All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Sat May 19, 2007 9:32 pm

Daryl wrote:Hello PEP,

No Elvis, unfortunately. I was reading on another website (I think it was called songfacts.com) that Beatles had to have written permission to use living persons on the cover. I just wonder if maybe EPE would have in it's archives a letter from the Beatles expressing interest in using Elvis' image on one of their album covers. I would think the Colonel would have received the letter had the Beatles really wanted to feature Elvis on the cover.

Daryl


As I already stated these permissions were obtained after the cover shoot was completed. All but one person agreed. Leo Corcey asked money and he was painted over from the picture. This is explained in the booklet that comes with Sgt Pepper cd. Elvis has never been mentioned in this regard so there hardly can be a letter in the archives of EPE.

Sat May 19, 2007 11:11 pm

I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...

Seen here:
Image
By the looks of it, I doubting that is Elvis..... :evil:

At the same time, this kinda proves how's one mind
can work, especially when someone is trying to
remember something that took place almost
30 years ago, I really believed I saw more than
what I had and inreturn believed it was a
Roustabout shot on top of it :lol: :roll: :oops:
obviously not the case...:smt021 ,

The last time I saw this picture was back in 1981,
first seen in the "Hot Wacks" magazine where they
say this about the photo...
Image
At the same time in the little blurb they mention it is a dummy
(mannequin) so that kinda explains the clothing, because it
doesn't look like anything Elvis would have worn, plus the
height is off by the looks of it.....Nevertheless if that's the
case maybe there was a plan to have an Elvis mannequin
in the official shot, but the plan was scrapped at the last
minute....

PEP 8)

Sun May 20, 2007 3:30 am

Elvis_Priestly wrote:The reference was to Elvis's foresight, and I'm not sure the Beatles even had the foresight to know what a phenomenon this album was going to become.

Actually, they did know. Everyone working on the album at Abbey Road -- and Regent Sound -- knew.

Paul is on record as being very pleased with what they had ready to release after the amazing double A-sided single of "Strawberry Fields Forever / "Penny Lane" in February. Word in the press was that "the Beatles were slipping" when the single stalled at #2 and McCartney couldn't wait to zap the new album on the naysayers.

Elvis_Priestly wrote:I recognise their accomplishments but do get frustrated that so often they are approached uncritically whilst Elvis is broadly condemned as lacking artistic integrity.

This may have been true a long time ago, it simply isn't so in 2007.

Elvis_Priestly wrote:Personally I'd rather Do The Clam than Be a Walrus, hold my Little Darlin's Foot or Hand than join a chorus of frogs, I wish I was in the land of cotton instead of the Mull of Kintyre and I'd always much rather hear about life in the Ghetto than spend some minutes Imagining no possessions in a New York apartment.

Your "frogs" reference escapes me, and you cite two post-Beatles recordings in this dismissal. Is your point that you don't know their oeuvre, but dislike them anyway?

Elvis_Priestly wrote:"Psychedelic Pirates" was an exercise in "saying what you see" if there is another description for this fashion style then correct my ignorance.

It's just plain rude, and speaks to a lack of knowledge in your arguments.

Elvis_Priestly wrote:I do very much appreciate your sharing of your knowledge with us in so many threads ...

Thank you for the very kind words. Your observations are, in general, most welcome here -- in fact, you are a breath of fresh air. Maybe just dial it back a tiny bit on Elvis' favorite British quartet?

Rock on, EP.

Sun May 20, 2007 3:34 am

PEP wrote:I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...

That's it! Nice work PEP.

Some of the figures you can see were borrowed from Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum, including the hooded figure on the right. My theory is that if it's not Elvis, it's got to be someone close -- maybe Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran.

My money is still on Elvis, modeled around the "Viva Las Vegas" period. If anyone has a history of the museum, perhaps we could see how they were presenting Elvis in 1966-67.

I think we should be told!

Sun May 20, 2007 4:14 am

I've just read "Lennon" by Larry Kane. In this book, the author states many celebrities were left out at the last moment, because the shoot was planned to hastily and therefore the Beatles' managment could not get the reproduction rights settled in time.

In other words: the Beatles feared they were going to get sued by the Colonels of this world.


Another book on Lennon I read last week (forgot the Dutch author's name) also states the same and goes on saying that Lennon would have liked to include Elvis, since he was a fan.

Sun May 20, 2007 4:26 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
PEP wrote:I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...

That's it! Nice work PEP.

Thanks Doc... :wink:

Some of the figures you can see were borrowed from Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum, including the hooded figure on the right. My theory is that if it's not Elvis, it's got to be someone close -- maybe Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran.
yes, i'm sure you are right...

My money is still on Elvis, modeled around the "Viva Las Vegas" period. If anyone has a history of the museum, perhaps we could see how they were presenting Elvis in 1966-67.

I think we should be told!


By the way I noticed upon closer inspection of the photo
that is not a towel or anything put over the manniquin,
the picture appears to have been ripped and is missing
that piece.....of all places... :roll:
Image

So someone out there must have a copy of the picture
without the missing piece....an if they do it would also
help solve the mystery as to who it is....

