A Day In The Life - The Truth At Last! - Print Topic

There has been a great deal of debate surrounding just who sang the "aaaaaahhs" after Paul's line "somebody spoke and I went into a dream" from A Day In The Life. Well, Mr Charlie has sent me some evidence which, I believe, finally reveals the truth... it's Paul!

Now you can judge for yourselves - I've uploaded the two clips!! Please let me know what you think.

http://www.geocities.com/the_end_gb/dmforum/day.html

Quality is not tops, but I WAS surprised that it seemed fairly OK. Clear and not muddy like I sort-of expected. (I would have said this regardless of how it turned out. In matters such as this, I try to be objective as poss. FYI, I have a good computer with harman/kardon speakers attached.)

However, it's still an aural judgement.

For what it's worth - it sounds like John to me.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

For what it's worth - it sounds like John to me.

Get some new speakers!!! ;D

For me , these uploads put it beyond any doubt that it's Paul.

Aren't ears strange things!

I was prepared to eat humble pie on this, but when I heard the files, I knew it was John. That edge that is always present in the Lennon voice is clear to hear.

But thanks, of course to you and Charlie.

Late addendum: I must say that to my ears it is also clear on the CD and vinyl (mono & stereo).

Even later: My 17 year old daughter has a good ear for voices and accents (she's a great mimic), but she is no particular fan of her Dad's musical heroes. However, she thinks (based on the CD)

(a) John's voice is clear and dominant
(b) There may be another distinct voice there: she's not sure.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

For what it's worth - it sounds like John to me.

I agree...but if you compare "A Day in the Life" with the beginning of "Lovely Rita"...still strange though.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Quality is not tops, but I WAS surprised that it seemed fairly OK. Clear and not muddy like I sort-of expected. (I would have said this regardless of how it turned out. In matters such as this, I try to be objective as poss. FYI, I have a good computer with harman/kardon speakers attached.)

However, it's still an aural judgement.

For what it's worth - it sounds like John to me.

Of COURSE it does. It's worth nothing, Rotman.

Because I don't believe you. Only a congenital idiot such as yourself would not hear that it is Paul. Therefore you lie. But then, what's new? Aw....you're going to be disappointed that I don't have three coronaries because a liar can't hear or won't admit to the truth.

Whether you bought it or not is of no further concern to me, you were as predictable as I figured. The others are free to listen and use their ears (were your headphones actually plugged into your a**? Yeah, that would figure too.)

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Aren't ears strange things!

I was prepared to eat humble pie on this, but when I heard the files, I knew it was John. That edge that is always present in the Lennon voice is clear to hear.

But thanks, of course to you and Charlie.

You're welcome. You're also severely lacking in any aural facutlies whatsoever. You were never prepared to eat humble pie (how refreshing THAT might have been) and there was never any danger of you doing so. As early as yesterday you were already preparing your escape hatch should I actually prove you wrong (which I did).

It is clearly NOT Lennon, therefore I think you should hop along to a doctor.

It is NOT a matter of it being whomever you choose to hear. It was either John or it wasn't. It wasn't.

Ding.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Late addendum: I must say that to my ears it is also clear on the CD and vinyl (mono & stereo).

Even later: My 17 year old daughter has a good ear for voices and accents (she's a great mimic), but she is no particular fan of her Dad's musical heroes. However, she thinks (based on the CD)

(a) John's voice is clear and dominant
(b) There may be another distinct voice there: she's not sure.

Your daughters ears are entirely irrelevant.

I didn't mention MY daughters ears because of the same thing. She walked in the house as I was editing the clip, made some mention of what a dream boat he was , I asked who and she said Paul. She has been a Beatle fan since she was 4, she's 22 now.

I'd stack my daughter's ears against yours any day but then your girl has had a bad enough life living with you. She doesn't need further debasing.

Ta!

Quoted from Soft_Guitar60

I agree...but if you compare "A Day in the Life" with the beginning of "Lovely Rita"...still strange though.

Ydoll/Maria/Rotweiller is not looking nor reporting for truth. This is, in their own words, a game.

And a severely badly played one on their part, as anyone can clearly hear it being Paul.

How big of an a** does one need to be to act like this?

Quoted from The_End

There has been a great deal of debate surrounding just who sang the "aaaaaahhs" after Paul's line "somebody spoke and I went into a dream" from A Day In The Life. Well, Mr Charlie has sent me some evidence which, I believe, finally reveals the truth... it's Paul!

Now you can judge for yourselves - I've uploaded the two clips!! Please let me know what you think.

http://www.geocities.com/the_end_gb/dmforum/day.html

Thanks Alan.

I already knew Maria would pooh pooh it, which he/she/it fulfilled perfectly predicatably. But I want junior to listen, and then tell me or anyone else they should get their hearing checked.

I await his reply.

Be done with it: you say it's McCartney, that's OK. We can argue until forever...nobody knows for sure except the people who made the record and produced it.

Quoted from Soft_Guitar60

Be done with it: you say it's McCartney, that's OK. We can argue until forever...nobody knows for sure except the people who made the record and produced it.

Horseshit.

Listen to the clip before you speak. THEN you can offer your opinion.

My daughter's ears are very relevant, because she has talent in that area. I notice your daughter (at 22) is still talking about people being dream boats: that seemed to be her qualification. Nuff said on that one.

The thing that interests me is that you can't bear to be disagreed with. You SAY you like discussion: but as soon as someone challenges, you go off half-cocked. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch. After I posted my opinion on whose voice it was, I went and did some work, and then returned to find you spraying your venom everywhere. Mate, you have a social dysfunction, that's for sure.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

My daughter's ears are very relevant, because she has talent in that area. I notice your daughter (at 22) is still talking about people being dream boats: that seemed to be her qualification. Nuff said on that one.

No, not "nuff said". (What lame saying).

Your claims about your daughter are as irrlevant as any claims I would make about mine. The point being she is -entirely- irrelevant. Try standing on your own losing opinion. Your saying she has talent is unqualifiable. What IS qualifiable is the tape segment.

Quoted Text

The thing that interests me is that you can't bear to be disagreed with. You SAY you like discussion: but as soon as someone challenges, you go off half-cocked. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch. After I posted my opinion on whose voice it was, I went and did some work, and then returned to find you spraying your venom everywhere. Mate, you have a social dysfunction, that's for sure.

You are the social dysfunction. This isn't about *discussion*, it never is with you. It's about one upmanship. Your opinion about who it is is as irrelevant as your daughter's, for you lie far too frequently to be believed.

Spraying everywhere? My, must be lovely being a fiction writer. I answered each one of your posts, of which there were 4 or 5. You first, "mate".

As others hear it they will know, but of course thanks to you they will be afraid to admit to what they hear.

If someone still hears John I don't mind, I myself just yesterday couldn't quite tell (due mainly to tv in the background and such). It is uncannily John-sounding, but undeniably Paul.

As a lifelong Beatle fan I live for finding this stuff. I just turned a bunch of people on to a new phenomenon and I take great pleasure in bringing something new and exciting to the group.

You bring.....what, exactly, besides condescension? Do you actually wank while you post? Sure seems like it.

I saw this in the anomalies:
3:02-3:12
Paul can be heard doing a faint falsetto "ooo" harmony above John�s more prominent "aah�s".

