Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
12.43pm
26 March 2012
Offline
Jakob said
Paulsbass
What's his cocain consumption to do with anything? John was heavy on SEVERAL drugs, so what's your point?
Just explaining why Paul might've been the productive one -- cannabis and psychedelics doesn't make you wanna do anything (physical at least) -- coke kinda speeds one up, thus making McCartney more productive (but less creative, imo. When Im sixty-four… com'on).
I didn't mean anything specific with the cocaine line, but you have pointed Johns drug consumption out several times, so it was to de-glorify McCartney towards drugs, I guess.
I don't think Paul took cocaine all that much, although that's what he's said so it may have been more habitual than he cares to admit at the time, and you are right in saying his productivity was WAY up during Pepper (and most of '67).
My favorite beatle is Harrison, so it's true when I say Im not trying to defend John in any way, I just got frustrated reading all your John-bashing (or Paul-glorification).
I don't think this is fair. Paulsbass is an extremely committed Paul fan, but he does obviously love John and the Beatles as a whole. I think his springing to Paul's defense and what may be perceived as anti-John comments are simply in response to when people consider John the true genius of the Beatles and relegate Paul to the "silly" or "cutesy" one. His staunchness in these cases may make it seem that he's bashing John but he's not. Sorry Paulsbass to jump in here when you can clearly speak for yourself, I just felt the need to make this heard.
1.08pm
13 August 2012
Offline
Ben Ramon said
I don't think this is fair. Paulsbass is an extremely committed Paul fan, but he does obviously love John and the Beatles as a whole. I think his springing to Paul's defense and what may be perceived as anti-John comments are simply in response to when people consider John the true genius of the Beatles and relegate Paul to the "silly" or "cutesy" one. His staunchness in these cases may make it seem that he's bashing John but he's not. Sorry Paulsbass to jump in here when you can clearly speak for yourself, I just felt the need to make this heard.
By giving Paul credit for the line [I love to turn you on] Paulsbass is somehow belittling John -- mainly because it turns out, he's not even sure if it actually is Paul's line or not (he's just postulating). If it's not an attempt to "glorify" Paul then what is it? State something in order to make him appear more geniusy is glorifying (or bashing, if you flip it the other way around)!
1.13pm
26 March 2012
Offline
Jakob said
Ben Ramon said
I don't think this is fair. Paulsbass is an extremely committed Paul fan, but he does obviously love John and the Beatles as a whole. I think his springing to Paul's defense and what may be perceived as anti-John comments are simply in response to when people consider John the true genius of the Beatles and relegate Paul to the "silly" or "cutesy" one. His staunchness in these cases may make it seem that he's bashing John but he's not. Sorry Paulsbass to jump in here when you can clearly speak for yourself, I just felt the need to make this heard.
By giving Paul credit for the line [I love to turn you on] Paulsbass is somehow belittling John -- mainly because it turns out, he's not even sure if it actually is Paul's line or not (he's just postulating). If it's not an attempt to "glorify" Paul then what is it? State something in order to make him appear more geniusy is glorifying (or bashing, if you flip it the other way around)!
So if someone stated it was John, would they be belittling Paul? None of us will ever really know who it was who contributed exactly what, but if someone has their reasons or instincts for thinking it's a certain person, I wouldn't say you are belittling the other. It may be glorifying Paul slightly, that's true, but there's no implied element of "ha ha, John didn't write this line, Paul did, look at who's more talented!" So where's the "bashing"?
1.13pm
19 September 2010
Offline
The "Turn You On" line was Paul, and our friend Mr. Bass knew that. He was being sarcastic, and you weren't expecting sarcasm. John has even said that line was Paul's.
1.55pm
13 August 2012
Offline
Ben Ramon said
It may be glorifying Paul slightly, that's true, but there's no implied element of "ha ha, John didn't write this line, Paul did, look at who's more talented!" So where's the "bashing"?
Bashing is not the right word (I see that now, it was, however, due to my limited vocabulary), but still: just by mentioning this, he is obviously trying to make McCartney shine a little over Lennon. It had no relevance regarding the discussion (who sang the second "aaaahhhhh"), so why even mention it? He must've had some intentions, surely…
mr. Sun king coming together said
The "Turn You On" line was Paul, [...] John has even said that line was Paul's.
Which solves it -- I have yet to read the quote myself. Can you provide any links? 
(I'm honestly interested, this is not ironic).