We are one step closer to solving this mystery... :D
Image

PEP 8)
Last edited by PEP on Sun May 20, 2007 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 20, 2007 6:54 am

kris wrote:I've just read "Lennon" by Larry Kane. In this book, the author states many celebrities were left out at the last moment, because the shoot was planned to hastily and therefore the Beatles' managment could not get the reproduction rights settled in time.

In other words: the Beatles feared they were going to get sued by the Colonels of this world.

Kane is mistaken. They had ample time, in that almost everyone they asked was contacted and responded well before the March 30th photo shoot.

And it was Sir Joseph Lockwood, head of E.M.I. at the time, who told McCartney the band must get release forms so that the company could not be sued. Paul had not feared any retribution, but that was Paul.

Sun May 20, 2007 9:54 am

Robt wrote:... in Aug 1965, the meeting became soured, partly by Lennon's needling of Elvis standard of work at the time. Based on this would the fab had really wanted Elvis to grace their front artwork some 18 months later?

Elvis was on the short list, period. They loved him. Especially his poems.

The 8/65 get-together had nothing to do with the Pepper photo shoot 19 months later. In fact, it went well. Lennon did not needle Presley's "standard of work at the time," he only told EP he'd be the first to buy another rock and roll record, whenever Elvis was willing to make one.

Robt wrote:... also were Holly, Richard and Berry also considered as part of the artwork?

No. And neither were Kate Bush or Beethoven.

Sun May 20, 2007 11:18 am

Robt wrote:hey Doc,

thanks for the response.

You left out one, Roy Orbison!

Doc check out that physique of the headless model. It is
too slim to resemble Elvis' (from the "Viva Las Vegas"period).

hey PEP, let's consult with a Beatles expert about the real
identity.


I posted asking if anyone knew about this picture a few days ago on a Beatles' forum..... so far No Response... :evil:

PEP 8)
Last edited by PEP on Sun May 20, 2007 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 20, 2007 11:33 am

PEP wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
PEP wrote:I now found the photo I saw so many years ago, which is also the one that Doc described...

That's it! Nice work PEP.

Thanks Doc... :wink:

Some of the figures you can see were borrowed from Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum, including the hooded figure on the right. My theory is that if it's not Elvis, it's got to be someone close -- maybe Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran.
yes, i'm sure you are right...

My money is still on Elvis, modeled around the "Viva Las Vegas" period. If anyone has a history of the museum, perhaps we could see how they were presenting Elvis in 1966-67.

I think we should be told!


By the way I noticed upon closer inspection of the photo
that is not a towel or anything put over the manniquin,
the picture appears to have been ripped and is missing
that piece.....of all places... :roll:
Image

So someone out there must have a copy of the picture
without the missing piece....an if they do it would also
help solve the mystery as to who it is....

We are one step closer to solving this mystery... :D
Image

PEP 8)


Perhaps more of a Kissin' Cousins shot, but did Vincent where a size 12D shoe? They're big feet man, see you in Thredbo!

Sun May 20, 2007 12:36 pm

Robt wrote:As for me, i am going to e-mail our networks to see if they can re-air the two "Sgt Peppers" specials.

That's a GREAT idea. Be sure you tell them you're a BIG Elvis Presley fan, too. That'll catch their attention.

Sun May 20, 2007 2:08 pm

Robt wrote:hey PEP,

where's this BEATLES website you tried? I want to follow your example
with quieries of my own re. the Sgt Peppers artwork.

But if it turns out a Beatles historian has the answer, is it O.K for me to add
for them to come on to F.E.C.D.C? In other words PEP can they
be granted special entry just this one time?

Pep, how do you feel about this?


What ever it takes....bottom line I am just as curious as you are as
to who that is....

Here's the link for the forum I went on to ask the question...
http://www.thebeatlesforum.com/default.asp

It doesn't look as tho it has that much activity....

Here is the link to my post as well....
http://www.thebeatlesforum.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2345

When I have time I will try another board or if you want to also
give it a try asking about the picture on other Beatle websites
Please feel free to do so as well... :wink:

PEP 8)

Sun May 20, 2007 2:27 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....


A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.

It reached No.3.

Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............

Sun May 20, 2007 2:35 pm

ColinB wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....


A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.

It reached No.3.

Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............


One of your best posts ever ColinB!!! :wink:

:lol:

Sun May 20, 2007 2:35 pm

Image

PEP 8)
This photo doesn't show the mystery figure but does reveal that the white blob obscuring the face was caused by a light (and not a tear in the photo).

But you can see Hitler watching the proceedings!!

Sun May 20, 2007 5:20 pm

ColinB wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....


A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.

It reached No.3.

Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............


But He wasn't in the Band then so I can see where the Docs coming from with that.

EP only made a comparison with that and Little Darlin because He isn't too keen on listening to it at the Kings Court Radio Show but He tolerates it....He says it's like giving a Kitten a ball of wool to play with (meaning Me) when it comes on.