(Yeah, I could hear the 'ooo' but was it from John or Paul?)

As others hear it they will know, but of course thanks to you they will be afraid to admit to what they hear. I don't follow that one ...

As a lifelong Beatle fan I live for finding this stuff. Charlie, I think you have lost perspective. You LIVE for finding this stuff? No wonder you get upset when it unravels! Wow!

I just turned a bunch of people on to a new phenomenon and I take great pleasure in bringing something new and exciting to the group. You might very well think that. Others might think that "new and exciting" are hardly the words for this!

Do you actually wank while you post? �Sure seems like it. Such a schoolkid thing to say. �:D

Quoted from Soft_Guitar60

I saw this in the anomalies:
3:02-3:12
Paul can be heard doing a faint falsetto "ooo" harmony above John�s more prominent "aah�s".

(Yeah, I could hear the 'ooo' but was it from John or Paul?)

The faint falsetto "ooo" is hard to identify with a particular person. But the main "aah's" - sounds like Johnny to me too, as I've said.

Quoted from Soft_Guitar60

I saw this in the anomalies:
3:02-3:12
Paul can be heard doing a faint falsetto "ooo" harmony above John�s more prominent "aah�s".

(Yeah, I could hear the 'ooo' but was it from John or Paul?)

I'm glad you listened to it. Yeah there is a falsetto voice in the b/g, sounded kind of Paulish as well.

As to the anomolies. there's no way of knowing when that was written but if all they had to go on was the normal CD then they're just assuming, like we all did.

And of course the anomoly page, while interesting and good for tracking little blurbs in their records, is no final authority on anything.

I had always assumed it was John. I thought it sounded like John. I never even thought about Paul until someone started the thread questioning it. Now, after listening to the clip I think it sounds like Paul.

Did you know you can actually play both clips together if you're quick with your mouse button!! :)

This is all so funny...It still sounds like John to me. It's the nasalness in the arhhhh!!!

For what it's worth, I used to teach singing. Those clips seem to re-affirm my own inclinations that it is John. Check out the coarseness. It just don't sound like Paul. Paul would have not allowed any croak in his voice I'm sure. lol.

Still...I'm not confirming nothing....That would be tooo risky on this thread! lol ;)

Having listened to the two pieces, referencing Mark Lewisohn's book about the quadruple tracking of echo used for John's voice, and that John is hitting notes a little high for his particular register, Its John. I'm pretty certain that if 'Lucy' had been done with as much echo, as high as John's voice is, it would probably be reminiscent of Paul's as well. If you want to believe its Paul, so be it, no harm done. Easy mistake, but its clearly John's voice. Amen.

Second listen and clip 2 is more difficult to distinguish. Clip 1 does it for me though....Right near the end...That's the nasal bit for me. ;)

This is so weird - I absolutely hear Paul 100% without a question of doubt. Obviously, that is what I hear though!

I thought these clips would dispel any doubts... wrong! LOL ;D

Perhaps this wiill help convince you...

1. On an earlier take Paul runs through his "woke up..." sequence (the take which ends with Paul flubbing his line and laughing before he says "mess") his vocal is drenched in tape delay (echo) ala Lennon. So it wasn't just a John thing to record in this style.

2. Paul could mimic John's vocal style - he admitted that in many interviews around the time that Free As A Bird was released.

3. Listen to the first bit of the "aaahs" (the descending scale) - it is so distinctly Paul. Admittedly, the 2nd bit (the ascending scale) is more nasaly and Lennon-esque but if you listen closely you can hear it's Paul. I swear! ;D

Take another listen - I hope the debate continues.

(flower)

LOL.....Will do Al....This is a goody...What came first? The chicken or the egg? lol

I bet Macca started and John finished just to really wind us all up! hehehehe! :)

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

I bet Macca started and John finished just to really wind us all up! �hehehehe! :)

Well... funnily enough, up until recently I'd always thought there was an edit there between the first "aah", which I thought was Paul, and the 2nd "aah" which I thought was John!

It will take a lot to persuade me it's not all Paul now though... however, a cash bribe would change my opinion in a heartbeat!! ;D

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

My daughter's ears are very relevant, because she has talent in that area. I notice your daughter (at 22) is still talking about people being dream boats: that seemed to be her qualification. Nuff said on that one.

The thing that interests me is that you can't bear to be disagreed with. You SAY you like discussion: but as soon as someone challenges, you go off half-cocked. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch. After I posted my opinion on whose voice it was, I went and did some work, and then returned to find you spraying your venom everywhere. Mate, you have a social dysfunction, that's for sure.

you obviosuly cant tell the difference of their voices in the first place...but Im not trying to argue, your a Ringo fan ;D

I think it's Paul, regardless of Mr. Charlie's evidence. When the "ahh"s first start it's a stronger, more in the throat kind of voice, like Paul's. But when the horns start to drown it out it sounds more nasaly like John's. Besides, why does this matter at all and why is it making people act like such jerks? 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.

I swear to my life its Paul!! i wish they talked about it in the anthology!! that would be proof, I cant belive people still think its John, The second"aahh" sounds exactly like Paul

Well the right rear one sounds like it could be either of them and the left rear one sounds like Paul then turning into John. But Paul could do that stuff so it could very well be him the whole time. Although I do think Lennon is in there somewhere. I'M STILL SO CONFUSED!!!!!!!! But man do I enjoy listening to that part isolated! Why didn't anyone ever ask Paul this in an interview!! They've asked him just about everything else!!!

I would laugh so hard if it turned out to be George.

Quoted from Harrison

I think it's Paul, regardless of Mr. Charlie's evidence. �When the "ahh"s first start it's a stronger, more in the throat kind of voice, like Paul's. �But when the horns start to drown it out it sounds more nasaly like John's.

Yep, that's what I hear too. :)

Quoted Text

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,

There is a lot of history between Ydoll and Charlie, and a lot of arguments spill over from other threads. I've found it's best not to get involved in the banter. It's just two people exchanging views instead of punches! ;D

(flower)

I would fall out of my chair if it was Ringo!

Quoted from Harrison

I would laugh so hard if it turned out to be George.

LOL!

It almost could be! :)

Quoted from Harrison

I would laugh so hard if it turned out to be George.

LOL! Me too! ;D

LOL!!! Now that would really be messing with our heads!!!

The more I listen, the right rear one sounds more like Paul starting as well. But I still think John's following him up. Just because it gets more nasal and high pitched. But again, Paul's voice was pretty versitile. Like the Lovely Rita thing someone mentioned. Similiar. Anyway, dontcha just LOVE this song?? It should be given some kinda special award for greatest song of all time or something. Cuz it is.

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

This is all so funny...It still sounds like John to me. It's the nasalness in the arhhhh!!!

For what it's worth, I used to teach singing. Those clips seem to re-affirm my own inclinations that it is John. Check out the coarseness. It just don't sound like Paul. Paul would have not allowed any croak in his voice I'm sure. lol.

Still...I'm not confirming nothing....That would be tooo risky on this thread! lol ;)

Thanks for your honesty. I'm not going after anyone who says what they hear. Only one person who's opinion is worthless anyway.

