|
Post by FP on Aug 27, 2009 20:56:52 GMT -5
It most likely is JPM on Pepper. (his songs) The vintage voice seems to be there. I've heard most of you guys say that it's Faul on Pepper. Since you all can't agree on it, it shows that the voice change isn't as obvious as you make it seem, plus, it's clearly the same voice that sings Pepper and MMT's title tracks.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2009 22:58:16 GMT -5
Getting Better and She's Leaving Home are JPM. The rest are Faul and some other vocal imitators.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Aug 28, 2009 0:20:25 GMT -5
Yeah, I admit that I didn't think it Paul on PL growing up. But now it's clear to me that it doesn't sound like Eleanor Rigby or Fixing A Hole because he's singing it in the same high register as Here, There and Everywhere. But everything on Sgt. Pepper that Paul sings sounds exactly like Paul. Even his harmonies on John's songs. That's because George Martin and Geoff Emerick were fiddling with the sound. Check the "With a little help from EMI's machine" thread on the Clues board, Jul 12, 2008. Martin played with When I'm 64, Lovely Rita , and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds until he had Faul's voice sounding like Paul's. Your never cease to amaze me. Why would George Martin changing "Faul's" voice to a higher pitch make it sound more like Paul? Do you actually look into the BS you post here? George Martin's "fiddling" amounted to raising Paul's voice an octave or so in the final mixdown--it's the same effect used in Hello Goodbye, only to a lesser degree. Show me one instance, ONE INSTANCE where George Martin applied a helium effect to Paul's voice before late 1966! You can't. You state matter-of-factly that George Martin was trying to make the so-called imposter sound like Paul by adding effects to his voice, but there wasn't ever a single of instance of "Paul" sounding the way he does in songs like When I'm 64! You can't just wrap your head around the idea that it was 1967 and the Beatles felt up to a little bit of experimenting, can you? You have to come up with a sinister reason for every perfectly natural change that came over the Beatles. And even though I shoot down every single one of your fragile theories, you still persist. Because as all the "educated" people know, John did say "I buried Paul". And Faul (he's called Faul because the 60IF says so and that's the holy grail of absolute truth!) is a gypsy. Now go on, put on an air of intellectual depth and refuse to argue with me, even in PMs. Never acknowledge it when I show irrefutable evidence that you are full of close-minded nonsense of the most banal sort.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Aug 28, 2009 0:33:09 GMT -5
Getting Better and She's Leaving Home are JPM. The rest are Faul and some other vocal imitators. You don't say? Source, please. 60IF perhaps? Your own ears? What evidence do you have? I used to think that Nothing is Real was out to prove something but I realize more and more that it's just a den of old Beatles fans that have become fanatical about professing whatever it is they have decreed in their heads is the undeniable truth. You have no time for evidence, nor can you ever accept the facts as they have been written in countless books written by people who are authoritative on the subject of the Beatles. That's right. Everything that has ever been written about the Beatles is a lie, and the only thing you can trust is your ears and eyes. The people at MaccafunHouse are deaf and blind, obviously, and there is no room for there interpretation of things when you are convinced that you are absolutely correct in your assumptions. Brilliant. And eyesbleed, before you say anything, no, I don't deny the possibility of a replacement. But I also don't deny the elements of logic and the written word of people who know far more about the Beatles than I ever could. I also don't deny the allegations of the people who worked with the Beatles. If George Martin says that he is 100% certain that he never recorded Beatles songs with an impostor, why isn't that good enough for you? If John, George, and Ringo's singing voice changed over the years, why can't Paul's? Also, why can't the effects added to Paul's voice have been just that---effects added to PAUL'S VOICE? If all I'll get from any of you is a response saying "Well this is NIR: Paul was Replaced, that's what we discuss here, and you can't change our minds" then I'm done here. This message board isn't about finding the truth. It's about discussing the truth you've already made up in your heads.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 28, 2009 6:59:47 GMT -5
I'm not deaf. I'm a professional musician.