2.07pm
12 March 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
Paulsbass – seeing as I have no time to go down the line of this thread, can we make a deal? You continue to make as many posts in this thread as you want, and I don't object because you drop the WALHFMF thing. The Ahhs are a bitterly contested thing, with the only documenter being considered (at best) a liar (Emerick), while you have interviews, quotes, live performances (I don't consider the fact Paul now does A Day In The Life relevant – no ahh from today will ever sound the same, even If he did them originally) to validate its Ringo. Please, just stop using that analogy and I'll shut up.Edit: Please the don't lock the thread on my account. I'm guilty as charged Ben. But just because I fucked this thread up, doesn't mean if I shut up (which I will by virtue of no wifi for two days) it can't be a hearty discussion.
Ah, on second reading I got it.
Well, if you feel so intensely about my analogy, I'll try and think of another.
Sure, WALHFMF is more obvious, that's what I said.
Btw, of course there are several other comments on who did the aaah, e.g. Walter Everett, if I'm not mistaken. Or was he the one who only said they recorded backing vocals together? Somewhere in the thread I asked Joe for a quote from a book he really liked and thought to be quite correct. The author said it was Paul.
Another quote is in the comments.
So it's not like there's NO proof whatsoever for my opinion.
And you don't have to shut up at all.
It just came unexpected after I had nice conversations with Zig and Ben, both with differing opinions, to get heavily attacked by you, who shares the same opinion with me!
2.14pm
12 March 2010
Offline
meanmistermustard said
Paulbass, saying i believe or its definately x or i am certain is not the same as a fact thats all folks are trying to say. Just because you hear Paul doesnt mean it definately is 100%. In the 60's beatle fans heard John singing Why Dont We Do It In the Road and wrote it up in reviews, some folks didnt think it was Ringo singing Good Night, there is a misheard lyrics thread on this site where for years fans, massive hardcore fans, heard and believed what wasnt sung. Im not saying its not Paul or people arent hardcore fans or should deny what they think is the answer and say something else. Thats your opinion and i fully respect it, you might even be 100% right (apologies if that sound patronising its not meant to be taken that way).
As for this thread can it get back to analysing the song and discussing that part and move away from the arguements. I missed the locked thread but if all this continues i will be going back on my previous post and want the damn thing locked. Keep it friendly and respectful – please. (I'll probably be pulled up for writing the first paragraph.)
Haha, back in the late 80s I thought Lady Madonna was done by some guest singer – it didn't sound like any of them!
I also was wrong about the "echos" in Yellow submarine. First thought it was John, than was convinced it was Paul.
And of course I get what you are all saying about the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
I know it must feel insulting for someone who feels like it's a fact that it's John singing.
I understand how my position must come across as arrogant and patronizing (I'm pretty sure I mentioned that already somewhere earlier).
I'm sorry for that.
I just know 100% that this is Paul's voice – sounding a bit or even a lot like John's.
That's all I can say.
Feel free to believe differently, as I said before.
2.24pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Jakob said
Paulsbass
What's his cocain consumption to do with anything? John was heavy on SEVERAL drugs, so what's your point?
Just explaining why Paul might've been the productive one -- cannabis and psychedelics doesn't make you wanna do anything (physical at least) -- coke kinda speeds one up, thus making McCartney more productive (but less creative, imo. Just adding When Im sixty-four… com'on).
I didn't mean anything specific with the cocaine line, but you have pointed Johns drug consumption out several times, so it was to de-glorify McCartney towards drugs, I guess.
My favorite beatle is Harrison, so it's true when I say Im not trying to defend John in any way, I just got frustrated reading all your John-bashing (or Paul-glorification).
Im surprised you expect people to be convinced by your chest-arguments etc., when it's obvious you're just postulating things, for instance concerning the "turn-you-on"-line. Why even mention it's Paul's, if you don't have the slightest clue whether it's true or false? I guess I'll have a hard time believing anything you say from now on, considering how easy it is to you, just to say something.
Paul wrote When I'm 64 when he was about 18 without any coke around.
And it's a nice song many people love, so again: what's the point?
I didn't intend to bash John at all. It's just annoying that some Lennonistas always glorify John and belittle Paul's part.
Like, putting all his creative effort down to use of cocain. C'mon, that's the best you can do??
But this has all nothing to do with the thread, so please
Well, there's a difference between hearing things – when you hear it on the record, it's there, no doubt about it (for me) – and reading things.
I've read somewhere that Paul came up with the line.
