Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7.31pm
1 November 2012
Offline
I hate to add another consideration (especially if it was brought up by someone before) -- but the timing from the moment Paul sings "went into a dream" to the first "ahhh" is so quick it's unlikely that, if it was Paul, it was not tracked over. Of course, the Beatles tracked over stuff a lot, so that by itself is not a reason to decide it's not Paul. However, at that particular juncture in the song, we are officially transitioning from Paul back to John -- both in song structure and in mood -- so it would make more sense for John to take the baton back, so to speak; and he could do it effortlessly and live, without having to track over.
Secondly, if it is Paul, it's Paul trying to sound like John, both in tonality and in terms of the mood of John's parts of the song -- unlike the entire tone of his (Paul's) chipper & bouncy little interlude there. Why not just have John do it?
The demurrers of the Paulinists in this debate thus logically seem to have only one seemingly plausible rationale for their position: the claim that it was physically impossible for John to sing those ahhhhs -- the same claim that was the crux of the "woo woo" debate vis-a-vis George vs. Paul in "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".
9.31pm
1 December 2009
Offline
OK, I have nothing new to add to the debate, except that I find your term "Paulinists" pretty funny! (As opposed to Lennonists or Starkeyites, I presume)
5.16pm
5 February 2013
Offline
mja6758 said
Jolm VV Lemon said
Oh man this is almost certainly Paul. The reason for the confusion is we hardly ever hear Paul at this range. Check out the inflections towards the end of the first E note, that almost jazzy waver he does that's virtually signature to his vocal style. It even sounds artificially stretched as the vocal fades and the horns cadence. Also the hard edge we hear in John's voice is totally absent. This is Paul; trust me folks--I'm good at this.Oh, please, don't go there… Have you read this thread? Arguing it's definitely Paul is not the best way to say hello! This question has had more heated debate than any other on the forum.
Lol, I'm not worried about all that, I'm just saying it sounds borderline obvious (and not to insult anyone's analytic ear) that it's Paul. Even in the full mix it sounds like him, but even more so in the vocals-only track. You can even hear John's signature vocal texture in some of the BACKGROUND vocal play on that track. We expect it to sound like John (I always assumed it was!), so it will and does to most, understandably. I'd even go so far as it sounds like Paul is IMITATING John's sound, and very well (which would fit what we know about Paul, if you think about it).
The Emerick quote… convincing, sure. But as we know, history gets edited for various reasons: pride, human error, conspiracy (hey, it happens), etc. What if Geoff Emerick had a heated, perhaps extended, argument on the very subject with someone and thus had his pride entangled? Does that sound familiar? Is that at all unlikely considering his work? For all we know (and does this sound entirely unlike Paul?) the part actually was originally John, but Paul could have gone back and re-done it himself for whatever reason--perhaps solely to baffle fans half a century on, lol. Not that it's likely but my point is that there are always possibilities. However: The recording is a primary source; music by the Beatles directly into our ears and minds--and to my extremely analytical ear this sounds unmistakably like Paul McCartney. I would wager a hell of a lot on it. As a matter of fact, if Paul went on record today that John Lennon had sung the vocal interlude from "A Day in the Life" I would not believe him. Sounds crazy but he's human too, albeit a very talented one. I read an interview with him not long ago in which he commented on the fallibility of history, noting that in viewing the first few minutes of a Beatles documentary he was able to count several errors, right off the bat. The recordings, however, do not lie.
By the way I found this thread doing a Google search on the subject, haha. It's a high hit. There's actually a video on YouTube which claims that Paul sang the entire thing which threw me for a loop. Hence the search.
4.07pm
9 May 2012
Offline
Paulsbass, is that you?
7.48pm
21 November 2012
Offline
Pff what are you dumbasses talking about? It's definitely Yoko.
Nah, it has always sounded like John to me and I'm pretty sure it is. Don't really get why people would think it's Paul. Also don't get why some people make such a fuss out of it.
11.20pm
6 December 2012
Offline
Linde said
Nah, it has always sounded like John to me and I'm pretty sure it is. Don't really get why people would think it's Paul. Also don't get why some people make such a fuss out of it.
