Paul McCartney in BPlayer ?

[kenfxj]

So somebody went to the trouble to Photoshop all of these:

 

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9214/jazzbass7lg.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6466/jazzbass49wz.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1927/jazzbass50iv.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9671/jazzbass62vo.jpg

 

To what end? Was it a vast conspiracy by Fender? By Fender fans?

By Hofner-haters? Who cares? Did you Photoshop them and you want credit for it?

 

You come in here with a smarmy, superior I-know-something-you-don't-know attitude, demanding references about something that seems to matter a great deal to only you.

 

Why do you care so much about whether or not Paul ever played a Fender? Oh I'm sorry, can I call him Paul? Would that be alright with you? I know you don't like when people call him Macca.

 

 

[d halfnote]

Get a grip there, Ken!

Frankly, you seem to have the attitude problem; if this matters to no one but me why're you getting so wigged out?

I "come in here with, a smarmy attitude..." ?

Check the files, man, I've been posting here for years.

 

To reiterate, all I did was describe what seemed an oddity in McCartney's non-use of Fenders & ask if anyone had seen the idea discussed in BPlayer.

As to the question of the photos authenticity, I only said was that graphically they looked odd & that after years of seeing serious research & casual books on the Beatles I'd never seen those photos, even in the sources that one might expect.

 

All this "conspiracy" bisiness is a carp thrown at me out of that simple observation.

 

So far several people have claimed knowledege of printed references to the subject but in at least one case (the Babiuk book) I know that's not accurate.

As far as anyone seeing the photos of PM with the Jazz bass during a Beatles session, all I ask is a print source.

That's not a demand, it's merely usual when researching something.

 

JeremyC, I simply haven't seen any of those [photos anywhere beside online.

 

[jeremy c]

All I can add to this, is that I wish we could see Let It Be again, especially the studio segments.

[d halfnote]

Copies are available aren't they?

I don't recall seeing a Jazz in the film.

That doesn't clear up the photos, though, they're definitely not from the 1969 era.

 

Do you know where they might be seen other than the Net, JC?

[jeremy c]

I've never seen a copy of Let It Be anywhere.

[Nicklab]

All I can add to this, is that I wish we could see Let It Be again, especially the studio segments.

 

 

J, the photos of Paul with the Jazz bass are much more likely to be from 1968's sessions for The White Album. I feel comfortable in ruling out those photos being from the Let It Be sessions because Paul wore a full beard in all of the footage for the film.

 

But this thread really has been running around in circles. And I feel like the majority of us are wasting our time on the discussion. Because it's very difficult to have an open discussion with someone who is already convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong. And to do so on the subject of whether or not Paul McCartney played a Fender at some point in the Beatles recording career is about as trivial as it gets. The photos are proof enough for me.

[Chewbubba]

I couldn't care if he played a broomstick with strings attached. He was/is a great player.

[dcr]

"d," I think people are talking past each other here.

 

You're asking why McCartney avoided using Fenders. That presupposes that he did in fact avoid using Fenders.

 

What seems to be puzzling other people is why we should think your presupposition is true.

 

So far, all you've offered is your speculation that the pictures were Photo-Shopped. Well, you're free to speculate, but I can't see that you've given anyone else here reason to suspect that that speculation is true. And since it's not clear what reason anyone would have to Photo-Shop the pictures in the first place, the burden of proof would seem to rest squarely upon you.

 

Unless that burden is met, this is a dead issue.

[kenfxj]

It's time for the truth to come out. Those pictures are actually of the body double the Beatles used after Paul McCartney died.

 

The body double was crazy for Fenders. The real Paul hated 'em. In fact his last words were "Better dead than Fender."

 

Real Beatle fans know these things.

 

Just sayin'...

[jeremy c]

Judging by the haircuts, those Beatle pictures appear to be from about the time of Magical Mystery Tour. He played a Ric in that film.

 

Didn't the Beatles use Fender amps in the rooftop concert filmed in Let It Be?

[d halfnote]

All I can add to this, is that I wish we could see Let It Be again, especially the studio segments.

 

 

J, the photos of Paul with the Jazz bass are much more likely to be from 1968's sessions for The White Album. I feel comfortable in ruling out those photos being from the Let It Be sessions because Paul wore a full beard in all of the footage for the film.

