|
Post by gm1276 on Oct 14, 2003 21:12:26 GMT
Yes, yes, I know that songs such as "I am the Walrus" and "Glass Onion" were REALLY written about "Faul" and not written by John to poke fun at the truth seekers. ;D ;D But, I am thinking that if any songs did hold clues to Paul's supposed death, they wouldn't be songs that one would have a natural instinct to comb for the clues. Plus, any song can be taken as a clue. PLEASE don't take this as an insult, or me being an asshole, because I am not trying to do that; but look. I can pick a song (Happiness is a Warm Gun) and make it seem like it has clues about Paul's death. She's not a girl who misses much. Do do do do do do do do She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand Like a lizard on a window pane. The man in the crowd with the multicolored mirrors On his hobnail boots Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy Working overtime Working to imitate Paul?A soap impression of his wife Faul's imitation? which he ate And donated to the National Trust. being a conspiracy, national trust of Paul being aliveI need a fix 'cause I'm going down. Down to the bits that I left uptown. I need a fix 'cause I'm going down. Mother Superior jump the gun 4x Happiness is a warm gun End Faul, or the illuminati being happy to kill everyone?2x When I hold you in my arms And I feel my finger on your trigger I know no one can do me no harm Because happiness is a warm gun. Now, yes, I know this isn't as convincing as some of your analysises of various other Beatle songs, but do you understand what I mean? Anyway, I would also like to request, from Sun King, if you can take known images of Paul and crossfade them with the 2 or 3??? pics of Will we have and also the later pictures of Faul from the White Album and after the beard came off in the 70's ? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Oct 15, 2003 2:25:50 GMT
just as you, no offense, but i dont even really think that that song could be taken as a clue, even if it was a beatles song. although i fully agree that many songs are overanalyzed into a 'deeper' nonexistent meaning...
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 15, 2003 6:54:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Oct 16, 2003 2:09:26 GMT
Hi, I'm new here.
Now forgive me for sounding like I'm trying to be contradicting --I am a firm believer in there being a Faul, no doubt-- but Faul's photo on the Let It Be Album and his performances there seem very PAUL. His photo on the Let It Be cover looks like himself on one of his first covers (the comparison you did on that site you provided Sun King; I apologize for not remembering the name). And on the song The Long and Winding Road, his voice seems to have bass to me and sounds great just like Paul's old performance.
Now, do you think a possibility is that Paul had a stunt double for a while and that his Let It Be performances and such were acutally HIM? Because his songs on Let It Be I really like, especially I've Got a Feeling with John Lennon (bless his soul) and Let It Be.
Just weird thoughts, and keep up the good work on this site.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 16, 2003 15:20:28 GMT
The eyes and head width are James Paul's but the nose, hair and beard are Faul's. (Unfortunately) it's just a photomontage. Unfortunately today's "Paul" is STILL Bill.
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Oct 17, 2003 0:53:40 GMT
Yes, the eyes and everything are like Paul, and that's what makes me think maybe those songs WERE Paul. Yes, the beard could be said to be Faul's, but also Paul coulda just grown a new one. And if you watch the Let it Be movie/video clips, his mustache does split like Paul's does. I'm just exerting all possibilities. If a serious thing happens where we get a chance to present all this good stuff everyone has collected, I just wanna be certain that nothing can be refuted or at least easily refuted. And because I'm one of the few big fans of the Let it Be album, I wanna believe that that's Paul singing all those songs and not that blasted Faul
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Oct 17, 2003 1:19:02 GMT
double-people has a point. when the right time comes, which i believe it will, that all the evidence is to be presented for the right reasons, we cant have anything disputable, or easily disputable. whoeverll do it has got to have it all together, but on the same side, i believe they will just because of hte obvious importance of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 17, 2003 5:15:14 GMT
It appears to me that Paul's left eye socket is set lower in his skull than his right eye socket. Check it with a ruler on the monitor. Bill's eyes are seemingly at the same level, very close at least. This seems consistent thruout the photo comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 18, 2003 8:38:15 GMT
It appears to me that Paul's left eye socket is set lower in his skull than his right eye socket. Check it with a ruler on the monitor. Bill's eyes are seemingly at the same level, very close at least. This seems consistent thruout the photo comparisons. Perfectly right!
