|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 3, 2003 3:16:47 GMT
He is an amazing guy. Do you guys realize that? I just did myself. Think of all he did. A) He learned to play the bass very well in less than three years. DO NOT tell me it is doctored. I have Let it Be bootlegs with bass on them, and very good bass at that. And don't even try to tell me that they overdubbed the bass on even songs that weren't meant to be released. B) He wrote some of the Beatles' best songs. Let it Be, Long and Winding Road, etc. Please don't try to convince me that these were in Paul's backlog. For the amount released, it is implausible to think Paul wrote them. If anyone has noticed, Paul/Faul's output INCREASED after his death. This doesn't make any sense if they were using Paul's background, because if anything, they would want to decrease it so that they couldn't run out. C) He saved the Beatles and has become loved by millions. Seriously, if it wasn't for him, imagine if the truth had come out when Paul had died.  D) It's the legacy that counts. Faul may be impersonating someone and stealing their legacy, but the legacy is what counts. I've had it ruined for me, I wish the same upon no one. |
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Nov 3, 2003 3:50:57 GMT
That's true actually. I love Let It Be, Long and Winding Road, Fool on the Hill, Golden Slumbers, Hey Jude... all that. Some of my favorites songs from the Beatles... I just wish it could have been Paul that did all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Nov 3, 2003 4:18:31 GMT
He is an amazing guy. Do you guys realize that? I just did myself. Think of all he did. A) He learned to play the bass very well in less than three years. DO NOT tell me it is doctored. I have Let it Be bootlegs with bass on them, and very good bass at that. And don't even try to tell me that they overdubbed the bass on even songs that weren't meant to be released. B) He wrote some of the Beatles' best songs. Let it Be, Long and Winding Road, etc. Please don't try to convince me that these were in Paul's backlog. For the amount released, it is implausible to think Paul wrote them. If anyone has noticed, Paul/Faul's output INCREASED after his death. This doesn't make any sense if they were using Paul's background, because if anything, they would want to decrease it so that they couldn't run out. C) He saved the Beatles and has become loved by millions. Seriously, if it wasn't for him, imagine if the truth had come out when Paul had died. D) It's the legacy that counts. Faul may be impersonating someone and stealing their legacy, but the legacy is what counts. I've had it ruined for me, I wish the same upon no one. A) Are you sure that Faul played the bass in those records? B) Are you sure that Faul wrote all those songs? C) Agree with these D) I respect Faul in some aspects  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 3, 2003 5:23:37 GMT
I think Faul has accomplished many amazing things. It is hard enough to be a credible performer, without having to mix in qualities of another man for public consumption.
|
|
Pat
Contributor
Posts: 69
|
Post by Pat on Nov 3, 2003 6:26:52 GMT
B) He wrote some of the Beatles' best songs. Let it Be, Long and Winding Road, etc. Please don't try to convince me that these were in Paul's backlog. For the amount released, it is implausible to think Paul wrote them. If anyone has noticed, Paul/Faul's output INCREASED after his death. This doesn't make any sense if they were using Paul's background, because if anything, they would want to decrease it so that they couldn't run out. actually i think it is pretty possible that there would be that much material left after he died.. ever heard of a great slain rapper called Tupac Shakur? since he was killed in 1996 there have been more albums released than when he was alive, most double disc and all with brand new unheard material that was not heard before he died. hes also had more top 10 hits after he died, infact he has a new album and movie coming out this month! and he did all this while starring 3 movies all in a time period of NINE MONTHS! (he was released from jail and died 9 months later) if james paul had tupacs work ethic i think it is quite possible  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 3, 2003 7:47:38 GMT
Also, Paul had a lot of equipment at home, according to some posts here, and some old magazine writings. He experimented , I read, a lot with his own gear, and brought some incomplete mixes in to play for Leenon and George, I thnk I read, some of it was comedy and put on stuff----he also did "scratch pad"demos of songs he was working on. I don;t ever read where he wrote music down veyond lyrics and maybe a few chord symbols. So, this way of archiving his songs "in progress' paid off in the end.........
|
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 5, 2003 1:41:08 GMT
A) Are you sure that Faul played the bass in those records? B) Are you sure that Faul wrote all those songs? C) Agree with these D) I respect Faul in some aspects A. I am pretty sure myself, because you can hear "faul" talking a lot, and I don't really think they would have kept him there just to do vocals, because obviously no one liked him. B. I am just going by my hunch in the differences in the songwriting, and by the fact that I don't think Paul could have had THAT much backlog. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 5, 2003 3:17:28 GMT
Could it be a mix?
|
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 5, 2003 3:20:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Nov 5, 2003 16:30:57 GMT
If Faul could really write some of the decent songs you mentioned, what went wrong with his solo career writing? No, it was Paul's backlog and John sometimes "giving" some to Faul (eg: "I Will").