Is there the possibility that this isn't correct? Sure! So that was me answering your question, being polite.
If you don't even know what a chest voice is, surely that point won't take you anywhere. If you DO know the difference between chest and falsetto it might help you analyze the sound you're hearing.
So that was just me trying to help people to see the truth, and NOT "postulating things", whatever you mean with that.
And why did I mention it was him??
Because it's his voice I'm hearing! Did you read ANY of my postings??
Seriously, as a complete newcomer you might wanna take it easy before talking down like that to a regular, don't you think.
2.26pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Ben Ramon said
I don't think this is fair. Paulsbass is an extremely committed Paul fan, but he does obviously love John and the Beatles as a whole. I think his springing to Paul's defense and what may be perceived as anti-John comments are simply in response to when people consider John the true genius of the Beatles and relegate Paul to the "silly" or "cutesy" one. His staunchness in these cases may make it seem that he's bashing John but he's not. Sorry Paulsbass to jump in here when you can clearly speak for yourself, I just felt the need to make this heard.
Thank you Ben.
2.32pm
12 March 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
The "Turn You On" line was Paul, and our friend Mr. Bass knew that. He was being sarcastic, and you weren't expecting sarcasm. John has even said that line was Paul's.
Total misinterpretation on your part.
I'll still put that down to your rage, just a little offense taken. You might want to calm down soon. I like to get along with you.
Maybe I was sure at the time I wrote that, because I read about it. If even John said that, it's settled.
But I wasn't sure when Jakob asked me.
It's kind of funny what he makes of that, but that's really not my problem.
2.34pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Jakob said
Bashing is not the right word (I see that now, it was, however, due to my limited vocabulary), but still: just by mentioning this, he is obviously trying to make McCartney shine a little over Lennon. It had no relevance regarding the discussion (who sang the second "aaaahhhhh"), so why even mention it? He must've had some intentions, surely…
Well, maybe if you quoted the context of that I might be able to tell you about my intentions.
It was very probably along the lines of what Ben said.
4.24pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Cant remember who asked for the quote but here it is (the bold emphasis was by me by the way).
"Just as it sounds: I was reading the paper one day and I noticed two stories. One was the Guinness heir who killed himself in a car. That was the main headline story. He died in London in a car crash. On the next page was a story about 4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire. In the streets, that is. They were going to fill them all. Paul's contribution was the beautiful little lick in the song "I'd love to turn you on." I had the bulk of the song and the words, but he contributed this little lick floating around in his head that he couldn't use for anything. I thought it was a damn good piece of work." - John Lennon, Playboy, 1980
9.55pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Since we're at quotes here's what Joe quoted earlier in the thread:
That Magic Feeling by John C Winn. He says it's Paul, recorded on 3 February. He claims it was recorded at the same time as the 'Woke up, fell out of bed' section. "Paul then corrected his vocal blunder by taping a new vocal on track 2, also adding some soaring 'aahs' over the circle-of-fifths segment that linked back to the final verse."
Another quote from the comments, by some "Dan":
In the book "Recording the Beatles" by Kevin Ryan and Brian Kehew they settle who sings the aaahs in this song. They say it is clearly Paul. From pages 443 to 444: "Though many have understandably attributed this vocal to John Lennon in the past,isolation of the vocal reveals it to be Paul."
Not an actual "proof", just another opinion/obversation, obviously, but excactly along my own experience.
I don't know excactly what to make of this comment (April 2012)
take a look at mark lewisohn at page 94 about day in the live reduction mixes.paul contribution with a new overdub.tanks
Sounds to me like Lewisohn mentions the session and gives the "aaah" to Paul, at least this might be what the poster means. Anyone knows which book this is supposed to be, or more context?
Edit:
Before I get onesided quotation thrown at me here's Emerick's quote (from page 2 of the thread), provided by Joe.
[Paul] explained that he wanted his voice to sound all muzzy, as if he had woken up from a very deep sleep … My way of achieving this was to deliberately remove a lot of the treble from his voice and heavily compress it to make him sound muffled. When the song goes into the dreamy section that John sings, the full fidelity is restored.