I -am- surprised that a voice professional would make that mistake but hey...we know Paul was able to double John's voice (and vice versa) for years. Isolated it is cleaerer than the record but still...tantaliyzingly alike.

I wish it would turn out to be Ringo! haha

Quoted from juniorsfarm

Having listened to the two pieces, referencing Mark Lewisohn's book about the quadruple tracking of echo used for John's voice, and that John is hitting notes a little high for his particular register, Its John. I'm pretty certain that if 'Lucy' had been done with as much echo, as high as John's voice is, it would probably be reminiscent of Paul's as well. If you want to believe its Paul, so be it, no harm done. Easy mistake, but its clearly John's voice. Amen.

Fair enough. I think you're wrong of course, but the bit about Lucy IS a provacative mention worth noting. Yes, he did sing in that register in Lucy. Same as Paul did in Lovely Rita.

I appreciate your honest input. I shan't bother you about it again.

I think this whole topic is one of the best we've had on this forum for ages! :)

Quoted from The_End

This is so weird - I absolutely hear Paul 100% without a question of doubt. Obviously, that is what I hear though!

I thought these clips would dispel any doubts... wrong! LOL ;D

Perhaps this wiill help convince you...

1. On an earlier take Paul runs through his "woke up..." sequence (the take which ends with Paul flubbing his line and laughing before he says "mess") his vocal is drenched in tape delay (echo) ala Lennon. So it wasn't just a John thing to record in this style. �

2. Paul could mimic John's vocal style - he admitted that in many interviews around the time that Free As A Bird was released.

3. Listen to the first bit of the "aaahs" (the descending scale) - it is so distinctly Paul. Admittedly, the 2nd bit (the ascending scale) is more nasaly and Lennon-esque but if you listen closely you can hear it's Paul. I swear! ;D

Take another listen - I hope the debate continues.

(flower)

The fact that anyone can still think it is John after hearing these is mind-boggling, but then half this country voted for Bush. :D

Your points are well taken tho...as well as the fact that they were only on 2 four tracks and as you say the music bed for that was part of Paul's sequence...they would have had to waste another track with subsequent noise to overdub John in there. Especially as it wasn't necessary, they never would have.

Junior's point about Lucy is well taken however. Still, when all is said and done, nasal or note that timbre and voice belongs to Paul, hands down.

Im lsitening to A Day In life on my Ipod on repeat! I love this song even more!

Now I'm gonna have to go listen to Lucy and Rita and come back to the isolated Ahhhs!!

Never Goose me Any Other Way (ba lum ba dza)

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

LOL.....Will do Al....This is a goody...What came first? The chicken or the egg? lol

I bet Macca started and John finished just to really wind us all up! �hehehehe! :)

I considered that at one time but rejected it. Especially the bit at the end where Paul's voice wavers. All one take.

Sounds pretty cool tho dunnit? :) I love this stuff!

[quote=The_End]

3. Listen to the first bit of the "aaahs" (the descending scale) - it is so distinctly Paul. Admittedly, the 2nd bit (the ascending scale) is more nasaly and Lennon-esque but if you listen closely you can hear it's Paul. I swear! ;D

Take another listen - I hope the debate continues.

Hi. The ascending 'aaahs' was always the gauntlet dropping for me. No matter how well Paul might have been able to mimic John, there's no way that's Paul. Of course, I wasn't there, it is an opinion, I wasn't in the studio, I don't have Chuck's book, etc.

Quoted from Harrison

I think it's Paul, regardless of Mr. Charlie's evidence. �When the "ahh"s first start it's a stronger, more in the throat kind of voice, like Paul's. �But when the horns start to drown it out it sounds more nasaly like John's. �Besides, why does this matter at all and why is it making people act like such jerks? �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.

Yeah, thanks for your confirmation and your ridiculous take on what is going on here.

"All Ydoll did is..."

Riiiiiiiiight.

Quoted from TurnMeOnDeadman

I swear to my life its Paul!! i wish they talked about it in the anthology!! that would be proof, I cant belive people still think its John, The second"aahh" sounds exactly like Paul

sigh

What can you do?

I guess since it is not as clear as *I* think it is one can only add this brick to the controversy. I don't see any way a reasonable person could hear John, and I don't count Maria as reasonable, hence the backlash. But others hear John, and I admit it is a very very close resemblance, so whaddaya gonna do?

At first I heard John coming in at the end, but now I'm hearing Paul all the way through. He goes up a little at the end and it's strong and clean like Paul. Not so nasal as I originaly thought. I'm probably trying to hear John as I thought it was him for like 20 years!! It wasn't until a few months ago when I listened on headphones that I thought it could be Paul!! The discussion then wasn't nearly as exciting then as it is now though!

Quoted from The_End

Yep, that's what I hear too. :)

There is a lot of history between Ydoll and Charlie, and a lot of arguments spill over from other threads. I've found it's best not to get involved in the banter. It's just two people exchanging views instead of punches! ;D

(flower)

Not much history between me and Ydoll. Plenty between me (and everyone else) and Maria. And some between everyone else and Rotwang.

Fact is they're all the same troll, NOT here to share enlightenment or joy in music but to belittle and ensnare and play baby troll games. Whatever. I enjoy slapping assholes upside the head because of what they do and who they are. But not to the total detriment of the board. SO I'll chill FOR NOW. Until the Mouth makes it plain it is in need of another severe disciplining.

SO run, kiddies, frolic, no one is going to hurt you, least of all me. :)

Quoted from Maccalvr

it's strong and clean like Paul.

Yeah, he's a clean ole man isn't he!! LOL! ;D

Any reasonable person could most definitely hear John! It's who most of us thought it was for years and years so obviously there's a damn good resemblence. As for listening to the isolated tracks, it does take a few listens to release yourself from all those years of hearing it one way and now trying to except another. Your ears play tricks on you. But I wouldn't bet my life on the fact that it's solely Paul. Even though I may think so now. Maybe John could have been edited in there somewhere. I don't know. They did like to experiment.

Quoted from Maccalvr

LOL!!! Now that would really be messing with our heads!!!

The more I listen, the right rear one sounds more like Paul starting as well. But I still think John's following him up. Just because it gets more nasal and high pitched. But again, Paul's voice was pretty versitile. Like the Lovely Rita thing someone mentioned. Similiar. Anyway, dontcha just LOVE this song?? It should be given some kinda special award for greatest song of all time or something. Cuz it is.

Absolutely! When I was editing it over and over it just sounded sooo good! My son, who is only a Beatle acknowledger by force (he was around it all his life) thought the edits sounded so good he wanted to hear it. Immediately. SO we did. :D

I edited the segmenet out of a longer track where John's lead voice was isolated as well. Talk about ache. The single best voice in rock, bar none. From Twist & Shout to this. Sublime.

Quoted from Maccalvr

Now I'm gonna have to go listen to Lucy and Rita and come back to the isolated Ahhhs!!

I dunno, that might confuse you more. :)

Just enjoy them all, that's all they wanted us to do. They didn't count on a few anal souls like me to dissect everything.

Quoted from juniorsfarm

[quote=The_End]

3. Listen to the first bit of the "aaahs" (the descending scale) - it is so distinctly Paul. Admittedly, the 2nd bit (the ascending scale) is more nasaly and Lennon-esque but if you listen closely you can hear it's Paul. I swear! ;D

Take another listen - I hope the debate continues.