 

But this thread really has been running around in circles. And I feel like the majority of us are wasting our time on the discussion. Because it's very difficult to have an open discussion with someone who is already convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong. And to do so on the subject of whether or not Paul McCartney played a Fender at some point in the Beatles recording career is about as trivial as it gets. The photos are proof enough for me.

 

That's simply not the fact, Nick.

All I'm asking is a credible source rather than something from the Net that can't seem to be found anywhere else.

Who takes all "info" available on the Net at face value?

 

You have said that it can be found in Babiuk's book (& maybe elsewhere) that McCartney played a Jazz bass during 1968 & I've asked you to show where. That's not b/c of arrogance but b/c I've read the book several times & I know that's not in there. You seem to keep avoiding that ... ...or offering any source.

Who's better supported by "facts", someone asking for legit info or someone just saying "I remember" ?

This is going around & around but b/c people keep suggesting that "I remember" or "I think" is equal to substantiation.

 

As to the "triviality" of any of this, how important is any discussion of equipment used by players?

 

 

 

[d halfnote]

Judging by the haircuts, those Beatle pictures appear to be from about the time of Magical Mystery Tour. He played a Ric in that film.

 

Didn't the Beatles use Fender amps in the rooftop concert filmed in Let It Be?

 

They seem to've used Fender amps consistently from the time they quit touring...& even before when recording.

Lennon had a Fender Deluxe before they even had a record contract.

[Nicklab]

Here you go. An excerpt from The Beatles as Musicians By Walter Everett (page 170):

 

Texturally, "Yer Blues" is the simplest group recording on the LP. Although vocals were dubbed seperately, no instruments were added to the basic track of Ringo's drums (heard left), Paul's Fender Jazz Bass (center), George's Leslied Telecaster ("Guitar I." with its almost-large-enough string bends, right), and John's Casino ("Guitar II." right except for D, where heard left).

 

You'll also find citations at that link for Macca using the Fender Jazz on "Glass Onion" (page 181) and "While my guitar gently weeps" (page 202).

 

 

And BFD if I cited one book by accident over another, d. You're carrying this way too far for anyone's good.

 

 

[d halfnote]

OK, now we're getting somewhere!

See, was that so hard?

I see the mention re: "Yer Blues" but not the others, yet.

I actually have access to both volumes of this dissertation, so will be reading them again.

 

I do have a question: Everett's book is about the musical content. How would one balance that against the research done by Babiuk, specifically about the equipment they used?

 

"... BFD if I cited one book by accident over another..."

That seems to betray a lack of concern over accuracy, which gets back to my entire point---when researching or writing, don't you expect (or at least hope) that someone is taking time to get things correct?

 

 

 

[Nicklab]

http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

[d halfnote]

That''s really mature, Nick.

 

I think any look into this will demonstrate I'm no troll. In fact I've been a member longer than you, FWIW.

[kenfxj]

Nicely, nicely Nick. Although that excerpt could have been....altered.

 

"d.", just out of curiosity, why is this important to you? I love John Entwistle and I've read quite a few books on The Who, but I couldn't care less whether or not he ever played an Ibanez bass, for example.

 

This does seem to be much ado about nothing. Furthermore, the pictures and the text seem to put the matter to rest.

[jeremy c]

Hey, this is really important. If Paul played a Jazz bass, everyone has to sell their Rickenbacker and Hofner basses.

[d halfnote]

Simple Ken, I read Babiuk's book on the Beatles equipment.

If one reads that book, the Beatles used practically every type of gear Fender made.

Combined with what I already knew about McCartney's penchant for Motown & the work that he put EMI boffins through to attempt a deeper, heavier bass sound. (which is discussed in several books including Babiuk's), I started wondering whay he'd not used a Precision or other Fender bass. (Again, Babiuk's book asserts that he didn't.) I seemed like he avoided them. I wondered if there was any place that he'd been asked about this.

 

Next I began asking around for whatever material that I might not be aware of that might address this, such as stories in BPlayer (I already knew it hadn't been covered in PMcC's interviews in guitar player.

 

One place I asked someone posted the pictures we're all rattled about but since I'd never seen them before & I had it on dependable reports that PM's Jazz bass(es) were all from much later than the Beatles period, I wondered that no one could say where these photos came from.

Imagine my surprise when asking that got me branded as "a conspiracy nut", "smug", 'Know it all", etc.