Although the overdubs to the middle section were being done separately from the main body of the song, it had already been edited into the four-track master, which made Richard [Lush]'s job of dropping in and out a bit tricky. Paul's vocal, for example, was being dropped into the same track that contained John's lead vocal, and there was a very tight drop-out point between the two–between Paul's singing "…and I went into a dream" and John's "ahhh" that starts the next section. Richard was quite paranoid about it–with good reason–and I remember him asking me to get on the talkback mic to explain the situation to Paul and ask him not to deviate from the phrasing that he had used on the guide vocal. I was really impressed when Richard did that–I thought it showed great maturity to be proactive that way. John's vocal, after all, had such great emotion, and it also had tape echo on it. The thought of having to do it again and re-create the atmosphere was daunting…not to mention what John's reaction would have been! Someone's head would have been bitten off, and it most likely would have been mine. But Paul, ever professional, did heed the warning, and he made certain to end the last word distinctly in order to give Richard sufficient time to drop out before John's vocal came back in. Listening carefully, you can actually hear Paul slightly rush the vocal; he even adds a little "ah" to the end of the word "dream" giving it a very clipped ending.
Seriously, I have no idea who came up with this and why. It sounds all detailed and personal and technical – and it's all bull, because it's Paul on the record.
When I skipped through the thread I realized it really should have been over after two pages. Everything important had been said then, nothing essentially new came after that…
12.55am
23 January 2011
Offline
Have any of you listened to the multi-track of this? I have it in my computer right now, and to me (don't shoot me, paulsbass!), it sounds like John doing the prominent vocal "AH!" while Paul is making some otherworldly ghost noises in the background. I don't know if anyone has posted it because I'm not about to go through 14 pages of this to search for it. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm tech savvy enough to post it here, either.
1.15am
23 January 2011
Offline
Ta da! Let me know if it works. It's my first video!
6.27am
12 March 2010
Offline
kedame said
Ta da! Let me know if it works. It's my first video!
Yes, it works fine – and it sounds sooooo much like Paul from the first second.
This is the first time I really noticed some "roughness" in Paul's voice at about 0.12. Makes it sound even more like Paul.
I mentioned this at least three times before (as I said, the first two pages of the thread seem to provide most points ever made here) but the "unearthly" sounds in the background can't be made by anyone else but John. Check out especially 0.18, that high nasal uuuh, or at 0.06. How can this be Paul.
Probably George is doing the "tame" stuff, the low uuuuuuhs. And there is a third person doing some octave lower "aaah" part around 0.22.
So all in all four vocal parts here. Amazing what's hidden in these isolated tracks…
Don't worry, kedame, I'm not angry at you, just very, very disappointed.
Just kidding. Isn't that the ultimate parental line?
As I said before, we can't agree on everything! Though I'm still especially surprised about your reception of that part, I admit that. Doesn't change my respect and appreciation.
7.00am
12 March 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
If you truly believe that Paul saying "John did them" would be Paul being mistaken, then there is nothing left to say.
I just checked:
I first specifically said that in post 34 on page two.
Well, obviously there WAS something left to say…
12.22pm
16 February 2011
Offline
kedame said
Have any of you listened to the multi-track of this? I have it in my computer right now, and to me (don't shoot me, paulsbass!), it sounds like John doing the prominent vocal "AH!" while Paul is making some otherworldly ghost noises in the background. I don't know if anyone has posted it because I'm not about to go through 14 pages of this to search for it. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm tech savvy enough to post it here, either.
I agree with you. At least, that's how it sounded to me the first time I heard it. Some of the backing vocals could be done by George, and considering his voice is sort of like "in between", it could be easily mistaken for John or Paul. Still, I believe most of the ghost voices are done by Paul. At least they sound very much like him.
I have been having doubts about the main "ahhh" lately, cause in some sections it sounds just like John, in others a bit like Paul, which is the reason I think they probably did it in turns…. I could be wrong about it, of course.
Anyway, I find it curious that none of the Beatles themselves have never commented on who did the ahhs, considering they have wen't on great details about who did what and why regarding the song in general
3.51pm
12 March 2010
Offline
minime said
Anyway, I find it curious that none of the Beatles themselves have never commented on who did the ahhs, considering they have wen't on great details about who did what and why regarding the song in general
Easy:
They just thought it was obvious, since the voice is on the record, in contrast to inaudible song writing credits.
I tried to restrain myself from commenting on your impressions, but I can't get over the fact that you think that parts I pointed out in my post sound "very much" like Paul…
And there is no switch of the lead singer either, it's the same voice throughout, seriously.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online:
4 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3434
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1540
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1374
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1683
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2398
Posts: 73411
Newest Members: fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell, JQ, Juliana Melo
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
