|
Post by jonna on Sept 2, 2004 17:22:33 GMT -5
if you truly are a professional musician; you are far from being the only one who is a member of this forum. As is proven daily in courts, an "expert opinion" is just that -- an opinion. Please do not confuse us with the forum that creates and embellishes theories to support its position. Often what is done here is brainstorming, "thinking out loud", and offering possible explanations for anomalies that we notice. None of these things have been offered as [glow=red,2,300]FULL LEGAL PROOF[/glow] ;D we're simply having a discussion. **modified to add: JoJo, I had not read your post when I wrote mine...yet we both used 'anomalies'. Too funny. ;Daahhhh my job here is done... ;D
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 2, 2004 18:51:19 GMT -5
Also, look at the Revolution video and see how he's playing. It look as if he is pretend playing the bass. Because he probably was. The music in the video was from another recording of the song. They weren't really singing or playing.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 2, 2004 20:52:15 GMT -5
From the footage I've seen of Paul and that's everything in the Anthology and then other videos and pictures, all of the early stuff where Paul is playing bass he uses a pic and almost never looks at his bass guitar. Then in the 'I Am the Walrus' video he is playing the bass with his fingers and looking at the bass while he is playing, something I have NEVER seen him in do in the early videos. Also, look at the Revolution video and see how he's playing. It look as if he is pretend playing the bass. I have to admit that I noticed this occuring more often in the later times also. I also have only theories. The later musical numbers have him switchnig more often from the 1st position to higher positions on the fretboard. Also, the bass he plays may feel different. fretboard wider, etc... This is not the hofner he played for so long. I also have to admit that when I took a couple of years off playing (Due to a broken finger that still hurts), I look at what I am doing now too. There are numerous reasons we may never know.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 2, 2004 23:07:44 GMT -5
And what do you base this assessment that he had to 'learn from scratch' and had nothing to 'unlearn' on? I believe the general assumption is that Bill's right-handed. So even if he did play a little on whatever instrument, it probably wasn't left-handed bass. Right-handed bass maybe.... another instrument altogether is more likely. So the odds of the "learning from scratch" theory are pretty high. (more of that thinkin' out loud stuff)
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 3, 2004 11:41:29 GMT -5
The Beatles pioneered the "lip synch to the music and play along with a recording" business, truely the first MTV type videos. Perhaps there were other groups, but they made a LOT of early year promo videos. Here's what I've observed about those early year ones, Paul (and the others) play the instruments true to the way they would play them live. Granted, I'm mostly watching Paul, but he doesn't just lip synch, he picks those notes out true to the bass notes. It's funny to watch poor George, he really had a hard time mouthing the words at the correct times. (John and Paul were right on the money)
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 6, 2004 23:31:12 GMT -5
I'm not forgetting anything. But just like Faul's colored contact lenses and John's shoe lifts, you continue to just "make stuff up" with absolutely no basis in any known facts to fit your version of history. I, on the other hand, have been a professional musician and guitar teacher for over 20 years, and I can speak competently on the subject of technique and hand positions. Paul has played bass and guitar using the exact same technique for over 40 yrs. because he is, and always has been the same man. You (and Larry) were forgetting that the premise of this board is "Paul was Replaced." Based on that premise, the odds are good that Paul's replacement wasn't left handed and may not even have played bass before. Therefore he would have had to learn to play the bass guitar left handed. My point was that it would have been be easier to mimic someone's technique either by never having played the instrument before or by learning to play it in reverse. No one here is suggesting that Paul isn't a talented musician, perhaps a genius. How else could he have pulled it off? P.S. In the future, please don't attribute to me other people's ideas or threads. (I was not involved in the colored contacts or shoe lift discussions.) I have argued that Paul is taller than Paul and has different colored eyes, but that's only because they're two different people (IMO) . It goes without saying that what I post is my opinion only and doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of the rest of the PWR community. out
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Sept 25, 2004 10:43:09 GMT -5
Because he probably was. The music in the video was from another recording of the song. They weren't really singing or playing. You should watch the non-overdubbed Revolution video. Faul's playing still doesn't jibe. His only contribution seems to be "shooby doowa wa wa shooby doowa".
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 25, 2004 21:24:58 GMT -5
You should watch the non-overdubbed Revolution video. Faul's playing still doesn't jibe. His only contribution seems to be "shooby doowa wa wa shooby doowa". Not sure if I understood what you are trying to say here. What is wrong with his playing on that song? The song was a straight rocker with heavy guitars. A good bass player would tone it down.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Sept 28, 2004 0:03:08 GMT -5
Not sure if I understood what you are trying to say here. What is wrong with his playing on that song? The song was a straight rocker with heavy guitars. A good bass player would tone it down. Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with the bass playing per se...the comment was about the appearance of playing. There are afaik two Revolution videos. One is overdubbed with the studio track, but the other one, which has live audio, shows John, George, and Ringo completely in synch, as they should. However, Faul looks off, in some instances hitting the bass but producing no sound.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 28, 2004 1:45:59 GMT -5
Oh. Ok. I have to go back and look at them more. Thanks.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 28, 2004 12:28:53 GMT -5
Hi everyone! I don't live here, but I sure like visiting. At the risk of getting Matchbox all huffy about going off-topic, I have a request...
