|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 21, 2003 14:19:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 14:23:29 GMT
LongJohn, thanks for the suggestions. I'll have to rely on finding them from somewhere, but as soon as I manage, I'll let you know my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 14:40:35 GMT
I couldn't get hold of Faul's studio version of "Eleanor Rigby", but I managed to get "Yesterday", so I compared that with the original.
Paul's voice is mellow and much more suited to the lower range of the song, occasionally struggling to hit the top notes, where you can hear things are slightly forced. There is an unusual pronunciation on the words "seemed so", which is a very individual trait. The "t"s, although pronounced, are unstressed. This, to me, signifies a British singer, and there is also a VERY SLIGHT Scouse accent, but it's barely discernible.
In Faul's version, however, things are a different story. To start with, it's a semitone higher. Why? Normally, a voice deepens with age, so he wouldn't want to strain his voice by singing higher than the original. "Seems to" is sung in a fairly normal manner, with no unusual pronunciation. To me, that seem as if it would be something difficult to alter. The "t"s are typically American/Canadian, sounding more like "d"s. He has no trouble hitting the high notes at all, in fact, he seems more comfortable than the singer of the original. The voice is also quavery and obviously much older than the original singer's. Does anyone know the time difference between these 2 recordings, please? I would have said that the singer was at least 15-20 years, if not more, older than Paul on the original.
Conclusion? 2 different singers.
|
|
|
|
Post by 28is on Oct 21, 2003 21:50:17 GMT
just a quick observation regarding the difference in voice qualities. During the early records, the Beatles were constantly touring, therefore Paul would have been singing ALOT in that period of time. Then after they stopped, he wasn't singing NEARLY as much, obviously. I'm a singer, and I know that if I don't sing often, my voice sounds different. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta on Oct 21, 2003 21:58:37 GMT
Conclusion? 2 different singers. indeed! www.alpha-music.de/1091047.html has soundclips of Faul's '93 live tour album. I haven't listened to them all, but for instance in We Can Work It Out and Paperback Writer he pronounces the T's more like D's. in We Can Work It Out he sings, among other things: " ... for fussing and fiding my friend" instead of " fitsing" in Paperback Writer: " ...and I wanna be a paperback wri-dur" instead of " paperback wri-tsah", which he, by the way, corrects at the end of that particular clip. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 21, 2003 22:03:16 GMT
Delta: really THANK YOU! This is the kind of post I LOVE to read!  Just avoiding the bloody waste of time in other threads now....
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 22, 2003 3:38:41 GMT
The outstanding vocal traits to me include:
Paul sings the letter "K". Loud! KKKH!
The word cup (as in cup of coffee) becomes kkhhhoup.
The word "cup", in America, is a general "uh", like the so called schwa sound.
When Paul says "cup", it seems to be closer (in rhyme) to "coupe" in American. More of a closed ooh.
There are at least 9 or 10 "K"s in Eleanor Rigby. Listen to the right track. Notice how individual they are?
....a face that she KKKHHHeeps in a jar by the door.......
Loo(Khhh) at him wor(KHHH)ing
darning the so(CK)s..............
All the lonely people, where do they all KKKHum from.
Pie-ay--puh backkkhkri-tsuh, wri-tsuh............
I am not cutting him done-----I like the sound. It is one of those traits you notice and like.
I mean, I am exaggerating a little, but if you listen for it you will see what I mean. The palate and tongue just worked together in such a way..........
Also, the song (my current fave) "It's Getting Better", the vocal. that is a lyric baritone. He reallt has to push to get the F's and G's.
"She's Leaving" is beautifully sung. That is a lyric baritone.
All the chest voice parts of Paul in this song lie between bass clef "E" natural, and a octave higher, or "E" just above middle C. The high chorus long notes that he sings, chorused, are obviously falsetto. No prob. They are high G#'s and high B's. They are a typical baritone falsetto. (George and maybe John are doing the "We gave her all of our lives" chorus underneath). Paul's higher E's and even the C#'s(in the verses) sound like they require the amount of breath pressure that a lyric baritone needs to sing those notes LEGATO. Legato singing and belting, or "punching" short high notes, are two different techniques.
