|
Post by TotalInformation on May 12, 2004 20:49:32 GMT -5
From a practical point of view
The practical pov is all well and good, but don't neglect the artistic and 'spiritual' levels.
Think bagism.
-- He [Paul] bag productions
Bagist tactics were employed in recognition of Paul's wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on May 12, 2004 20:54:49 GMT -5
the man singing WALHFMF had Ringos accent
im·per·son·ate tr.v. im·per·son·at·ed, im·per·son·at·ing, im·per·son·ates
1 To assume the character or appearance of, especially fraudulently: impersonate a police officer. 2 To imitate the appearance, voice, or manner of; mimic: an entertainer who impersonates celebrities. 3 Archaic. To embody; personify. ---------------------- im·person·ation n. im·person·ator n.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 12, 2004 21:30:19 GMT -5
I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of the meaning of "to impersonate", but what is "bagism", "bag production", etc. Even John when asked that question at the "bed in" in Amsterdam didn't have a clear answer. I know he was trying to leave a clue or perhaps what was to him, stating the obvious, and was astounded that no one understood I bet. But if you have a clear dictionary definition of this "bag", I'm all ears... (vagueness after all, is not my bag) ;D Thanks, Totalinformation bag...
|
|
|
Post by apollocvermouth on May 12, 2004 22:13:14 GMT -5
"Ev'rybody's talking 'bout Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, This-ism, That-ism, ism, ism, ism..."
Apollo-ism
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 12, 2004 22:36:57 GMT -5
Vocal impersonation is all well and good--I do it all the time, kind of badly, I'm afraid, as humour or whatever. Many of my singer friends semi-emulate a person's voice sometimes to do their songs. One, female friend I have does a lovely Karen Carpenter, but one can wasily tell it isn't really her. Some notes and vowels are amazingly suggestive of Karen. Another girl I used to work with a lot, who happens to be Caucasian, did an amazing Donna Summer, provided it was in a certain range of belting, say, F-Bb. On tape its hard to tell with certain words.
The "demo" business employs numerous people who soud like others, in order to pitch a song, a new song might be "demo-d" by someone who can put a good imitation acoross of another famous singer---to save the composer a lot of money. And Beyonce might just not be available next week, etc.
Some vocal chord constructions can not achieve the work of sounding like certain people. You can only alter your overtone series in your fundamental tone so much by calculated palate shifts, nasaling, throwing into the forehead, or down in the chest, etc, the LEAST likely thing I have can imagine "Bill" ever doing is making his fundamental vocal tone resemble Ringo's, pitch for pitch, vowel for vowel. Plus, the little mannerisms, pitch consistency, brightness, accent etc.
Bill couldn't "do" Ringo, and I can not "do" "Bullwinkle." I do such a bad Bullwinkle, that I am asked to do it ocassionally just to crack everybody up. I have so little of that round, covered bassey sound in my voice, that when I try to do it, it comes out like Eugene Levi TRYING to do Johnny Carson. ("Cheif Wampum say squaw no like tee-pee.) It IS tragically funny.
Wally Cox could never have done Johnny Cash.
Celine Dion could never do Tina Turner, but she might could do Reba McIntyre.
Wayne Newton can't do Robert Goulet, Robert Goulet could not do Sinatra, Sinatra couldn't have done Sammy Davis, Sammy Davis didn't do a Stevie Wonder; Harry Connick's voice is easily recognised as not Sinatra for many reasons not least of which is because Connick's has less weight, less heaviness (especially later Frank, although early Frank's voice was lighter); Stephen Bishop, Neil Sedaka, Paul Simon and David Gates all have high "fundamentals", and a light sound, and would never be mistaken for Van Morrisson, Jim Morrisson, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, the Big Bopper, etc, (for many reasons) but the resting pitch of the voice is in a different place.
People speak in the comfortable low-center of their voice (when they are relaxed and well and not crazy), with a few tones below to modulate down to, and many more above to reack for. We don't scream in conversation (unless we are Gilbert Gottfried or Bobcat Goldthwaite) so that resting range of pitch partly detemines oour potenital singing tessitura, as well as the EQ or timbre of our sound.
Exceptions exist, some people have a low speaking fundamental and caterwail to a high "C" without blinking. These are lucky exceptions. (Discussing male voices, here.)
But, from Ringo's spoken interviews, and Bill's spoken interview's at a similar time period, I think its an entirely different set of vocal equipment.
I am belaboring this, but I wish I could get across the idea that, as much as you may feel that the "agenda" requires this twist as necessary to put forward the "game", some things are NOT physically possible. A clarinet CAN NOT sound like an alto saxophone, or a flute, passage after passage. A clarinet can sound like it is IMITATING a flute. But it fails. Most people's ears "hear" through that. Ringo sounds like Ringo in that song, to most anyone that is asked, I'd wager.