Hi. The ascending 'aaahs' was always the gauntlet dropping for me. No matter how well Paul might have been able to mimic John, there's no way that's Paul. Of course, I wasn't there, it is an opinion, I wasn't in the studio, I don't have Chuck's book, etc.

Hell, *I* don't have "my" book! :D If I did I'd quote it and be done with it.

No, this was the proof I'd forgotten convinced me. The books are very quiet about this subject.

There's definitely other vocals going on in the mix too - particularly where "Paul" seems to go off key at the very end.

Quoted from Maccalvr

At first I heard John coming in at the end, but now I'm hearing Paul all the way through. He goes up a little at the end and it's strong and clean like Paul. Not so nasal as I originaly thought. I'm probably trying to hear John as I thought it was him for like 20 years!! It wasn't until a few months ago when I listened on headphones that I thought it could be Paul!! The discussion then wasn't nearly as exciting then as it is now though!

I fear that we may all have a tendency to hear what we 'think' or want it to be. But enough people, myself included, have heard this and been gobsmacked realizing it WAS Paul, that that is the bigger proof to me than almost anything shy of hearing it myself.

Quoted from Maccalvr

Any reasonable person could most definitely hear John! It's who most of us thought it was for years and years so obviously there's a damn good resemblence. As for listening to the isolated tracks, it does take a few listens to release yourself from all those years of hearing it one way and now trying to except another. Your ears play tricks on you. But I wouldn't bet my life on the fact that it's solely Paul. Even though I may think so now. Maybe John could have been edited in there somewhere. I don't know. They did like to experiment.

I don't think so because of the track situation. They just didn't have that luxury.

But yes, of course a reasonable person could hear John. Yes, we too did think it was him all these years, but only by hearing a vinyl/CD copy. This was lifted from the master tapes. And it is shorn of most of the orchestra.

Still...who knows? They made "number nine' sound like 'turn me on dead man' backwards, so maybe there was some purposeful wizardry there.

Quoted from TurnMeOnDeadman

I would fall out of my chair if it was Ringo!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quoted from The_End

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.

Well, Paul had a smoother, more professional pop sounding voice. John had the perfect 'rock' voice.

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.

Quoted from Harrison

�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.

Quoted from juniorsfarm

Get used to it, its Chuck's world--we're just lucky to be living in it.

You're damn right.

Oops! Did I say something naughty? Better rip off a nasty email to your congressman, letting them know how baaaaaad I am, Princess. :)

Quoted from Maccalvr

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.

Quoted from Mr_Charlie

You're damn right.

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?

Quoted from Mr_Charlie

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!!

Quoted from juniorsfarm

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. ;D
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.

Pft.

Quoted from Maccalvr

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).

[quote=Mr_Charlie]

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.

[quote=Mr_Charlie]

p.s. I forgive you, and frankly I'm ashamed of myself for this whole thing, you are at an unfair disadvantage and for me to capitalize on that is reprehensible.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off was out in 1986.

Here's an idea...how we all just get over this topic and give up the fighting. It's gotten beyond tiresome.

now that i listen to it it does sound like paul i always thought it was john

thats awesome

Quoted from Maccalvr

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!!

Yeah, my description (Paul pop/Jon rock) is a terrible cliche. "Hello? Captain Obvious?" ::)

Quoted from juniorsfarm

[quote=Mr_Charlie]

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.

I have no moderators in my pocket. I am in love with ONE, the ONE that you unfortunately chose to whine and pout and complain to constantly,. She stayed out of it except to tell you (and me) to block each other. Your smarmy attitude is endemic of who you are.

High road? How many times am I supposed to apologize for mistaking you for a spammer? How many times do I have to say that as personally annoying to me you are otherwise a good and valuable poster who should stay? How many ways can I bend for you before you acknowledge them? Guess what? I don't like being wrong, and I don't like apologizing, but I do it when I f*** up because it IS the right thing to do. And I did extend an olive branch to you AND Rotweiller more than once. And you shat on it and continued to complain about me behind my back. I'll bet you ripped off a couple of good ones to some other mods even today.

I will even apologize to you right now for calling you silly names IF only you will let it go. Stop trying to get rid of me. Keep posting on topic, you ARE a good poster when you want to be. I really will leave you alone now.

Quoted from number14

now that i listen to it it does sound like paul i always thought it was john

thats awesome

Isn't it???:D

I love this stuff. New discoveries and such.

Quoted from Mr_Charlie

Ydoll/Maria/Rotweiller is not looking nor reporting for truth. �This is, in their own words, a game.

And a severely badly played one on their part, as anyone can clearly hear it being Paul.

How big of an a** does one need to be to act like this?

Quoted from Mr_Charlie

Of COURSE it does. �It's worth nothing, Rotman.

Because I don't believe you. �Only a congenital idiot such as yourself would not hear that it is Paul. �Therefore you lie. �But then, what's new? �Aw....you're going to be disappointed that I don't have three coronaries because a liar can't hear or won't admit to the truth.

MrCharlie, usualy members get banned for such offensive behaviour.
Please take care!

Quoted from admin

MrCharlie, usualy members get banned for such offensive behaviour.
Please take care!

Really? And what does it take to ban the people who inspire such behaviour?

Quoted from Mr_Charlie

Really? �And what does it take to ban the people who inspire such behaviour?

Let it go. 'People that inspire such behaviour', like there's no way you can control yourself. Handle it and move on.

Quoted from juniorsfarm

Let it go. 'People that inspire such behaviour', like there's no way you can control yourself. Handle it and move on.

I have tried to let it go with you, -you- are the one who refused. You talk a good game (your advice is right-on) but you don't live by the same rules.

Anyway, sorry for tagging you earlier before reading this. It's not exactly a repsonse to my generous offer but it's obviously as much as I will get from you I suppose.

You're all wrong! It's Ringo.

it wasnt ringo..it was Brian Epstein

Quoted from The_End

There has been a great deal of debate surrounding just who sang the "aaaaaahhs" after Paul's line "somebody spoke and I went into a dream" from A Day In The Life. Well, Mr Charlie has sent me some evidence which, I believe, finally reveals the truth... it's Paul!

Now you can judge for yourselves - I've uploaded the two clips!! Please let me know what you think.

http://www.geocities.com/the_end_gb/dmforum/day.html

Thanks for the clips T.E.

I've listened and listened.
I've even tried playing them at the same time as you suggested (thus inventing a new game by using the start/pause buttons to see who gets to the end first!).
I've read all the posts.
I've seen Mr.Charlie take on the whole world and even fall in love with a mod.

But I still hear John.

Quoted from Harrison

I would laugh so hard if it turned out to be George.

Quoted from TurnMeOnDeadman

I would fall out of my chair if it was Ringo!

Hehe...it could be a possibility. J/K
I think the 'Paul' fans are hearing Paul and the 'John' fans are hearing John in A Day in the Life. That's my opinion...maybe I'm wrong. :P

Quoted from Soft_Guitar60

I think the 'Paul' fans are hearing Paul and the 'John' fans are hearing John in A Day in the Life. That's my opinion...maybe I'm wrong. �:P

Aha - you're wrong there! I'm a John fan and I hear Paul 100% ;D

You're right, it's very strange what people hear, especially as we're all listening to the same subject matter! ;D

I hear paul, doing john. theres the rastpyness of Johns voice, but on the higher notes, i hear pauls voice revealing itself. paul for me.

