georgie48

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48
Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

So which relative of John Lennon stayed with Brian Jones in 1959-or thereabouts?

Do tell.

I can't until "Charles" put the lights on green. I know it may appear absurd, but that's how things currently are. Some "high up" already have a "problem" with me knowing ...

The same "Charles" who told you the Beatles wrote "Because" as a tribute to Brian Jones...only to confess later it just was a joke??

After a three-page thread here discussing the absurd claim, you posted an email from him.

In summary, he said...

My "Because" story is a total b*llshit!

To reassure you, I fooled other mates and the majority worked well!

[iorr.org]

Hi Jah Paul,
I am glad that a few like you have that sharp memory. Yes, off course I know as you would expect, else I would not have placed his letter. But pulling someone a trick once, doesn't mean "always". Have you never pulled a trick on someone (a friend or relative) in your life? I dare to admit that I did, but I don't consider myself as an unreliable person. Also, friends/even relatives have pulled me a trick long ago, but, knowing much more about them than only that, never made me distrust them. And knowing so much (!) about "Charles" (and having recieved lots of hardcore information and data) also gives me no reason whatsoever to distrust that person.
Trust me, I'm a healthy human and keeping a secret is damn, damn hard. Temptation is around all the time and very difficult to withstand. But born only a few years after WW 2, life has tought me a lot, and more than enough to keep my promiss.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
georgie48

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48
Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

So which relative of John Lennon stayed with Brian Jones in 1959-or thereabouts?

Do tell.

I can't until "Charles" put the lights on green. I know it may appear absurd, but that's how things currently are. Some "high up" already have a "problem" with me knowing ...

The same "Charles" who told you the Beatles wrote "Because" as a tribute to Brian Jones...only to confess later it just was a joke??

After a three-page thread here discussing the absurd claim, you posted an email from him.

In summary, he said...

My "Because" story is a total b*llshit!

To reassure you, I fooled other mates and the majority worked well!

[iorr.org]

Hi Jah Paul,
I am glad that a few like you have that sharp memory. Yes, off course I know as you would expect, else I would not have placed his letter. But pulling someone a trick once, doesn't mean "always". Have you never pulled a trick on someone (a friend or relative) in your life? I dare to admit that I did, but I don't consider myself as an unreliable person. Also, friends/even relatives have pulled me a trick long ago, but, knowing much more about them than only that, never made me distrust them. And knowing so much (!) about "Charles" (and having recieved lots of hardcore information and data) also gives me no reason whatsoever to distrust that person.
Trust me, I'm a healthy human and keeping a secret is damn, damn hard. Temptation is around all the time and very difficult to withstand. But born only a few years after WW 2, life has tought me a lot, and more than enough to keep my promiss.

You're talking about something 60 years ago. At this point, what could the big secret be? Apart from fans on Stones and Beatles boards, I'm sure no one else really cares. Most weren't even born.

Quote
DGA35

You're talking about something 60 years ago. At this point, what could the big secret be? Apart from fans on Stones and Beatles boards, I'm sure no one else really cares. Most weren't even born.

It's not so much about Stones or Beatles fans (old and young), who would for sure be interested, but you know, I think, (just referring to the article that started this thread) that journalists want to score and the majority don't care whether it would harm (or anything else) an individual. Even after more than 60 years the Beatles remain a hot topic in the world of journalism. On this site there are quite some journalists (some even with different "names" and different IP addresses) who are very keen to pick up something to write about. Nothing wrong with that, but as a genuine honest fan to be naive about that would be stupid. Some are fine journalists others are vultures. And in anonymity both you and I wouldn't know who's who.
You ask what "the big secret could be". Well, IF it's true (and off course I think it is) it would turn the history of the Beatles and the Stones completely upside down. It would cause the world to suddenly turn around the sun in the other direction, but still.
If Elvis or JFK would turn out to be alive, no big deal for you and me maybe, but I'm sure the shock will be felt. Something like that.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
DGA35

You're talking about something 60 years ago. At this point, what could the big secret be? Apart from fans on Stones and Beatles boards, I'm sure no one else really cares. Most weren't even born.

