What's your favorite Beatles album?

Phil A · « **Reply #40 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 12:34 pm »

Quote from: dB Cooper on 13 Mar 2012, 03:19 am

He was probably high in the 2nd pic

It was most likely a publicity stunt which none of the Beatles ever owned up to. The "clues" (which are numerous) stretch back to the back cover of Sgt. Pepper, released after their announcement that they would no longer perform live.

The assertion that the Beatles could find someone who not only looked but sounded just like Paul is far fetched, to put it mildly.

Songwriting ability is one thing and would certainly stretch the possibility of a replacement to unlikely, but voice with studio techniques is something that can be done - voice prints have been done (not that I am going to vouch for them) - http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/vocal-differences-voice-technology.html

I have McCartney unplugged album that is about 20 years old and out of print. The voice since the day I got it bugged me that there is something different about it. I played "Ain't No Sunshine" for a friend who is a real Beatles fanatic not that long ago and he remarked without me saying anything that it can't be Paul.

craig223 · « **Reply #41 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 12:51 pm »

I like Rubber Soul, even listened to it last night on my walk. The kids like White.

Minn Mark · « **Reply #42 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 01:52 pm »

Let it Be (the LP)

dB Cooper · « **Reply #43 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 10:03 pm »

Quote from: Phil A on 13 Mar 2012, 12:34 pm

Songwriting ability is one thing and would certainly stretch the possibility of a replacement to unlikely, but voice with studio techniques is something that can be done - voice prints have been done (not that I am going to vouch for them) - http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/vocal-differences-voice-technology.html

I have McCartney unplugged album that is about 20 years old and out of print. The voice since the day I got it bugged me that there is something different about it. I played "Ain't No Sunshine" for a friend who is a real Beatles fanatic not that long ago and he remarked without me saying anything that it can't be Paul.

Vocoders and autotune etc were 35 years away in 1967. Voices change over time, sure, listen to Paul today, he sounds (and is) old. People sound different playing live, unplugged, in a venue, compared to a studio recording made 20+ years previously. Especially if they smoke (Paul is holding a cig on the cover of Abbey Road.)

The idea that the man we call Paul McCartney isn't the same man we called Paul McCartney in 1966, and that a person with that high a profile could be killed without a trace and replaced with a look-and-sound-alike, fooling everybody for years, is very hard to believe. A conspiracy has to have a 'why', and I have never heard a satisfactory 'why' as to the motivation of doing it, let alone pulling it off. And JFK and Elvis are living in the basement of Parkland Hospital.

BTW, the two B&W closeups above, look at the tip of his nose, its distinctively asymmetrical. That at least could be faked with plastic surgery. The rest of it I don't buy for a minute, except perhaps as an inside joke or publicity stunt. It has to be difficult to tell your loyal audience that you played 'em. So they never have.

dB Cooper · « **Reply #44 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 10:24 pm »

Minn Mark, do you have the "Naked" version of Let it Be too? I remember when the LP came out, the title song tarted up with Spector's Mantovani-like strings sounded nothing like the version previewed on the Sullivan show. "Paul" in particular always hated the Spectorized version of "Long and Winding Road". It was finally released the way the Beatles wanted it a few years back.

joeriz · « **Reply #45 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 10:26 pm »

Quote from: Phil A on 13 Mar 2012, 12:34 pm

I have McCartney unplugged album that is about 20 years old and out of print. The voice since the day I got it bugged me that there is something different about it. I played "Ain't No Sunshine" for a friend who is a real Beatles fanatic not that long ago and he remarked without me saying anything that it can't be Paul.

That's because it's not.... ;0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjNc5-mSNoM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

dB Cooper · « **Reply #46 on:** 13 Mar 2012, 10:49 pm »

News flash: Heather Locklear can't fit into the same dress she wore in 1986 either. Coincidence... or conspiracy?

BTW, on the OT, I like Abbey Road and Rubber Soul.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #47 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 02:30 am »

These two pics of Paul and Linda is odd. Maybe she was just wearing 6 inch stilletos in the first pic.

Or Paul just grew 6 inches more?

dB Cooper · « **Reply #48 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 02:51 am »

They fooled his wife too??!?!?!?
Daaaaaaaaaaamnnn.....

Actually, Paul married Linda in 1969, several years after this supposedly happened, so obviously what we have here is a third McCartney. That is a much more plausible explanation than high heels. You'd think a six inch height change would have been noticed by somebody though. Wonder if anything else got bigger too.

Phil A · « **Reply #49 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 02:53 am »

There's no doubt people change over time (I try to tell people my hair is the color it is now from painting ceilings

). When people appear to change drastically in a short period of time (a year or so) when they are relatively young, there's either lots of doctored photos around or somethings up. Not going to lose sleep over it though - http://pid.hoop.la/displayForumTopic/content/251379184222728091
The music is still enjoyable.

rodge827 · « **Reply #50 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 03:18 am »

Love them all...This is my fave...