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Nov 5, 2003 19:44:59 GMT
A. I am pretty sure myself, because you can hear "faul" talking a lot, and I don't really think they would have kept him there just to do vocals, because obviously no one liked him. B. I am just going by my hunch in the differences in the songwriting, and by the fact that I don't think Paul could have had THAT much backlog. A. I suggest you to see "The Rooftop Concert" and look at Faul B. Already answered by Paul Bearer |
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Nov 5, 2003 22:58:49 GMT
If Faul could really write some of the decent songs you mentioned, what went wrong with his solo career writing? No, it was Paul's backlog and John sometimes "giving" some to Faul (eg: "I Will"). I didn't think lowly of his solo songs, so I believe that Faul DID write his own. Paul, as much as I love him, wasn't a god or anything of the sort; he was a very talented singer and composer. There are others that can do the same as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 5, 2003 23:35:14 GMT
If Faul could really write some of the decent songs you mentioned, what went wrong with his solo career writing? No, it was Paul's backlog and John sometimes "giving" some to Faul (eg: "I Will"). Don't forget John gave 'Oh! Darling' to Faul also. |
|
Danthology
Contributor
"For awhile we can sit, smoke a pipe and discuss all the vast intricacies of life..."
Posts: 47
|
Post by Danthology on Nov 6, 2003 6:02:25 GMT
I have to agree with the original post.... if Faul exists, he became a hell of a bass player in a short time span. I would know - I play myself, and his playing on the Let it Be sessions is not faked. Look at the rooftop performance of Don't Let Me Down... it's all P(f)aul and all fantastic. And... whether he wrote the songs or not, he performed them to perfection. Think about it... none of the horrible pop icons today write their own music, but they are praised and win Grammy's every year. Bottom line.. P(f)aul is a fantastic musician, fantastic singer, and allowed the legacy of the Beatles to continue over 30 years after their breakup. If the band stopped making albums after 66, the Beatles would not be nearly what they are today. Not even close....
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 6, 2003 15:57:44 GMT
If Faul could really write some of the decent songs you mentioned, what went wrong with his solo career writing? No, it was Paul's backlog and John sometimes "giving" some to Faul (eg: "I Will"). EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! THE KING GOT NAKED REAL QUICK FOR THE SOLO YEARS... Also, Faul is merely an IMPOSTER. I am a professional, life-long musician and in all honestly, BASS GUITAR is the EASIEST thing to learn. Most bass guitarists take COMPLETE DIRECTION as to their parts from the GUITAR PLAYERS, in faul's case, JOHN & GEORGE. The decision was made..or forced upon the group to CONTINUE WITH FAUL and for that, as a selfish fan, I am grateful. But I cannot loft FAUL onto some pedestal, as I feel his massive solo works (except for BOTR) is the most mediocre, bland, lyrically retarded drivel I have ever heard. THERE IS NO WAY THE GENIUS WHO WROTE ELEANOR RIGBY ALSO SQUATTED OUT 'Silly Love Songs' !!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Danthology
Contributor
"For awhile we can sit, smoke a pipe and discuss all the vast intricacies of life..."
