Peppers Discussion

Ooooh, each to their own, but I am so glad that "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Jumpin' Jack Flash"/"Child Of The Moon" remained singles.

Fab, gear, top drawer, outtasight, number one, A-list singles.

"Sympathy For The Devil", one of the greatest opening album tracks ever. Intelligence that rocks. Whatever side of the fence you are on philosophically, it makes you stop and think. And, in this case, I think there is way more than two sides to this fence.

Pull off sleazy? Hell, "Lady Jane" was sleazy, "Stray Cat Blues" is in your face raunch.

I still am not sure what 'Pepper' is all about, but I usually go with loneliness as a big theme. "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" seemed like "let's drop some acid and visit the old neighborhood" regression. Paul looked at it on the outside, John looked at it on the inside. Doesn't quite fit in 'Pepper' for me.

But I could be wrong, Though I could never tamper with an artist's work. After all, it's not my work.

 

If anyone tampered with the artist's work in this case, it was EMI records and/or Brian Epstein, who were desperate to get new Beatles product on the market in early '67 after the boys failed to deliver the usual Christmas follow-up to Revolver. The Beatles, or at least Paul, wanted to make a concept album about their childhood in Liverpool. Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields were part of that concept. But Epstein and EMI demanded that they give up two tracks to release as a single. George Martin later called the decision to leave those two tracks off of Pepper "the biggest single mistake I made in my career."

I agree with you that there are certain singles that should not be added to albums. Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out stand alone and should not be added to Rubber Soul, for example. By '67, though, the continued strict adherence in England to the "rule" that U.K. singles could not appear on albums really weakened several albums. Jumping Jack Flash should be on Banquet. Honky Tonk Women should be on Let It Bleed. See Emily Play should have been on Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Casual Stones fans who buy Satanic Majesties and don't shell out for the $50 Singles Collection won't even know that the band ever recorded "We Love You" and "Dandelion", because you never hear those songs on the radio, and they're not on Hot Rocks.

 

Whiskey Man,

I know of nothing that states unequivocally that Paul or anyone wanted to make a concept album about anyone's childhood in Liverpool outside of an idea, an approach, and/or intention for a work in progress.

It's also pretty presumptuous to assume that anyone has any idea what The Beatles or EMI or Brian Epstein were thinking, even those who write about them.

I doubt EMI or Brian were desperate. Especially Brian, where the story has often been told how The Beatles told him to mind the business, not the music. That would seem to make it awfully hard (if not problematic) for Brian to get product out of The Beatles. And with touring over, Brian's mental state may have begun its gradual decline, if one is to believe the reports of his acquaintances.

Nonetheless, Brian was said to inform EMI, circa October 1966, that there would no new album or single for Christmas 1966, so EMI UK put together an oldies compilation. Why the USA counterpart chose to do nothing is unknown, even as to conjecture.

Paul, in an interview, had been thinking about a song called "Penny Lane" since November of 1965.

Mid to late January 1967 - the single must have been decided no later than this as final recording and mixes were being done on "Penny Lane" ("Strawberry..." had been finished by December 29th, copies shipped to the USA January 1st and 2nd) and shipped to the USA for the new single.

February 1, 1967 - Recorded the song "Sgt. Pepper", thus the concept begins of pretending to be a fictitious group. Paul must have had that thought while writing the song, the others probably 'bought into it', or, 'got it' during and after this recording. And it may have been a matter of degree as to how much they bought into it, but I certainly wouldn't know.

February 17, 1967 - The single released.

As far as anything else goes, I prefer the use of the word 'could' than 'should'. I think 'Beggars Banquet' is perfect the way it is. For 'Let It Bleed', I like "Country Honk" for the way it surprises (and I guess shocks those who would prefer the single version in its place). And Pink Floyd, another great album just as it is.

I still like to play the 'Let It Bleed' version on the old acoustic guitar.

As far as fans go, you're either a fan or not in my mind. Yes, it can be a matter of degree and what you can afford, but I'm not going to fault anyone because they don't own "We Love You". But I am going to wonder, if you're a fan, why you haven't heard "We Love You".

