|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 4:26:42 GMT
Hmm, Linda just happen to throw out hundreds of priceless original lyrical sheets containing (real) Paul's handwriting. Your right, that is VERY interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Imbackinblack on Aug 19, 2003 13:47:36 GMT
Actually, I must add here that in the last part, BTB is slightly wrong. They were actually in existence until 1965, when it was Jane Asher's mother who accidently threw them out and not Linda.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 17:22:02 GMT
Don't think "A Paul," think "a-Paul," as in the alpha privative.
|
|
Matt
Contributor
Posts: 99
|
Post by Matt on Aug 19, 2003 20:49:04 GMT
Friends! That's REALLY an AMAZING news! Please, the source! Sorry Sun King I can't source that. I read it in a British magazine that I don't have any more. I'm sure John said it, but frankly I beleive it was a joke.
|
|
|
Post by kane1000 on Aug 21, 2003 14:03:48 GMT
well in a 1965 ringo and paul were workingon don'tm pass me by that eventually found its way on the white album
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 22, 2003 5:25:59 GMT
yeah and one of their earliest songs was one after 909, but that didnt come out until let it be
|
|
|
Post by victor on Aug 22, 2003 5:58:51 GMT
now might be a good time to mention that WHEN I'M 64 was written around the time of BEATLES FOR SALE, if not earlier. i recall reading that faul/paul bought an acetate version of it at an auction some years ago.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 22, 2003 8:11:27 GMT
yeah and one of their earliest songs was one after 909, but that didnt come out until let it be But was it realy that early or more misinformation? Move over once, move over twice? 909 => 9+1+1 09 => 1109
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 22, 2003 8:23:54 GMT
Beware Mark Lewinsohn chronology!
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Aug 22, 2003 12:29:39 GMT
I do understand Matt's point; the Beatles evolved exponentially so rapidly that it is hard to wrap your mind around the fact that a tune from Abby Road could have its inception on real Paul's 1965 reel-to-reel home studio.
My answer to that is, can you picture "Oh Darling" on Revolver? The answer is, of course, objective, different for each listener (and thinker!)
I myself have over 150 songs Copyrighted, with perhaps another 50 in snippet form swirling around in my head, so I can readily believe that there were hundreds of real Paul songs, melodies, ideas, etc.
Also, we cannot downplay the genius of Lennon, who we can imagine was able to contribute effortlessly to any material in the 'Paul' vein/style of songwriting.
Our next stepping stone is to locate any and all individuals who were witness to ANYTHING which might help us put the puzzle pieces of Faul together. Many heads are better than one, aye? So let's brainstorm!
For my money, Faul is NOT Keith '98.6' Alison. Keith himself has that rounded, cherubic cranial structure and Sgt. Pepper Faul is nowhere in the cosmetic ballpark. -Ian
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 22, 2003 13:11:14 GMT
"For my money, Faul is NOT Keith '98.6' Alison." ABSOLUTELY RIGHT....that goofball on C2C is the one that brought Keith to the party
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 22, 2003 14:16:39 GMT
I do understand Matt's point; the Beatles evolved exponentially so rapidly that it is hard to wrap your mind around the fact that a tune from Abby Road could have its inception on real Paul's 1965 reel-to-reel home studio. My answer to that is, can you picture "Oh Darling" on Revolver? The answer is, of course, objective, different for each listener (and thinker!) I myself have over 150 songs Copyrighted, with perhaps another 50 in snippet form swirling around in my head, so I can readily believe that there were hundreds of real Paul songs, melodies, ideas, etc. Also, we cannot downplay the genius of Lennon, who we can imagine was able to contribute effortlessly to any material in the 'Paul' vein/style of songwriting. Our next stepping stone is to locate any and all individuals who were witness to ANYTHING which might help us put the puzzle pieces of Faul together. Many heads are better than one, aye? So let's brainstorm! For my money, Faul is NOT Keith '98.6' Alison. Keith himself has that rounded, cherubic cranial structure and Sgt. Pepper Faul is nowhere in the cosmetic ballpark. -Ian Hey, Friends! Don't forget that many "Lennon/McCartney" were actually full "Lennon/Lennon" songs! Like: Dear Prudence Glass Onion The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill Happiness Is A Warm Gun I'm So Tired Why Don't We Do It In The Road Julia Yer Blues Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey Sexy Sadie Revolution 1 Cry Baby Cry Oh! Darling Because Mean Mr. Mustard Polythene Pam and many others...
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Aug 22, 2003 14:25:00 GMT
EXCELLENT POINT, SUN KING! re: Lennon/Lennon songs.