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Oct 18, 2003 16:04:18 GMT
But if the eye socket thing is true, then how could it be a photomontage?
I don't see the eye socket thing; it seems more of an illusion with the shadows, and if it isn't, plastic surgery could easily fix THAT, which is why there's still a possibility that the Let it Be Paul is Paul and not Faul.
Take a look at the mustache form too; it looks very much like the facial hair appearing on Paul's face, especially how the mustache goes down. The eyes look the same, and the nose looks the same. His voice on the Let it Be album is also very beautiful, and in some songs it seems like his voice DOES have bass (The Long and Winding Road).
Also, not all of the TRUE Paul's vocals were bassy. Michelle didn't sound much like that. Songs like For No One and Yesterday is where his bass truly shines, but not all of the real Paul's vocals were bassy.
Which is why I still think that the Let It Be Paul might just be the REAL Paul (of course, Faul was a big player in the OTHER albums prior).
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 19, 2003 5:09:51 GMT
Paul's right side of face is the dominant side.
Many photos that Sun King has, at least to me, suggest a lower left eye. They are assymetrically shaped. I think it is either MMT or Strawberry Flieds pics, where Bill is looking head on at point blank range into the camera, his eyes seem very rightly alligned.At least to me. The biggest thing missing from Bill's images thruout the years, to me, that maybe wonder who it was when I was 12, are: (a) the lazy eye look of Paul's (b) the slightly, well forgive me, "simian" cheeks that Paul had when he smiled, hence that look of mischief (c) the well shaped planes of his nose.
Also, compare "She's Leaving Home" vocal with "Let It Be." Over and over again. Not just once. Put your ear close to the speaker. Not trying to be dogmatic---a passing comparison of the vocals isn't enough for most people to begin hearing the differences. The way your hear detects the differences may be different from the way my ears hear it; no matter. Compare repeatedly. Allow a "aural file" to be created in your brain. After a while, you'll have instant recollect of Paul's and Bill's singing voice in all registers and dynamic levels. I do agree that humans can vary their vocal sound to a degree; witness Rich Little and Frank Gorshin. Boy, they are good! But you can learn core characteristics of a people's voices, if you consider it worthwhile.
Let's face it, they wouldn't have hired someone who couldn't do a very respectable job looking and sounding like someone else!
You may feel like this hyper-scrutiny could make the same person sound different.
I accompany singers for a living. I have done it since 1975. I have worked with a few celebrities. I have to listen KEENLY to the singing to accompany them well. And I do a good job. I am very used to listening to the sound of many singing voices. I do it hours and hours a day. It is not an obsession or empty pursuit for me. It is the way I make nearly every dime I get.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 19, 2003 5:22:38 GMT
Also, I must say, regarding the photo of Paul from the "butcher cover" above, in spite of the diffuse quality of the picture, or maybe because of it, he looks unwell. Under the eyes it's dark and puffy, almost inflamed looking. He looks tired, washed out. His complexion, perhaps it is just the photography, but the other guys don't look bad.......anyway, his complexion is splotchy and yellowish, to me. Like jaundice, slightly.
Can anyone post the alternate cover of "Yesterday and Today", the one with Paul in the trunk, kinda large. I've never seen a decent size pic of it. They are tiny tiny on e-bay.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 19, 2003 8:34:42 GMT
...But if the eye socket thing is true, then how could it be a photomontage? I'd like to understand the meaning of that sentence.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 19, 2003 8:56:39 GMT
Can anyone post the alternate cover of "Yesterday and Today", the one with Paul in the trunk, kinda large. I've never seen a decent size pic of it. They are tiny tiny on e-bay. I got it. But "trunk" photo session was taken BEFORE the "butcher" one. James Paul NEVER smiling in 1966 ( in the official photos).