I just don't feel you're a fan if like you enjoy "Honky Tonk Women", but you have never heard "Out Of Time". I think you might be a song-oriented fan of music, but you are not a fan of The Stones.

I know I could get some arguement over that statement, but my feelings on the subject go in that direction.

I understand your approach and arguement. You are not the first that I have known to address this subject.

 

Whatever.

Sorry, Mr. Music Snob. "I am going to wonder, if you're a fan, why you haven't heard 'We Love You'". Maybe, because, as I stated above, it was not included on the Satanic Majesties album, it was not included on Hot Rocks (the best known and longest lasting in the marketplace Stones comp of all time), not included on Forty Licks, and you never hear it on the radio. Not everyone is a music nerd like you and me who collects out of print singles, import compilations, bootlegs, and virgin vinyl pressings. As I posted above, ABKCO had a chance to rectify this situation by adding songs such as We Love You, Dandelion, and Have You Seen Your Mother Baby to Hot Rocks on this latest series of reissues. I think this would have been a great move to give some value to the average consumer, who, for whatever reason, is not a serious record collector. ABKCO didn't choose to do that, and now you can continue to live in your snob world where you, the "true Stones fan" appreciate those forgotten songs while the average Joe on the street doesn't know they exist.

With regard to the history of the release of the Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields single, you are just flat out wrong. Try reading any serious book about the Beatles and you will find that Brian was worried that the band was "slipping" and wanted to get a new single from them after Christmas 66 had come and gone without new product.

In a 1971 interview George Martin stated:

"In November of [1966] we started off with 'Strawberry Fields' and then we did 'When I'm 64' and then we did 'Penny Lane' and then we had a break for Christmas. So that was the beginning of 'Pepper' . . . we needed a single so we put those two songs out, otherwise, I guess they would have gone on the album, as did 'When I'm 64'".

I'll find the link if you want it. Later in his life, Martin came to view the omission of Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields from the album as the biggest mistake he made in his career.

 

Rereading the above post, I apologize for the tone of it. However, my original point remains. I presume that anyone who posts on this forum is passionate about music. Whether or not you agree that Jumping Jack Flash should or shouldn't have been on the original Beggar's Banquet is beside the point. Because of ABKCO's refusal to add bonus tracks to the original albums and refusal to expand Hot Rocks to include major tracks that the Stones released only as singles, the average fan is deprived of the chance to hear some incredible music.

The Byrd's Turn Turn Turn reissue is a great example of a reissue done right. "She Don't Care About Time" is one of Gene Clark's greatest achievements. But because of internal band politics (Gene's writing too many songs, and getting all the publishing) the song was buried on the b-side of Turn, Turn, Turn and not included on the original album. I am enough of a nerd to own a 45 of the single. I remember playing "She Don't Care About Time" for friends of mine who were casual fans of the Byrds back in the days before CDs. Every one of them had the same reaction: "Wow, that's a great song - how come I've never heard it?". Now, thanks to Columbia/Legacy's great reissue of that album, ordinary fans can hear that song, and "The Day Walk", and the Byrds' version of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" etc. etc.

I just can't see adding contemporary a- and b-sides to albums as bonus tracks as "rewriting history". If it is, so be it. I'd rather rewrite history than listen forever to some of the butchered product that major record companies released to try to make a quick buck in the past.

 

>Whatever.

>Sorry, Mr. Music Snob. "I am going to wonder, if you're a fan, why you >haven't heard 'We Love You'". Maybe, because, as I stated above, it was >not included on the Satanic Majesties album, it was not included on Hot >Rocks (the best known and longest lasting in the marketplace Stones >comp of all time), not included on Forty Licks, and you never hear it on the >radio. Not everyone is a music nerd like you and me who collects out of >print singles, import compilations, bootlegs, and virgin vinyl pressings.

Again, to me, a fan would have heard “We Love You”. It’s not that hard to comprehend. For me, buying the track, in whatever form, is another issue depending on what you want as a collection and what you can afford.

Another example: I wondered who the composer Robert Johnson was oh so many years ago. I don’t recall anyone anywhere playing his recordings. I had to do some ‘book’ research. This led me to…well, you understand.

The same applies to The Stones. A fan, to me, would want to know more, not be satisfied with what was in front of them.


