|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 16, 2003 4:07:07 GMT
And by adding the raised soft palate while singing, most guys sound just like Dudley Doo-Right, "Oh, Nell!" This is a common technical trick of assisting the voice to hit higher pitches. It sounds manufactured and phony. Most people's ears don't like it.
The part of the voice that is the most indicative of identity (just my opinion, but many will agree) is the part that comes closest to the natural relaxed speaking voice. This is where the richest tonal colors are evident in a relaxed, open voice. There is no need to "manufacture" tones, manipulate the throat, throw the voice, toss the voice, strangualte or gag to get a singing tone. It is the easiest most most rewarding for most people, especially males to achieve. (Some women automatically shift into a "head" voice place even when singing in a comfortable range.)
In James Paul's voice this seems to me, at least, to lie between Eb or E below middle C, up to B natural just below middle C. In this range (Eleanor Rigby's verses) all the natural hues and shades of his voice are evident, and rich. When Bill sings there (witness the verses to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer") the sonority is, well sorry to say, in my opinion, shallow. Bill gets into his richer tones around middle C and slightly higher. Not a flaw, just nature! Bill needs his tunes to top out around G or Ab above middle C.
|
|
|
Post by joejoe on Oct 26, 2003 1:45:56 GMT
On the Sgt Pepper cover under the wax figures of the young beatles, the rope appears to form the letter P, and the horn next to it the letter A. That's one half of the name we're looking for. Could the U be formed by the head of the bust under George, and the L by the trim of the telivision screen next to the doll? Does anyone else see this?
|
|
|
Post by JakesBrie on Oct 26, 2003 3:39:06 GMT
On the Sgt Pepper cover under the wax figures of the young beatles, the rope appears to form the letter P, and the horn next to it the letter A. That's one half of the name we're looking for. Could the U be formed by the head of the bust under George, and the L by the trim of the telivision screen next to the doll? Does anyone else see this? Interesting, the U could also be the fern growing by the bust. Brie
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 27, 2003 23:16:40 GMT
Take a listen to an early Queen album, or even something from the middle of their career, then listen to something from the mid 80s, before Freddie Mercury got sick. The difference is startling. It becomes even more pronounced on their last record, after Mercury was definitely ill. I have every Queen album ever made and just about every bootleg live video ever made, and I would hardly say Freddie's voice was so different in the 80's it was "startling". Compare concert footage from the early stuff and listen to the live aid concert from the 80's. My God, his voice and energy during that one was incredible. How about the studio footage of the "One Vision" recording? Powerful stuff. "Freddie's voice is distictive, you know exactly who you are listening to when you hear it." Who am I quoting? (paraphrasing actually, I don't have the Queen documentary running in front of me) Why FAUL said that! I'll admit you have a point about the last albums, especially Innuendo. They obviously had to use studio tricks to keep his voice clear and steady. But, he really WAS sick then, down to below 100 lbs. at that point I'm sure. Witness the "Those Were The Days of Our Lives" video, very heartbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 28, 2003 15:25:22 GMT
Just noticed this- you've all probably heard it before though: "Boy you've been a naughty girl you've let your face grow long" - I am the Walrus, John Lennon
What do you reckon? John telling Faul that an error has been made in that his "long" face is recognisable as not being Paul's and therefore he is "naughty" for trying to impersonate mccartney?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 28, 2003 15:38:14 GMT
Just noticed this- you've all probably heard it before though: "Boy you've been a naughty girl you've let your face grow long" - I am the Walrus, John Lennon What do you reckon? John telling Faul that an error has been made in that his "long" face is recognisable as not being Paul's and therefore he is "naughty" for trying to impersonate mccartney? Sorry you are wrong. Actual lyrics: "Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long." ...and... "Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down." And please see the thread about at: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=60ifclues&action=display&thread=1063563170
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 28, 2003 16:24:16 GMT
Ok ok, calm down, The fact i got the lyrics slightly wrong was irrelevent to my point don't you think? However i do appologise to all those ofended by my mistyping of Beatles lyrics! I am also sorry for posting a clue that has already been posted- it wont happen again.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 28, 2003 16:42:40 GMT
Ok ok, calm down, The fact i got the lyrics slightly wrong was irrelevent to my point don't you think? However i do appologise to all those ofended by my mistyping of Beatles lyrics! I am also sorry for posting a clue that has already been posted- it wont happen again. Accuracy is important here. But, please don't worry about.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 28, 2003 16:56:01 GMT
Does anyone here think that the whole of "fool on the hill" is about Paul being dead? Seems like this is the biggest indication so far- almost every line could be describing the situation.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 28, 2003 17:38:36 GMT
Does anyone here think that the whole of "fool on the hill" is about Paul being dead? Seems like this is the biggest indication so far- almost every line could be describing the situation. Yes, almost ALL of us.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 30, 2003 16:16:15 GMT
Ok, i have a question for you all in reference to uberkinder's website and all those who look to the animations as hard evidence that pre 66 and post 66 paul are not the same person.
How can we be sure that the different photos that are superimposed upon each other are taken a) with the same lens and b) with the subject (paul) the same distance away from the camera each time.
