And now the time is near....
-
Plastic Soul Man:
21st Century Paul:
You joked at the possibility that I "treated" Paul and then making him sound as in him prime in kind of five minutes. You see!, it's possible, and I haven't even met Paul. Just change the pitch of any Paul recording up half a note and you'll get the same. I'm gonna post an example of what has happened. A short one though.
Like John on Real Love then
I don't know what was exactly used for Real Love but I guess it was something similar.
-
Now THIS is surely a musical monster. Taken from here
It's the part of 0.37 to 1.02 over and over. www.oliversanz.com/heyjudeboard.mp3 First time (00.00-00.26): as it was 2nd time (00.28-00.53): Downtuned 4 half of a note, so you've got that Bass Paul singing or so... 3rd time (00.58-01.23): Downtuned 2 half of a note, Paul the Baritone, like if his voice was older than it is or so 4rd time (1.31-1.57) : As it was, again 5th time (2.01-2.25) :Uptuned 2 half of notes, similar of what happened in those youtube videos, only those were only 1 half a note so the sound it's somewhere in between the real thing and this kind of youngest Paul McCartney sound 6th time (2.32-2.56) Uptuned 4 half of note, that's Paul the female mature singer 7th time (3.05-3.29) A personal fav of mine, Paul sounding like a young woman, I like that "Paula McCartney" Check the harmonies "Freda Mercury" is terrific. -
The last two sound like the Chipmunks singing Hey Jude!
-
oobu24:
Plastic Soul Man:
lazydynamite88:
in the interest of fair play i have to add the maybe im amazed sounded every bit as bad as i remembered
so its a fact then, even back then when he was still singing great,pauls biggest problem was his own editing in a live context!Yes, that was truly awful.
OMG!
Sounds like someone's voice after they've been screaming...in parts there... wow interesting
-
love2travel:
oobu24:
Plastic Soul Man:
lazydynamite88:
in the interest of fair play i have to add the maybe im amazed sounded every bit as bad as i remembered
so its a fact then, even back then when he was still singing great,pauls biggest problem was his own editing in a live context!Yes, that was truly awful.
OMG!
Sounds like someone's voice after they've been screaming...in parts there... wow interesting
Wow! I can't believe Paul's career and reputation weren't ruined after that performance!
-
kedame:
love2travel:
oobu24:
Plastic Soul Man:
lazydynamite88:
in the interest of fair play i have to add the maybe im amazed sounded every bit as bad as i remembered
so its a fact then, even back then when he was still singing great,pauls biggest problem was his own editing in a live context!Yes, that was truly awful.
OMG!
Sounds like someone's voice after they've been screaming...in parts there... wow interesting
Wow! I can't believe Paul's career and reputation weren't ruined after that performance!
How did that one sneak past everyone lol
-
When do you guys think Paul's voice was at it's best? I reckon it was around the time of Ram. )
-
thetoot:
When do you guys think Paul's voice was at it's best? I reckon it was around the time of Ram.
got it in one your answer is CORRECT....'ram' was maccas voice in all its full glory..he sounded good for many years after and before,but never quite as flawless and powerful.
-
Nancy R:
The last two sound like the Chipmunks singing Hey Jude!
No, Chipmunks are the result of uptuning a full octave. Really.
-
thetoot:
When do you guys think Paul's voice was at it's best? I reckon it was around the time of Ram.
In the Broadstreet album
-
21st Century Paul:
Nancy R:
The last two sound like the Chipmunks singing Hey Jude!
No, Chipmunks are the result of uptuning a full octave. Really.
BTW, the Paul +2 (2.01-2.25) sounds like a 1964/65 Paul doing Hey Jude, before he created the song, so it gets even more surreal.
-
FYI, here's an interesting article from Record-Producer.com that explains the sound problems at Paul's Olympics performance and contends that he was unfairly blamed for what was largely a technical problem. (And it's not arguing that his voice was perfect, just that his performance was thrown off by things outside of his control.) http://record-producer.com/2012/08/20/paul-mccartney-bad-performance-or-bad-sound/
Getting into the song after the 1 minute mark where the drums come in full-on, there is a horrendous example of compression pumping. For either a live sound or broadcast mix, it is entirely reasonable to use a limiter and allow the peaks of the audio to hit the limit occasionally. But what is happening here is that the bass drum is far too loud in the mix and is triggering the limiter into deep gain reduction, thus bringing down all of the other vocals and instruments each time the bass drum sounds. The result is that the song starts badly because of a technical problem, then sounds pretty rough all the way through until it ends. And unfortunately it was McCartney who got the blame.