>As I posted above, ABKCO had a chance to rectify this situation by adding >songs such as We Love You, Dandelion, and Have You Seen Your Mother >Baby to Hot Rocks on this latest series of reissues. I think this would >have been a great move to give some value to the average consumer, >who, for whatever reason, is not a serious record collector. ABKCO didn't >choose to do that, and now you can continue to live in your snob world >where you, the "true Stones fan" appreciate those forgotten songs while >the average Joe on the street doesn't know they exist.

I agree, as I have stated elsewhere, that these Stones reissues could have had a better configuration. But, to me, the average consumer has a different definition. If I wanted to sell CDs to the average consumer I would probably do a greatest hits (A and B sides) and be done with it. I guess, they would get “We Love You” then.


>With regard to the history of the release of the Penny Lane / Strawberry >Fields single, you are just flat out wrong. Try reading any serious book >about the Beatles and you will find that Brian was worried that the band >was "slipping" and wanted to get a new single from them after Christmas >66 had come and gone without new product.

And I have reference material that says this is where John told Brian to mind the business, not the music. I don’t believe I am flat out wrong, nor do I believe everything I read even if it agrees with my position. I try to make an educated view of what possibly occurred. And I’m not satisfied that anyone in The Beatles picture knew what event and direction was going to transpire from November 1966 through June 1967.


>In a 1971 interview George Martin stated:

>"In November of [1966] we started off with 'Strawberry Fields' and then >we did 'When I'm 64' and then we did 'Penny Lane' and then we had a >break for Christmas. So that was the beginning of 'Pepper' . . . we >needed a single so we put those two songs out, otherwise, I guess they >would have gone on the album, as did 'When I'm 64'".

>I'll find the link if you want it. Later in his life, Martin came to view the >omission of Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields from the album as the >biggest mistake he made in his career.

“…otherwise, I guess…” is a key phrase for me.

Basically, I have read the various versions of what occurred and I’m not satisfied that anyone has the whole picture. George Martin has his version, which I am more than welcome to hear. What did The Beatles themselves think? There is plenty of reference material regarding Brian’s mental state that was beginning to deteriorate after touring ended. There is material that suggests hoped for plans for a Christmas 1966 album. There is material that Paul’s motivation was to finish by April so he could hang out with Jane Asher, a relationship that needed attending.

And I thought Sir George’s biggest mistake was wearing that awful tie.

I am sorry this line of discussion is getting a bit testy. I’m sorry for my role in that. It’s hard to express ‘passionate’ opinion in words that don’t elicit emotional response. But I don’t believe I or you have to be wrong.

 

I have got to get a handle on formatting my responses. Sorry for the inconvenience of reading what I wrote.

 

I will have to dig up my Beatles books to see what the Fabs had to say. After a certain point, I don't think John cared one way or the other - in his famous 1971 Rolling Stone interview, he can't remember whether Revolver came before or after Rubber Soul, and calls Revolver "the one with the black and white drawing on it". It is clear, though, that by 1965 or so, rock and pop musicians had begun to move away from considering the single the dominant medium and to move towards the album.

Brian Wilson has remarked over and over again that he was inspired to make Pet Sounds because when he first heard Rubber Soul he was knocked out "by how it was a collection of all good songs that had a similar mood" and no filler. I'm paraphrasing, but he was quoted as saying this in contemporary interviews and, I believe, in the liner notes to the most recent Pet Sounds reissue. No one can argue that Pet Sounds was not in some sense a concept album or song cycle. What if Capitol had yanked Wouldn't It Be Nice and God Only Knows off the album to release as a double A-side exclusively? It would have crippled Pet Sounds as much as the removal of Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields crippled Pepper. We can argue about what the concept of Pepper was forever, but no one can argue that Paul, in particular, was inspired to record a "concept" album by Pet Sounds. He has said so over and over again in interview after interview. I find it an entirely plausible theory that EMI's decision to yank those two songs for single release caused the Beatles, and particularly John, to give up caring about the concept of making an album based on their Liverpool childhoods that they had originally planned to make. What was originally a noble policy on the part of British EMI to not include singles such as "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on With the Beatles, because it would be "cheating" the customer to have them pay for the same song twice, later became a policy that cheated customers when rock began to move from a singles-oriented medium to an album-oriented medium in 1966/67.