It's not so much about Stones or Beatles fans (old and young), who would for sure be interested, but you know, I think, (just referring to the article that started this thread) that journalists want to score and the majority don't care whether it would harm (or anything else) an individual. Even after more than 60 years the Beatles remain a hot topic in the world of journalism. On this site there are quite some journalists (some even with different "names" and different IP addresses) who are very keen to pick up something to write about. Nothing wrong with that, but as a genuine honest fan to be naive about that would be stupid. Some are fine journalists others are vultures. And in anonymity both you and I wouldn't know who's who.
You ask what "the big secret could be". Well, IF it's true (and off course I think it is) it would turn the history of the Beatles and the Stones completely upside down. It would cause the world to suddenly turn around the sun in the other direction, but still.
If Elvis or JFK would turn out to be alive, no big deal for you and me maybe, but I'm sure the shock will be felt. Something like that.

Are you suggesting that Brian Jones is still alive !?!
That would, indeed, be a big scoop for some cub reporter.

Paul is actually dead and its been Brian Jones masquerading as him all these years?

jb

Would it have something to do with Brian travelling over to Europe before he formed the Stones?

Brian spent the summer of 1959 working in London.

Which further brings into question what georgie48 wrote.

No evidence, no corresponding narrative..

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Where's Earl of Lucan and Richey Edwards ???????

So many hidin' way up in da jungle .......



ROCKMAN

Did that person KILL BRIAN!!!!!! Finally, we know. Make a crappy documentary.

Quote
CaptainCorella
Brian spent the summer of 1959 working in London.

Which further brings into question what georgie48 wrote.

No evidence, no corresponding narrative..

Hi CC,
what did I write? "The summer of 1959"? By the way, Sherlock Holmes is long gone.
Apologies for the typing error, it should have been "wouldn't cause the would ..".
And, sorry Bungo, the Elvis and JFK examples were only meant as examples. I could also have said f.i. "If A turned out to be Z" or whatever totally unexpected. For some a shock, for others a joke.
I enjoy reading both the jokes and sinisysm, but I'd rather share a beer or so with some of you on a (hopefully) next Rolling Stones concert. If that could/would happen, the band's history is just fun for coversation .. maybe.

Quote
CaptainCorella
Brian spent the summer of 1959 working in London.

Which further brings into question what georgie48 wrote.

No evidence, no corresponding narrative..

I read on wikipedia that summer of 59 Brian got a girl pregnant. He went to Europe, busking on the streets. He returned back home when he ran out of money.

Quote
DGA35

Quote
CaptainCorella
Brian spent the summer of 1959 working in London.

Which further brings into question what georgie48 wrote.

No evidence, no corresponding narrative..

I read on wikipedia that summer of 59 Brian got a girl pregnant. He went to Europe, busking on the streets. He returned back home when he ran out of money.

Question for CC and DGA35:
Do you think/ believe that the "1959" photo in the Quarrymen article is genuin? And if so, why?

Quote
georgie48

Quote
DGA35

Quote
CaptainCorella
Brian spent the summer of 1959 working in London.

Which further brings into question what georgie48 wrote.

No evidence, no corresponding narrative..

I read on wikipedia that summer of 59 Brian got a girl pregnant. He went to Europe, busking on the streets. He returned back home when he ran out of money.

Question for CC and DGA35:
Do you think/ believe that the "1959" photo in the Quarrymen article is genuin? And if so, why?

Very likely genuine.

There's a similar photo taken at Paul's Aunt Gin's that appears, in colour, in two of Mike McCartney's books. The lads look very similar.

The photo wasn't taken there, as the background is different. I can't work out if it's a wall behind them or wallpaper.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
georgie48
Slowly amazing information will come forward. A relative of the man in the middle was staging with the founder of the Rolling Stones in that same year ...
... goosebumps ...

So which relative of John Lennon stayed with Brian Jones in 1959-or thereabouts?

Do tell.

The original poster may, or may not be a delusional troll, or a legend with a genuine secret to tell. That latter sometimes does really happen..

Years ago, before the WWW was invented there was something called Usenet (still there I think) that was a character based news hierarchy bulletin board sort of thing. Therein there was a Beatles Newsgroup.

