|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 5, 2003 0:02:15 GMT
I posed for a little local publicity shot many moons ago with a girl singer. The little concert was being sponsored by a candy/desert company in my area. They made an entire cake out of chocolate (in sheets over a wooden frame). THe keys were white and dark chocolate. This creation was later shown in the lobby at the little concert. It was, as I recall, partially served (certain parts of the piano were re-inlaid with fresh, edible chocolate.)
In the photo, unless you read the caption, you could not tell in the B&W picture that it wasn't a real piano.
It was a publicity shot. The singer was also holding a microphone, attached to a microphone cord, that ran a few feet off camera and was plugged into-----absolutely nothing.
It just doesn't matter. Plenty of people know that Mr. MccCartney does play the bass, actually well, and has for decades, at this point. I appreciate the zeal over this point----but it just doesn't matter.
Perhaps Apollo C Vermouth, and NotApollo, and all those other guests, know the answer to this one.
Can we just DRAW a great big phat phono jack cord onto the end of the bass?
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Nov 5, 2003 23:56:16 GMT
We're not exactly sure if Faul actually plays the bass. One possible theory is that Klaus Voormann played bass on all albums from '67 onwards. Also supporting this theory is that most of Faul's lead guitarists have also been credited with bass parts, most notably Denny Laine and, more recently, Brian Ray. Maybe he's not really playing bass...besides, 60IF only says that he knew how to play a little piano. Maybe that's all he could play.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Nov 15, 2003 18:46:58 GMT
Getting back to Faul's cheeks...you guys keep calling it "botox" which is a muscle paralyzing drug and I think it's pretty new. Don't you mean "collagen"? But that's pretty new, too. At the time of the switch, I think the only thing available was silicone injections. That's how they were enlarging breasts in those days. Just a straight injection and not enclosed in a bag.
But as was pointed out, sometimes Faul has fat cheeks and sometimes not. A century or so ago when the "Dresden doll" look was in, women used removeable wax pads to plump up their faces. Maybe Faul did, too?
Do you think there was more than one ringer in the beginning? It seems like it to me. Anybody done any comparisons on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by raymi46 on Nov 16, 2003 0:19:18 GMT
gracemer, you are correct. botox is a neurotoxin obtained from a bacterium (heard of botulism?) that does cause temporary paralysis of muscles, I believe by blocking acetycholine. So actually these people are injecting poison into their muscles....yuk!
However I think collagen may have been available in the late 60's which would have the "plumping" effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Nov 16, 2003 5:08:19 GMT
right....I think "botox" is used here as a generic, "catch-all" term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 16, 2003 6:33:52 GMT
Can anyone clarify:
time-limited botulin injections (old Technology?)
BOTOX (brandname, right?)(a 90's trick?)
botulism (food poisoning bacterium)
bovine viruses, or bovine bacterium?(any relation?)
|
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Nov 16, 2003 7:21:09 GMT
Right on Botox being a brand name, and it's temporary. Botulism bacteria is what it's made from. Bovine bacteria/viruses (e.g. bovine spongiform encephalitis (mad cow disease)), you don't want to put in your body!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mollymalone on Nov 16, 2003 9:02:31 GMT
How's this for a bizzare twist?
"Dr Frankenstein would be proud:
Surgeons To Test Public Opinion On Complete Facial Transplants
By Jeremy Laurance
Health Editor
The Independent - UK
11-11-3
Public squeamishness over the limits of modern surgery are to be tested next week when specialists propose the transplant of a whole human face from a dead to a living person.
At least five teams around the world are making preparations for the transplant, which would cross ethical and technical frontiers. But before such an operation, doctors have to convince a sceptical public that its potential benefits outweigh the psychological, emotional and ethical challenges the surgery presents.
In Britain, 10 people with faces disfigured by disease or an accident have approached the consultant plastic surgeon Peter Butler, after he published preliminary research last year on face transplants. Mr Butler, who divides his time between the Royal Free Hospital, London, and the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said advances in understanding rejection and perfection of the skills necessary made the surgery technically possible, if ethical and psychological objections could be overcome. "These need to be ironed out before we can go ahead," he said yesterday.
