|
|
Post by unrepentant on Dec 15, 2005 8:18:49 GMT
 i am almost 100 percent convinced that faul is the singer on HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE. the vocal nuances coming from the singer on that track are almost indistinguishable from what is on the wings albums or any faul-delivered ballad after SGT. PEPPER. it sounds different from the other tracks on REVOLVER and when he says "i want her everywhere" it's as if you can see faul in the studio with a grin on his face putting down the vocals. this subject has been brought up before, but to my knowledge has never had its own thread despite its enormous implications, so can we get a few TKIN opinions about it here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 15, 2005 12:20:36 GMT
i am almost 100 percent convinced that faul is the singer on HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE. the vocal nuances coming from the singer on that track are almost indistinguishable from what is on the wings albums or any faul-delivered ballad after SGT. PEPPER. it sounds different from the other tracks on REVOLVER and when he says "i want her everywhere" it's as if you can see faul in the studio with a grin on his face putting down the vocals. this subject has been brought up before, but to my knowledge has never had its own thread despite its enormous implications, so can we get a few TKIN opinions about it here? I have thought this was a possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 15, 2005 13:54:11 GMT
Couldn't that be due to "back-editing" at a later date so we won't reckognise the difference between the two voices?
|
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 15, 2005 14:25:12 GMT
i am almost 100 percent convinced that faul is the singer on HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE. the vocal nuances coming from the singer on that track are almost indistinguishable from what is on the wings albums or any faul-delivered ballad after SGT. PEPPER. it sounds different from the other tracks on REVOLVER and when he says "i want her everywhere" it's as if you can see faul in the studio with a grin on his face putting down the vocals. this subject has been brought up before, but to my knowledge has never had its own thread despite its enormous implications, so can we get a few TKIN opinions about it here? On early days of August 1966 Billy impersonating Brian Epstein (on the apologizing for John's sentence press conference) had ALREADY THE SAME MOUTH AND TEETH as when he interpreted Faux-Paul McCartney in the infamous LSD interview. So what you are telling, unrepentant, starts to make fully sense.... |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 16, 2005 3:08:02 GMT
Could Sylvie Vartan have been on this track?
|
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant on Dec 17, 2005 5:17:22 GMT
so six months before JPM died, brian epstein and other key beatle people watched as a non-beatle faked paul's vocals on a new paul song. and THEN they watched the album get positive reviews with no one catching on. well this makes for one of the "best kept secrets in rock history" all by itself, but then we have his death the following autumn. WHAT THE HELL WAS GOING ON AT THIS SESSION?
hope you agree this is a huge piece of the 60IF puzzle to leave out.......um......sun king??
|
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 17, 2005 10:49:23 GMT
so six months before JPM died, brian epstein and other key beatle people watched as a non-beatle faked paul's vocals on a new paul song. and THEN they watched the album get positive reviews with no one catching on. well this makes for one of the "best kept secrets in rock history" all by itself, but then we have his death the following autumn. WHAT THE HELL WAS GOING ON AT THIS SESSION? hope you agree this is a huge piece of the 60IF puzzle to leave out.......um......sun king?? YESTERDAY DR. ROBERT I'M ONLY SLEEPING AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING WE CAN WORK IT OUT DAY TRIPPER NOWERE MAN WHAT'S GOES ON? DRIVE MY CAR IF I NEEDED SOMEONE ACT NATURALLY |
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 17, 2005 23:18:35 GMT
I understand that you wanted to illustrate your point BP, but these songs don't really match chronologically, (I know it doesn't matter) but i think that the UK releases would have some correspondence...
Maybe I'm wrong (Probably)
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 20, 2005 8:33:53 GMT
Couldn't that be due to "back-editing" at a later date so we won't reckognise the difference between the two voices? Actually, I really hope so. Then I wouldn't be completely crazy. Some crazy, yes. It's the "completely" part I don't like. A little crazy ain't bad. hehe I guess it's similar to "two outta three." |
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant on Dec 21, 2005 8:56:33 GMT
someone help me understand what BP is trying to tell me.... '66 = birth, '99 = death?
|
|
|
|
Post by mistermustard on Sept 9, 2010 7:06:37 GMT
Wow, the Beatles were able to predict the future...they found a replacement they were going to use if/when Paul died--y'know because it's good to be prepared (I guess)--and decided to let him perform on a Beatles LP when there wasn't any need to. That's smart. I guess it was a good trial run to make sure all of those EMI staffers along with guys like Geoff Emerick and George Martin weren't going to notice anything. How lucky for them that the gamble paid off and Paul was killed/replaced shortly after such a test run.
"Clues" like this are the biggest disservice to the PID theory.
|
|
