what is the difference between Paul's and William's singing

[Rubber Soul]

What are some of the  different characteristics of Paul and fauls singing voice?

[ramone]

I think there are differences that might be hard to describe at times.
But, I know when I hear late 60s Paul and then listen to vintage Paul
I can't believe how much of a difference there is - at least with most songs.

There are some that are tough to tell - esp around that transition time.

[Rubber Soul]

I can tell as well

[numbernine]

Original Paul had a raspier voice and the replacement had a more nasally voice...

[Paul Bearer]

Original had an Irish lilt, replacement is French Canadian.

[Jude]

Aug 2, 2016 12:36:32 GMT -5 Paul Bearer said:

Original had an Irish lilt, replacement is French Canadian.

Paperback Writer - Isolated vocals

What Irish lilt?

Maybe I'm Amazed - Isolated vocals

What French-Canadian accent?

These both sound 100% like Liverpudlian accents, only the former is stronger and the former has more of a London influence -- which makes sense,
considering how far Paul and the others had strayed from their Liverpool roots by 1970. However, even as late as 67 you could still hear a hint
of Scouse here and there: listen to how Paul sings "birthday greetings" and "grandchildren on your knee" in When I'm Sixty-Four:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoG6vaOWHvw

[ramone]

I hear a big difference between Paperback and Maybe.

And I think almost all, if not all of Pauls's stuff on Pepper
is sung by JPM.
He's doing a bit of a put on with the vocals on 64 so he sounds a little different -
but to me still JPM.

Even tho the album was released later, it of course was recorded months earlier.
It sounds so much like JPM doing Paul vocals I think that - while not being seen - he was working diligently behind the scenes. Certainly his bass work is there.

By the time the album comes out, unsuspecting people are getting this new Sgt P
work and seeing the new 'Paul' at the same time. It tends to just cement together
that things are just the same - tho the lads have taken on a somewhat different appearance - more facial hair, etc.

It's a bridge that works to not raise any suspicions when the different sounding
'Paul' vocals are now on board thru the rest of the later stuff.

At this point (after '66, or pepper anyway) I think JPM rarely contributes vocally -
tho, I think writing and instrumental stuff is present at various times.

[maclen]

paul mccartney's singing had range - the unconvincing replacement consistently stays in the upper register. to me ear and imo

[Cendrillon]

I listened to both vocals [isolated vocals][at links above], and the real McCartney's voice was of a somewhat lower register than the one who sang "Maybe I'm Amazed". Since I'm an American the subtle differences in British/Irish/Canadian accents are something unfamiliar to me, but the vocal register is not. The man referred to as 'f'aul [by George Harrison, among many others now], consistently sings somewhat higher, and hsi voice contains a whiney-ness to it. I have no background in music so don't know the proper terminology to use, but the real Paul's voice was lower, huskier, more male/masculine-sounding than was/is 'f'aul's.

As for Paul being the one singing on "Sgt. Pepper's", even if no one saw him singing, I have to completely disagree, but my reason for that right now is totally subjective. I was a teen who was absolutely in love with Paul when I was 14, and loved hearing all the early Beatles songs, and not one of them ever hit a sour note with me--not one. However, after hearing "Sgt' Pepper's" album over and over again during the summer of 1967, I became so repulsed when I heard any songs from it I would literally feel ill. I thought it was due to the Beatles all taking drugs, and going totally 'south', morality-wise, and turning into something so alien that they didn't seem worth knowing any longer.

However, even today, nearly 50 years later, the songs on that album affect me the very same way as in 1967--they nauseate me. As do all other songs after 1967 by the 'Beatles'. John's songs I can listen to all day long, as with George's from 1970 onward, but never 'McCartney's' work after "Revolver". That man's voice, and his face, repulse me completely, and always have, even long, long before I began looking into the idea that Paul had been murdered, and replaced by some doppelganger-look-alike-voice-impressionist.

That's why, as I try investigating this subject, I'm learning that my revulsion was justified, but only because of the fact that whom I was hearing, and seeing, after 1966 was NOT the real Paul at all--it wasn't just drugs, drink, loose morals, or anything other than he just was never there any longer for anyone to be able to see him, or hear his voice. I'm learning, too, that my subjective reaction needs to be backed up with actual evidence, otherwise it will remain simply my own personal reaction to the differences between the two men, and not helpful to anyone else at all.

[toodamnloud]

How can you say "She's Leaving Home" is a repulsive vocal rendition?

[Paul Bearer]

"She's Leaving Home" is Paul, not Faul.