There's definitely other vocals going on in the mix too - particularly where "Paul" seems to go off key at the very end.
Aww...now you're qualifying it? Next you will call him Faul. Or Jaul. Or Pohn.
There is a second voice far in the b/g that is kind of weirdly off key and messing about falsetto-style. If there is another voice it's probably Paul's heavy echo trailing off but again, who knows?
Yeah, John does have the greatest rock voice. As much as I LOVE Paul's voice and I do think he has more range and ability, it doesn't effect me as much as JOhn's can when he sings songs like A Day in the Life, Dear Prudence, Imagine, etc. I don't know what it is. But Paul's voice is only like 1 milimeter away from JOhn's in that area because when I hear Let it Be or Hey Jude, Maybe I'm Amazed, I'm just as blown away.
I don't make that distinction with the Beatles. I don't consider them pop. Not as pop is defined nowadays. And Paul did some pretty good rockers that's for sure. I think when I pick John's voice over Paul's it's usually his more sensitive songs. I like when he uses that voice. There 'rock' voices to me are pretty equal. Like I love John doing Revolution and I love Paul doing Get Back or Helter Skelter. But again, John tends to sing with a bit more passion like on Twist and Shout. I'm rambling again. I can't pick one over the other. I guess that's what I'm saying.
BTW, speaking of Twist and Shout, I wonder how Ferris Bueller's Day Off got permission to use that song. I thought that was like next to impossible. I thought about this the other day. Clearly, I'm spending way too much time thinking about the Beatles!!
Good question. I think it's just too expensive and most filmmakers don't want to pay for it. I guess Chris Columbus felt it was worth it...plus in the early 80's the Beatles were not the hot commodity they are now.
All Ydoll Gwyn did was state his opinion and then Mr. Charlie immediately takes offense and starts calling him an a** and disregarding Ydoll's statements as invalid while upholding his own, equally or more unsupportable statements as if it's common sense and everyone should agree with them.
Get used to it, its Chuck's world--we're just lucky to be living in it.
Funny that they actually had a lull. Did they? I remember getting most of my Beatles songs on tape from the radio in the 80's actually. (cheap parents!) But then most people in the 80's were listening to CRAP. So of course they wouldn't be interested in the Beatles. Although when they used Revolution in that Nike ad, the Beatles fans came out in full force. Maybe because Twist and Shout wasn't actually written by the Beatles, it made it easier to get?
There have been varying levels, but never a lull. There has always been a large baseline interest and their albums and memorabilia have always sold steadily, and there are things that spike that interest. Unfortunately in the early '80s it was John's death that had everyone buying up their albums. Towards the end of the 80's was Paul's tour that did the same and people were bringing their kids and grandkids, and so began a new generation(s) of fan(s). Mid '90s with Anthology, etc. The Beatles were the #1 money maker in 1996 with $130 million smackers. Maybe he is referring to the exorbitant prices of original records, memorabilia, etc. One of John's Jumbo acoustics fetched about $600.00 in the mid-'70s, the same guitar sold about 8 years ago for $150,000 or so. The music is timeless, it will always have a huge audience come rain or come shine.
Funny that they actually had a lull. Did they? I remember getting most of my Beatles songs on tape from the radio in the 80's actually. (cheap parents!) But then most people in the 80's were listening to CRAP. So of course they wouldn't be interested in the Beatles. Although when they used Revolution in that Nike ad, the Beatles fans came out in full force. Maybe because Twist and Shout wasn't actually written by the Beatles, it made it easier to get?
Maybe, tho it's historically been the performances by them, over and above the songs themselves that have been expensive (hence the sound-alikes on tv commercials).
When was Ferris Buehler made? There was a period where the Beatles were just not much on the minds of people, tho John's death goosed it up in the very early 80's. Paul's tour didn't do that much for the general population, but the 87 release of the CD's did.
Whatever. I was just positing. I could easily be wrong.
Oops! Did I say something naughty? Better rip off a nasty email to your congressman, letting them know how baaaaaad I am, Princess.