Please stop using that very misleading picture fade in your ID!
Let me suggest keeping the James Paul pic, and fading it with the UNRETOUCHED Faul pic Revolver uses. The one found in the CD booklet with the red background.
The picture of Faul used on the cover of Sgt. Pepper is obviously retouched. Just compare the chins.
I liken the "photo" Matchbox uses in his fade to more of a painting than an actual photograph. That goes double for the "photo" of Faul in the gatefold of Sgt. Pepper.
I believe Matchbox once wrote that he saw no evidence of airbrushing of Faul's pic in the gatefold. Whaat? Try this: fade the gatefold "photo" with the unretouched CD booklet photo.
Heck, you don't need to fade them, just look at them!
An interesting fade would include the Sgt. Pepper cover "photo", the gatefold "photo" and the unretouched CD booklet photo.
Lastly, Jo Jo (since you are the master!), would you post the "A Day In The Life" video still pix of Faul with his height undisguised?
One pic has Faul (with a group of people) speaking to George Martin, and the other has him with same group, but posing.
Notice how Faul towers over poor George. Just remember everyone, John and Paul's relationship would never have deteriorated the way he and Faul's did.
An illusion, once broken, will never fool you again. All we need is love!
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 28, 2004 13:23:56 GMT -5
You no like? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Sept 28, 2004 13:42:52 GMT -5
You no like? ? ? [glow=red,2,300] KEEP IT![/glow] The truth hurts sometimes.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 28, 2004 14:38:56 GMT -5
Fade that same b&w pic of James Paul with the UNRETOUCHED photo of Faul found in the CD booklet.
I don't get the purpose of your post Matchbox.
What does fading a pic of James Paul with an obviously tampered-with photo of Faul prove?
Everyone knows the Faul's chin on the cover of Sgt Pepper (and Abbey Road for that matter) was touched-up to more closely resemble JPM's.
Are you trying to present the "painting" of Faul used on the cover of Sgt Pepper as an actual photo of James Paul? That is funny!
Next, you'll be telling us that the "picture" of Faul on the gatefold of Sgt Pepper's is an actual unretouched photo, as well.
I'm surprised the photographer didn't sign his name at the bottom of these pix, as these are some of the most famous paintings ever!
Everyone at home, try this:
Compare these "photos" of Faul:
* Faul on the cover of Sgt Pepper * Faul on the inside of the LP (gatefold) of Sgt Pepper (which strangely doesn't resemble the guy on the cover. Wonder why? * Faul's unretouched photo in the CD booklet. This was a previously unreleased pic. Now we know why! It looks NOTHING like James Paul! What is up with that chin?
If someone could get a fade of these three pix, I think we would eliminate a lot of doubt, here.
There is just no way anyone can confuse the guy in the unretouched photo in the CD booklet with the one, true, James Paul McCartney!
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 28, 2004 14:56:30 GMT -5
First off, I'll post that still from ADITL when I have a chance. One thing I've always thought about these fades, for one, they need to be more gradual. The way it's always done is: 1st pic -> 2 transitions -> 2nd pic. There's software that can make it as gradual as you like, but at least 10 transition pics would be better. But, and I know no one will listen to me, it's pointless without at the very least access to negatives. Otherwise, what have you got, a picture that was maybe manipulated or airbrushed, or blah blah... A negative auction shows up on ebay sometimes, so... you never know...
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 28, 2004 14:58:38 GMT -5
There is just no way anyone can confuse the guy in the unretouched photo in the CD booklet with the one, true, James Paul McCartney! ^ Sorry, but I see the same guy! ;D
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 28, 2004 15:43:23 GMT -5
Hi Flaming Pie! How are you today? Man, there is just no way!
I am an illustrator, and I tend to see things sometimes in geometric terms...
Try this: draw a straight line straight down from each side of Faul's mouth. Then do the same for JPM.
This way you can get an easy-to-see difference in chin shape. They basically lean in opposite directions.
This, of course, before Faul's plastic surgery to correct this obvious difference!
That's why Faul's chin had to be airbrushed for the cover of Sgt Pepper. The chins were too, too different.
The difference in SHAPE of the chins was sort of made equal later on, but the difference in size was something they couldn't 100 percent eliminate.
That's why Faul's chin (from a side angle) had to be airbrushed for Abbey Road. Try to get an actual LP vinyl version to get a good look at this. The gray area under his "chin" really looks fake.
And, when you compare Faul's Abbey Road chin to other pix of him during that session, things become even more suspicious!
Matchbox, still waiting to hear your response regarding differences in Faul on Sgt Pepper (never mind the many differences between he and Paul!).