One day a bloke - who was a busker in Brighton in the UK, and was originally from Liverpool - appeared who claimed that the reason why Pete Best had been sacked from The Beatles had never really been revealed. (IMHO Pete Best was a very poor drummer, but that's another story).

Beatles experts from around the world poured scorn on this poor bloke. So he claimed that it was something to do with Neil Aspinall (Pete Best's then best friend, later Beatles roadie, then in due course MD of Apple). He would say no more. But stood his ground.

So, here was someone who was posting stuff that was either deluded nonsense or a gem of a bit of information. Which is it that georgie48 is posting? It could be either.

Danny (for that was his name) from Liverpool turned out to be 100% right.

One of the reasons now understood for Pete Best to have been sacked was that his mum (Mona) was pregnant by Neil Aspinall (their child was called Roag) and the scandal that implied could not be tolerated. (Young man makes older woman pregnant outside of marriage was NOT good in 1962 Liverpool).

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Captain Corella, as 'the original poster' on this thread- in as much as I posted the link to the image- I would like, on a point of order, to distance myself from your remark as to a possible 'delusional troll' . I posted the link as I thought it would be of general interest to other people here.

You are probably referring to the statements from 'georgie48' who on first assessment appears to be an attention seeker who has to put up or shut up, you've either got a story to tell or not. We are in difficult times and do not need anyone p***ing about playing games. Got it?

Quote
Elmo
Captain Corella, as 'the original poster' on this thread- in as much as I posted the link to the image- I would like, on a point of order, to distance myself from your remark as to a possible 'delusional troll' . I posted the link as I thought it would be of general interest to other people here.

You are probably referring to the statements from 'georgie48' who on first assessment appears to be an attention seeker who has to put up or shut up, you've either got a story to tell or not. We are in difficult times and do not need anyone p***ing about playing games. Got it?

First of all, Elmo, I, not at all a Beatles fan, appreciated your reference to that article a lot, simply because I, like many, like to know the truth. So (very difficult to find something really new on the Internet) when I get hardcore information (non-manipulated 50s photo material, etc.)( that's why I forwarded a question to Captain Corolla) I try to trigger in order to see if there is more information available that supports that information. I don't care if someone marks me as an attention seeker (because aren't we all then?), but if I promise somebody, who I take very serious, not to take personal advantage of obtained information, that promise stands.
So far I found one, unexpected, subtle response by someone from the USA off all places, who reacted on this site, that added to my confidence that I'm not dealing with b*llsh*t. It's not up to anybody to tell anyone else to speak out. Each individual has his/her own responsibility there.
So don't get annoyed, your reference will have its function for sure. NO games, for sure!

Quote
Elmo
Captain Corella, as 'the original poster' on this thread- in as much as I posted the link to the image- I would like, on a point of order, to distance myself from your remark as to a possible 'delusional troll' . I posted the link as I thought it would be of general interest to other people here.

You are probably referring to the statements from 'georgie48' who on first assessment appears to be an attention seeker who has to put up or shut up, you've either got a story to tell or not. We are in difficult times and do not need anyone p***ing about playing games. Got it?

You must have misunderstood my posting. Sorry.

I was actually trying, by citing an actual example, to make the point that sometimes the strangest of claims, the most incredible of claims, turn out to be true! And we must allow leeway in any doubts that we have.

I was intending to be nice about the claims that were made about a previously unknown intersection between The Stones and The Fabs.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

TODAY: The one and only Sir @PaulMcCartney joins Howard live on the #SternShow. Tune into #Howard100 for FREE on the @SIRIUSXM app: [siriusxm.us]

[twitter.com]

A book (published by Thames & Hudson, October 2020) about John Lennon‘s 1970 album Plastic Ono Band - [www.SuperDeluxeEdition.com] .

(Stern, on Sirius XM)

today, a long interview, including the two of them agreeing that although the Stones are great, the Beatles were "better."

Paul wondering if he will ever tour again, and passionate words if favor of shutting down the Chinese wet markets.

The Beatles were not better.Beggars ,Let It Bleed ,Sticky ,Exile, Goats Head ,Some Girls,areasgreatas theBeatles 6 best albums.And there is no live Beatles music better than Brussels73.The Beatles had the advantage of George Martin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-15 04:05 by Taylor1.