I am nearsighted though. So I suppose a case can be made there. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Aug 28, 2009 11:47:18 GMT -5
ALL the "Beatles" were replaced in 1966. The website "Paul is Dead Miss Him Miss Him" shows THREE "George Martins". That is why it is so difficult to "prove" Paul was replaced,everything else is a lie too.Of course once you realise everything is a lie, a replacement "Paul" is obvious.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 28, 2009 15:31:55 GMT -5
ALL the "Beatles" were replaced in 1966. The website "Paul is Dead Miss Him Miss Him" shows THREE "George Martins". That is why it is so difficult to "prove" Paul was replaced,everything else is a lie too.Of course once you realise everything is a lie, a replacement "Paul" is obvious. LOL, this forum can barely agree on anything anymore!
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 28, 2009 20:15:46 GMT -5
Getting Better and She's Leaving Home are JPM. The rest are Faul and some other vocal imitators. You don't say? Source, please. 60IF perhaps? Your own ears? What evidence do you have? I used to think that Nothing is Real was out to prove something but I realize more and more that it's just a den of old Beatles fans that have become fanatical about professing whatever it is they have decreed in their heads is the undeniable truth. You have no time for evidence, nor can you ever accept the facts as they have been written in countless books written by people who are authoritative on the subject of the Beatles. That's right. Everything that has ever been written about the Beatles is a lie, and the only thing you can trust is your ears and eyes. The people at MaccafunHouse are deaf and blind, obviously, and there is no room for there interpretation of things when you are convinced that you are absolutely correct in your assumptions. Brilliant. And eyesbleed, before you say anything, no, I don't deny the possibility of a replacement. But I also don't deny the elements of logic and the written word of people who know far more about the Beatles than I ever could. I also don't deny the allegations of the people who worked with the Beatles. If George Martin says that he is 100% certain that he never recorded Beatles songs with an impostor, why isn't that good enough for you? If John, George, and Ringo's singing voice changed over the years, why can't Paul's? Also, why can't the effects added to Paul's voice have been just that---effects added to PAUL'S VOICE? If all I'll get from any of you is a response saying "Well this is NIR: Paul was Replaced, that's what we discuss here, and you can't change our minds" then I'm done here. This message board isn't about finding the truth. It's about discussing the truth you've already made up in your heads. Sure, deciding by ear which SP song was Paul vs. imitator is purely subjective and speculative IMO. But a voiceprint analysis was done in the late '60s that showed at least 2 different recorded voices for Paul from 1966 onward. I personally think it was all Faul by the White album. By then there was no need to make him sound exactly like Paul. More info from the past: invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=3165&page=1
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 28, 2009 20:37:02 GMT -5
Sure, deciding by ear which SP song was Paul vs. imitator is purely subjective and speculative IMO. But a voiceprint analysis was done in the late '60s that showed at least 2 different recorded voices for Paul from 1966 onward. Well then it was a poorly executed experiment for failing to apply the same tests on the other three Beatles, for control, and comparing those three voices to Paul and "Faul's" live voice. Of course that only works if you're a believer that the live performance Faul (Hey Jude up to now) has always been the same guy.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 28, 2009 20:46:45 GMT -5
Sure, deciding by ear which SP song was Paul vs. imitator is purely subjective and speculative IMO. But a voiceprint analysis was done in the late '60s that showed at least 2 different recorded voices for Paul from 1966 onward. Well then it was a poorly executed experiment for failing to apply the same tests on the other three Beatles, for control, and comparing those three voices to Paul and "Faul's" live voice. Of course that only works if you're a believer that the live performance Faul (Hey Jude up to now) has always been the same guy. No, I think he did do tests on the other Beatles. He found their recorded voiceprints to be constant over the same time span. Based on Faul's speaking and singing voices, I believe he's been the same guy since late 1966. I don't subscribe to the multiple replacement theories or the theory that Paul came back at any point.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Aug 28, 2009 22:08:23 GMT -5
Revolver: 'Sure, deciding by ear which SP song was Paul vs. imitator is purely subjective and speculative IMO. But a voiceprint analysis was done in the late '60s that showed at least 2 different recorded voices for Paul from 1966 onward. I personally think it was all Faul by the White album. By then there was no need to make him sound exactly like Paul."