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Oct 20, 2003 19:47:25 GMT
I'd like to understand the meaning of that sentence. You said so yourself that the eyes in the supposed Faul picture were Paul eyes, but why would they be aligned if they made it into a photomantage and made it Paul's eyes? Why not make the eyes crooked in the meantime as well, and why do a photomontage of the Let it Be album but not any of the others?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 20, 2003 19:55:40 GMT
...Why not make the eyes crooked in the meantime as well, and why do a photomontage of the Let it Be album but not any of the others? I forgive you peoplepeople because you seem to me a good guy. ALL ALREADY POST "N" TIMES IN THIS FORUM
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 12:30:13 GMT
Just listened to "Michelle" and "Let It Be" back to back a couple of times, and I'm certainly not convinced it's the same voice. Yes, I know all about recording techniques and the like, as I trained as a soung engineer, but Paul's voice on Michelle was very smooth, warm, well rounded and very English. It's well-controlled and has a good dynamic range. On the other hand, the voice on "Let It Be" is quavery, poorly controlled and has a much sharper edge to it. It's very nasal and somewhat whiny, especailly compared to Paul's voice on "Michelle". It also has a distinct trans-Atlantic quality to it, which Paul's voice NEVER had.
It is also my opinion (I'm also a qualified singing teacher) that the voice singing "Let It Be" is at least 10-15 years older than Paul was on "Michelle". As you get older, it becomes harder to control your voice, and natural vibrato becomes a lot more evident, although this is rare before the age of 35 or so, especially if you are a professional vocalist.
General concensus? These are 2 performances by 2 different men.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 21, 2003 12:37:46 GMT
Just listened to "Michelle" and "Let It Be" back to back a couple of times, and I'm certainly not convinced it's the same voice. Yes, I know all about recording techniques and the like, as I trained as a soung engineer, but Paul's voice on Michelle was very smooth, warm, well rounded and very English. It's well-controlled and has a good dynamic range. On the other hand, the voice on "Let It Be" is quavery, poorly controlled and has a much sharper edge to it. It's very nasal and somewhat whiny, especailly compared to Paul's voice on "Michelle". It also has a distinct trans-Atlantic quality to it, which Paul's voice NEVER had. It is also my opinion (I'm also a qualified singing teacher) that the voice singing "Let It Be" is at least 10-15 years older than Paul was on "Michelle". As you get older, it becomes harder to control your voice, and natural vibrato becomes a lot more evident, although this is rare before the age of 35 or so, especially if you are a professional vocalist. General concensus? These are 2 performances by 2 different men. ...and this is Curious' [glow=red,2,300]MASTERPIECE![/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 12:38:54 GMT
Thanks, SK - just telling it as I hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 21, 2003 13:39:37 GMT
WONDERFUL Curious!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 13:44:04 GMT
I have to admit, until this afternoon, I was totally unconvinced about the vocal clues. However, having listened closely, I'm going to do a few more comparisons. Anyone got any suggestions as to which songs to compare?
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 21, 2003 13:52:29 GMT
Please Curious if you can do this for me and for all of course: Compare "Getting Better" against any other song sung by Faul. And let me know what you think ok? Can you do that?
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 14:01:14 GMT
I can certainly do that - might not be today, but I'll do it as soon as I can. How about comparing it with something from his solo career? That do?
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 21, 2003 14:06:29 GMT
Take it easy and thank you!!!!!! ;D ;D Thats a great idea use a Faul solo song to compare the both!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 21, 2003 14:15:33 GMT
It's been years since I listened to "Getting Better", and having heard it in close proximity to "Michelle" and "Let It Be", I'd say we have a strong contender for voice number 3 here.
The voice on "Getting Better" has a very raw edge to it, but I would contend it is undeniably English. It's not got the rounded vowels that Paul displays in Michelle though, but I would still maintain that it is a Northern voice. It's too clipped to really be from the south of the UK. The stressing of the letter "t" is also something that I've not really noticed either Paul or Faul singing either.
Then I compared this to "Live and Let Die". NOT THE SAME MAN! The person singing LaLD is undeniably the person with the same quavery, mid to late thirties voice that we hear on "Let It Be". It's nasal, poorly controlled and has a definite American or Canadian twang.
|
|