Whenever Paul was belting, yelling, whatever, something like "I wanna hold your hand" (which has a lot of high G's) or any of those old rock'n'roll dance tunes that the Beatles did, well, in that kind of singing, high notes come easier. Easier, if they are short, and don't require a LEGATO finesse. Legato means connected and smooth. But it takes a lot more concentrated support and solid breath pressure from the diaphragm to sing a pleasant legato above middle C for most baritones. And that kind of voice would be hard pressed to sing "Get Back", "Silly Love Songs", "Hello, Goodbye"(in C), and so many others.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 22, 2003 3:58:04 GMT
And something else:
At the top of Eleanor Rigby, balance up the right side of the track,audit his solo voice.
He sings "Ah, look at all the lonely people."
On "all", he is on high A above middle C.
Very nice. That IS high for a baritone.
But, he approaches it by scale tones.
He is there for only a full beat (yes, I know its syncopated, but it's two eight notes tied together across the barline, for the sticklers among us.)
Anyway, baritones can venture briefly up there, if the approach is by comforatble intervals, and if the vowels don't make it too hard. "All" is a nice open "aw".
But at what point did Paul McCartney listen to a lot of American gospel music, and pick up the phrasing and blues affectations of American singers, black and white? Paul's vocal pallette seems to shift and grow drammatically after '66. A lot more african-american bluesy ornaments on really high notes, Hey Jude, Oh, Darlin,.....then I listen to "Her Majesty", how can that be one person?...........
Maybe I'm wrong about Getting Better................
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 22, 2003 7:59:08 GMT
I also noticed the typically American ornamentation used on Faul's version of "Yesterday". Although it struck me as unusual, especially for the 80s, I was wondering if he could have been influenced by Linda, vocally. However, looking at it more rationally, "warbling" didn't really take off in the UK, especially with male singers, until the 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by SgtPepper on Oct 22, 2003 15:19:34 GMT
indeed! www.alpha-music.de/1091047.html has soundclips of Faul's '93 live tour album. I haven't listened to them all, but for instance in We Can Work It Out and Paperback Writer he pronounces the T's more like D's. in We Can Work It Out he sings, among other things: " ... for fussing and fiding my friend" instead of " fitsing" in Paperback Writer: " ...and I wanna be a paperback wri-dur" instead of " paperback wri-tsah", which he, by the way, corrects at the end of that particular clip. I quit trying to analyze this sort of stuff a long time ago. They almost all do it - from the garage band to Pervertaro... - I mean Pavarotti  . Very few singers completely avoid this type of sloppy, slurred, &/or lazy pronunciation - t & d probably being the most common example. "Dropping" the g in words ending with ing is also very common. Sometimes this is intentional. I.e., pleasing becomes pleason to rhyme with reason (seem to recall a few things like this in "Please, Please Me"). Most of the time the g is pronounced such as in "Hold Me Tight" (one of my favorite Paul vocals). Yet I think searching for pronunciation as any type of proof of a switch is futile, because none of these people seem to pronounce things that consistently, and this can obviously intentionally be changed - which I've heard singers do (i.e., they sent this crap to hell were it belongs and started pronouncing words right  . |
|
|
|
Post by Karma76 on Oct 22, 2003 18:58:28 GMT
SgtPepper, that is true based on who i guess your working with. I am a performer and I can tell you certain people will intentionally change or drop letters to get the right effect for a song...or sometimes laziness can change it. i.e. practice it one way and when you do it forget the note to make the changes.
I must say thought when i listened to the difference you can hear them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 23, 2003 4:57:54 GMT
Also, if an ensemble is singing "paper back Writer", some attempt should be made to UNIFY the choices of vowels and consonants. Good music directors will fuss-pick and finesse over tiny differences in ensembles until the Pope begins to cuss. In the 80's version of PBW, it may have been that his band mates had a certain way of pronouncing things, and Paul/Bill/Faul simply deferred by practice to match THEIRS. Maybe they were a lot of Americans. And, as was said, he "corrected" it at the end, but maybe he just forgot and went back to the old speech pattern.
devil's advocate there. (so to speak)
But, some groups are more sticklers then others.