Yeah, just my opinion, but it seems JP sung them in pepper. Good point in last sentence. Pepper was really the transition album or the key one. There's the stuff jarv has discussed.
And we know the HE DIE drum didn't get there by chance. Very well planned. So as much the lads might have denied things at one point, the drum thing at least shows to the greatest of skeptics that they were up to something.
As far as Paul goes, it seems they wanted to transition visually first. Even the cover Paul seems to be an amalgam of JP and new guy. Why? Cause it doesn't really look like either (as in inside cover guy or alternate cover shots, or JPM). But at least looking at the album front it's accepted as Paul of course, especially with the other three looking different. Brilliant really. And we know things were airbrushed out and changed on the cover. And certain things or shots (ex: S. Temple) not like the original pic.
So, playing with Paul's look is not an out there thought.
And once the visual thing was grafted in to the whole scenario, the audio could. So, I figure JP did at least most of it, then faul or bill or ? really taking over after. And if JP wrote those songs that are 'his', I can see him wanting to sing them on this transition album. The bass is brilliant too. Not to say there couldn't be other contributions - but to me, it just all paints the picture of him doing most of 'his' stuff. And the other 3 did their thing. If we were him, and maybe knew this was the last album (for a while anyway) we'd probably like to go kind of full bore in the studio too.
But again, once the audio's accepted (like the visual) - well, mission accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 28, 2009 23:12:17 GMT -5
No, I think he did do tests on the other Beatles. He found their recorded voiceprints to be constant over the same time span. That's interesting, do you have a link showing these comparisons?
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Sept 10, 2009 10:03:19 GMT -5
I'm sorry for Khan but:
1 Sun king was totally unaware of this wired article (I can post the PM he wrote me).
2 they used much more photos than the ones published
3 If a picture is used by SK, does this make it false?
4 The 2 person are professionals that worked in Italian courts for important trials: they for sure adopted a serious method.
5 I know personally the author of the book mentioned in the article (that, btw, isn't pid neither pia). When I advised him about the article he noticed that the journalists that wrote it were the same persons that interviewed him for a documentary about pid legend. So he contacted them and they told him that there was much more but it could not be published. I'm personally pushing to be able to meet these guys and see what they have in their hands.
6 in the article, they clearly say that their purpose was to demonstrate that pid was an hoax
7 to debunk their results (especially about ears and teeth) you just say that the pics were used by sk too... Not really a scientific method, IMHO
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Sept 10, 2009 17:50:47 GMT -5
It's good to know it's a serious investigation. What we need is a literal translation.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Sept 10, 2009 17:53:21 GMT -5
I could do that... the problem is that is not a little work and i don't have much time...
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Sept 10, 2009 17:58:21 GMT -5
I could do that... the problem is that is not a little work and i don't have much time... Whenever you can, il ras!
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Sept 11, 2009 3:37:52 GMT -5
Well then it was a poorly executed experiment for failing to apply the same tests on the other three Beatles, for control, and comparing those three voices to Paul and "Faul's" live voice. Of course that only works if you're a believer that the live performance Faul (Hey Jude up to now) has always been the same guy. No, I think he did do tests on the other Beatles. He found their recorded voiceprints to be constant over the same time span. Based on Faul's speaking and singing voices, I believe he's been the same guy since late 1966. I don't subscribe to the multiple replacement theories or the theory that Paul came back at any point. I believe that Truby did indeed state that he had tested all four Beatles voices and he heard one John, one George, one Ringo, and three Pauls.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Sept 11, 2009 3:38:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry for Khan but: 1 Sun king was totally unaware of this wired article (I can post the PM he wrote me). 2 they used much more photos than the ones published 3 If a picture is used by SK, does this make it false? 4 The 2 person are professionals that worked in Italian courts for important trials: they for sure adopted a serious method. 5 I know personally the author of the book mentioned in the article (that, btw, isn't pid neither pia). When I advised him about the article he noticed that the journalists that wrote it were the same persons that interviewed him for a documentary about pid legend. So he contacted them and they told him that there was much more but it could not be published. I'm personally pushing to be able to meet these guys and see what they have in their hands. 6 in the article, they clearly say that their purpose was to demonstrate that pid was an hoax 7 to debunk their results (especially about ears and teeth) you just say that the pics were used by sk too... Not really a scientific method, IMHO Excellent, il ras.