Now, for years, whenever "Lady Madonna" or "Fool on the Hill" came on the car radio, my friends always said, "That just doesn't sound like Paul to me. Isn't that weird?"
And then, What did I say? I ignored them. I didn't care.
And today? What do they say? They ignore me. They don't care. .
And what of tomorrow? Tomorrow is ignorant of us. Tomorrow never knows.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on May 12, 2004 23:24:09 GMT -5
etc etc Ringo's spoken interviews, and Bill's spoken interview's at a similar time period, I think its an entirely different set of vocal equipment. etc etc
Is this your way of saying Bill couldn't sing as low as the voice in 'W/ Help etc,' or not?
There is of course, also the possibility the tape was slowed some, just as many believe variable tape speeds were used in '64' and 'Rita.'
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 13, 2004 0:32:59 GMT -5
Paul's range, John's range, Ringo's range, George's range, Bill's range, all overlapped.
It is is not a matter of hitting the notes. The range is not too low for any of them. Its a question of sound, timbre, and a question of overtones, vowels, formants, gliding, vibrato, all lot of things.
For me, it's Ringo.
If it were a note or two, a short phrase, maybe. But its an entire set of verses and choruses. There is plenty to expose the full vocal "envelope" of the singer to the listener. There is too much too fake.
You can't fake your fingerprints. And, aurally, imitating another person's voice would exibit limitations which would manifest eventually in the course of an entire song.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on May 13, 2004 16:18:43 GMT -5
Now that we've established the range syncs up, which particular inflections in "With a little help" do you think Bill incapable of?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 14, 2004 1:17:14 GMT -5
Actually, OK, you got me, kinda. I think he is actually capable of reproducing most any "inflection" he set his mind to do so. That is a "do" proposition, something you do. You hear it, you analyze it, you attempt it, you judge your own performance with various feedback, you work to improve it. Maybe others can help. But, that is an "action" proposition.
But we are all given different vocal resonators by heredity. And, some use more of what they have, some develop more, but, the point is, our vocal equipment is all different.And while good vocal training shows a talented student how to re-"EQ" his voice; more bass, less treble, more mid,etc. by subtle physiological changes, there is a limit to how much "bass" a natural tenor, especially a young man, often can add. There are exceptions. From Bill's speaking voice, he seems to be a tenor. Ringo spoke in a very relaxed bassy tone without forcing.
Its a matter of the sound you were born to produce. There is room for variation; there are limits.
Well, I can't prove it to you. So I bail on this issue with this post. Especially after I flunked a hearing experience a couple of days ago. Apparently, it can happen. But, at least, the person I mistook it for agrees with me that it is similar to his own voice. I was faked out.
I don't truly grasp how you can not percieve the genuine "Ringoness" of that track...................
But, I respect your dedication and thoroughness as I see you have. I don't want to nit pick with you, Total; you percieve so much that I think is really really important; I think you have many strengths in discernment.
It's really, to me, not so much an important item, would it be a let-down to know that Ringo actually just sang it?
Everybody thinks John sang "Good-Night." Well, two or three Beatle fans I know and a couple of web site people are swearing to it.
It's Ringo. Although it hits me like Ringo doing HIS impression of a soft ballad by Nielsson. Like, he was thinking Nielssen while he sang it-------but I could be wrong about that. But I believe (with others) that Ringo sang "Good-night."
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 14, 2004 10:19:51 GMT -5
It's important that we stay open to the possibility that it could be Faul/Bill singing WAHFMF eventhough it sounds just like Ringo.
Keep in mind that Bill sounds like Paul and Neil sounds like Paul, etc.....
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on May 15, 2004 14:07:41 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe anyone but Paul sang on Paul songs, even if he is an impersonator. After all he sang with Wings......
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 16, 2004 7:40:19 GMT -5
From a practical point of view, the task at hand if there was indeed such a need, was to find a way, any way, to provide vocals that sound like Paul's. Why on earth go to all the trouble to make a Ringo imitation, when you have the genuine article? I've heard the argument that it's a "clue" of some sort, an imitation where one wasn't needed. I'm a little fuzzy on the details really. But yes, it's Ringo, the one and only. That it is comes through with no doubtful feelings that something isn't right, it's Ringo... Very logical conclusion to this question...... BUT it seems to me that during the making of Sgt.P, all logic went out the window. Granted..... it most likely is Ringo's voice, but spending days in the studio figuring out how to make Bill's voice sound like Ringo's just seems like something that COULD'VE happened. After all, nothing is as it seems in Sgt.Pepperland. And with FOTH... I dunno, I can hear George in the mix, especially the first few lines. I think it's a mix of George & Bill.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 4, 2005 0:57:04 GMT -5
Bump.