It includes 2 videos -- one of the original performance and the second with the 2 technical problems corrected and shows that the performance is much better with the technical glitches corrected. I hesitate to even post this as I fear it will restart the Paul's voice debate. But I like to live dangerously.
-
Michelley:
FYI, here's an interesting article from Record-Producer.com that explains the sound problems at Paul's Olympics performance and contends that he was unfairly blamed for what was largely a technical problem. (And it's not arguing that his voice was perfect, just that his performance was thrown off by things outside of his control.) http://record-producer.com/2012/08/20/paul-mccartney-bad-performance-or-bad-sound/
Getting into the song after the 1 minute mark where the drums come in full-on, there is a horrendous example of compression pumping. For either a live sound or broadcast mix, it is entirely reasonable to use a limiter and allow the peaks of the audio to hit the limit occasionally. But what is happening here is that the bass drum is far too loud in the mix and is triggering the limiter into deep gain reduction, thus bringing down all of the other vocals and instruments each time the bass drum sounds. The result is that the song starts badly because of a technical problem, then sounds pretty rough all the way through until it ends. And unfortunately it was McCartney who got the blame.
It includes 2 videos -- one of the original performance and the second with the 2 technical problems corrected and shows that the performance is much better with the technical glitches corrected. I hesitate to even post this as I fear it will restart the Paul's voice debate. But I like to live dangerously.
That's it, the drums were mixed too loud, louder than the vocals and the rest of instruments, resulting in a drum solo with some background.
-
Michelley:
FYI, here's an interesting article from Record-Producer.com that explains the sound problems at Paul's Olympics performance and contends that he was unfairly blamed for what was largely a technical problem. (And it's not arguing that his voice was perfect, just that his performance was thrown off by things outside of his control.) http://record-producer.com/2012/08/20/paul-mccartney-bad-performance-or-bad-sound/
Getting into the song after the 1 minute mark where the drums come in full-on, there is a horrendous example of compression pumping. For either a live sound or broadcast mix, it is entirely reasonable to use a limiter and allow the peaks of the audio to hit the limit occasionally. But what is happening here is that the bass drum is far too loud in the mix and is triggering the limiter into deep gain reduction, thus bringing down all of the other vocals and instruments each time the bass drum sounds. The result is that the song starts badly because of a technical problem, then sounds pretty rough all the way through until it ends. And unfortunately it was McCartney who got the blame.
It includes 2 videos -- one of the original performance and the second with the 2 technical problems corrected and shows that the performance is much better with the technical glitches corrected. I hesitate to even post this as I fear it will restart the Paul's voice debate. But I like to live dangerously.
brilliant work michelley. and yes paul really was 'let down' that night...not unsimilar to live aid in 1985....the problem being that to most of the world who watched 'mccartney' was awfull and nothing will change that....once again a bit like 'live aid' in 1985. all that can be said is that it was unlucky in the extreme..especially when you consider the huge sales figures that the performers at both olympic ceremonies appear to have had because of the exposure....thats the reason no one was paid more than a £1 !. but poor paul has gained nothing in sales like the rest but has infact suffered amazing damage to his overall reputation....a real sad affair...infact never mind paying him a pound,paul should be paid about £50 milllion to make up for the damage he has suffered!
-
lazydynamite88:
Michelley:
FYI, here's an interesting article from Record-Producer.com that explains the sound problems at Paul's Olympics performance and contends that he was unfairly blamed for what was largely a technical problem. (And it's not arguing that his voice was perfect, just that his performance was thrown off by things outside of his control.) http://record-producer.com/2012/08/20/paul-mccartney-bad-performance-or-bad-sound/
Getting into the song after the 1 minute mark where the drums come in full-on, there is a horrendous example of compression pumping. For either a live sound or broadcast mix, it is entirely reasonable to use a limiter and allow the peaks of the audio to hit the limit occasionally. But what is happening here is that the bass drum is far too loud in the mix and is triggering the limiter into deep gain reduction, thus bringing down all of the other vocals and instruments each time the bass drum sounds. The result is that the song starts badly because of a technical problem, then sounds pretty rough all the way through until it ends. And unfortunately it was McCartney who got the blame.
It includes 2 videos -- one of the original performance and the second with the 2 technical problems corrected and shows that the performance is much better with the technical glitches corrected. I hesitate to even post this as I fear it will restart the Paul's voice debate. But I like to live dangerously.
brilliant work michelley. and yes paul really was 'let down' that night...not unsimilar to live aid in 1985....the problem being that to most of the world who watched 'mccartney' was awfull and nothing will change that....once again a bit like 'live aid' in 1985. all that can be said is that it was unlucky in the extreme..especially when you consider the huge sales figures that the performers at both olympic ceremonies appear to have had because of the exposure....thats the reason no one was paid more than a £1 !. but poor paul has gained nothing in sales like the rest but has infact suffered amazing damage to his overall reputation....a real sad affair...infact never mind paying him a pound,paul should be paid about £50 milllion to make up for the damage he has suffered!