That's my two cents worth, anyway.

 

This is my last post on this topic, I promise. But why should a fan who "wants to know more" about the Stones have to buy the $50 3-disc original singles collection to hear:

The Last Time
Have You Seen Your Mother Baby
We Love You / Dandelion

all of which were UK and US a-sides.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There may be other missing a-sides on Hot Rocks.

There is 30+ minutes of free digital space on each separate Hot Rocks disc? Why weren't these songs added? Unless I am mistaken, the Beatles Red and Blue albums, which are equally crappy value for the money, at least don't leave out any a-sides. I would feel much more kindly towards ABKCO if they had taken this opportunity to correct the careless, greedy, shortsighted selection of tracks for Hot Rocks that was made back in 1971.

 

"The reason that Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane didn't appear on the album [Sgt. Peppers] is that Brian Epstein, their manager, was worried. He said to me, 'The boys need a lift - they need a great sequel and what have you got.' Well, I said, 'We've got two wonderful songs - let's issue them both.' In those days we didn't include single releases in albums as we thought we were conning the public. One of the biggest errors I ever made." - George Martin

http://www.smackbomb.com/beatles/discography_singles_pennylane.html

 

After the Beatles decided to stop touring in 1966, they decided to make records the way they wanted to really do, with no timelines or concert dates sandwiched in-between studio time.

Thus, the first single of 1967 would be considered one of their finest singles to date. Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were supposed to be on the future Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album, but manager Brian Epstein, sensing that the group needed be out there on the record racks, convinced producer George Martin to release these two songs as the next Beatles single.

http://applescruffs.www1.50megs.com/singles/strawberryfields.html

 

DAVID GOODWIN!! "Whiskey Man" my ****! With a new ID you're up and running and in RARE form. And I, for one, agree with your comments re: the "Hits" packaging. You might want to put a lid on the "crack" cracks, though, as the thread will be shut down [again]. Welcome back!!

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your historical view on 'Pet Sounds' and 'Pepper' et al. I agree with some of what you state regarding Brian's and Paul's reactions to each other's work (Paul even heard something he liked in Frank Zappa's album 'Freak Out'). I just don't agree with the conclusions.

I don't think EMI yanked anything (now, now, I know what some of you are thinking). I think it was a very heady time, intellectually, and a lot of ideas, thoughts and decisions were tossed around and made. I still think it's presumptuous to assume we can know and distill scenarios from bits and pieces reported back then as well as the hindsight that is being offered now. And Paul may turn out to be the great revisionist of Beatle history.

For me, "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" will never be a fit for 'Pepper', but will always be one of my ultimate single releases of any era.

No, I think where we get off track here is what I see as our two approaches.

Your desire for the record companies and artists to create packages that are all-encompassing, non-redundant are what we all would like to see (I think, knowing I can't speak for everyone).

The Byrds was a great example to make your point, but unfortunately, ABKCO and The Stones (if they have any input at all) just aren't, for all appearances, working for the consumer.

That ABKCO wishes to take the approach that the old vinyl releases are official, and, will not be revamped or altered irritates many of us. There are many examples, outside of ABKCO and The Beatles, of the same behavior. That The Beatles may change their approach with these hinted-at releases in DVD-Audio...well, we will have to wait and see.

I am looking at the reality that what's out there is what's out there and one will make purchases accordingly.

Not to rehash the 'Flowers' issue too much, 'if I ruled the world' there never would have been a 'Flowers' album, but I don't and there is, and, however it happened, I enjoy the damn album.

If this is truly the last post on the subject, thanks, it was a good back and forth. It is good to stir up the passions now and then.

 

Nahh, that's not David. He's still around...

 

Why Penny Lane & Strawberry Fields Forever Were Left Out
Many regret that 'Penny Lane' and 'Strawberry Fields Forever' were not included on the album. They were intended for it, but Beatles manager Brian Epstein requested the release of a single. He was anxious about the Beatles absence from the limelight and also under pressure from EMI (the Beatles record company) for a new single. Unlike most artists today the Beatles then had a policy of leaving most of their singles off their albums.