Posts: 47
|
Post by Danthology on Nov 7, 2003 13:46:29 GMT
I am a professional, life-long musician and in all honestly, BASS GUITAR is the EASIEST thing to learn. Most bass guitarists take COMPLETE DIRECTION as to their parts from the GUITAR PLAYERS, in faul's case, JOHN & GEORGE. I can't disagree any more with this statement. I am also a musician who has been playing bass for almost 20 years. If you play 1 note line after line.. sure - you have a point. But post 66 McCartney did not. His lines were very melodic, and extremely well played, not something that a non musician, or non bass player could just pick right up and learn in a few weeks. Look at greats like Jack Bruce, Geddy Lee, Tony Levin, etc etc etc.... None of these names simly follow a guitar part. In fact, when I write, the guitar part usually follows my part. My point, not necesarrily saying that there is no Faul, but that P(f)aul is indeed a fantastic bass player. Look at the rooftop performance for examples. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 7, 2003 14:11:16 GMT
I can't disagree any more with this statement. I am also a musician who has been playing bass for almost 20 years. If you play 1 note line after line.. sure - you have a point. But post 66 McCartney did not. His lines were very melodic, and extremely well played, not something that a non musician, or non bass player could just pick right up and learn in a few weeks. Look at greats like Jack Bruce, Geddy Lee, Tony Levin, etc etc etc.... None of these names simly follow a guitar part. In fact, when I write, the guitar part usually follows my part. My point, not necesarrily saying that there is no Faul, but that P(f)aul is indeed a fantastic bass player. Look at the rooftop performance for examples. :DTotally agree regarding your excellent examples of bass players; Geddy Lee has to be in the top 3 list of all time. Also know what your point is regarding inventive, flowing, 'walking' bass parts, and the bass on, for example Sgt. Pepper is some of the best there is: Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Lovely Rita, et.al. BUT your fatal logic automatically attributing those melodic, original bass parts to paul or even faul is skewered. Who says Faul played those bass parts on the recordings? Who is to say it wasn't Harrison? Who is to say it wasn't George and/or John who, as I stated in my post, wrote and created all those groovy, massive bass parts? I also agree there is nothing more BORING than a lazy bass player...you know the type; they only hit the root notes and avoid riffs and runs. One could also make the musical theory argument that the bass playing style actually CHANGED from pre-1966 Beatles music to post-1966 material. Listen to Help! or even revolver...then spin Sgt. Pepper for the comparison. One thing that DID help whomever was laying down the acid-tinged bass lines was switching from the Hofner to the mighty Rickenbacker 4001...the king of low-end instruments, in my opinion. I have been playing bass since 1977, along with drums, guitars, keyboards, and synths. I stand by my statement, and it is still only my sage, educated opinion. ANY kick-ass guitarist can RIP on bass with little or no effort; if you can master 6 strings, 4 is a breeze. In my opinion, Bass is STILL the slackers instrument of choice and is the EASIEST rock instrument to assume.  Which is NOT to say great bass playing doesn't make a band..listen to Geddy on 'Hemispheres'......... |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Nov 7, 2003 14:51:39 GMT
I can't disagree any more with this statement. I am also a musician who has been playing bass for almost 20 years. If you play 1 note line after line.. sure - you have a point. But post 66 McCartney did not. His lines were very melodic, and extremely well played, not something that a non musician, or non bass player could just pick right up and learn in a few weeks. Look at greats like Jack Bruce, Geddy Lee, Tony Levin, etc etc etc.... None of these names simly follow a guitar part. In fact, when I write, the guitar part usually follows my part. My point, not necesarrily saying that there is no Faul, but that P(f)aul is indeed a fantastic bass player. Look at the rooftop performance for examples. I feel that FAUL was CIA . The CIA invites their members on the basis of some qualification. It is a huge and awesome organization. They probally have someone , somewhere who can do anything . I think Faul was recruited because his face could be made into Paul's , and he appears to be a highly trained musician . He was probally already conversant with several instruments . He probally read music like a second language . No doubt he soon came to think of himself as superior to the other three and in SOME ways he was. |
|
Danthology
Contributor
"For awhile we can sit, smoke a pipe and discuss all the vast intricacies of life..."