Why would Paul do John when John was there to do it himself?

Perhaps it was just convenient - remember they were only working with 4 tracks and the "aaahhhs" had much more delay than the lead vocal. Paul had earlier recorded his "woke up" segment with loads of delay on it also (an out-take does exist which proves this), maybe the "aaahs" were a continuation of that take.

I know it's a lot of maybes, but one thing is certain - it's Paul! ;D

Paul's voice was in 'mono' (in the middle), John was singing in 'stereo' (left-right, right-left). So I still think it's John who sings it.

The placement of the vocal wasn't arrived at until the stereo mix-down stage - this is when John's vocal was panned across the stereo image. There are various mixes available which show there was some experimentation with the placement of the vocals. So... I don't think the "middle" and "left/right" argument gives weight to either argument. :)

But it's Paul I tells ya! ;D

(flower)

yeah, it's definitely Paul

Quoted from The_End

But it's Paul I tells ya!

And ... I tells ya ... it's John!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

As a matter of fact, I have been playing this part of the song to several people who are familiar with the Beatles' work. ALL say it is clearly Lennon. One woman made the observation that some people like to be perverse, for the sake of appearing clever.

I tend to agree with her there. I'm not implying you, or anyone else in particular, is in that boat. But some certainly are.

I wasn't going to post this, but then I saw you had re-asserted your opinion, so I though I'd re-assert mine.

Why is it Paul? LOL

I still think it's John. Surprised this is not a voted topic!! ;)

Quoted from Soft_Guitar60

Why is it Paul? LOL

Because it's not John. ;D

I hear Paul as well. I dunno, but comparing the higher notes of Paul and the higher notes of John with this 'aaaaaaaaaaaah', Paul's notes sound more like it.

I still hear Johns nasalness shining through. ;) lol

It's GEORGE!!!!!!!!

;D

Sorry! I agree with HereComes, It sounds to me like Paul doing John, but that's just my humble opinion.

At this rate, it will turn out that it was really Paul doing all John's singing. Paul sings Help, SFF, Walrus, AHDN, Rain, Come Together, Ballad of John & Yoko, ....

I'm surprised that claim hasn't been made by Paul's Pals already! After all, Paul is a better drummer than Ringo, better guitarist than George, better writer than John, ...

No need to start any further unecessary debates! :)

i always thought it was john...how strange! but 4 some reason the clips won't play for me...it has the play button pressed, and i try to click it and nothing happens :(

nevermind i got it!

it does sound ALOT like paul...but for some reason i keep thinking it's john! i wish we could just ask them ourselves :)

Wouldn't that be lovely!
Imagine Paul coming here one day to answer all our questions!!!

Like....

"will you marry me?"

wait, it's Ringo

Wait, it's George...

I heard ADITL (again) yesterday...what I hear is John singing at the beginning and Paul singing in the end. Still wondering who sang the 'oooh' during that part (3:02 - 3:12).

It's actually the dead spirit of Hitler.

I mean, Paul. :P

Compare songs such as "When I'm Sixty-Four" and "Lovely Rita" to that part.

Another trick could be having a picture of Paul and John singing at the Sgt. Peppers period and try to imagine which picture would be most associated to that part.

Quoted from Mendips

Wouldn't that be lovely!
Imagine Paul coming here one day to answer all our questions!!!

hahaha, id love to ask them questions! i have so many! :)

Just write a darn letter to Paul...hehe.

Here you go...Found this.

A Day In The Life

0:36
The middle note (the �D�) of the three descending notes after John�s "aaah" is played a little early and quiet, with a backbeat feel that doesn�t match the rest of the playing.

1:43
Switch click as the orchestra comes in, orchestra�s volume suddenly doubles at this point (right channel). Maybe this is the introduction of one of the additional tracks of orchestra used to thicken the sound.

1:44-2:16, 3:50-4:19
Mal Evans is heard counting the bars from 1 to 24; only about the first dozen are audible, starting at about three to 12 (left channel). 1:53 "9" and 1:55 "10" stick out quite well, as do 3:51 "4" 3:52 "5" 3:53 "6".

2:17
Right channel � sudden intake of breath.

2:18 Listen!
An alarm clock sounds to mark the end of the first 24 bar orchestral section. At this point in the recording, there was a gap 24 bars long, with no orchestra. It was undecided what would go there, the orchestra was added in later.

2:18-2:20
A strange ticking noise, like a rotary-dial phone returning to its rest position. It could be a �tick� sound through a heavy delay setting. Then someone says "One" to mark the downbeat (it�s easy to lose the correct rhythm without this). Quieter, but just audible on the CD is the trailing "two three four" (right channel).

2:40
Strange effect on the "t" of "flat", it�s really over-pronounced, like "fla-tuh".

2:42-2:48
Just before and after the words "had a smoke", Lennon starts talking and carrying on, most audibly a loud "hoooo" under the word "smoke" (right channel).

2:58
(Left channel) Sounds like a cough.

3:02-3:12
Paul can be heard doing a faint falsetto "ooo" harmony above John�s more prominent "aah�s".

4:49-4:52 Listen!
A chair squeaking (four creaks total, the last three being most audible). This is probably one of the piano stools.

Also wrongly reported as a nose sniffle, paper rustling, someone saying "Shh!", the sustain pedal being released on the piano ...

4:52-end
I�ve failed to verify reports I occasionally get of the sound of an air conditioning fan in this area of the track. I�ve also seen reference to it in Lewisohn�s "Recording Sessions", but I can�t find it to verify for myself.

Rumour has it that the alarm clock at 2:18 was timed to go off after 24 bars to mark where the downbeat is. Common sense should tell you that this is nonsense. You cannot set an old, mechanical style alarm clock to go off with anything like that level of accuracy.

The more likely explanation is that the alarm was "let off", that is deliberately triggered by hand at that moment. Lewisohn states this was a mechanism to mark the end of the passage. Many people disbelieve this, as the musicians should be capable of following along for 24 bars. However odd Lewisohn�s comment seems, it may well be true. I�ve had justifications of why the count of bars (on its own) is insufficient to cue the orchestra.

JustToJess@aol.com writes

I've spent my entire life since I was three in musical theatre, and I can assure you that many people do need to "wake up" after 24 bars of music. Not that they have poor concentration, or that they would have missed the cue, but after rehearsing this song over and over and over again, and after countless takes, it is VERY reasonable to assume that the alarm clock (most likely hit from the piano �) got them back into the music, and started that "umph" that they needed to maintain the same quality of � atmosphere? Charisma? I don't know the right word, but just that little bit of enthusiasm and excitement by the performers that gives the song that special something. I know that many a director I have worked with has done something like this during long, tedious rehearsals.

Yes, certainly the alarm fits in with the "Woke up, fell out of bed..." line. I don�t think that was intentional � it is widely written that fitting with the lyrics was only coincidental, and the alarm clock�s purpose was originally as a marker. Nothing more. A happy accident that was capitalised on, as the Beatles often did.