If these tracks had been included, which two tracks could have been dropped to make way? George Martin went as far as to name 'Lovely Rita' and 'When I'm 64' for the chop.

http://www.sgtpeppers.co.uk/sgtpep.html

Father McKenzie,

Do you still think that Brian Epstein and EMI had nothing to do with Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane being pulled from Pepper?

 

The thing is, there was no "Pepper" to pull them from when the single was released.

 

They *were* in the middle of recording Pepper. They *were* trying to break out of the treadmill of touring, recording two albums and two double a-sides per year, one for summer, one for Christmas. Christmas 66 *was* the first Christmas since Beatlemania hit that they didn't come up with fresh "product" for the machine. They *had* shocked the industry by announcing that they would not tour anymore, and by sticking with that annoucment. Paul *was* influenced by Pet Sounds and wanted to make a concept album about their childhood in Liverpool. Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields *were* slated for said album. If they felt like playing the game they had been playing for the past 3 years, they would have scrambled to finish at least a Christmas single in 1966 just like they scrambled to produce Beatles for Sale (their worst pre-Let It Be album) for Christmas 1964. But they took their time and didn't release anything for Christmas because they were working on an album, not a single, and they wanted to top Revolver.

I give up - if you think George Martin, of all people, is just making this story up, you are entitled to your opinion. He was there in the studio with the Beatles when it all happened, and, as far as I as I know, has never taken sides between Lennon and McCartney or tried to rewrite history to glorify his role in the story. If anything, he has taken too little credit for his production, arranging, and, arguably, songwriting contributions to the Beatles' work. He is arguably the most credible living witness to what went on in Abbey Road in 1966/67.

If you think Paul is lying when he has stated in countless interviews since 1966 that he thinks Pet Sounds is the greatest album ever recorded and that it inspired him to record a similar "concept" album, than you are entitled to your opinion.

 

No, they weren't. The single was released February 17. The decision to release the single was made at least a month before that. When I'm 64 was the only other song worked on up to that point. A Day In The Life (the next song started) wasn't started till Jan 19 (after final mixing of Penny Lane was already done), and Sgt. Pepper (the song) itself wasn't started until Feb 1.

They were recording songs. They weren't necessarily recording them for an album.

If the whole idea of things was to have a "concept album", what happened? What does the rest of Pepper have to do with their collective Childhood in Liverpool? How would placing SFF and PL into Pepper suddenly change its "meaning"?

Paul has said that Pet Sounds inspired him to create Pepper. He has *not* said (to my knowledge) that Pet Sounds inspired him to create a concept album about his childhood that necessarily included Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever.

If SFF and PL were so important to the album, there was nothing stopping The Beatles from including them on it. While singles *usually* didn't show up on albums, that wasn't always the case. Love Me Do, P.S. I Love You, Please Please Me and Ask Me Why all showed up on the UK PPM LP. Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, A Hard Day's Night and Things We Said Today all showed up on the UK AHDN LP. Ticket To Ride and Help both showed up on the Help LP. Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine both showed up on Revolver.

If SFF and PL were as integral to this "concept album" as you say, they would have been included. They weren't. End of story.

 

"They were recording songs. They weren't necessarily recording them for an album."

What were they recording them for, a Broadway play?

***

"If the whole idea of things was to have a "concept album", what happened?"

Uh, duh, the two songs most integral to the concept were cherry-picked for the single, and the Beatles dropped the idea. I'm not suggesting that Pepper would have been a concept album a la "Tommy" where there is a storyline linking each song to a central narrative. If you have ever listened to Pet Sounds, Paul's acknowledeged influence for Pepper, it is a concept album in the sense that the songs share common themes, and that there is a progression of mood from optimism "Wouldn't It Be Nice" to pessimism "Caroline No" over the course of the album. A Pepper with Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields would have been this sort of concept album. When I'm 64 arguably fits into the initial looking back at childhood concept by looking ahead to the other extreme, old age. When Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields were taken away, the Beatles dropped this concept and replaced it with the Sgt. Pepper idea, where they would adopt a different imaginary persona for each song, a la the Turtles 68 Battle of the Bands lp. This concept was admittedly only really followed through with Ringo adopting the persona of Billy Shears on "With a Little Help". Lennon was never as interested in any of the concept ideas for the album as much as Paul was.