Posts: 47
|
Post by Danthology on Nov 7, 2003 17:44:25 GMT
I stand by my statement, and it is still only my sage, educated opinion. ANY kick-ass guitarist can RIP on bass with little or no effort; if you can master 6 strings, 4 is a breeze.......... I respect your opinion However, a kick ass guitarist who "rips" on a bass does not a good bass player make. (sorry.. not trying to sound like Yoda here!!) Technique and chops are 2 different things. And.. listening to todays music, I'm afraid I'd have to say that the guitar is the slackers instrument of choice! I have yet to see a really good guitar player pick up a bass and play funk, soul, and r&b - heck, even rock for that matter with feel. But... you are a good debater and I have enjoyed this post. We may have two different musical opinions, but we both agree.... Hemispheres... ahhhh....so good!  |
|
|
|
Post by SgtPepper on Nov 7, 2003 21:35:27 GMT
I tend to have the belief that there are songwriters and there are performers - very few of them truly do both very well. IMO the Beatles were among the better of those who did. I heard some vocalists do Beatles songs and I like them more, but generally speaking they are hack jobs The legacy is important, but not at the expense of the truth. Other bands lost members and recovered to their previous status or more - AC/DC being an example. Some people don't like them as much after Bon Scott, some like them more - but the basic fan base remained intact. So though Paul's the fool on the hill, I think the other 3 were being foolish - unless they were forced to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 8, 2003 13:50:35 GMT
I respect your opinion However, a kick ass guitarist who "rips" on a bass does not a good bass player make. (sorry.. not trying to sound like Yoda here!!) Technique and chops are 2 different things. And.. listening to todays music, I'm afraid I'd have to say that the guitar is the slackers instrument of choice! I have yet to see a really good guitar player pick up a bass and play funk, soul, and r&b - heck, even rock for that matter with feel. But... you are a good debater and I have enjoyed this post. We may have two different musical opinions, but we both agree.... Hemispheres... ahhhh....so good! Appreciate your reply, and I'm not debating; I'm speaking from experience. I do not play bass as I would guitar. A naturally-talented musician KNOWS how to play great bass parts which compliment the overall song. i.e. knowing when to choogle on the root eighth notes, and when to riff and do runs. It is elementary to a natural well-rounded musician, which I consider myself. Today's music wasn't the thrust of the thread, although I share your observation. The industry's criteria has changed; not the music. there have always been mediocre, lackluster bands, lol. Nowadays, originality is not rewarded. Professional music (meaning what we are subjected to on the FM radio) is truly only 'product' not art. In that vein, I always laugh when todays wannabe heavy rockers have to down-tune their instruments to give the illusion of 'heaviness' and balls. Seems to me, in the past 40 years the best bands didn't need to drop-D tune to rock out. There is nothing more monotone and muddled than bass and guitar tuned down to the same notes! lol. Chris Squire was another exceptional bass player; as was Dennis Dunaway from the ORIGINAL Alice Cooper group. From the 'school's out' album to the excellent concept album 'Billion Dollar Babies,' he was a standard of inventive, riffing, kick ass bass playing, as is whomever is assuming the bass duties on Sgt. Pepper (I bet it's GEORGE...) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Nov 8, 2003 16:09:34 GMT
And some of us think Klauss Voorman may have lent a hand - it's quite possible he was Paul's mentor and taught him some things with guitar-playing. It's interesting to note that after the Beatles split, John, George, Ringo and Klauss were just days away from forming their own band together without Faul when they suddenly pulled the plug on the idea. I wonder why unless...perhaps too many people would have noticed how much Klauss sounded like "Paul" from Sgt. Pepper on bass!  |
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 18, 2003 3:51:18 GMT
I'm gonna bump this topic for the sake of adding some stuff. 1. I agree that a lot of "Faul's" best songs could have been written by McCartney, but there is no way, NO WAY, that Paul could have had them finished. And John and George, I highly doubt, would finish them for "Faul." Even a scratch of a verse and a progression takes a lot to craft into a perfect song. 2. Bass playing. There is no way, no way, that the bass on ALL OF those let it be songs is overdubbed. It is just ridiculous to think this. It's also ridiculous to think there was a bass player sitting in, who somehow managed to play the exact parts "Faul" was talking about (You know, like for instance 'What if i do this' *Plays bass line*) at the right moments, and managed to keep his mouth completely quiet for all of the tapes that have been released. Again, I don't even think any agency or "Faul" or anyone would go through all these tapes and eliminate evidence; it just doesn't make sense. 3. I have a bootleg of John, "Faul"/Paul, Stevie Wonder, Harry Nillson, and others jamming in 74, and John clearly shouts out "McCartney's doing the f*cking harmony" or something similar. Again, this doesn't make sense if it was "Faul." Maybe Scatterdome's theory could come into play here?  EDIT: On point three, I wasn't quite clear. What I meant to say, was that it doesn't seem logical that John would call him McCartney if it was Faul, you know? John and George, not so much Ringo, both strike me as the people who would never publicly admit something like this, or mistreat "Faul", but wouldn't call him Paul or McCartney, or treat him as if he was Paul. I don't know if I'm conveying my idea here correctly, please tell me if you understand. |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 18, 2003 5:39:03 GMT
They did; Klaus Voorman; and he would.
|
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 18, 2003 20:48:12 GMT
They did; Klaus Voorman; and he would. Did what, and would do what. I'm getting tired of your "opinions" and the fact that you disagree without even trying to show your point of view.  |
|
Which is NOT to say great bass playing doesn't make a band..listen to Geddy on 'Hemispheres'.........