Even given this, I still received reports on this alarm clock entry, perpetuating the idea that the alarm was set and timed to go off after 24 bars. Please feel free to try it with any wind up alarm clock of your choice, if you can do it, I�d like to hear about it.

I think the reason for this long running misconception is this :-

There is a very subtle distinction between "setting an alarm clock to go off" and "setting an alarm clock off". In telling of this story, one phrase has turned into the other. The former implies an interval passing between doing something with the clock, and having it sound 24 bars later. The latter implies direct interference with the clock to make it sound now. The latter is the only reasonable explanation.

Probably won't make any diference though. lol

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

3:02-3:12
� �Paul can be heard doing a faint falsetto "ooo" harmony above John�s more prominent "aah�s".

Well, apparently, it's both. I also saw that in http://www.beatles-discography.com/index.html?http://www.beatles-discography.com/ot/song-by-song.html , under "A Day In The Life".

So, we all got it right. Except the ones who said it was Ringo or George. ;D

So, John was singing the original 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaah' but Paul sings a bit of 'oooooo'.

Now, listen to it again and try to see if that ain't true and start another debate.

Yes but the original question on this forum was 'who does the aaaaaahhhhh's!!! lol

And no matter how much some people try and wriggle and squirm, it's still Our John doing the 'aaaaahhhhh' bits.

Forgive me, I couldn't resist.

Its John already. Bastante.

I'm afraid we are all going to agree to disagree on this one... at least until you realise I'm correct!! LOL ;D

(flower)

Its Mal!

;D

I heard another 'aaah' in the background at '2:53' but very faint...

I emailed Mike of the "What Goes On" website - http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/wgo.htm - and he has now entered the debate too! Here is his reply:

'Another "Who sang SLYYYY" brewing? :)

The opening section of "Ah's" to 2:53, has qualities of Paul's voice, but
not beyond that point. The ragged ending at 3:12 is more John's style.

From a recording point of view, the quality of the voice and effects matches
John's from the rest of the recording (huge delay and echo, being panned
around, thin and harsh) -- contrast against Paul's fairly dry, close mic'd,
bass present voice.

Also, Lewisohn's _Recording Sessions_ states that Paul's bit began at "Woke
up" and ended on "everybody spoke and I went into a dream .... oh sh*t" --
which was later replaced with a take *without* the vocal error and expletive.

I'd go with it being John ... there is a background vocal also around 3:03
to 3:10 singing "oo-ooo" over John's vocal, I think that might be Paul. Just
to add confusion.

Mike.'

La, la, how the life goes on ...

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

La, la, how the life goes on ...

Yeah, that was Paul too! ;D

[quote=The_End]I emailed Mike of the "What Goes On" website - http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/wgo.htm - and he has now entered the debate too! Here is his reply:

'Another "Who sang SLYYYY" brewing? :)

The opening section of "Ah's" to 2:53, has qualities of Paul's voice, but
not beyond that point. The ragged ending at 3:12 is more John's style.

From a recording point of view, the quality of the voice and effects matches
John's from the rest of the recording (huge delay and echo, being panned
around, thin and harsh) -- contrast against Paul's fairly dry, close mic'd,
bass present voice.

Also, Lewisohn's _Recording Sessions_ states that Paul's bit began at "Woke
up" and ended on "everybody spoke and I went into a dream .... oh sh*t" --
which was later replaced with a take *without* the vocal error and expletive.

I'd go with it being John ... there is a background vocal also around 3:03
to 3:10 singing "oo-ooo" over John's vocal, I think that might be Paul. Just
to add confusion.

Mike.'

Hooray!! Now quick lock this thing.

Well done T.E.
First you asked a pretty good source and then you gave us his reply.
And it seems a pretty sensible reply to me!

This has been a great debate actually! However, I do disagree with Mike and hold firm to MY belief that it is Paul - but you'll notice that didn't stop me posting HIS view. :D

Case closed?

I'd say so.

It was John.
And Paul 'ooooo'd there a bit.
John did the 'aaaah's.

Hey, you can't go closing the case and then say it's John... especially as it's Paul! LOL! Hee hee ;D

...I see it's better to leave it open then. ;D

I will say no more! ;D

(flower)

I always thought it was John, it just never occured to me to be paul.
After hearing it, it could well be! I mean he does ahhhhh's on Lovely Rita, which share some of the same wealth. I feel ashamed that such a debate did not enter my own head :)

It's amazing isn't it? I used to think it was John too! ;D

Quoted from The_End

It's amazing isn't it? I used to think it was John too! ;D

You were right Al. It was John, now, quick lock this thing. There's a box of new and improved MACCA Soily Undergarments in it for you.

Quoted from juniorsfarm

quick lock this thing. There's a box of new and improved MACCA Soily Undergarments in it for you.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!! I always wondered what Paul's 'Soily' was about, and now I know! ;D

PS I said I USED TO think it was John - but now I see the error of my ways! ;D

(flower)

I think this debate has been much ado about nothing.

Some people got onto a bandwagon. Some people (ahem!) had a fight with the originator of the debate.

But in the end, it was still Our John!

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

But in the end, it was still Our John!

Also, in the end, I am equally convinced it was Paul ;D

STOP THE MADNESS!! Its John imitating Paul imitating John. How's that for a compromise? Its the freakin' Nurk Twins from Hell.

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

I think this debate has been much ado about nothing.

Some people got onto a bandwagon. Some people (ahem!) had a fight with the originator of the debate.

But in the end, it was still Our John!

no its definately My Paul.

Quoted from Herecomesyoursun

no its definately My Paul. �

At least its not RuPaul.

Quoted from Herecomesyoursun

no its definately My Paul. �

Awww - MY Paul - how cute!

As opposed to "Our John"! ;D

Wouldn't it be crazy if it was like ringo...

Quoted from The_End

As opposed to "Our John"! ;D

You DO know what I'm getting at with "our" John, don't you?

English people from the north? Family?

I'll bet you are southern English, End!

Quoted from Mushmouth

Wouldn't it be crazy if it was like ringo...

haha, a royal fingers up to the Starr critics :)

Quoted from Mushmouth

Wouldn't it be crazy if it was like ringo...

HAHAHAHA! we find out years from now that it's someone entirely different, not a beatle @ all. LOLOL ;D

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

You DO know what I'm getting at with "our" John, don't you?
English people from the north? Family?
I'll bet you are southern English, End!

LOL!!! Yes on ALL counts Ydoll! ;D

You SO have me pegged! ;D

There's only one way to be sure:

Ask Paul.

Anyone here knows his phone number?

Quoted from Lostio

There's only one way to be sure:

Ask Paul.

Anyone here knows his phone number?

Trouble is, these days Paul would give the answer painting him in the best light, and John in the poorest.

^Give the man a break Ydoll. About who sung some ahhh's in a song? Quit with the MAcca bashin. It's becoming aggrevating. No need for that assumption.

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

^Give the man a break Ydoll. About who sung some ahhh's in a song? Quit with the MAcca bashin. It's becoming aggrevating. No need for that assumption.