I agree.
Do you want to know a secret? Read my username backwards. ~ ~ ~ - - - . . . - - - ~ ~ ~ Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy...
☮ & <3
1.23pm
9 May 2012
Offline
5.33pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Jolm VV Lemon said
Lol, I'm not worried about all that, I'm just saying it sounds borderline obvious (and not to insult anyone's analytic ear) that it's Paul. Even in the full mix it sounds like him, but even more so in the vocals-only track. You can even hear John's signature vocal texture in some of the BACKGROUND vocal play on that track. We expect it to sound like John (I always assumed it was!), so it will and does to most, understandably. I'd even go so far as it sounds like Paul is IMITATING John's sound, and very well (which would fit what we know about Paul, if you think about it).The Emerick quote… convincing, sure. But as we know, history gets edited for various reasons: pride, human error, conspiracy (hey, it happens), etc. What if Geoff Emerick had a heated, perhaps extended, argument on the very subject with someone and thus had his pride entangled? Does that sound familiar? Is that at all unlikely considering his work? For all we know (and does this sound entirely unlike Paul?) the part actually was originally John, but Paul could have gone back and re-done it himself for whatever reason--perhaps solely to baffle fans half a century on, lol. Not that it's likely but my point is that there are always possibilities. However: The recording is a primary source; music by the Beatles directly into our ears and minds--and to my extremely analytical ear this sounds unmistakably like Paul McCartney. I would wager a hell of a lot on it. As a matter of fact, if Paul went on record today that John Lennon had sung the vocal interlude from "A Day in the Life" I would not believe him. Sounds crazy but he's human too, albeit a very talented one. I read an interview with him not long ago in which he commented on the fallibility of history, noting that in viewing the first few minutes of a Beatles documentary he was able to count several errors, right off the bat. The recordings, however, do not lie.
I admit that I drop in from time to time to see if any progress is made here – and I can just say THANK you.
Not that I ever, EVER doubted I was right about this one after listening to the vocals only track, but it's still nice to see other people agreeing.
And not just agreeing, you just repeat almost every point I ever made.
Maybe you understand how hard it is to get attacked and being called names when it' SO damn obvious…
I mean, people put me in a position when they ask me this: "Ok, you think 2x2 = 4. But HOW can you be so arrogant to deny the POSSIBILITY that 2x2=5?! How can you be SOOO ARROGANT!"
It was really as bad as that, and I'm grateful for every sane person around here.
I mean, would ANYONE acknowledge the possibility that's it's Paul singing I am the walrus?
See.
This one is just less well documented and less obvious but it's still ON THE RECORD.
5.39pm
12 March 2010
Offline
Linde said
Nah, it has always sounded like John to me and I'm pretty sure it is. Don't really get why people would think it's Paul.
Read the first page of the thread and you will be enlightened.
It's still HIS part, it's HIS dream, and it's HIS voice.
So it's really easy to get that idea.
And while you're at reading the thread, please notice WHO the people are making all the fuzz, going out of their minds about someone who stands firm to his opinion (which is NOT based on feelings but a very well practised and experienced analytic ear – and thank GOD I'm not the only one around here anymore!).
People keep blaming ME for it.
Maybe it's time to call out Mr. Big (long gone) and Mr.SunKingcomingtogether (gone as well??) and others for THEIR behaviour.
Edit:
Well, I DID re-read the whole thread, and I still don't get all the fuzz…
It's just as if some people can't stand the fact that some people disagree about stuff.
It's so friendly over many pages – but SUDDENLY someone throws around vicious attacks, mostly against me.
"Belittling John" for example. Such rubbish…
Ok, I'm out again.
And of course I already put my question to Paul in the box. Although, it's more a request than a a question in my case.