I don't mean to offend anyone here, especially uberkinder but i am a little confused on this matter.
I have seen many instances of dialogue on this site whereby one person claims that Paul never died and was never replaced for the other person to retort something along the lines of : "someone's eyes cannot move closer together - your skull does not change shape" etc. - you've all seen these exchanges.
But how do we know that?
Without measuring Paul and Faul's heads with calipers (which lets face it is an impossibility) and comparing them in real life (yes i know this can't be done, im talking hypothetically) one cannot be sure of his dimensions changing.
When putting forward arguments like the one above (ie. "his skull changes shape") we cannot be certain of the truth in them. Yes the photos show a bizarre change in dimensions between the two pictures however these could just as easily be caused by slightly concave or slightly convex lenses being used for the shot (Sgt Peppers would have needed a wide angle lens for example).
When comparing the butcher album paul with the sgt pepper album paul we can not be certain that there was equal distance between him and the camera in each shot. Most likely, there wasn't because lets face it, why would there be?
What i'm trying to say is that i do not believe we can use these photographic animations as "proof" that he died.
Alas it is a shame if this is the hardest evidence that exists.
We also do not KNOW that his head has changed in dimensions and that is an undeniable fact.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Oct 30, 2003 16:25:59 GMT
Well, it's strange enough that comparing Sgt. Pepper's and the Butcher's Cover, for instance, the dimensions of John's head don't seem to change at all, while Paul's face grows.
And the lenses are the same for them both.
|
|
|
Post by Karma76 on Oct 30, 2003 20:18:09 GMT
what about the wax muesum measurements?
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 31, 2003 11:06:51 GMT
Could i just ask about a descrepancy in the theory?
It seems to me that Stella McCartney bears a very large resemblance to Paul in his early years when he was the same age as she is now (early sixties).
She definately does have that rounder face that we've come to expect from the 'real Paul' and this feature definately cannot be attributed toher mother.
Any thoughts on this please?
|
|
|
Post by Karma76 on Oct 31, 2003 14:49:22 GMT
go to the other beatles section, I noted stuff on his other children too.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 31, 2003 17:25:12 GMT
what's the thread called?
|
|
|
Post by Karma76 on Oct 31, 2003 18:19:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 31, 2003 20:40:55 GMT
cheers, interesting.
what do you all think? Doesn't stella look like a young Paul?
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Nov 17, 2003 21:40:41 GMT
just got a little insider trading........... could one of you bright people open your photoshop and do some mirror image tests on the "grave" a la the walrus clue? ?? it's there, we just gotta go out and get it...............
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Nov 17, 2003 22:11:52 GMT
please ignore my last posts......I got my info wrong......and sorry if went 3X tips from a private message to me:
"There is indeed a connection betwixt the "Sgt.Pepper" cover and the "Flowers in the Dirt" album. It is an example of the continued reference's to this particular period of Beatles lore. Why? Because, the impact of the vary nature of the cover design has yet to be put in a proper light. Only bits have been noted. There remains so much more to be discovered.............
The "Walrus" clue pointed out for you, however "lame" it was credited, is a shining example of what remains untouched and unseen. It only makes sense that our attention is pointed back to that very cover by those who wish it to be examined further. Here's another clue for you all... Whose face is seen hidden in the letter "A" in the "Beatles" floral design? And why does this not constitute a mention of being amongst the "guests" found on the cover? There are "others" as well, hidden in plain sight. Kudos on your interest in Poe! Lewis Carrol, as well. They play an important role in the decphering of that cover, as well as the music found within, and forward. Backwards, too! A look into Stockhausen, also on the cover, may be of some interest to you as well. Soon it will all add up quite nicely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lucy (in disguise), A mirror won't be necessary. A magnifying glass might help. What info I give you is for you to do whatever thou wishes."
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Nov 18, 2003 1:50:59 GMT
I just took a look around sgt pepper w/my spy glass and noticed two new (to me) areas of interest: 1. the trophy, which I still say is more eggshaped than a rugby ball, has extra lighting for the photograph. like a couple of hot lights......why?
2.if you look closely at the stone bust, which may also be an artists cut out, the guy clearly has a third eye bump in the middle of his forehead.........
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Nov 18, 2003 2:08:03 GMT
I forgot also to mention that the bump is sort of a teardrop shape...........
|
|
|
Post by Mollymalone on Nov 18, 2003 10:39:00 GMT
Can anybody see that? The indian doll, btw, one of her arms is pointing to that 'A' And can anyone tell me why there is a pig on the cover
|
|
|
Post by Mollymalone on Nov 18, 2003 11:03:31 GMT
Also, that indian statue - reminds me of shiva/shakti I found this interesting reference:
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 18, 2003 11:12:41 GMT
Interesting. So, Shiva?Shakti is one being in two more forms?
Also, if you look at Shiva, follow her right hand down to the flowers, and look slightly over in that small group of flowers, there is a little head on the left edge, looks like part of the flowers. It has dark hair, a right ear, and is laying prone with its chin toward the right side of the album jacket. It is so very small. Can anyone see it, or are my eyes taking it wrong?
|
|