|
Post by The Deceptionist on May 22, 2011 18:37:39 GMT -5
i've been saying i'd look into this for ages now... possibly years - and never have. so tonight, out of the blue, i finally sat down and made a decent comparison: no.1 is from take 1 of day tripper no.2 is from the beginning of the sgt pepper reprise both samples are "1, 2, 3, 4" count-ins make your own conclusions
|
|
|
Post by B on May 22, 2011 18:43:21 GMT -5
I'm really not well-versed in the art of voice print interpretation enough to come to any conclusions. Would you care to comment on your feelings about what is shown?
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on May 22, 2011 18:43:32 GMT -5
howmusicreallyworks.com/Pages_Chapter_3/3_2.html"Your voice and all other human voices have unique overtone signatures. You can easily tell different human voices apart, even when you can’t see who’s talking or singing. This capability of the human brain makes possible industries such as radio broadcasting and sound recording." the link above paints a fairly elementary picture of overtones and harmonics; the vertical axis on the spectrograph is the frequency in Hz.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on May 22, 2011 18:46:05 GMT -5
the range in color from black through purple to red, then orange and finally yellow is the volume of that specific frequency (y axis) at any given time (x axis).
from what i can see, there appear to be certain frequencies (the horizontal yellow lines) that are emphasized (brighter yellow) and some that are de-emphasized (orange). this is what i am taking to be the 'voice-print', along with the corresponding "lines" for each harmonic/overtone.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on May 22, 2011 18:52:56 GMT -5
I'm fairly sure that JPM does most if not all 'paul' songs on pepper - just from ear. I wouldn't be surprised if these were very similar.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on May 22, 2011 18:56:55 GMT -5
well, if anyone can suggest a more 'Fauly' count-in to use, its fairly easy for me to screen-cap the resulting image.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 22, 2011 19:47:29 GMT -5
Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane are possibilities, if there was a substitution, then I'd bet on those two. (esp. Penny Lane)
PL was even mentioned in a Beatles Monthly blurb, addressing how some people couldn't figure out who was singing lead. (they reassured that it was Paul) Don't know how well this works with the 'count in', just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on May 22, 2011 23:24:37 GMT -5
There's also a "1-2-3-4" count-in on the original recording of "I Saw Her Standing There".
|
|
|
Post by gullible on Dec 16, 2012 2:30:06 GMT -5
i've been saying i'd look into this for ages now... possibly years - and never have. so tonight, out of the blue, i finally sat down and made a decent comparison: no.1 is from take 1 of day tripper no.2 is from the beginning of the sgt pepper reprise both samples are "1, 2, 3, 4" count-ins make your own conclusions This is as inconclusive as the oft cited Truby voice recognition "study" that was featured in Life magazine in 1969 - which was neither peer reviewed or presented as a paper. There are no controls here. We dont know how each of these tracks was mastered, or how the tracks were recorded and bounced during mixing. We do know that the Beatles began to experiment a lot with mic placement during the Sgt Pepper sessions however so it would be silly to expect the tonal data to be comparable. A mixed recording on a vinyl record is not a person's true voice signature. Isn't that obvious? Another thing to consider is how the tempo and mood would colour the inflection of the count in. Compare the count in for "I saw her standing there" to "day tripper". They sure don't sound the same to me. Having said all that... these are just graphs. I don't believe any of you study biometrics or voice analysis so you really have no idea how to interpret this data.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Dec 17, 2012 0:22:25 GMT -5
i've been saying i'd look into this for ages now... possibly years - and never have. so tonight, out of the blue, i finally sat down and made a decent comparison: no.1 is from take 1 of day tripper no.2 is from the beginning of the sgt pepper reprise both samples are "1, 2, 3, 4" count-ins make your own conclusions This is as inconclusive as the oft cited Truby voice recognition "study" that was featured in Life magazine in 1969 - which was neither peer reviewed or presented as a paper. There are no controls here. We dont know how each of these tracks was mastered, or how the tracks were recorded and bounced during mixing. We do know that the Beatles began to experiment a lot with mic placement during the Sgt Pepper sessions however so it would be silly to expect the tonal data to be comparable. A mixed recording on a vinyl record is not a person's true voice signature. Isn't that obvious? Another thing to consider is how the tempo and mood would colour the inflection of the count in. Compare the count in for "I saw her standing there" to "day tripper". They sure don't sound the same to me. Having said all that... these are just graphs. I don't believe any of you study biometrics or voice analysis so you really have no idea how to interpret this data. I work with sound a lot, so these pictures look obviously very different to eachother. It's almost like waveforms, except vertical, and no, none of us study biometrics here, but the obvious differences kind of look you right in the face. But it's a good point you make about the data. We don't know the mixing process on these songs. We can assume that the vocals were recorded last in each song, and I think that's a safe assumption. You surely wouldn't do them first. And really the only thing that would affect the "sound" of a person's voice, would be EQ. Whether you attached more bass/mid/or treble frequencies to it in the mixing process. Since there are so many isolated vocal sources for The Beatles available on Youtube, data gathered should be this I suppose: Songs in the same key Words similar, if not the same note, then at least in the same key as the comparison data. If McCartney says "and" in one song, try and find another "and" in another song, but hopefully in the same key. The difference is of course like comparing two birds of the same species. Whistles and chirps all sound the same to you, and without proper bird spotting, all the birds look the same to you, but THEY can tell the difference. Each bird's throat and skull has minute differences that give it an individual voice. Humans are no different. If Paul McCartney is two different people, then it is most assured that no matter what you do in the studio to that voice, it will show every dissimilarity it can find. Moreso than commonality. And if those dissimilarities in data are consistent within the same frequency ranges, then you have a good case to say there are two McCartneys.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Dec 17, 2012 0:25:38 GMT -5
I must also add that I do not see Deceptionist naming the method used to do the analysis in the first place. What program is it?