7.32pm
1 December 2009
Offline
Paulsbass, aside from the trollish Mr. Big, nobody was attacking you for your opinion (which I happened to share, if I recall correctly), but rather for the way in which you refused to allow anyone else's opinion equal time! It is not obvious that Paul is doing it, otherwise this thread wouldn't be 16 pages long. And is not as simple and clear-cut as saying "2+2=5, obviously" – it's more like saying 2+2.99=4.99, where everybody else is hearing 5. As for the vicious attacks "mostly against you", well, in your last post you suggested that everybody who disagrees with you is insane! So take that into consideration, too.
8.52pm
12 March 2010
Offline
vonbontee said
Paulsbass, aside from the trollish Mr. Big, nobody was attacking you for your opinion (which I happened to share, if I recall correctly), but rather for the way in which you refused to allow anyone else's opinion equal time! It is not obvious that Paul is doing it, otherwise this thread wouldn't be 16 pages long. And is not as simple and clear-cut as saying "2+2=5, obviously" – it's more like saying 2+2.99=4.99, where everybody else is hearing 5. As for the vicious attacks "mostly against you", well, in your last post you suggested that everybody who disagrees with you is insane! So take that into consideration, too.
1) Thanks for sharing my opinion about Mr Big. Funny nobody ever mentioned him as being "trollish" before, everyone was just tearing ME apart (with Ben trying to stand up for me at least).
2) You got that wrong with what I suggested. I'm talking about a sane way to talk about this stuff. You and I were already going at each other, and we got over it. That's how it's done. I didn't like your "let's humour paulsbass" stuff, but I even put up with that and tried to be cool. When I re-read the thread it felt really relaxed and easy going for large parts.
But there were enough Lennonistas who were at LEAST as absolute in their opinion.
And that's OK! I never had a problem with this thread being so long, it was just surprising. As I said, some people just seem to feel bad about disagreements.
I just didn't understand and didn't like how people like meanmistermustard kept writing stuff like "yeah, in any discussion paulsbass takes part, CERTAIN THINGS HAPPEN".
I don't like to get people like Mr. Big and partly Mr Sunking get away with bullshit, that's all.
I wrote repeatedly: Believe what you want, THIS is my opinion. I just happen to know I'm right. And I DO. I can't help it.
I can only repeat it, and that new fella thankfully sees it the same way: It's PAUL on tape, on the primary source, so there truly IS no discussion for me and it doesn't matter what anyone is saying.
For ME, it IS 2x2=4. So PLEASE don't ask me do acknowledge any possibility of it being 5!
If you want to believe that, it's ok, hard to understand for me, but who am I to tell you about your life and your beliefs?
If you want to believe differently, there you go. Obviously many others are confused as well.
And I said so very early in this thread, so don't blame me for pretending anything. I was playing in the open from the beginning.
9.39pm
1 December 2009
Offline
OK, I'm sorry I misunderstood your "sane" comment.
Mr. Big certainly was irritating, wasn't he? 
No argument about that!
9.39pm
1 November 2012
Offline
Long John Silver's video clip has a lot of interesting information, but unfortunately does not fully resolve the question of this thread. There is, however, one frame of text in that video which implies that Paul "dropped" in his entire middle section and that it had to be coordinated just right in order to end before John's "Ahhhhs". No citations are offered to prove this is so, alas.
1.28am
9 May 2012
Offline
I notice he quotes Emerick a lot in his videos, is there any mention about this in Emerick's book?
11.22am
16 February 2011
Offline
This thread is still alive? Wow. Anyway, I'm kind of starting to hear Paul in the "ahhs", but I wouldn't be overly surprised if it's John like I thought in the beginning but I think it's really weird, anyway, the ghost voices in the back. Yes, they do sound like John. But why on earth would they record this "ahhh" by Paul, and then overdub these faint John screams, only to make them drowned in the final mix?
2.40pm
21 November 2012
Offline
Those ahhhs are by John and those faint ooohhs in the background are by Paul imo.
And nahh, I stopped reading this topic after 3 pages or so, because people kept coming up with the same ''arguments''
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: aislejodi
3 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3426
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1517
vonbontee: 1427
GniknuS: 1365
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1683
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2393
Posts: 73213
Newest Members: fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell, JQ, Juliana Melo
Moderators: Joe (2700), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2700)
