Sure, sure. Good work, but I just want to reiterate the main thrust of my post - Which is: when investigating discrepancies between pre-67 Pauls vs. post-66 Pauls, be sure to hold the same standards within each specific era. Do all the Pauls match the description one has decided upon in their minds? And do all the Fauls?
By that I mean: PIAers are always pointing out the similarities between the two different eras, and PIDers are always pointing out the differences between the two eras. But it seems most people haven’t made much effort to point out the differences found within each.
--Use all these measurement tips and more with EACH photo you see, not just when comparing pre-67 vs. post-66. And again, when possible use more than just one photo of each.
Another interesting question, why does he sometimes have fake ears and sometimes not? And why place the fake ear where it doesn’t match up with Paul’s ear placement? And why give him a fake ear with detached lobes, when Paul's were (supposedly) always attached?
And if one believes photo-doctoring is taking place, please for once, back it up, or at least explain which attributes of one guy was used to doctor the other & vice-versa. People can’t keep haphazardly playing the doctored card every time their theory is called into question.
Are Faul’s ears in the same place in the SFF photo and the anchor shirt photo? Or in all the other photos?
And I’m glad you mentioned the bone growth topic. (Be sure to use the same standards with all photos).
Great post/reply.
There's a lot of differences outside of the facial/bone growth/ears that people sometimes miss. The one thing that was clearly observed from the Anchor shots, is that matching both Paul's at the same neckline of the same shirt, gave you two different people -- you couldn't match them up if you tried. Well if you seriously manipulated the picture to do so. But if you did, it would show in telltale fashion -- The Anchor. You would seriously have to manipulate that photo to leave the Anchor untouched, but the rest of the comparisons compromised.
One thing I don't see people often notice is Paul's playing style change. This is observed, not only as a person who looks at stuff(!) but is also as a musician. I can think of dozens of musicians playing over the last 3 decades. And when I think of those musicians, I think of their posture/stance/playing style. Did they close their eyes when playing? Look at the audience? Did they jump around? Stand still?
Think of Bass players like Entwistle, Squire, Lee. To name Bassists who had/ve extremely complicated bass lines, and sing at the same time (barring Entwistle depending on the tune.) Did they all play the same? Nope! Squire jumps around, very animated, looks at the audience on occasion when singing, playing, looks at the guitar neck during complicated passages. Entwistle, very still, very concentrated (or bored) --- anyway - you get my drift. These people have signature moves and styles that stayed intact their entire music careers.
Not Paul McCartney. He literally changed his playing style overnite. He went from barely looking at the neck of the guitar when either playing and/or singing lead-harmony, to turning looking at the neck into a part-time job. If you watch any performance of The Beatles 1962 - 1966, you will see Paul McCartney was the most professional of the group. He constantly engaged the audience with eye contact, would only look where he was on the fretboard very quickly depending on the difficulty of the section, and then instantly go back to what he was doing. If he did it on a particular section, he would vary to a degree that you would think he didn't actually have to look at all. If he looked once on the first pass through, and then twice on the second pass through, he left that first pass through of the section "sight unseen" almost the whole way through its course. If he looked twice during the section, you'd get no sense that he had to at all. He's just doing it.
The guy had so much confidence on both Bass and Acoustic Guitar, that to look at the neck of the guitar seemed pariah to him. He rarely did it. No matter how complicated the part.
Zoom forward to 1967, and he can't even get through a lip synch performance of Hello Goodbye in front of a camera crew without looking at the neck of the guitar. Nor I Am the Walrus in MMT. Nor Blackbird in film footage from 1968. Nor the Let It Be rooftop performance and sessions. From 1967 onward, this man went from not needing to look at all, unless it was a difficult part, to looking at the neck of the guitar multiple times. And at points that 3 years earlier, he needed not look at all for.
And continues on to this day. This shorter Radius/Ulna problem also comes up with this. Because if you look at him playing acoustic guitar in 1965 (particularly performances of Yesterday) and watch him play it in the past 40 years, he's not only changed the way he originally played it, some of its chord structures, but also his arm doesn't reach the soundhole as it used to. It is literally he can't reach it. Watch Yesterday 65. His left hand is very close to the soundhole of the guitar. He uses a "Cup and Flay" style strumming technique, where he cups his hands, then flays his fingers out to play the song. This is consistent through every performance he did of this song until it was no longer performed with The Beatles.
Now watch Australia 1975. Or 2011. Or anytime he's played this song in the past 40 years. One, his left hand is completely in a different position than pre-1966. It hangs more by the bridge of the guitar. He also fingerpicks it. Which is more synonymous with his "later" acoustic strumming technique. But i find it odd that the strumming technique he WROTE Yesterday with, would get abandoned so suddenly. It also appears when he plays this in the last 40 years, that
A. He doesn't know some of the original chords
B. His fingers are not long enough to actual form some of the chords the 1965 Paul McCartney reached with ease, and actually looked like his fingers were too long to play guitar. Hence Bass.
C. He's lowered the acoustic so it hangs around his mid-section/stomach. Yet still his left hand hangs around the bridge of the acoustic. In 1965, he kept the guitar around his mid to upper chest region, and his left hand fit comfortably almost on top of the soundhole. You can see in the Blackbird 68 footage, that even sitting down, with the guitar sometimes just under his throat, that still his left hand only reaches as far as to rest around the bridge. The arm hooks around the body of the guitar. It's as far as your arm is really going to go if something massive is blocking it like a guitar. I even tried this at home. No matter what position I was standing or sitting in, leaning or hanging back or whatever, the length of my arm does not change when positioned on the guitar to play numerous playing styles. It remains where it is, because that's as far as it can go when you hook your arm to play the thing. Unless you hang your arm over the guitar (which would look and feel awkward) your arm only goes so far.
And I think that's why finger picking is the option for Faul. Because he can't reach as far as Paul could on Acoustic. It's a theory. The acoustic of course, also looks quite small on Faul, compared to how it looked when Paul played it. He looked a bit dwarfed by it IMHO. I think he looks where he is on the fretboard, because he is an uncomfortable lefty. If he had handlers or trainers, they couldn't quite get him adjusted to left hand playing, so he has to look where his right hand is on the fretboard, because ... well ... he's not as confident a player as Paul McCartney was. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Paul exuded confidence when it came down to playing/singing/eye contact. Look where my fingers are? Why? I know this song.
Faul on the other hand, plays songs for the past 40 years, like he's still learning them. And that to me -- is the smoking gun as it were.
Check it out when you can. There was no reason for Paul McCartney to drastically change his playing style, literally within months, with the added fact he no longer had "eyes" on him or was required to play live anymore. But he just can't keep his eyes off the neck of the guitar.
Just wanted to bring that up, because it plays a part in different bone structure.
Why does he have fake ears is a great question! What is the purpose of these?
The only thing I can think of, is to cover surgery.