After all, in the early years of the band, they had all been raised in the same vicinity. Their speech already matched on so many points! They automatically sang, I bet, real consistently as far as vowels etc.. Of course, from the solos we hear they had some individual idiosyncrasies. George Harrison does something strange but wonderful on the word "you" in "If I Fell in Love with you" (I think that's the one) in HDN. Well, I mean his one big solo, in case that isn't it. I forget.............etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 23, 2003 12:40:36 GMT
One thing I have noticed, in general, is that pre-1966, Paul's voice was unmistakably English, well-rounded, warm and rich, with no real over emphasis on any particular consonant or vowel, while still pronouncing them properly. Post-1966, "t" turned to "d", a lot of the individualising traits of his voice had gone, and it was altogether less controlled, more nasal and not as pleasing to the ear.
No amount of voice training is going to totally alter the voice in this manner - the characteristics are still going to be there. You don't suddenly go from singing "wriTer" to "wriDer" all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by SgtPepper on Oct 23, 2003 23:41:17 GMT
Karma76, I agree that (to my unprofessional though I think perceptive ear) that a difference can certainly be noticed, and it is concsistent enough. I.e., I basically agree with what curious is saying, and notice the same things - though I think a person can decide to change the d to a t or vice-versa and consistently do it. I can do that, and I'm not any sort of professional - you want d's, I'll give you d's - want t's, I'll give you those. These pros should be able to do that - which seems to indicate they maybe never really thought about it much nor placed importance on it.
Yet I wish it were so consistent among them. None of them, as I said, would consisently pronounce things a certain way (every time) - and I don't mean when it is clearly intentional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 24, 2003 2:08:21 GMT
But, ultimately, maybe it isn't all the little things that make us wonder---maybe it is the whole broad spectrum of percieved differences. So many little things add up to a lot. When Aunt Sally calls us on the phone, we pick up, she says, "Hello" and in two syllables the familiar overtone series of her speaking voice tell us immediately who it is. We don't stop and think, "Well, let's see. She hyper-aspirated the "h", her "e" was a mid-atlantic type, and the "L" sound was typical of an older member of my family, who could it be..........
We just don't really go thru all that. We just know it's her.
So today I have "Rubber Souls" in the car CD player.
Well, I just noticed how high Paul sings on "I"m looking thru you." It reminds me of Bill on certain tunes when he sings "You're not the same." But it is brief and very strained sounding. It's really nice stylistically, but I don't think that old Paul there sould sing the long held high tones (of a similar range,high A,B,C)that get sustained thru-out "Oh, Darlin'. It is a question of tessitura.
The counter melody harmony on "Drive My Car" is high, it's Paul, but its a lot of mainly G's. High G seems to be an oft used and controllable high note for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 24, 2003 10:34:18 GMT
I couldn't get hold of Faul's studio version of "Eleanor Rigby", so I had to compare the original version with the live version from "Back in the US".
Obviously, in a studio environment, the singer is more relaxed, so that may account for some of the vocal differences that are evident. However, the distinct Amercianisation of Faul's voice is so pronounced that I was stunned. Obviously, especially as Faul is much older than Paul in these clips, the voice has aged a tremendous amount. Faul seemingly has none of the incredible amount of control Paul displays in the original delivery of this song. The voice is thin and wavery, never managing to sit for very long on one note - a strong characteristic of an older voice.
The pronunciation of normal words has altered drastically also, which is not usual, depite these clips being 25 years or so apart. I really feel that the men singing these ongs are of two different nationalities.
|
|
DeeT
Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by DeeT on Oct 24, 2003 19:02:59 GMT
Curious and Perplexed,
This is a little off topic perhaps but I just have to say it's refreshing to run into *anyone* in *any* walk of life who is conversant in music. Every time I post message like you have done, I get the typographical equivalent of blank stares.
Also, for any readers who aren't musically inclined, every reference to a vocal pitch or range of pitches in a song mentioned in this thread so far has been accurate. In fact, I want to ask: Perplexed, do you have perfect pitch by any chance? I do, so I am able to confirm your assertions without effort. Otherwise I'd be far too lazy to go trying to figure out all those pitches. If you *don't* have perfect pitch then hats off to you for being so industrious and meticulous.
Anyway, I just wanted to say it's very gratifying to see music discussed in musical terms.