Most of your cuts always have some reference to a lack of masculinity, i.e. Princess, you usually question the 'manliness' of the poster or make some reference to it. Is that supposed to make me/them feel bad? We don't agree and that somehow is a reflection of us being men or effeminate somehow? What if there are gay viewers or posters? Don't you think that a sweeping cut like that would offend those you don't regularly attack? Or don't you give a rip about everyone in general? The name calling doesn't bother me, it just reinforces the level you're at, but I don't get the emasculating references, unless you are one of those that are in the closet and hate yourself for it, so you compensate by making cuts like that. Chuck, what up?
Maybe, tho it's historically been the performances by them, over and above the songs themselves that have been expensive (hence the sound-alikes on tv commercials).
When was Ferris Buehler made? There was a period where the Beatles were just not much on the minds of people, tho John's death goosed it up in the very early 80's. Paul's tour didn't do that much for the general population, but the 87 release of the CD's did.
Whatever. I was just positing. I could easily be wrong.
I think Ferris was made in like 84 or 85, 86? Dunno. I think John's death made HIS albums sell more. I remember a lot of Double Fantasy being played. I had already gone through my heavy Beatles phase, but I don't remember anyone else suddenly getting into them over that. It was just shocking is all. I remember wearing a Beatles t-shirt in high school, and someone saying The Beatles?? Like why would I be into them when such great bands as AC/DC and Van Halen were all the rage. So maybe it was a lull. But I can only speak for the population of the idiots that went to my High School on Long Island!!
Most of your cuts always have some reference to a lack of masculinity, i.e. Princess, you usually question the 'manliness' of the poster or make some reference to it. Is that supposed to make me/them feel bad? We don't agree and that somehow is a reflection of us being men or effeminate somehow? What if there are gay viewers or posters? Don't you think that a sweeping cut like that would offend those you don't regularly attack? Or don't you give a rip about everyone in general? The name calling doesn't bother me, it just reinforces the level you're at, but I don't get the emasculating references, unless you are one of those that are in the closet and hate yourself for it, so you compensate by making cuts like that. Chuck, what up?
Nice try, Princess.
I just happen to know it pisses you off (masculinity problems?) so I say it. I never said anything about gays or anything offensive to any. Except, of course, if you ARE gay that alone is a major offense against them.
I treated you with respect in this thread, thanking you for your opinion. I said I would bother you no further and so the rest of us adults were talking Beatle stuff (remember them?) and you toss that cheap shot (Chuck's world---bla bla bla). An insult is not a disagreement, cupcake.
I call you princess because you are a crybaby. You would run home to your mom if you thought she could get me out of here. You're a back stabber, and someone who wants to nurture your little hatred of me like a hot marble in your hands. I explained and apologized more than once for your first post misunderstanding but you cannot let go of it. You don't acknowledge it. Perhaps camping out on Dmitry's lawn and offering your services might help, huh?
I acknowledged you can be a good poster (not like Ydoll) but that's not good enough. I thank you for your opinion, even tho I'm pretty damned sure that if I said it was John you'd say Paul. Just because. But you wanted to pout about...well, nothing, really. And now it's all this? Waaaaaah.
I think Ferris was made in like 84 or 85, 86? Dunno. I think John's death made HIS albums sell more. I remember a lot of Double Fantasy being played. I had already gone through my heavy Beatles phase, but I don't remember anyone else suddenly getting into them over that. It was just shocking is all. I remember wearing a Beatles t-shirt in high school, and someone saying The Beatles?? Like why would I be into them when such great bands as AC/DC and Van Halen were all the rage. So maybe it was a lull. But I can only speak for the population of the idiots that went to my High School on Long Island!!
There ya go. That seems to be right. Mid 80's, after the John boost but before the CD's came out.
There was a lull. Maybe not a lull but kind of nothing on the Beatle horizon, and so perhaps one of their oldest songs (it would have been 20 years old then...maybe that was another factor) was not as expensive (and, as you say, a cover version).
Man, you got issues. I feel sorry for you, but on a happy note, you have some of the Moderators in your back pocket, so you get to post this kind of junk, and then blame it on everyone else for turning this forum into a circus. Good Lord, that one thread, you posted, what, 4 or 5 times to one of Ydoll's comments (yes, I can count but I didn't count the posts before composing this post). If you're honestly taking the high road, you'd let it go Chuck, but you don't. I used to know people that acted like you and talked this kind of crap, then we got to 7th grade. Get off your cross, someone else needs the wood. Now, how's about back to the topic, or better yet, let this one go, and move on.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Sandra
Female
Logged