In order for anyone to grasp this situation, you've got to familiarize yourself with not only the inner-workings of the music biz, you need an understanding of how this world works.
Same thing as this little chapter in history...It's all an illusion. Bye for now.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 28, 2004 15:44:21 GMT -5
Fade that same b&w pic of James Paul with the UNRETOUCHED photo of Faul found in the CD booklet. Which one? The actual booklet, or the one uberkinder/SK stretched?
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 28, 2004 15:54:07 GMT -5
I don't know anything about Uberkinder or SK.
I'm talking about the pic from the booklet.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 29, 2004 3:18:50 GMT -5
This chin thing is silly. Most humans have muscles in their face and chin. It looks like all of the Beatles may not be completely relaxing their facial muscles. The alledged Faul pic lokos like he is not in a relaxed position. Why can't his chin look a little different?
Can you please elaborate a little more on where the chin difference is most visible, what is different and why you think it is bone and not in any way a muscular issue?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 29, 2004 7:41:07 GMT -5
^ Sorry, but I see the same guy! ;D It's one thing for the general masses to think Bill is Paul. Hell I did up until about 3 yrs ago, but I find it absolutely astounding that you guys can surround yerselves with pics & recordings of these 2 very different guys, yet can't see it or hear it. But I've got no time or energy for a debate right now, so....... Whatever. I'm still a little dizzy from the last 'round & 'round that got nowhere.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 29, 2004 12:23:13 GMT -5
The chin thing isn't "silly"! Faul's pre-surgery chin definitely is leaning to one side.
His jaw is set and mouth closed, so I think we have a very good idea of the shape of said chin. Nothing like JPM's angular, chiseled jaw and chin.
Even Faul's skin texture and skin color seem to be different from James Paul's.
The noses are different, for goodness sake! The eyes are closer together. I don't believe we ever saw JPM with that hair color or texture either.
Faul and JPM, aside from a multitude of differences, had very different foreheads and hairlines. This is where the difference in headshape becomes obvious.
When Faul shows combs his hair in a way that shows a lot of forehead you can plainly tell that Faul's head is quite a bit taller and shaped differently.
There is no doubt about this!
James Paul NEVER showed this much forehead because there simply wasn't enough room on his head to comb his hair that far back. And his forehead was too small. James Paul's head was smaller and rounder.
JPM's hair was also oriented in a very different manner than Faul's is.
Faul has straighter, more stringy type hair. JPM's hair was a lot thicker and darker. JPM's hairstyle never could have deviated too much from what we saw during his Beatles period.
Paul could never have combed his hair to the other side. His natural part would have prevented it.
Open up your eyes people. Let's break this illusion TOGETHER.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 29, 2004 13:25:37 GMT -5
Faul and JPM, aside from a multitude of differences, had very different foreheads and hairlines. This is where the difference in headshape becomes obvious. When Faul shows combs his hair in a way that shows a lot of forehead you can plainly tell that Faul's head is quite a bit taller and shaped differently. There is no doubt about this! James Paul NEVER showed this much forehead because there simply wasn't enough room on his head to comb his hair that far back. And his forehead was too small. James Paul's head was smaller and rounder. LOL
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 29, 2004 14:02:51 GMT -5
Plainly and simply, there is no way these two guys are the same. A resemblance, yes! A match? No way.
There would have to be a resemblance after all the surgery poor Faul's grill must have went underwent through the years.
Sorry, Matchbox. As long as you use that Sgt Pepper cover "painting" of Faul in your ID fade, can't take you all that seriously.
And at the bottom of your posts, you show a fade of "old" Faul's ear compared with Paul's.
What in the heck is that long scar where "old" Faul's ear is attached? It almost seems as if an entirely new ear has been grafted on.
The easy way is never the best way. When you bust a tire , is fix-a-flat the solution? Nope.
By choosing to ignore the many obvious differences, or trying to explain them away, we save ourself the trouble of having to try to figure out how and why something like this could happen.
Take a look at the Faul interview on jojoplace.org and look in the Shoebox.
Here we have Faul talking about how society's rules don't apply anymore, propogating drug usage, blah blah. Things that James Paul wouldn't be endorsing.
Faul was used for many reasons, instigating a more liberal way of thinking and endorsing drug use by his example just a few. And he was knighted for this service to the world system.
By now, after all the pix you have posted, you must have noticed lots of things...yet choose to ignore them. Wonder why?
By the way, convenient of you to ignore that request for you to compare the 3 "pix" of Faul from Sgt Pepper. Hope you at least did it for yourself.
If you truly are researching this, I have to believe that someone as sharp as you will eventually break through on this. Any illusion can be maintained for only so long.
If you are here only to maintain a voice of doubt in this forum, that too will become evident. Bye for now.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 29, 2004 14:14:21 GMT -5
Sorry, Matchbox. As long as you use that Sgt Pepper cover "painting" of Faul in your ID fade, can't take you all that seriously. That's probably for the best. I don't take you seriously either. It's all just made up stuff anyhoo.
|
|