 

As I've said repeatedly all I asked was some sources.

Up til just now the only "sources" offered were faulty memories.

Am I really the only person here who expects things to be demonstrable?

All the "drama" came from those who seemed to think that asking questions was somehow wrong, not from me. If you read back, you'll see I never lost my temper, even when attacked.

If anyone didn't want to discuss this all they needed to do was not comment, right? Just like any other thread.

 

I am a bit stymied by the idea that the equipment used by musicians isn't worth discussion or investigation. Why do you ("you" in the broad sense) tolerate all the discussions of strings, amps, &, yes, even specific basses that occur here?!

Indeed, what's the point of the journals that drew us here?

 

Can you clear that one up for me?

[jeremy c]

Interesting point. The Fender bass in the pictures is a 70's Jazz bass and the Beatles weren't even together then. They certainly didn't look like that in the 70's either.

[Nicklab]

Interesting point. The Fender bass in the pictures is a 70's Jazz bass and the Beatles weren't even together then. They certainly didn't look like that in the 70's either.

 

Actually, I found images of at least a couple of 1968 Jazz basses that have the block inlays like the Jazz bass in the photos of Paul & George:

 

http://www.chestnuthillguitars.com/IMG_0023.jpg

 

http://www.propellerheads.se/products/refills/reb/img/inst_jazz1968.jpg

[Griffinator]

Ollie Stone needs to get over to this thread.

 

Oh wait - he doesn't care about whether Paul died or not.

[d halfnote]

Thanks for that detail, JC. What makes these not look like the right era?

As to the block inlays, I thought that was a staple of the Jazz.

 

Now, whether anyone thinks this is worthy of discussion, perhaps my doubt of the pictures is justified.

[Nicklab]

Interesting point. The Fender bass in the pictures is a 70's Jazz bass and the Beatles weren't even together then. They certainly didn't look like that in the 70's either.

 

 

More on the bass in the images. It has block inlays, which most people would associate with a 70's Jazz bass. But a quick google search revealed that Fender started to offer block inlays around 1966/67 after they were purchased by CBS.

 

From wikipedia:

A number of cosmetic changes were made to the instrument when CBS purchased the Fender companies in 1965. During 1965/66 the Jazz Bass received bound rosewood fingerboards with pearloid dot position inlays (which replaced the older "clay"-style of the early '60s) and oval-shaped tuning machines. Block-shaped fingerboard inlays and an optional maple fingerboard were introduced after 1966/67.

[kenfxj]

It would appear that Paul McCartney had a block inlay Fender Jazz while he was an active member of the Beatles. It also appears that he used a Fender Jazz on Yer Blues among others.

 

That's what logic would dictate from the presented evidence.

 

No offense intended, but it's getting to the point that continuing to deny these things is venturing into "conspiracy" territory. I can't think of a decent reason why anyone would fabricate these photos or texts.

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, please, by all means enlighten us. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be much more to this thread.

 

As Adam and Jamie would say:

http://logo.cafepress.com/0/9508186.3494530.JPG

[jeremy c]

The block inlays are what led me to say '70s.

I stand corrected. (actually I'm sitting down right now, so I guess I should say that I sit corrected.)

[Nicklab]

I would've thought the same regarding the block inlays. But Fender's history has been so well documented that it's easy to reference what changes were made to the instruments over time.

 

But why would he keep the ashtrays on that bass? I can understand the neck pickup cover. But that bridge pickup cover is just ridiculous and totally in the way.

[jeremy c]

The bottom cover contains the string mutes and judging from the sound he was getting from his Hofner, I'll bet he liked the sound with the mutes in. Those pictures are from the days before roundwounds.

[Tom Capasso]

While some folks have been contentious here (damn it - all of you!). Let's "stick to the facts", or as close as we can get, and avoid the "busted" type stuff as well as the "prove it!". If you want more info, just ask.

 

As to today's area, I was thinking that Paul might have left the ash-trays on because he wasn't using the instruments enough to bother to take them off. I also agree with J that the mutes in the bridge cover probably made sense to Paul.

 

Tom

[Nicklab]

The bottom cover contains the string mutes and judging from the sound he was getting from his Hofner, I'll bet he liked the sound with the mutes in. Those pictures are from the days before roundwounds.

 

Excellent point. The Rickenbacker basses have those adjustable string mutes in the bridge, too.