***

If SFF and PL were so important to the album, there was nothing stopping The Beatles from including them on it. While singles *usually* didn't show up on albums, that wasn't always the case. Love Me Do, P.S. I Love You, Please Please Me and Ask Me Why all showed up on the UK PPM LP. Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, A Hard Day's Night and Things We Said Today all showed up on the UK AHDN LP. Ticket To Ride and Help both showed up on the Help LP. Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine both showed up on Revolver.

If SFF and PL were as integral to this "concept album" as you say, they would have been included. They weren't. End of story.

This argument really betrays your ignorance of the Beatles.

Please Please Me is a special case as the Beatles' first album.

Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, A Hard Day's Night, and Things We Said Today showed up on the UK AHDN album because it was a movie soundtrack. This is the reason why the post "She Loves You" rule that A-sides did not appear on UK LPs was broken on this record. The exact same reason is why Help and Ticket to Ride appear on Help - it's a movie soundtrack.

Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine were pulled from the simultaneously released Revolver for probably the same reason that Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields were pulled from the yet to be released Pepper - John and Paul weren't cranking out tunes in 66 at the same rate they did from 63-65. The fact that a UK double A-side was pulled from a previously-released UK album FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER in August 66 SUPPORTS the notion that at this point EMI was willing to do whatever it took to keep the Beatlemania release schedule of singles flowing.

***

There are credible suggestions that the Beatles originally planned Pepper as a double album. In these days where artists like U2 or Radiohead take up to three years to record a new album, that would be a feasible goal. I think we tend to forget the tremendous time pressure that the Beatles and other sixties groups operated under. They were the most famous band in history - they had generated god knows how much money for EMI - but EMI couldn't leave them alone in the studio for a year to create a masterpiece. They had to have new product and have it now. Brian Wilson was under pressure from Capitol to have Smile ready for Christmas 1966 after composing Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations earlier in the same year. Brian's vision for Smile cracked under the pressure. So too, to a lesser extent, did Paul's initial vision for Pepper crack. The Beatles delivered an albums' worth of songs in June 67, but it was not the "concept" album that Paul envisioned in November 1966. Adding Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields to Pepper today doesn't magically bring back the album that might have been if EMI and Brian Epstein had trusted the Beatles to follow their initial idea. Adding Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields to Pepper today does create a collection of songs that is worthy of being discussed along with Pet Sounds as the greatest pop album of the last 40 years.

 

To answer your question, Whiskey Man:

Yes.

Who is David Rowley and why should I believe his writings on 'Pepper'? I have looked at Hunter Davies, Philip Norman, Mark Lewisohn, Peter Brown, etc. and found nothing to support Rowley or your point of view unequivocally (or even meet you half way).

George Martin is talking in hindsight from his own personal musings. He certainly has occasionally voiced strong opinions about the individual Beatles and his preferences.

Who ever said they were trying to record two double A sides. One source, Lewisohn, said it was four singles and one album a year (and I don't necessarily believe him). I mean, come on, I have a problem with this absolutely-this-is-the-way-it-is/was approach. This is not black and white. Creativity is usually not that crystal clear or remembered all that well.

I have stated my reasons for disagreeing and Luke has made some very legitimate points.

 

Oh my head!!

Guys, THE WORD IS LOVE!!!!

Amen

 

Ron, I'm meaner and I swear more. That clearly isn't me.

-D

 

Anyone ever wonder why Whiskey Man and David never post at the same time? HMMMMMM......

 

First of all, D's here(see above). Second, get caught pulling a double-ID and your ass is G O N E. P E R I O D. No recourse. And even if you had separate lines and PC's, library accounts, etc., your writing style will give you away every time; like a fingerprint, almost. Besides, D turned up. And, yes, he is meaner and more cynical than you could ever imagine
And yes, he does know how to swear; ask the Gorts

ED

 

....and we've never seen them together.

This is odd.

mud-