One has to wonder if it was sabotage. But I would also note that the sales figures from the Olympics bump aren't really all that "huge." For example, the Kinks just released a greatest hits compilation -- conveniently timed to allow the band to cash in on the Olympics -- and it debuted at No. 14. That sounds good, right? But it only sold 6,507 copies. That's it!!! That's peanuts. The Who's Greatest Hits re-entered the charts at No. 62 but that only amounted to 1, 981 copies. That's not much of a bump. Out of all the flack Paul has taken in the UK, no one seems to have realized that he was one of the few performers who wasn't using the Olympics to hawk a new product. Yoko was hawking the new version of Imagine with the kiddie choir. Kate Bush was hawking a new mix of her song. Ray Davies was hawking a new greatest hits collection. George Michael had a new single to sell. The Who was looking to boost concert ticket sales for its upcoming tour in the US. And even with the Olympics bump, I read that the overall album sales in the UK were STILL down 5% for the week, compared to the same week in 2011.
-
Why does one have to wonder if it was sabotaged? Why can't it just be a cock-up? With, let's face it, only some 30 years between that and Live Aid. Did he mess up at Live 8? Perhaps there's a member of the Illumanati standing backstage on these occasions, ready to scupper Macca's rightful chance of grabbing the glory. After all, the real Paul died in 1966, right, leaving this imposter to cash in with songs like Hey Jude, Back in the USSR, Martha My Dear, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, With a Little Help from My Friends, The Long and Winding Road, Get Back, Fool on the Hill, which surely can't hold a candle to songs like I'll Follow the Sun, All My Loving and Can't Buy Me Love. That said, Macca sounded off key singing English Tea to the astronauts a few years back, but that was only probably aliens messing about with the transmission.
-
Inspector Sands:
Why does one have to wonder if it was sabotaged? Why can't it just be a cock-up? With, let's face it, only some 30 years between that and Live Aid.
No harm in wondering, is there? An entire opening ceremony goes flawlessly and Paul's performance is the only one that gets not one but two technical glitches? But you're probably right. It was probably just bad luck.
-
Michelley:
Inspector Sands:
Why does one have to wonder if it was sabotaged? Why can't it just be a cock-up? With, let's face it, only some 30 years between that and Live Aid.
No harm in wondering, is there? An entire opening ceremony goes flawlessly and Paul's performance is the only one that gets not one but two technical glitches? But you're probably right. It was probably just bad luck.
Probably it was bad luck, but one start considering the Paulspirative theory given many factors. Like him being the only thing sounding bad in the ceremony, just when the sound mattered the most. And also because you say a lot of time that Paul is hated in England and all that... It happened in Wembley during Live aid, now in London again in the Olympics... If Paul is so hated I guess many want to him to fail one way or another. Things like that happen in music business. Just like in sports, like offering money to the referee and all that... In Spain's show business they use to call it "Trips". Often happening between rivals... unexpected obstacles put in your way by someone who wants you to fail. Kind of like in the Broadstreet when they think someone stole the tapes of the record to make collapsing Paul's label.
-
Michelley:
But I would also note that the sales figures from the Olympics bump aren't really all that "huge." For example, the Kinks just released a greatest hits compilation -- conveniently timed to allow the band to cash in on the Olympics -- and it debuted at No. 14. That sounds good, right? But it only sold 6,507 copies. That's it!!! That's peanuts. The Who's Greatest Hits re-entered the charts at No. 62 but that only amounted to 1, 981 copies. That's not much of a bump. Out of all the flack Paul has taken in the UK, no one seems to have realized that he was one of the few performers who wasn't using the Olympics to hawk a new product. Yoko was hawking the new version of Imagine with the kiddie choir. Kate Bush was hawking a new mix of her song. Ray Davies was hawking a new greatest hits collection. George Michael had a new single to sell. The Who was looking to boost concert ticket sales for its upcoming tour in the US. And even with the Olympics bump, I read that the overall album sales in the UK were STILL down 5% for the week, compared to the same week in 2011.
Now that's rather interesting, actually, and speaks not only to a lack of a real "Olympic bump," but also to the abysmal state the music industry is in right now when it comes to sales of music. As for the conspiracy theory, I blame One Direction for ruining Paul's performance. I can picture the five of them gnawing on Paul's electrical cords like gremlins.
-
walliebaby:
As for the conspiracy theory, I blame One Direction for ruining Paul's performance. I can picture the five of them gnawing on Paul's electrical cords like gremlins.