Sun May 20, 2007 5:47 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:This may have been true a long time ago, it simply isn't so in 2007.
...
Your "frogs" reference escapes me, and you cite two post-Beatles recordings in this dismissal. Is your point that you don't know their oeuvre, but dislike them anyway?


I often suggest to people when they read a comment or musing by someone to "know their author" I have failed to give enough biography for you to know me. Privacy demands I don't give away too much but I should inform you that for the last 13 years I have been an Elvis Fan in "exile" in Liverpool - a beautiful city which is obsessed with the Beatles. You are correct that I don't particularly like them but I am familiar with their oeuvre and with the magnum opus under discussion - alas unwillingly. To see an uncritical view of their work I suggest you fly here, via "Liverpool John Lennon Airport" - whose motto "above us only sky" is not particularly attractive to this writer whose avatar and moniker gives away some more of his biography.

drjohncarpenter wrote:It's just plain rude, and speaks to a lack of knowledge in your arguments.

ad hominem is often the rudest form of argument. "Ignorant" and "lack of knowledge" are certainly to me "ruder" than "Psychedelic Pirates" - a mild caricature of a band's chosen outfit is less ignorant (in the literal sense) than presuming to know an unknown person's level of intelligence or knowledge.

drjohncarpenter wrote:Thank you for the very kind words. Your observations are, in general, most welcome here -- in fact, you are a breath of fresh air. Maybe just dial it back a tiny bit on Elvis' favourite British quartet?

Thank you, I appreciate that. Occasionally the fresh air might seem to be an ill wind but never to deliberately distress another. My daily life is a dialling back on my feelings for the quartet, so where better to "vent" and if you "feel the wind blow, well you can indicate everything you see" but unfortunately where personal tastes and opinions are concerned not "Ev'rything has got to be just like you want it to, because..."

Keep rolling Doc, Dig a Pony :wink:

Sun May 20, 2007 5:53 pm

Little Darlin wrote:EP only made a comparison with that and Little Darlin because He isn't too keen on listening to it at the Kings Court Radio Show but He tolerates it....He says it's like giving a Kitten a ball of wool to play with (meaning Me) when it comes on.


eeeeeee! I love Little Darlin', have ever since Moody Blue was one of the first albums I ever bought! And, I've always thought it fitting that one of the first online Elvis fans I should have the pleasure of calling a friend is named the same.

And I might change "kitten" and "ball of wool" for "nurse" and "stethoscope" next time its played in our company :lol: :P

Mon May 21, 2007 6:55 am

ColinB wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....

A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.

It reached No.3.

Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............

I am -- and that's a very lame single from a solo Beatle, issued about 14 years after the group's demise. If you're going to condemn the group, or try in vain to point out a flaw in my response, you should at least recognize what is and isn't a Beatles recording. Anytime you are confused, feel free to send a PM my way, Colin.

Mon May 21, 2007 12:35 pm

hey PEP,

I wanted to let you know i've had a look at the Beatles website
you provided a link to. Unfortunately they would not allow my
direct entry and so i had to join up. What about you PEP did ya
also had to join up over there too?

I put together a piece where i thought it would fit in context
under the classic albums category and then in the thread "Sgt Peppers
overated".

You were right as that particular website does not seem to be quite
as large and colorful as ours. So i don't know whether to expect any
response anytime soon!

Pep, i also made a point of mentioning, "if someone (Beatles diehard)
has the definitive answer to the indentity of the headless photo", that
you would, just this once, give them free entry but only in context of
this thread. Is that fine with you?

All power to PEP !!

Mon May 21, 2007 1:22 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
ColinB wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:...Your "frogs" reference escapes me....

A 1984 UK single: We All Stand Together was credited to Paul McCartney and the Frog Chorus.

It reached No.3.

Any well-informed Beatles enthusiast would have known that.............

I am -- and that's a very lame single from a solo Beatle, issued about 14 years after the group's demise. If you're going to condemn the group, or try in vain to point out a flaw in my response, you should at least recognize what is and isn't a Beatles recording. Anytime you are confused, feel free to send a PM my way, Colin.


Well when my fav group broke up I followed their solo careers with great interest. Guess that's just me though...and maybe ColinB. :wink:

8)

Mon May 21, 2007 3:59 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:.....and that's a very lame single from a solo Beatle, issued about 14 years after the group's demise.
If you're going to condemn the group, or try in vain to point out a flaw in my response, you should at least recognize what is and isn't a Beatles recording.
Anytime you are confused, feel free to send a PM my way, Colin.


Well, all I was pointing out was that the 'frog' reference didn't 'escape' me !

I knew at once what was being referred to; a hit single by an ex-Beatle.

No condemnation of the group, or yourself.

If I PM'd you everytime I was confused, you'd soon get fed up.

Mon May 21, 2007 4:02 pm

Well, Ringo was married to Barbara Bach at one time. At the time I thought that was doing well.

Mon May 21, 2007 4:31 pm

JerryNodak wrote:Well, Ringo was married to Barbara Bach at one time.


They're still together as far as I know.

Mon May 21, 2007 5:02 pm

woodleyjohn wrote:... As for Ringo, hasn't he done well?


And all he had to do was 'act naturally' !