If it was bill singing WALHFMF then he did an incredibly good job at singing flat!
|
|
|
Post by pataphysical on Dec 4, 2005 6:48:41 GMT -5
I've been listening to Beatles records for over 30 years and my ear is fairly good. TotalInformation had it right when he said it was Faul imitating George. He only really does it for the first two lines on the official release:
Day after day Alone on a hill (especially on hill)
After that, there is no mistaking the voice of the one we call Faul. George cannot possibly reach the notes or produce the tone as heard on the record. And who has ever heard Neil Aspinall sing?
Faul also imitates George on Anthology 3 in the break between Step Inside Love and Los Paranoias when he says "Joe Prarie's and the Prarie Wallfowers". Note how he says wallflowers: just like George. George was not present at the "I Will" takes; only Faul, John and Ringo. And if George was there, he would have had to cut in front of Faul to get to the vocal mic. It doesn't sound to me like anyone was moving around or cutting in.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 4, 2005 11:36:38 GMT -5
Cool, I'm right? What about the idea that JPM possibly sang the chorus (" the fool on the hill/ sees the sun going down / And the eyes in his head / See the world spinning round ") and they used an old tape for that? Does anyone get that from any of the released of bootlegged versions?
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 4, 2005 19:16:26 GMT -5
I totally agree faul sang "Fool" but i'm almost certain it's ringo on WALHFMF.
"What about the idea that JPM possibly sang the chorus"
I'd never considered that before, but now you mention it.... you may be onto something!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 5, 2005 0:29:42 GMT -5
I've been listening to Beatles records for over 30 years and my ear is fairly good. TotalInformation had it right when he said it was Faul imitating George. He only really does it for the first two lines on the official release: Day after day Alone on a hill (especially on hill) After that, there is no mistaking the voice of the one we call Faul. George cannot possibly reach the notes or produce the tone as heard on the record. And who has ever heard Neil Aspinall sing? Faul also imitates George on Anthology 3 in the break between Step Inside Love and Los Paranoias when he says "Joe Prarie's and the Prarie Wallfowers". Note how he says wallflowers: just like George. George was not present at the "I Will" takes; only Faul, John and Ringo. And if George was there, he would have had to cut in front of Faul to get to the vocal mic. It doesn't sound to me like anyone was moving around or cutting in. In AHDN, when George goes up to the producers office, you know, the scene where the good looking secretary shows him in, when George and the producer fellow are getting acquainted, the producer says, "Oh, good, he's a natural, and you don't even have to try to do that glottal-adenoidal thing, you can relax now, you perfect for we need...etc." Actually, glottal-adenoidal is what I thought before I ever saw AHDN 2 years ago..... Most evident in "Lihs-z'n, du yuu wohnt tah' knaow'ah seccccccccrettttt" Not a trained singer and coming from that Liverpool region where I think we often hear a certain type of a gutteral, swallowed speech, George had a distinct sound. Hey, I love his vocals. The accent is a plus in my opinion. About Fool on the Hill---the opening two lines manifest this. IMO, and then it lets up. The voice becomes very open and free, not "glottal" sounding at all from then on. I have waivered a lot about this, thinking it was JP, thinking they did a half step speed adjustment. Today, I think it was really Sir Paul that sang that vocal. I am wondering if William, then, has also always been a very versatile mimic. Like, someone who is like a human voice synthesizer, listen, learn and emulate......... Then maybe he was an expert and had a reputation for the ability to emulate others, physically and vocally, through applied study. A sort of natural talent of becoming whoever he observes sufficiently. A natural double, a natural imitator. Like, sort of automatic, almost effortless empathy. Being able to hold a holographic image of someone in the mind, as well as aural playback, those things being sufficient to trigger a startlingly accurate "playback" of someone else. What a relief. Then Sir Paul never has to resort to method acting. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 5, 2005 0:49:51 GMT -5
I totally agree faul sang "Fool" but i'm almost certain it's ringo on WALHFMF. "What about the idea that JPM possibly sang the chorus" I'd never considered that before, but now you mention it.... you may be onto something! Hey, every musician in America, if they know the Beatles and Sgt. Pepper, knows that that is Ringo singing WALHFMF. Don't take my word for it, take a poll. Most musicians have very perceptive hearing down to subtle subtle timbre changes. Also, recognising vocal patterns of phrasing, pitch slide, consonant "noises", register shifts, vocal cord thickness, elasticity, and health. It comes with working for years as a musician, with singers, singing oneself, being in vocal classes, analysing albums, and also, just a natural gift genetically that aims somebody at a musical life. I can only ask you to