Perhaps it is no wonder John was burnt by the time the white album was over, and after Abby Road had had enough? Much food for thought, and we must think outside the proverbial box at all times. -ian
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 22, 2003 14:37:38 GMT
..and starting from 1968 George Harrison and Ringo Starr opened their own music edition companies... ...Why?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 23, 2003 19:14:24 GMT
But was it realy that early or more misinformation? Move over once, move over twice? 909 => 9+1+1 09 => 1109 the first recordings of one after 909 appears on the first anthology cd (so u know it must be old) and it says the first recording was done march 5th, 1963. apearently they didnt realease it then because some parts of the songs were too difficult for them. but they later gave it another try for let it be.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Aug 27, 2003 1:15:09 GMT
Great point about Lennon's songs, Sun King. Oh!Darling, eventhough it is sung by Faul, is one of John's songs. Awhile back I read an interview where Lennon said he could have sung that song better. I never knew why he said that. But now I do, it was his song! And he could have sung it better too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Aug 27, 2003 22:24:34 GMT
You have to turn the question around--the question is how come the new Paul hasnt written a good song since the first solo album? Its been decades and literally all he has done is just another day and band on the run. I admit the I liked the songs on the first solo album but you know what- I think those songs and the songs produced under the Beatles name were a collaboration that involved the other Beatles and Geroge Martin or Phil Spector as the case may be. For a fact when Paul left the Beatles he dried up, except for the Wings songs he ripped off from Denny Laine, and Paul stayed dried up for decades and he remains dried up today. I dont like everything that George or John recorded as solos but there are songs they they both have made over the las t 30 years that have recaptured the excitement of songs made when they were Beatles including when we was fab and all those years ago from george and numerous recordings from John. You know what the secret is? George and John were alive so they reacted to the politics and the circumstances that they were in as they lived their lives --Paul really has been Just another day--there is nothing there. He is fake , phony , fraud but for the songs crafted by the Beatles to their end and made by Denny Laine with Wings. AND Paul has been a colossal bore--he never says anything remotely witty--he mumbles through interviews--he seems like he is asleep--he has none of the edge the John or George had till their own deaths if in fact they are dead. Hey here is a puzzle--what if Paul didnt die in 1966 but was in a terrible car wreck and lets assume for arguments sake that he never recovered his physical looks or abilities but like a musical StephenHawkins in a wheel chair with a box he still writes and has written all the songs for Faul over the past 30 years--Could you honestly say that his song writing ability remained intact after the accident given the quality of the work since the end of the Beatles? Assuming an accident and assuming Paul lived and has been able to write songs and that the songs song by Faul were actually written by Paul, I would conclude from the decades of songs written since 1972 that Paul lost his talen in the accident. Its not Paul. This guy whines and screeches. If you told me that the real Paul was in an accident and his voice was destroyed and he doesnt want to admit it; or that he had throat cancer and the surgery to save his life hurt his voice but he and the record company and the other Beatles suppresed this information, then I might believe it as an explanation except for the fact that the songs stink--they stink . Let me give an example: there is a lot of Clapton that I dont like after he left Creme--I dont like the shot the sheriff or the cute little ballads even the one about his son--but from time to time, Clapton will wail on something-you can tell he can still play guitar-he isnt all finger picking -there is a lot of the old eric in him just as there was a lot of the Geroge wit in its gonna take a whole lot of spending money--does any one think that Silly Love Song is anything but trash? I hope its not Paul cause if this is Paul something terrible happened to him
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 28, 2003 0:38:44 GMT
*claps* that is a beautiful post! ;D welcome aboard!
|
|
|
Post by loki on Aug 29, 2003 11:31:28 GMT
What if, now bear with me, he was never that great?
Or maybe he was only that great when he had John to work with. I can't speak for thwe Wings stuff as I was never a fan, but thet the good songs were not his seems plausable.
Is there any evidence of his song writing talent prior to the beatles? I kknow he would have been very young, but if it could be shown he wrote anything haveway decent on his own before his 'death', that would torpedo my sugestion.
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 29, 2003 13:20:11 GMT
I dont think there is any songs written before the beatles to say whether or not he needed john but i don't think that you can go from being a world renouned song writer with a partner to being mediocer on your own. We know that John just got better as time went on so why wouldn't paul have?
|
|
|
Post by loki on Aug 29, 2003 14:20:38 GMT
I guess what I'm getting at is how do we know any or the genius was Paul's? Maybe he added somthing to Lenno's writing process, but couldn't cut it alone.
Nah, fails to account for the Beatles songs credited to Paul alone. Unless that was a lie, in which case we replace a conspiracy theory with another one.....
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 29, 2003 14:40:27 GMT
Nothing like THE BEATLES before THE BEATLES, nothing like THE BEATLES after THE BEATLES. [glow=red,2,300]WHY?[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 29, 2003 15:32:44 GMT
i think if you look at the music that is credited to Paul alone you will see that the same man didn't write the later solo stuff. If you have musical talent (which personally i lack in a big way, cant carry a tune in a bucket) you only get better with time not worse
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 29, 2003 18:15:51 GMT
CLAPS!!!
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 29, 2003 18:45:16 GMT
for what eggy? not being able to carry a tune?...
|
|