OzarkTom · « **Reply #51 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 10:40 am »

Quote from: Phil A on 14 Mar 2012, 02:53 am

There's no doubt people change over time (I try to tell people my hair is the color it is now from painting ceilings ). When people appear to change drastically in a short period of time (a year or so) when they are relatively young, there's either lots of doctored photos around or somethings up. Not going to lose sleep over it though - http://pid.hoop.la/displayForumTopic/content/251379184222728091
The music is still enjoyable.

It now looks like the dead Paul hoax was not a hoax. That explains why all the dead Paul clues on all of the late Beatles albums and why the music changed so dratically to being so dark. I often wondered why the music had changed so much.

firedog · « **Reply #52 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 01:23 pm »

Quote from: Phil A on 13 Mar 2012, 12:34 pm

Songwriting ability is one thing and would certainly stretch the possibility of a replacement to unlikely, but voice with studio techniques is something that can be done - voice prints have been done (not that I am going to vouch for them) - http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/vocal-differences-voice-technology.html

I have McCartney unplugged album that is about 20 years old and out of print. The voice since the day I got it bugged me that there is something different about it. I played "Ain't No Sunshine" for a friend who is a real Beatles fanatic not that long ago and he remarked without me saying anything that it can't be Paul.

Because it isn't Paul. It's his bandmate, Hamish Stuart. He also sings co-lead on "And I Love Her" on the album. Boy, post all this nonsense trying to support the Paul is dead theory, and you don't even know when Paul is or isn't singing on an album. By the way, it's noted in the liner notes for "Unplugged".

And instead of wasting your time on stupid conspiracy theories about "Paul is Dead", do a little research. The rumor was started by an American DJ. The whole thing wasn't even a hoax. Just a bunch of hooey put out by gullible youngsters. Note that the supposed "clues" are often: a) not even accurate within themselves; b) don't work as clues - because their timeline as clues doesn't work.

The whole thing could only have been a hoax if the Beatles or their record company caused it. But they clearly didn't. So not a hoax, just a silly conspiracy theory/ rumor believed by the gullible.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #53 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 01:52 pm »

Quote from: firedog on 14 Mar 2012, 01:23 pm

Note that the supposed "clues" are often: a) not even accurate within themselves; b) don't work as clues - because their timeline as clues doesn't work.

What clues and timeline are you referring to?

Phil A · « **Reply #54 on:** 14 Mar 2012, 02:24 pm »

Quote from: firedog on 14 Mar 2012, 01:23 pm

Because it isn't Paul. It's his bandmate, Hamish Stuart. He also sings co-lead on "And I Love Her" on the album. Boy, post all this nonsense trying to support the Paul is dead theory, and you don't even know when Paul is or isn't singing on an album. By the way, it's noted in the liner notes for "Unplugged".

Correct - Actually never looked at the credits - that certainly explains it!

dB Cooper · « **Reply #55 on:** 15 Mar 2012, 12:36 am »

And we haven't even gotten to Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #56 on:** 15 Mar 2012, 01:00 am »

After studying the net on the Paul hoax subject the last couple of days, I have came to this conclusion.

"Paul is dead" is a hoax.
Was it an intentional hoax? Maybe
Was it just all a coinidence? Maybe

But back in 1969-70, this hoax was real to a bunch of teens listening to all of our albums frontwards and backwards for any clues. I was a DJ in our local high school radio station back then, and it seemed many clues were popping out of nowhere.

Probably what puzzles me the most, if this was just a hoax for commercial profits, why didn't any of the Beatles ever admit to it over these 40+ years? There are way too many clues to make it just coincidental.

This is the youtube video that is the most convincing of a hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlUd5YslVzc&feature=related

pansixt · « **Reply #57 on:** 15 Mar 2012, 02:01 am »

The late sixties and early seventies was a magical mystery time for all of us who experienced them. We were young and open for suggestion. And some of us were pretty gullible.

I was (and still am a Deadhead), and with our experiments with various sundry items

, even more susceptible to anything unusual. IE: The Teachings of Don Jaun from Carlos Castaneda, which even Kirwan and Green from Fleetwood Mac lamented on. Oh Well. And as Mr. Cooper mentioned other un-mentioned's like Jim Morrison and of course later Elvis sightings.

People love stories and some of them give us Hope and Mystery and we eat that Shite up!!! Bring 'em on. We need them.

Firedog, Hooey? I thought that was an exclusive Virginiaism. I've heard it all of my life from my family. Good word

.

Hoax or not. It would be nice to put certain things to rest. Maybe the Myth Busters Could run with any of these.
Meanwhile, I just like to revel in the unknown.
James

Oh, I have an AMAZING vinyl copy of Rubber Soul. It May be my Favourite.

On the same note, or Fleetwood Mac note: Mystery To Me. Great Album. Check out "Hypnotized".

AgentOrange · « **Reply #58 on:** 15 Mar 2012, 03:20 am »

My Beatles Albums might be worth more than my house. I have over 50 different ones.
I really like the COVER albums. Everyone does Beatle covers.
I collect them and really enjoy them.

The Beatles stuff is so good even I can sing along.

If you ever get the chance to see RAIN - do it!

My goal is to get to Vegas for that show.

Rclark · « **Reply #59 on:** 15 Mar 2012, 03:33 am »

Hands down my favorite Beatles album:

Oh... and Paul is dead.