|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 6, 2005 18:05:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
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 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 DarkHorse on May 12, 2004 8:25:35 GMT -5
If Paul's voice could be imitated so could Ringo's. But why would they do that? Maybe just for a gag on Sgt. Pepper? It sounds like Ringo although anything is possible.
Although Fool On The Hill sounds like it could be George, to me it's either George along with someone else or another imitator entirely other than Neil Aspinall.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 26, 2005 19:36:48 GMT -5
Girl, I've never met anyone in the whole flipping universe that thought Rubber Soul sounded like Hard Day's Night. I'll try to show you, because imo there seriously is a huge difference: Hard Day's Night is pop tunes galore -- I love you, you love me. The sounds there are very optimistic, very in your face, and I mean IN YOUR FACE (Hard Day's Night, I Shoulda Known Better, Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, Anytime At All, and ESPECIALLY Tell Me Why). The lyrics were ALL about love -- nothing too deep. Then ONE YEAR LATER, Rubber Soul comes out, and poof, they've CHANGED. They gotten more pessimistic (Run For Your Life, I'm Looking Through You, You Won't See Me, Think For Yourself, Girl), George suddenly gets VERY good with lyrics and making his own music (If I Needed Someone, Think For Yourself), the lyrics get very deeper (Think For Yourself, Girl, IN MY LIFE, Nowhere Man), they start getting into more psychadelic sounding songs/lyrics (Nowhere Man), George learns sitar (Norwegian Wood), the sound is more laid back than Hard Day's Night... WAY MORE (the whole album), and their singles were WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY better -- We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper was incredible, and Day Tripper was a rocking drugs piece that was different lyrically and musically than other rockers like Hard Day's Night. Rubber Soul seems ultimately where they made the big leap and change, not Sgt. Pepper. I think what Girl meant was the style in which the Beatles recorded their songs, the spirit that was in their songs. Yes Rubber Soul is very different from Hard Day's Night. I will agree with you on that. However, even Rubber Soul had songs that could be easily played live. There was a difference in Rubber Soul and there was ALSO a difference with Sgt. Pepper. As far as what I was talking about, the changes I am referring to are in the Beatles behavior, attitudes, activities they undertook and the content of their songs.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 26, 2005 10:01:22 GMT -5
Sure, you never SAID it, but you implied it. "Overnight" meaning "suddenly" meaning "when he was replaced." So you're pretty much saying when he made his appearance in Nov/Dec of 1966, that's when the problems started, which is untrue. Cheers, Umang The point is(again : I never said November of 1966, which probably at the time Bill was having plastic surgery done and recovering from that. The problems in the band started as early as 1967 when they were spending time apart from each other. I'd say things changing 'overnight' is not an exaggeration considering the Beatles were together for 10 years before that! That's all fine but we have sections where you can discuss just the music. Remember this is a PID forum and the discussions here aren't likely to be 'comfortable' for many Beatles' fans. Regarding the discussion about the best Beatles album of all time, I'll agree many fans will pick the later albums like Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper. However I recently saw a special on VH1 where the musicians voted on the best Beatles album of all time and it was... Revolver, a JPM album. Perhaps they knew something.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 25, 2005 17:56:20 GMT -5
Darkhorse, your point would be legit if that were true. But the problems started in 1968, not in November, 1966. Cheers, Umang You say that my statements weren't true. And then you begin by saying that the problems didn't start in November of 1966 which I never said.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 25, 2005 16:36:32 GMT -5
Your interpretation is amazing, Dr. Robert!!! "Bill-iards"... wow!!! Revolver, I must say that I disagree with your last statement. Let's assume for all intents and purposes that Paul was never replaced: they spent over a decade with each other, and saw each other a lot for over a decade. I know from experience with myself and others and just other friends that people can become sick of each other, and turn bitter and eventually hate each other after seeing each other so much, no matter how much they got along before. So it's very plausible that if Paul wasn't replaced, they got sick of people like many normally do. It's natural. Cheers, Umang The difference is that normally it doesn't happen overnight like it did with the Beatles. Things are great and then all of a sudden with the Beatles there are problems within the group, increased use of drugs, cynicism from Lennon, etc.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 19, 2006 16:05:25 GMT -5
I'm sure there is someone here who could verify this!