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Dec 17, 2012 0:53:40 GMT -5
Here's another query:
When you think of 3 magazines that were respected, almost required reading in the 1960's, 3 ones come to my mind
TIME LIFE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
These were respected periodicals. They have been cited and referenced, and celebrated for decades.
When the question gets asked: "How could so many people be involved in a cover up, and never say anything."
Well you then have LIFE being one of those. They ran an article for the nation to read about the death of Paul McCartney, even though he seemed pretty much alive. They then approached a voice analysis researcher to look at the data proving whether McCartney was 1 or 2 people. The data came back "suspicious" without any research papers, analysis provided.
So if LIFE wanted to, it could've followed up that data and research. Been more investigative. Another series perhaps with Truby's findings printed in glorious detail. But they didn't. You never hear another word about it. So if any rumours of his death wanted to be disspelled or denied by Apple/The Beatles etc. LIFE magazine did no great service by putting an end to the story and rumours. They actually fueled them. They supported them, without giving any conclusive data to say "we believe this story has merit".
And you don't think many people were involved in this???
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Dec 17, 2012 9:00:17 GMT -5
Here's another query: When you think of 3 magazines that were respected, almost required reading in the 1960's, 3 ones come to my mind TIME LIFE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC These were respected periodicals. They have been cited and referenced, and celebrated for decades. When the question gets asked: "How could so many people be involved in a cover up, and never say anything." Well you then have LIFE being one of those. They ran an article for the nation to read about the death of Paul McCartney, even though he seemed pretty much alive. They then approached a voice analysis researcher to look at the data proving whether McCartney was 1 or 2 people. The data came back "suspicious" without any research papers, analysis provided. So if LIFE wanted to, it could've followed up that data and research. Been more investigative. Another series perhaps with Truby's findings printed in glorious detail. But they didn't. You never hear another word about it. So if any rumours of his death wanted to be disspelled or denied by Apple/The Beatles etc. LIFE magazine did no great service by putting an end to the story and rumours. They actually fueled them. They supported them, without giving any conclusive data to say "we believe this story has merit".The rumors can never be dispelled because they are true. TIME LIFE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 18, 2012 14:30:39 GMT -5
When you consider the publications are controlled by the "System", the material they would provide would not be factual.
Much of what is presented by the Media tries to appear as if they are revealing something, but they also present the material as being "flawed" so that people will disregard the material presented.
I've watched these so called conspiracy programs on the "tv" and they present things that seem as though they are exposing something, but then have people discredit the stories or information, and just makes it appear to be yet another bit of a "mystery"....all a pile of crap...the way they do stuff, try to make it look like they are revealing something to the people, and then have someone supposedly "credible" or educated in whatever arena they are dealing with, but words going in circles...
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Dec 19, 2012 0:18:58 GMT -5
When you consider the publications are controlled by the "System", the material they would provide would not be factual. Much of what is presented by the Media tries to appear as if they are revealing something, but they also present the material as being "flawed" so that people will disregard the material presented. I've watched these so called conspiracy programs on the "tv" and they present things that seem as though they are exposing something, but then have people discredit the stories or information, and just makes it appear to be yet another bit of a "mystery"....all a pile of crap...the way they do stuff, try to make it look like they are revealing something to the people, and then have someone supposedly "credible" or educated in whatever arena they are dealing with, but words going in circles... Exactly. The LIFE magazine article can be treated as disinfo. It provided as many clues in of itself, as it did dissuade by "interviewing McCartney". It put a car through his head when you held the image up to the light, and it provided scientific, credible research, without a single paper, credential or follow up to that research. Clear disinfo. And it boggles me that people still say "do you know how many people it would take to make this happen?" Not many. All you need is the media on your side. And you can convince the populace of anything. They had United Artists as an ally, because despite claiming no influence or control over what the content of Yellow Submarine, the movie, had in it; it still went headlong into saying Paul Is Dead like every single Beatle related product since at least 1966. The same manifesto. Make McCartney different. They took the time to make sure one of the actors said one of his lines in reverse speech, so that when it was played backwards, out came something forwards in direct reference to Paul's identity, and if he was the correct Paul. And they had little contribution to this movie. Well, you could've fooled me. Because Yellow Submarine has so much stuff in it, you'd think they all sat around a table and said to the director/writer, we need you to make sure these things happen, because we have this little thing going on that we're promoting on all our albums and products. That good ol' Paulie here is Dead, and wait for it ... been replaced by a copy. Well, count LIFE as an ally. Because they went and did the same.
|
|
|
Post by silverbeatle on Feb 22, 2015 19:55:56 GMT -5
Someone wrote in to the FEBRUARY 11th, 1967 Edition of KRLA Beat with this:
|
|
|
Post by silverbeatle on Feb 23, 2015 0:46:23 GMT -5
So, people were noticing oddities as far back as the REVOLVER era, if there was a double/replacement/understudy standing by, perhaps he was given a test run in the studio?
Perhaps the understudy grew ambitious, arrogant and wanted a lead vocal on one of the studio albums, thus "HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE"
|
|