-DeeT
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 25, 2003 2:13:52 GMT
Yes, DeeT, I do have perfect pitch (thank you, God) so I kinda can't help it, hearing these things. Sometimes, as I get older, I puzzle if the recording is in the cracks (some Sgt. Peppers's tunes seem just high or low of the key. to me) So I might assign an in-between song the wrong direction. (For instance, one song a hair above Db I might "sense" as D natural) but no matter. I am not afraid to get my fat *ss up off the sofa from time to time to tap a piano key for substantiation!!
Well, good to hear from you. Close listening to the Beatles (something I might never have done prior to this year) have proved fascinating and entertaining. I have a couple of recording aquaintances in my town who have followed it for years. One of them even taught in a Michigan University where one of the Beatles late album french horn session players moved to. The horninst (I'll have to call to get the name) took up teaching residency at I think UM at Ann Arbor. He is deceased now. In years past, he told one of my friends (who is near me now) stories about the recording sessions. How nobody was ever there except the engineer, and in most cases-George Martin was not there or at least not made known to him. At times, they had to create their ownhorn parts. They would arrive in the morning, have a music stand in front of them with blank paper and a pencil, and were instructed by the session engineer to listen to the takes and come up with some good parts. So it seems that Martin may not have hands on arranged everything. Evidently he did a lot, but in one session there was just NO ONE around. Not a Beatle to be seen. Hmmmm..........
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 25, 2003 8:25:03 GMT
I also have perfect pitch, but tend to work only in laymen's terms. This was learned the hard way on my part, when trying to tech some singing students - some of them were so tone deaf, and couldn't read music, that it wasn't worth getting into techie talk!
I've not worked in the music field for 5 or so years now, due to various circumstances, but am really enjoying getting into vocal analysis again. I actually studied the Sergeant Pepper's album for GCSE, 11 years ago, and loved every second of it. It really made a change from studying classical pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 26, 2003 14:21:49 GMT
I couldn't get hold of Faul's studio version of "Eleanor Rigby". Well I just broke down & bought a copy of Broadstreet on ebay for cheap. I'm sure it's gonna be a total piece of crap, but I wanna make a comparison CD using all the songs on there that James Paul originally recorded.... Further proof for all my friends who think I'm insane. I can't believe Faul had the nerve to re-record those old McCartney classics in the studio. I'll have the original JPM song, then the Faul version with each song, then I'll add the backwards Rev9 to the disc also..... so if any of y'all would like one of these, email me & I'll be happy to make an extra copy. |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Nov 12, 2003 12:53:14 GMT
LongJohn, that would be FANTASTIC! They're rather hard to get hold of online...
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Nov 12, 2003 14:31:12 GMT
It worked fine! Thanks. And I have Yesterday from "Broadstreet". Please excuse my ignorance, but is "For No-One" originally a Beatles track? If so, which album is it on, please??  |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Nov 12, 2003 15:05:19 GMT
Thanks for the info, LongJohn - I'll get hold of the original today or tomorrow, when I will hopefully be feeliung a little better. |
|
OPD
Contributor
Posts: 17
|
Post by OPD on Nov 12, 2003 16:25:06 GMT
John Lennon - background vocal
Paul McCartney - double-tracked lead vocal, bass guitar, background vocal
George Harrison - lead guitar, background vocal
Ringo Starr - drums
Recorded 14th June 1966 in 4 takesRecorded 16th June 1966 - 10 takes (5-14)Final mix - take 14
|
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Nov 12, 2003 21:20:14 GMT
Just a question for the voice experts here:
a lot has been made about pre-66 Macca not having the range of the post-66 Faul. I tend to agree. I did have a question on one song imparticular: What about Hard Days Night where Paul sings the middle bridge section -- the second half ("when I'm home, feeling you hold in me tight...tight...yeah") Seems pretty high for Paul. How high is his highest note in that section? He appears to strain and drop off on "yeah" -- is that another clue that either he a) trained like mad with a voice coach post-66 or b) there is a different higher-singer on the later stuff? Maybe just a strained take? I value you opinions, thanks in advance.
|
|
. Very few singers completely avoid this type of sloppy, slurred, &/or lazy pronunciation - t & d probably being the most common example.
.