Btw, Doctor Lev's site has a great clue section.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 12, 2006 14:36:27 GMT -5
It reminds me that we live in a society that based so much on illusion. We are being programmed, brainwashed, controlled, whatever you want to call it, at all times and yet many of us are not even aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 17, 2005 18:49:58 GMT -5
Do you know who's the artist? No I don't. It's amazing the emotion that the artist captured in that photo.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 15, 2005 14:21:25 GMT -5
Look at this painting of Paul. What struck me is that his head is turned down and his eyes have sadness in them. I wonder if the artist was trying to portray something.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 28, 2005 15:50:50 GMT -5
There's also a still of a fingerprint and a footprint. Possibly JPM's finger print?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2005 22:43:42 GMT -5
Who else could it be? To clarify, could this be THE actual picture? Oh I see what you mean. It looks real enough.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2005 22:36:15 GMT -5
...my wings are broken and so is my hair... could this actually be him? Who else could it be?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2005 18:51:31 GMT -5
That photo also looks to me vaguely like one of the guys on the Pepperpot cover. Not sure which one, exactly. I'd say it looks like the guy on the far right.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 4, 2004 10:51:28 GMT -5
How can these be two different people?? Very easy. Connect the bodies that go with these heads and then compare the body size.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 3, 2004 15:23:53 GMT -5
Anyway, what's the point of any fades or comparisons if we don't know if the post '66 was or wasn't doctored? Well if the picture was doctored, it was doctored to LOOK like Faul, i.e. stretching the face to make it appear longer. That doesn't mean that the face would always match up in a fade. To me, fades are only reliable if the pictures of Paul are first, taken from an original publication, NOT from the Anthology or anything similar or recent; also the angle must be the same and the facial expression must be the same.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 2, 2004 19:24:45 GMT -5
Yeah Jojo even I picked up on that. Usually I am the too serious one and you are the cool, collected one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2004 11:32:42 GMT -5
They're confused and the don't know it? How do I know I'm not confused right now? How do you know you're not confused this very second? Confused about what? I don't know what you mean. Getting back to your original statement about all of the pictures being doctored to avoid people getting confused here's what I think. Not all of the pics have been doctored. From what I see I would say some are and some aren't. Most people can dismiss the pics that look different as the fault of the camera or the actual photograph itself, not the person being photographed, in this case Faul. That's what I believed for many years. The reason why I said unconsciously is because many people I have shown Faul pics to see a difference in the pics but they consciously dismiss it for the reasons stated above. It's just speculation on my part but I do know how the subconscious mind works. And that's how I came to that reasoning. Better?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 27, 2004 8:32:51 GMT -5
Well, not consciously.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 26, 2004 19:39:20 GMT -5
Faul? Doctored? Wouldn't it be easier just to doctor old pics of Paul to make him look like Faul? If you doctor pics of Faul, you're gonna have to doctor each one of them, so people don't get confused. People ARE confused.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 26, 2004 14:47:13 GMT -5
Why isn't his head tall and narrow? It is. Of course his face is gonna look like Paul's otherwise this would never be believed by so many people. I believed Bill was Paul for 25 years and it has taken someone else's work to wake me up. I never would have looked unless it was shown to me. Noone said Faul didn't look like Paul but there ARE differences. And they are too many and too big to ignore. Plastic surgery is what made Bill's face into Paul's and the picture you posted could have easily been doctored to make Bill's eyes further apart, make his eyebrows longer, his face rounder, etc.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Apr 27, 2005 6:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 21:39:48 GMT -5
James Paul had a long/oval face, take a look at your vintage pics in your Paul McCartney board. I've seen his face a million times, I am not "taking a look" again. His face would be classified as round.
|
|