Sadly, there's every need for that assumption. If you've been following Paul's takes on Beatles matters, you'll realize that for 20 years now he has increasingly put himself over at the expense of John. Read Barry Miles' book, for instance, and cringe at the arrogance of McCartney. Always helping John with his songs (but hardly ever admitting the other way), contributing essential bits, being more "avante garde" than John, and so on.

Well it must be selective reading you got goin there. Always question the source.
Have you read any comments by George MArtin? Surely he is the authority on this kinda thing. It strikes me that you can hear the input each have put in from the songs themselves.
Your bias towards John makes you feel that about him. OK, it's your thing. Do what you gotta do.
Paul likes attention, no 2 shakes about it but again you doth protest too much!! lol

My bias is towards truth, not John or Paul or anything else.

I go to Miles' book because that had Macca's imprimatur.

It strikes me that you can hear the input each have put in from the songs themselves.
On the contrary, it strikes me that you often can't. People like to think they can, but that's delusion. And that allows Macca to paint himself in a more favorable light.

McCartney may have gotten defensive or overly zealous because of the GOD image that John's fanatical fans have given him. It was starting to get to the point where it was John's band and John was the creative genius and John was the Beatles soul and Paul was the fluff. I'd be annoyed too if I were reduced to that after being a HUGE part of the most successful band of all time. I think he acted like most people would have in that situation. Even John. John who made claims just as egotistical before his death. Can't you see both sides?

it doesnt matter who sings the "aaahhs", in the end, they did a damn good job of it, even if it was Yoko

Quoted from Maccalvr

McCartney may have gotten defensive or overly zealous because of the GOD image that John's fanatical fans have given him. It was starting to get to the point where it was John's band and John was the creative genius and John was the Beatles soul and Paul was the fluff. I'd be annoyed too if I were reduced to that after being a HUGE part of the most successful band of all time. I think he acted like most people would have in that situation. Even John. John who made claims just as egotistical before his death. Can't you see both sides?

I totally agree, bad enough Macca has to compete with himself, but also with John's deified memory.

forget what i said above^..I think its Paul

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

My bias is towards truth, not John or Paul or anything else.

I go to Miles' book because that had Macca's imprimatur.

It strikes me that you can hear the input each have put in from the songs themselves.
On the contrary, it strikes me that you often can't. People like to think they can, but that's delusion. And that allows Macca to paint himself in a more favorable light.

You mean what YOU think is true? A truth from a book? I am speaking from a musicians point of view when I made that comment about their inputs. I don't believe that it is that far-fetched an idea. Contrary to your beliefs, it seems you like to think you can't.
Well, in some songs you have a point but generally they are singing on their own tunes. I.e. Their own concepted ideas/chords. Notice I say, GENERALLY.
Anyway, it was more Paul bashing on your behalf, you can never resist. They both had great input, one not overshadowing the other. It's your kind of nit-picking that raises this whole Paul is be-littling Lennon's legacy that I find un-healthy in Beatle fans. I certainly would'nt say I was deluded either.
Again, I find myself balancing the negativity of your opinions on Paul. Theres no more painting to be done regards Beatles. It is all done and there to see, no matter what each man wants to say in their own auto-biographies. Unsurprisingly they generally talk about.....wait for it......themselves!

Anyways, surely it has been established that they were both rather good. That'll do for me.

I asked virtual John who sang it and he said it was Niels Bohr.

I cannot understand those folk who don't see the revisionism Paul McCartney has been involved in over the last couple of decades. Certainly, it may be in response to those who have "sainted" John Lennon: but Macca is surely doing it, whatever the reason.

My own "Macca-bashing" is really criticism of Paul's attitude, immaturity, and petulance. It is also a take on the low standards some of his music has sunk to. But there's no need, really, to call it "bashing". It's just me talking about a man whose contribution to one of the greatest bands of all time is undeniable, but who subsequently lost the plot.

No one is above criticism. Remember that even Paul himself has passed negative comments about some of his work in the eighties!

QuoteNo one is above criticism. Remember that even Paul himself has passed negative comments about some of his work in the eighties!

YEs, but so he should!!! lol. ;) I see what your saying to a degree Ydoll. I just don't like to hear about it. It's a free board though. It just dos'nt fit into how I would like to revere them. If you get what I mean? This whole PAul vs Lennon thing means nothing to me.

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

If you get what I mean? This whole PAul vs Lennon thing means nothing to me.

Nice post, Apple Beatle. But with reference to the quote above: trouble is, the whole Paul vs John thing means a lot to Macca, I think.

it sounds like Paul to me, not bashing John or anything..but I think its Paul, but Im a bigger John fan than paul, and John does the best parts of the song anyways

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Nice post, Apple Beatle. But with reference to the quote above: trouble is, the whole Paul vs John thing means a lot to Macca, I think.

I just hope your wrong. ;) I would hope Macca has nothing to prove. Maybe age does it to you?Maybe, they should have all taken a vow of silence after The Beatles? lol. Too much money to be made in our curiosity methinks. lol
Sometimes we can know too much.

Too much Monkey business it seems!

:D

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

For what it's worth - it sounds like John to me.

I agree with Ydoll. I heard a very distinct "John" quality or whatever you would like to call it. Futhermore, it is such a smooth transition from the Aaahs to the next line in the song, that I wouold have to think it's John. But that is only my opinion. I'm not putting anyone else down for thinking otherwise... and I would DEFINTELY admit that I was wrong if I listened to it one day and really felt that I heard Paul's voice rather than John's.

I'd admit if I was wrong too! ;D

By the way, it's Paul! ;-)

'Tis verily, John. Truly, and really ...

Boy Bruno, I think you're being very rude and hurtful to The End.

I wouldn't be surprised if you got your knuckles rapped for that! �;D

no, the image is for those who are hearing John ;)

Quoted from Harrison

I would laugh so hard if it turned out to be George.

Lol, that would be totally fab!
(Not that I think it is, so no one jump down my throat, okay?)

Maybe it would be a good idea to research this topic through other sources to try and get more proof. That way no one has to fight. I mean I understand that everyone has their own opinion, but this seems to be getting a bit out of hand.

Once I found myself arguing with an old boyfriend, quite like some of the people on this thread over "The Ballad of John and Yoko" We couldn't figure out if It was Paul or Yoko (or both, which we didn't even consider at the time) in the chorus/background. This was a running fight that would be brought up every so often until finally we did our own research to try and prove each other wrong. I think that to this day we would have been fighting about it if we didn't have proof and I think that's needed here.

I will gladly volunteer to try and dig up something, perhaps in writing from a Beatles trivia book or something like that....

Quoted from Bruno

no, the image is for those who are hearing John ;)

Oh dear, Bruno m'boy, you have no sense of humor at all do you?

Quoted from Ydoll_Gwyn

Oh dear, Bruno m'boy, you have no sense of humor at all do you?

you didn't see the smilie at the end of my sentence?

;)

It is John. Or I will believe it is John.

If you listen to the right ear only of You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, it doesn't sound like John. They just don't sound the same without instruments, so you can never tell.

Quoted from The_End

There has been a great deal of debate surrounding just who sang the "aaaaaahhs" after Paul's line "somebody spoke and I went into a dream" from A Day In The Life.

Now you can judge for yourselves - I've uploaded the two clips!! Please let me know what you think.

http://www.geocities.com/the_end_gb/dmforum/day.html

I've read that it was both of them. Anyone else ever read that or am I imagining it?

