On YouTube there's a video of Hello Goodbye where they are wearing their regular clothes as opposed to the video on Anthology with their Sgt. Pepper uniforms. Where did this come from???? Where can I get it? Anyone know? I watch Hello Goodbye constantly. I would die to have this version on DVD or video. And while we're at it, can anyone tell me of any other videos that I might be missing out on?? I can't believe the Beatles have ceased to be a band for 36 years and I'm still finding out about new songs and videos. How awesome is that. They really left a wealth of material for a band that was only together for short time. Well, short compared to most bands I guess. Anyway, any help would be GREATLY appreciated.

I have three version on my dvd's with rare promotion clips (recently c/pied for pc31!) One with the Sgt Peppers customes all the way, one with regular clothes and one with both, in which they're fooling around on the stage. I'll try to upload them. Hold on.

Sandra, I'll tell you what. PM me your home address and I'll send you a c/py on dvd.

Isn't the video on Anthology a mixture of all three?

Yes.

Quoted from Bobber

Sandra, I'll tell you what. PM me your home address and I'll send you a c/py on dvd.

That's so awesome. You guys rule. I had no idea there were three versions. I'm gonna be in heaven.  

The serious one where they pretend to sing was done mainly for English TV since the musicians' union said they should have live paid musicians.
They went to all that trouble and the BBC didn't show it anyway!
All the British now love the Beatles because they're part of the 'good old days', but in the sixties they often gave them a hard time.

Quoted from Sandra

I'm gonna be in heaven.  

You will indeed!  I also have that Beatles Promo Clips DVD and the original versions are fun to watch.  My DVD has about four or five different takes.

The version I saw in fall of 1967 on the Ed Sullivan Show was the one where they were dressed in their Sgt Peppers gear

Quoted from zipp

All the British now love the Beatles because they're part of the 'good old days', but in the sixties they often gave them a hard time.

Could you explain your theory

Well it's nostalgia.You remember only the good stuff and forget the rest.
One national newspaper decribed Lennon as a guttersnipe in an editorial, I don't quite remember why.McCartney was berated for telling the truth and saying he had taken LSD.George's house was raided the day Paul got married.The White Album was criticised because of one small photo of Paul naked in his bathroom.And of course Magical Mystery Tour was crucified.All this in their home country!
But now people just remember the swinging sixties and what a good time was had by all.

Didn't George say "only Britain hates the Beatles"?
But to be fair, the drug busts were part of a bigger establishment assault on rock stars in general. The Stones got hit hard too.
Paul saying he took LSD was fair enough for criticism. Even though it wasn't illegal it was still recognised as dangerous. A rock star would still be criticised (rightly) for saying the same thing today.
MMT just wasn't very good.
I think rather than anti- Beatles, the British press was more anti-rock. (with the fabulous exception of The Times bless them.) Popstars were so much more pallatabler when they wree nonthreatening, wore suits and performed like monkeys for the press.

Quoted from Kevin

Didn't George say "only Britain hates the Beatles"?
But to be fair, the drug busts were part of a bigger establishment assault on rock stars in general. The Stones got hit hard too.

I never said they didn't.But the Stones were kind of expected to behave badly, not the Beatles.So the venom unleashed on the Beatles was more corrosive.
Now, of course, Sir Paul and Sir Mick are highly respected members of the community!

Quoted from zipp

.But the Stones were kind of expected to behave badly, not the Beatles.So the venom unleashed on the Beatles was more corrosive.

True. But then Paul shouldn't have gone on national tv and told the world he took drugs.
Are you sure the  "unleashing venom" bit isn't a bit harsh? A little example maybe? (all in the interests of good natured  hearty debate of course   )

Quoted from Kevin

True. But then Paul shouldn't have gone on national tv and told the world he took drugs.

Why?
Are you saying he shouldn't have taken LSD?
(Too bad, he didn't ask your permission).
Or are you saying that he could do what he liked but shouldn't have said anything?
(So he becomes a dishonest hypocrite).

I think maybe a little bit of that venom is still around...

No. I'm saying that you can't go on national TV and say you take drugs, and then say Britain hates you because the police start sniffing around.
I'm also saying that any rock star would come under criticism (rightly or wrongly, then or now, in the UK or US) for saying what Paul said. This was a counter to your point that The Beatles were coming in for unfair criticism by the british, not an exploration of Paul's morales.

And MMT deserved the bad reviews. Paul apologised the next day. Hardly examples of British "venom" wouldn't you say?