Saturday, July 9, 2011

Birthday Wish In A Bottle


I have just learned of something that people will surely be talking about after this blog, or perhaps only tweeting about (unless it would have been more proper the other way around, if I had written, "will surely be tweeting about, or perhaps only talking about"). There is reason to consider the possibility, though I do not deny it is not a probability but only a legitimate possibility, that Paul McCartney's recent birthday video to wish Ringo Starr a happy 71st birthday on July 7th was seriously influenced by me.

How could something like this have happened? Where were the authorities? Could this be in any way related to the fact that I am frequently a significant secret influence on significant actions (including artistic ones) by Paul McCartney? Could it be that it is not in the least bit unusual that there is, yet again, as there
almost invariably is with regard to Paul McCartney and myself, enough of a basis, owing to the evidence, for an objective mind to wonder why there is (and so often is) a reason to consider an apparent similarity as being more than just a similarity? Not to mention those innumerable times when there is provided more than just a reason to consider a similarity, but in fact something that crosses the threshold into the realm of being evidence, at least to the astute and fair mind.

And now, down to specifics.

We see, in the following June 18, 2011 birthday wish video to Paul McCartney, that I clearly "break character" after my initial, structured birthday wish, in order to offer up a birthday wish in a more natural, personal way (this contrast in tone is the main part of my very limited birthday wish video):


http://www.archive.org/details/BirthdayWishes6.18.11

The above link evidences that I posted my birthday wish video for Paul McCartney at Archive.org less than
three weeks before the following Paul McCartney video wish to Ringo Starr for a happy birthday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IHLKm1RtUFY

Here we again see a message for a former Beatle that begins with a structured birthday wish (the performance of a song), followed by a break from the tone/persona contained in the song, so that a happy birthday wish is then expressed with a more personal tone.


This is of course something that one sees from time to time. Interesting, however, that we see it again less than three weeks later, especially considering Paul McCartney's frequent pattern of making such inside references where I am concerned (I would want to add that there are any number of instances where the evidence is clearer, as opposed to what is found here, where pre-knowledge of the pattern would be required before one can even begin to consider that one is witnessing a shorthand/inside-reference/influence).

So now what is to be done? Of course, I expect a complete investigation, witnesses, media, so forth. It seems innocent - oh yes, it seems innocent. Yet, if matters of this kind are permitted to occur without any degree of scrutiny, and without being subject to any form of measurement and consequential regulation, would not the future of happy birthday wishing be put at risk?

Seriously though (to be honest, I actually have a somewhat more serious tone than this, despite my having just written the words, "seriously though"), if it could someday be proven in a court of law that I have in any way made a contribution to Paul McCartney's wishing Ringo Starr a happy 71st birthday, I would consider myself to have been highly honored and privileged, as if I had received the American equivalent to being granted knighthood (though I wish he would let me in on it so that next time I'll know when I don't need to bother spending the money on a greeting card - unless this should be seen as regifting, in which case I would not feel that I have really been a part of Ringo's happy birthday wish from Paul McCartney, and that's if I felt myself a part of this birthday wish to begin with, which at this point requires more information before a conclusion can be reached).

No comments: