The Ahhs in A Day in the Life-Poll*

yes but although the backing track was laid down in one take there was only a guide vocal I believe, the vocals were re-done weren't they, were they re-done all in one take or were they " punched in " ?

I genuinely do not know the answer to that, but i am sure somebody does, and even if they wrong they will still be certain they are right...

 

to me the isolated is not totally trustworthy, because it distorts the vocal as it can never extract it cleanly, John and Paul had distinctive yet also similar voices ( contradictory i know, but George and Ringo had very different voices and although sometimes George could sound like John its not often ), in such an extraction John could be made to sound more like Paul, and of course vice versa ....

 

Yeah, possibly. But there's a certain timbre to Paul's voice that is different to John's and I hear that. Just going with my ears.

 

One more post then....

John tried for a usable complete vocal on the live takes - he sings everything 'properly', not as a mere guide. Once the best take was achieved (Take 4), he then recorded two more vocal attempts on top. All 3 vocals were then comped together in various combinations on the reduction mix to Take 6. Later on, Paul's section was punched-in on this composite vocal track.

If John had conceived the 'aahs' section and was going to sing it, then why did he not attempt to sing it at all on either the live takes (he sang all of his other parts there, but Paul sang none of his), or during the subsequent overdubs? As I've said before, John's final, complete vocal track was finished very early on in the process.

Plus, if you listen to the live takes, that 'circle of fifths' musical interlude (where the 'aahs' were later overdubbed) seem to be driven by Paul's piano, not the guitar (as is the 'woke up...' section). It seems to me far more like a 'Paul' invention than John's.

 

interestingly though you confirm that Paul's vocal was " punched in " which will be news to those on here who are calling out Geoff Emerick as this is what he may have been referring to. But you say the ahhs were overdubbed but of course the question is when and by whom ? I hear what you say about the ahh's being driven by the piano but there is a key change there too, and if the ahhh's were overdubbed then the intake of breath that many hear were nothing to do with Paul snatching a breath after Dream

I still think it's John but there are a lot of questions for those from whichever camp to answer...

 

and i hear it too but like i say i do not trust the distortion caused by the isolation, unisolated and to me its John

 

You misunderstood. There is a clear punch-in just before Paul's vocal bridge. This punch-in continues throughout Paul's vocal and straight through the 'ahhs' section.... the punch-out happens just before John's vocal comes back in. Ron

PS Check out the various isolations on page 37 of this thread. They'll help make things very clear. Also, Emerick said there was a punch-in before the 'ahhs' come in and there is not. He further elaborates that Paul clipped the word dream (he in fact extends the word with an added syllable "ah") to make it easier for later editing purposes. Which was and is, untrue.

 

Emerick claims that there is a punch in/out between Paul's section and the 'aahs'. In reality, the punch-out comes after the 'aahs' (the vocal track then reverts back to the Lennon composite vocal). 'Woke up...' and the 'aahs' are one continuous punch-in over the completed Lennon composite vocal track (which had nothing in this section).

 

Paul rarely liked to have his vocals "textured" with studio effects (but in this case, he seems to have given in to temptation). That's how I see it, anyway!

 

Yea, I posted their thoughts yesterday morning. They all believe it's John. However, I sent them the isolated vocal and the punch-in extraction and they were quite puzzled. Even asked how I got the isolation and extraction... Funny, they know the standard bootlegs and such, but have no idea about the Rock Band extractions and stems. Anyway, I got them to listen anew. No additional comments today. I think the lads are busy on another project, but not a Beatles-related one. Ron

PS Enjoy Maine, we're heading down to Newport, RI for the weekend.

 

Can someone please post examples of Paul sounding like John on other Beatles tracks- where its 100% definitely confirmed!
Thanks!

 

It's strange to me - if it is Paul, I can't recall Paul ever sounding so nasal (he certainly doesn't sound like that on the Rita clip). The slowed down version sounds a bit more like Paul, but it retains that nasal quality that I associate with John.

 

The arguments saying it has to be Paul cos of the studio documentation and that John and George are doing the ghostly oohs in the background are not compelling in themselves.
After all it could be John doing the 'aahs' and Paul the 'ghostly oohs' since they were clearly in the studio at the same time.

FWIW here's my take on it.

I always believed it was John. It sounded like John to me and I never really gave it another thought until the thread that cannot be named.

I listened to the isolated vocal - and blow me, it sounds like Paul. I then went back to listening to the actual record - mono, 67 stereo and new remix.
Now I can't hear John at all. It sounds like Paul to me.

Sorry 'John' people. I was one of you but now I'm on the dark ('Paul') side.

Splitter !!!

 

Perhaps Emerick is remembering the story correctly but the reason he asked Paul to curtail the word dream,rather than a punch in, is so when he raised the tape echo send fader/knob in the gap it wouldn't catch the end of the word.

 

Nah. An engineer doesn't tell the artist to curtail a syllable, or elongate it for that matter, to precipitate an edit. The artist does his thing and it's up to the engineer or producer to make it all work. Remember John wanting both versions of Strawberry Fields Forever joined, even though they were in different keys and tempos? He just looked at Sir George and said to "fix" it. THAT'S how it worked. You think the Beatles would listen to their 21 year old engineer and compromise their artistic intent to make it easier to edit or punch-in/out? It didn't happen. And the word dream is not curtailed, Paul adds a further "ah" syllable, negating Emerick's very premise. Ron

 

So your argument is the "ahhhs" can't be Lennon because he never did it before? That's like saying Babe Ruth couldn't have hit 60 home runs in 1927 because he never did it before. There's a first time for everything.

 

You can say "no evidence" all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And we have access to the same material.

And yet there's a very fast, audible breath there.

The Paul section, including the ahhs, was punched-in in one take.

Nothing was "extracted". The isolation is from the track on the 4-track.

Nope. The entire section was punched-in. Emerick claims there was a punch-out immediately after Paul's "dream". There isn't. The punch-out isn't until after the "ahh" section.

 

This thread is sheer madness, but I love it.

 

I also just listened to the last few seconds of the ahhhs. That's when it really sounds like McCartney.

 

We know that Paul could imitate John pretty well ( "Let Me Roll It", for example), but I'm beginning to think that there are many on this forum who believe that McCartney can do no wrong....

 

Your probably right.I was just trying to rationalise how Geoff could come up with his punch in story but it was probably one of Howard Massey's story combinations anyway

 

Most of the It's Paul people share this very experience. A few say they've known since first hearing it, but most of us are like you - all the way to "now I can't hear John at all." I'm with you! Such a strange thing!

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "'Nuff said." This is not a "war" where there is a "victor," and I didn't go "home." I'll just say it a different way: It sounds like John and Giles Martin says it was John, and after reading all of the other arguments posted by the 22% who believe it is Paul, I remain unconvinced. There is nothing more for me to say..

 

Exactly my experience. When the 4 track multis leaked years and years ago I almost fell off my chair when I heard it.

 

Giles has access to material we don't. Plus, your arguments are not convincing to me. They are based on your interpretation, and are not fact. They are theory. I think it is impressive that you did the work and analysis, but your conclusions do not sway me.