The Ahhs in A Day in the Life-Poll*

You mean the Ahhhhhllman Brothers Band?

 

Those things that matter being this thread, of course. (After all this trouble we've gone to here, we wouldn't want to see this thread get closed due to straying into forbidden territory, right?)

 

Definitely something to chew on.

 

Me too. Paul has put out the most quality work. But he's also put out a lot of fluff, silliness, schlock, schmaltz and corn.
But that's Paul.

 

Not sure what you mean. There is no evidence from any other historical actor to the contrary.

 

True. Let's carry on as civil as always....

 

I think all the fluff, silliness, schlock, schmaltz, and corn is genius, and in that order.

Seriously, John had his fair share of fluff, silliness, and recorded awkwardness, too, especially in his solo career.

 

The difference is that the "John people," me included, by and large are not telling people what to think, and are not making pronouncements that what they believe is right, period. Many in the Paul camp are doing that, however, with tangible anger and contempt seething under the surface.

 

I agree. But Paul's been blessed with at least 36 years of life than John (who wasted the '70's so it's actually more like 45 years) so he's contributed more music. Thus there are many more 'highs"--to go along with a lot of , well, not-so-highs....

 

Another theory! Love it. Keep 'em coming!

 

Exactly. It still sounds like John. I can't change my mind until I see irrefutable evidence to the contrary. And then I'll say , "Great. It's settled....but it still sounds like John."

 

Unfortunately so.

 

Wow, that was neither necessary nor nice. And it seems that you didn't understand my point either. There is a lot of confusion regarding the difference between "channel" on the recording console and "channel" on the multi-track recorder as proven by recent posts. It is not intended to be a word game when people are saying "it was recorded to one channel" but referencing mics and consoles. Discussing the technical nuance of breaths and steps away from the mic as highly important but then disregard the misuse of technical terms regarding equipment used doesn't seem like valid methodology. And it was not meant to be a word game, nor require saying things like "mics, through wires, etc".

I certainly apologize if I offended or upset you in anyway by offering my two-cents. There have been so many posts that are using technical terms incorrectly in the recent pages of this discussion, I didn't mean to single you out. Multiple mics, multiple channels on the board, one channel on the recorder. Overdubs. One channel played back from the final multi-track containing all of the vocals in dispute does not conclude what many are now assuming. There were so many ways to get the sound onto the tape that reverse engineering while fun, will never be able to prove the point.

And again sorry, I wasn't upset but was shocked at the vile in your response to my post.

 

Alright, none taken. I thought it was pure nit-picking to single out my neglect of the mention of a bus channel, and that you understood well it wasn't necessary to mention all those steps to make the point I was making. It was your initial response which made me react like that, I didn't call anyone out as having a "profound lack of".

In my turn, I apologize for reacting as such, since I agree with your argument made above that I should've been more clear in my original post when specifically mentioning technical obstructions/possibilities.

 

And neither are the Paul people. Some people are sticking rigidly to it being John, others rigidly to it being Paul.

I don't get the accusations that's it all the Paul people playing nasty. There's stubbornness on both sides of the debate. And for the most part it has been just that - a debate - with no missiles being launched.

Who's angry? You stubbornly stuck to your point and we stubbornly stuck to ours.

To be honest there was a lot of accusations against the Paul side that they were refusing to see reason and give up their stubborn belief that it's Paul despite the pronouncements of Emerick and Martin and all I saw were people giving valid reasons as to why they were sticking to their belief and reasons why they didn't believe Emerick/Martin.

All just debating it. I didn't see any anger. A little frustration maybe, but again that was coming from both sides.

 

There's no evidence from any "historical actor" to support Emerick either.

 

This about accurately sums me up! I always believed it was John because it just sounded like him upon the first (or dozen) listen(s). I imagine that's the case with almost every person as well. After hearing the isolated vocal, there are some moments where I actually cannot tell if it's John or Paul singing the "Ahhhhhs" (as many have pointed out, that's the first few seconds where it gets a little nasally) but then, there are other moments where it very clearly sounds like Paul to my ears. Quite a breakthrough. And as you have said, it had to be the same person throughout singing the "Ahhhhs" therefore, I concluded that the "Ahhhhs" are Paul (at least to me)! And someone else made an important point where during the "Ooooohs", at one moment, you hear John's voice shining through.

Now, after hearing it as John for so long, whenever I go and listen to the actual song I can't hear anyone but Paul doing the "Ahhhhs".

 

This guy is also under the impression it's John even though I'm convinced it's Paul.

 

Cool. Before I checked back in just now, I was laughing to myself at how my use of "profound" and your use of "impossible" can send people spinning into upsetville without that being the intention. Ahhhh.

 

My point is that this "historical actor" business is nonsense because his credibility (at least in that book of his which is largely assembled and written by a non-"historical actor") is rubbish. It does not prove anything one way or the other.

 

Unfortunately that Macca is alive or that John isn't?

 

Conversely, I'm much more of a John fan, and I believe Paul sang that "ahh" section. So if there's any correlation it seems to be the opposite of what one might expect, with John fans arguing for Paul's voice in that section and vice versa. At minimum, I've seen no evidence that the "Paul walks on water" crowd here are the ones advocating for Paul singing that part.

 

This sort of rhetorical posturing ("I am calm and rational and those who disagree with me are angry and irrational, therefore my position is implicitly superior") adds little to this discussion. I have seen no indication of anger or contempt on the part of those advocating for the "McCartney sings it" side.

 

I really think you're imagining that.

 

Good grief, that guy spouts an awful lot of guff, and I doubt any of his points about how the song was built or structured were ever contemplated for 1 second by John or Paul!