|
|
|
Post by Yankee on Sept 11, 2009 3:40:44 GMT -5
If they did this test on Rich Little, would they detect 375 different voices?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Sept 11, 2009 11:11:47 GMT -5
If they did this test on Rich Little, would they detect 375 different voices? I believe that disguising one's voice is not supposed to affect the accuracy of voice print identification, just as one cannot use sandpaper or anything like that to change his fingerprints. That having been said, I think that the science of voiceprint identification was in its infancy in 1969, so it would be interesting if anyone followed up on the Truby study today.
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Sept 11, 2009 16:38:23 GMT -5
If they did this test on Rich Little, would they detect 375 different voices? I believe that disguising one's voice is not supposed to affect the accuracy of voice print identification, just as one cannot use sandpaper or anything like that to change his fingerprints. That having been said, I think that the science of voiceprint identification was in its infancy in 1969, so it would be interesting if anyone followed up on the Truby study today. I mentioned on one of the threads that I was reading a peer reviewed magazine where the letter writers were taking apart Truby and Tossi's spectrogram research. They followed up with defenses of it, and the research faded away, so to speak, in importance. There are modern computer programs that offer free spectrographic and spectral analysis. I found them, but I do not have the capability to try them out. Here they are to try: 1.) at www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/software.html there are several free speech analysis programs; 2.) at www.speech.kth.se/wavesurfer3.) at www.sil.org/computing/speechtools.speechanalyzer.htm4.) at www.praat.org they have a program where you can "analyse, synthesize and manipulate speech and create high-quality pictures for your articles and thesis."
|
|
|
Post by GN on Sept 13, 2009 15:17:38 GMT -5
It most likely is JPM on Pepper. (his songs) The vintage voice seems to be there. I've heard most of you guys say that it's Faul on Pepper. Since you all can't agree on it, it shows that the voice change isn't as obvious as you make it seem, plus, it's clearly the same voice that sings Pepper and MMT's title tracks. Paul McCartney was aware of both projects: Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. I can agree Paul is on both Main Title songs and Billy Shears was about who replaced Ringo. But I just don't believe any of the "official date" about the recording sessions.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Sept 13, 2009 16:56:23 GMT -5
Ooh, as you know I'm not one to openly "bash" you GN as I like the air of mystique but...
I'm not so sure about the title songs of either, particularly MMT.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Sept 13, 2009 19:21:47 GMT -5
I've heard most of you guys say that it's Faul on Pepper. Since you all can't agree on it, it shows that the voice change isn't as obvious as you make it seem, plus, it's clearly the same voice that sings Pepper and MMT's title tracks. Paul McCartney was aware of both projects: Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. I can agree Paul is on both Main Title songs and Billy Shears was about who replaced Ringo. But I just don't believe any of the "official date" about the recording sessions. Nobody replaced Ringo, sheesh! There has never been more than one nose like that in the entire history of the world. One or maybe two replacements of Paul McCartney for the purpose of keeping the Beatles and/or the McCartney mystique alive? Faintly conceivable. Wholesale replacements of every member of the most talented and the most prominent rock band in the history of the world for the purpose of satisfying some vague undefined objectives of mythical Illuminati overlords? Tinfoil hat territory.
|
|
|
Post by B on Sept 13, 2009 19:52:26 GMT -5
The Harvey's Lake outdoor concert series. And da**! I missed it! (10 miles away!) And it was on my birthday to boot!
|
|