A report by a working party of the Royal College of Surgeons, to be published next week, will examine the key issues raised by the proposed surgery. Its publication on 19 November is timed to coincide with an inaugural debate at the Science Museum's new Dana Centre on face transplants.
The debate will be addressed by John Barker, leader of plastic surgery research at the University of Louisville, who is expected to claim that transplanting a whole face would be simpler, and give better cosmetic results, than the current method of using tissue from other parts of a person's body, which can involve up to 100 separate operations.
Mr Butler acknowledged that the issue of individual facial identity was the main reason for opposition to face transplants, but said it was unlikely to be a problem for the most basic kind of transplant, which involved taking the skin, fatty tissue and blood supply. Most of a person's facial appearance is determined by the cranio-facial skull - the underlying bone structure - which would not be transplanted. The transplant would involve attaching a different "skin envelope" over the bone and muscle.
A bigger issue is whether taking lifelong anti-rejection drugs could be justified. The skin provokes a stronger immunological reaction than any other organ in the body and thus requires heavier doses of immunosuppressant drugs. But they have side-effects including an increased risk of diabetes, cancer and high blood pressure, as well as a continuing threat of rejection.
The American team led by John Barker is likely to be the first to transplant a face if approval is granted, but other teams are also working on the challenge. In France, a team led by Francois Petit, a plastic surgeon who operates near Paris, applied for ethical approval a year ago.
The Royal College of Surgeons said it had set up its working party, chaired by Sir Peter Morris, the college's president, after protests from the charity Changing Faces, led by Dr James Partridge, which campaigns for an end to discrimination against people with disfigurements.
Dr Partridge, whose face was destroyed in a car fire when he was 18, called on the college to impose a moratorium on the research while a debate on the ethics was held.
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 16, 2003 9:19:37 GMT
This paragraph screams it out for me:
Mr Butler acknowledged that the issue of individual facial identity was the main reason for opposition to face transplants, but said it was unlikely to be a problem for the most basic kind of transplant, which involved taking the skin, fatty tissue and blood supply. Most of a person's facial appearance is determined by the cranio-facial skull - the underlying bone structure - which would not be transplanted. The transplant would involve attaching a different "skin envelope" over the bone and muscle.
Let me say it again:
Most of a person's facial appearance is determined by the cranio-facial skull - the underlying bone structure - which would not be transplanted.
I do think the shadowed contours are also important. There were a lot of posts recently which argues about point by point comparisons, ear to ear, nose to ear, mouth to nose etc. ( and I was right there in the middle of all that) but it occurs to me that that is only one half the picture. Artists paint people with some points, but more important are the shaded contours. The shaded contours follow the bone structure. The soft tissues rests on the skull, a complex layer of skin (as in complexion) is greatly shaped by the hard bone beneath. And the bone sturcture is the thing that Bill does not resemble Paul in. Their general outer features since 1969 or 70 are very nearly identical (I have a beef with the nose and eye-lids). But, quite amazing work. Brilliant surgeon(s). Now, THEY know something.............Can you imagine;" Who's on the table at 2:15PM today? Oh, really, McCartney again? I don't think we can get it any closer to that other guy......"
Anyway, the shaded contours are, obviously, subject entirely to the lighting set-up in the photo. Still, our sub conscious fills in a lot of the map and files the information away, does a memory scan in nano-seconds, and identifies the person we see.
The shaded contours on Bill's face don't run in the same direction as Paul's. Paul, especially in Help and later, had heavy naso-labial folds (beginning to look older than 24) and a parellel eye crease, both on diagonals from higher in the middle, to lower as they approached the ears or neck. In '62 they weren't there. By '65 the touring or something was aging him rapidly. He seems to age 10 years in 3 1/2. Still handsome--just less juveniule looking.
Then suddenly, in Fool on the Hill, Paul looks younger again (Bill?)
Bill looks different on the bus two minutes before. What is happening?
I noticed the Jupiter II was redesigned, and found out that it was.
If Joan Crawford had had these doctors, maybe Louis B. Mayer wouldn't have dropped her contract..............
|
|