Quoted from Maccalvr

I've read that it was both of them. Anyone else ever read that or am I imagining it?

Its John.

No more please!!!! lol....Both!!! Look back on this thread.

This will go on forever!!! lol

i tought it was you 3.........

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

No more please!!!! lol....Both!!! Look back on this thread.

This will go on forever!!! lol

hush puppy......

Oh well. Just wanted to know if there was a definitive answer. Guess not. I know it's not John by himself anyway. I think it's dumb that we can't discuss this ever again. If someone ever finds any new information, I hope they don't hesitate to post it. I asked the question months before that whole ridiculous fiasco anyway and nothing ever came of it. It's got to be somewhere this info.

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

No more please!!!! lol....Both!!! Look back on this thread.

This will go on forever!!! lol

I don't have to look back on this thread, I remember it well and it was mostly about male ego instead of getting to the truth. I just listened again and cannot say without a doubt that it's one or the other. One minute I hear Paul and the next John. But mostly Paul. Either way it gives me the freaking chills. I absolutly love those aaahhhs. BTW, Paul can do a damn good imitation of John as we know from Anthology's Real Love.

It's Paul. It's in Paul's section of the song. It's his crescendo. Why would he let John do it after he's built up to that point.

The line is also melodically very Pauline--by way of Brian Wilson. It follows the notes pretty carefully. John would slide and elide more. Paul is precise.

There's usually more honey in Paul's voice, more ice in John's. You can hear the "taste of honey" in the Ahhhs.

Quoted Text

I don't have to look back on this thread, I remember it well and it was mostly about male ego instead of getting to the truth. I just listened again and cannot say without a doubt that it's one or the other. One minute I hear Paul and the next John. But mostly Paul. Either way it gives me the freaking chills. I absolutly love those aaahhhs. BTW, Paul can do a damn good imitation of John as we know from Anthology's Real Love.

I meant this bit...It'll do for me anyway. ;)

Quoted from An_Apple_Beatle

Here you go...Found this.

A Day In The Life

0:36
� �The middle note (the �D�) of the three descending notes after John�s "aaah" is played a little early and quiet, with a backbeat feel that doesn�t match the rest of the playing.

1:43
� �Switch click as the orchestra comes in, orchestra�s volume suddenly doubles at this point (right channel). Maybe this is the introduction of one of the additional tracks of orchestra used to thicken the sound.

1:44-2:16, 3:50-4:19
� �Mal Evans is heard counting the bars from 1 to 24; only about the first dozen are audible, starting at about three to 12 (left channel). 1:53 "9" and 1:55 "10" stick out quite well, as do 3:51 "4" 3:52 "5" 3:53 "6".

2:17
� �Right channel � sudden intake of breath.

2:18 Listen!
� �An alarm clock sounds to mark the end of the first 24 bar orchestral section. At this point in the recording, there was a gap 24 bars long, with no orchestra. It was undecided what would go there, the orchestra was added in later.

2:18-2:20
� �A strange ticking noise, like a rotary-dial phone returning to its rest position. It could be a �tick� sound through a heavy delay setting. Then someone says "One" to mark the downbeat (it�s easy to lose the correct rhythm without this). Quieter, but just audible on the CD is the trailing "two three four" (right channel).

2:40
� �Strange effect on the "t" of "flat", it�s really over-pronounced, like "fla-tuh".

2:42-2:48
� �Just before and after the words "had a smoke", Lennon starts talking and carrying on, most audibly a loud "hoooo" under the word "smoke" (right channel).

2:58
� �(Left channel) Sounds like a cough.

3:02-3:12
� �Paul can be heard doing a faint falsetto "ooo" harmony above John�s more prominent "aah�s".

4:49-4:52 Listen!
� �A chair squeaking (four creaks total, the last three being most audible). This is probably one of the piano stools.

Also wrongly reported as a nose sniffle, paper rustling, someone saying "Shh!", the sustain pedal being released on the piano ...

4:52-end
� �I�ve failed to verify reports I occasionally get of the sound of an air conditioning fan in this area of the track. I�ve also seen reference to it in Lewisohn�s "Recording Sessions", but I can�t find it to verify for myself.

Rumour has it that the alarm clock at 2:18 was timed to go off after 24 bars to mark where the downbeat is. Common sense should tell you that this is nonsense. You cannot set an old, mechanical style alarm clock to go off with anything like that level of accuracy.

The more likely explanation is that the alarm was "let off", that is deliberately triggered by hand at that moment. Lewisohn states this was a mechanism to mark the end of the passage. Many people disbelieve this, as the musicians should be capable of following along for 24 bars. However odd Lewisohn�s comment seems, it may well be true. I�ve had justifications of why the count of bars (on its own) is insufficient to cue the orchestra.

JustToJess@aol.com writes

I've spent my entire life since I was three in musical theatre, and I can assure you that many people do need to "wake up" after 24 bars of music. Not that they have poor concentration, or that they would have missed the cue, but after rehearsing this song over and over and over again, and after countless takes, it is VERY reasonable to assume that the alarm clock (most likely hit from the piano �) got them back into the music, and started that "umph" that they needed to maintain the same quality of � atmosphere? Charisma? I don't know the right word, but just that little bit of enthusiasm and excitement by the performers that gives the song that special something. I know that many a director I have worked with has done something like this during long, tedious rehearsals.

Yes, certainly the alarm fits in with the "Woke up, fell out of bed..." line. I don�t think that was intentional � it is widely written that fitting with the lyrics was only coincidental, and the alarm clock�s purpose was originally as a marker. Nothing more. A happy accident that was capitalised on, as the Beatles often did.

Even given this, I still received reports on this alarm clock entry, perpetuating the idea that the alarm was set and timed to go off after 24 bars. Please feel free to try it with any wind up alarm clock of your choice, if you can do it, I�d like to hear about it.

I think the reason for this long running misconception is this :-

There is a very subtle distinction between "setting an alarm clock to go off" and "setting an alarm clock off". In telling of this story, one phrase has turned into the other. The former implies an interval passing between doing something with the clock, and having it sound 24 bars later. The latter implies direct interference with the clock to make it sound now. The latter is the only reasonable explanation.

Probably won't make any diference though. lol

I was only joking around when I said no more...It sure ain't my decision. ;)

Ah. Sorry! I didn't remember that post. Thanks fo reposting it. Guess it got lost in all the other stuff. :D

Wait, where's it from? Do they know for sure it's John's ahh's and Paul's ooo? It could be John's ooo's and Paul's aahh's for all we know....;D

hehehehehehe.

The sun shines from Paul's aahs!!! ;D

Boy, you all have been really going at it on this! I got a pair of Altec Lansing speakers on my comp. which are not shabby, and I still think it can go either way. Somebody needs to ask Paul himself. How 'bout you App?

Quoted from adamzero

It's Paul. �It's in Paul's section of the song. �It's his crescendo. �Why would he let John do it after he's built up to that point. �

The line is also melodically very Pauline--by way of Brian Wilson. �It follows the notes pretty carefully. �John would slide and elide more. �Paul is precise. �

There's usually more honey in Paul's voice, more ice in John's. �You can h

Print Topic - Archive