believe, that musicians have "set apart" and special skill in sound recognition, mainly musical ones. You don't need a machine. You don't need a spectrographic read-out. Like a blue ribbon DEA dog sniffin' for contraband, good musician's everywhere can "ear" out Ringo. Er, you know what I mean.......... It's a kind of acquired neurological expertise. Now, a drug dog will bark and go crazy when it finds "the stuff." When a musician is asked, "Is this really Ringo?", they will say: "Good Lord, are you nuts? Of course it's Ringo." "Are you out of your friggin' mind? That's Ringo, what, are you deaf?" "#%^#&$%^@!!!!!!Yes, it's Ringo, have you got cotton in your ears?" "You never heard "Yellow Submarine", didja"?" Nobody in the Beatles band had as rich and deep the low, natural overtones as Ringo did----except JamesPaul when he forced his voice deeper-----but Ringo's relaxed speaking voice is rich, round and warm. Also, the top "E"'s in the tune hit right at the vocal ceiling of his chest (speaking)voice. That last note in the song---from that sound of it, the vocal cords sound like they could not adduce any higher. William was nailing notes 8 half steps higher and more. Different vocal cords, end of story. Ringo sang it to good effect, should be proud of it, and I think would have resisted the idea of not having a vocal solo on SPLHCB. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 5, 2005 7:58:36 GMT -5
"Hey, I love his vocals. The accent is a plus in my opinion."
I agree
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 5, 2005 9:31:52 GMT -5
Once Ringo sang a jingle of WALHFMF on Saturday Night Live when he hosted in the mid-80's. His voice did sound different than the recording. The recording sounds robotical, monotone-like compared to other Ringo recordings so it's possible that someone else sang it. Compare WALHFMF to other Ringo tunes and see if there is a difference. If it is an imitation, it is a very good one. Perhaps it's that guy in the Pepperpots that already sounds like Ringo?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 5, 2005 11:36:50 GMT -5
I can only ask you to believe, that musicians have "set apart" and special skill in sound recognition, mainly musical ones.
Yet, I would posit that most musicians at your level of success still can't tell the difference between JPM and Sir FAUL. Where does musical skill end and the brainwashing begin? Just another tragedy arising from the whole ugly situation
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 5, 2005 19:26:54 GMT -5
Yet, I would posit that most musicians at your level of success still can't tell the difference between JPM and Sir FAUL. Where does musical skill end and the brainwashing begin? Just another tragedy arising from the whole ugly situation Well who has ever seriously posed that question to them in the first place? Not too many are willing to accept the possibility at ALL, the Doc has tried, right? PWR is wrapped up in a nice neat box, and the box has "hoax" stamped on it. It's not his musical skills that makes the Doc open to the idea, although of course it has acted as a most useful set of tools. There are not too many differing boots of AFOTH, most fall into the two categories presented on Anthology, one sounding like George in the beginning, then morphing into someone else, and then the other one, the one that sounds only like one person doing a rough demo. A little over 20 years later, Bill does a concert rehearsal, and it doesn't sound a whole lot like anything recorded back in the 60's: Fool on the Hill He was making a return to touring after almost a ten year absence, not counting the Live Aid appearance in 1985. Of note, he was beginning the process of including a much greater number of Beatles hits in his line up, something he seemed to shun during the Wings years. Btw, I know 20 years can change a voice, but listen to the George Harrison live in Japan album, (1991) and tell me if you have a hard time associating that voice with the guy who sang "Something" On Abbey Road.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 5, 2005 21:36:14 GMT -5
He sounds totally american there to me, Fool on the Hill has to be a mix of faul, george and whoever else has been employed to recreate the masterful JPM.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Dec 5, 2005 21:44:28 GMT -5
DarkHorse, that's not Ringo on the Sgt. Pepper recording of With a Little Help from My Friends, it's someone else's voice slowed down, probably Sheppard's (he gets low with a little help from his friends and comes groovin' up slowly). Try speeding up the record on a variable speed turntable and you'll hear the real recording sounds ---a higher voice singing at his usual range and speed.
They weren't lying when they introduced the singer as "Billy Cheese," not Ringo. Listen carefully at the usual speed and you can hear a kind of warping, slowing tape effect on the vocals; that is not Ringo, even a drunk Ringo, unless he is going through a time warp episode of Star Trek.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 6, 2005 0:18:28 GMT -5
Hey, every musician in America, if they know the Beatles and Sgt. Pepper, knows that that is Ringo singing WALHFMF. Don't take my word for it, take a poll. You don't need a machine. You don't need a spectrographic read-out. Perfectly agreed 1000% Ringo.
|
|