Theres still traces of his younger voice in here as it was the early 2000s, later on his voice started to change naturally as we grow older. Paul has proven time and time again that he is one of the best songwriters/performers to ever lived.
Paul was in top form for his age around this time. I think his band had a hand in pushing him a little into taking risks with more vocally demanding material. It was around this time he started tackling more of his "screaming" songs like "I've Got A Feeling" and "Helter Skelter" and he sounded great on them too.
Absolutely love how in his live 2004 version he sings and sounds almost exactly the same as he did in 1964. Incredible! She's A Woman and Long Tall Sally are 2 of my favourite Beatle rockers. God, Macca is just on fire on those two!
I noticed this Paul has more of American accent than the Paul in 1965... maybe because of his long time association with his former wife LInda (may she rest in peace).
That is possible speaking of his accent, but the human body keeps the movements in memory and he has nothing to do with how Paul moved, it seems that his horse was stolen.
jaime loera garcia The man’s 62, and he’s been on the road since the 70s. It’s more than likely the show gets a little tiring and he slows down a bit. Not that I doubt Macca’s stamina, the man’s an absolute thoroughbred of music, but as you get older you wear down, man.
All those poor souls that compares 1964 vs 2004 note that passed 40 years?? However with almost 61 years have a fabolous tenor oficina voice , and knows how to use it. Respect this leyend please
I abousolutly love the 1965 version. The John van Hulst 1965 live RESTORATION of this (UA-cam) song is a must. This 1965 clip appears many times on UA-cam but the best clip RESTORED version by Hulst is non surpassed. Awesome
I actually like the 2004 version better. His voice is great and it sounds blusier. I never cared for this song back in the day, but the way it's done here, it's great. BTW, I saw him 3 years later at Amoeba Records in Hollywood when he was 65 and he blew everyone away. He was still singing great in his 60''s and early 70's.
It would be great if he brought both this and 'I'm Looking Through You' back for his upcoming Got Back tour, as he only seems to have played them a handful of times!
Same problem I have with all modern concerts--especially with Beatles songs: 04: Instruments sound too far apart. notes sound too precise, instruments too loud compared to the voice, base too low. :65: The instruments sounds closer together (better blended, harder to tell them apart-- which makes the song sound more like one whole thing to me rather than like a bunch of instruments playing), notes sound less precise (more "overtones," which is supposed to make music "richer"), voices are definitely louder than the instruments, base much louder (so much more fun to listen to). The music was made for the instruments and tech of the time, I guess--and it sounds WAY better like that.
The Vintage Equipment of the Beatles in 1964 sounds better. Pretty good vocal for Paul being much older. He still has that high tenor voice. Singing a lot of tenor (A4) notes. He even throws in a quick real high tenor (C5) at the end a couple times.
Hola hay otra versión de she is a woman del 64 en donde john esta al piano la podrias incluir esta muy simpatica todao el video al final john hace cosas muy comicas en el piano y Paul una cara simpática
Abe is playing great here in the 2004 version. Actually the entire band sounds more authentic that they usually do here. And Paul’s vocals are tremendous, those repeated A4s at 62, wow. The guitar sounds in the 2004 version are unforgivable, of course.
Gd...he had such an amazing rock in roll voice back in 65' but even now the feeling is the same..but all that energy and vitality when he or all of us when where young is truly miraculous
Imposible to make it sound better. After listening to all The Beatles songs since when I was a child, this was the one that remained in the first place.
When you consider that the live 1964 version was using technology that doesn't even come close to equipment good enough to be used in most garage bands today, it's incredible that they were heard at all! The Beatles were considered a "Loud Band" back then and yet they were barely heard in their live 64/65 tours. Fast-forward to the 2020's and the audio tech has the ability to clean up and remove the voices from the crowd by about 85 to 90%. The audio technology in the 60's didn't compliment the music. Then, when it's now obvious that the leap in audio tech has made a huge jump forward, unfortunately, now it's also apparent that the music these days, doesn't compliment the audio tech! They need to stop using their synthesizers as a "lead instrument' and go back to applying it lightly, as a 'spice' sprinkled here and there in limited dosages. Most of them should regroup and learn how to write, play and sing with instruments as the foundation, not as a support to a synthesized electronic, (and very predictable) sound that borderlines on just plain noise. FWIW, (...and you kids get off my lawn!, LOL😉)
And in my opinion 2004 version is better - is faster, harder and more rock. Really! However the beatles version is original ...and Paul was soo cute. ;)
Yes, there are several unproven theories, but the strongest is that he did not die and was replaced, by a boy who already appeared in lectures and photos, even from the year 64
Nice juxtapo', but probably would've been more effective if you'd have interspersed it at every verse/chorus rather than play an entire period's performance after another. But whatever your intent was, McCartney still kicks ass. Some half his age can't deliver like this anymore.
They aren't the same person. This man is one of four people that play(ed) the Paul role. He was around in some of the earlier years, but may not have been a performing Paul. One of their first concerts was Circus Krone and this could be him. Just thank your lucky stars that the guy that couldn't play Yesterday correctly from 1971 through 1976 and then came back in like 1984 through 1998. With the wonky eye. We're never see one of them in particular again. Or,. he hasn't been a around in a long time. If there is a real Paul or John, they met in 1955. The entire Circus Fete legend with playing 20-Flight-Rock never happened. Only Pete Shotton will say it did. But he's compromised. The art school Lennon and Stu (Andy Warhol) went to was for special people and most of them were put on the world stage to play their role in the game. Thank you.
Still in plenty XXI , with all the technology and knowledge out there, we have people with IQ = 0 and no brain. Here is an example -> Watcher the brainless
Paul in 1964 didn't look at his fretboard as though he had mastered the instrument. In 2004 I notice him often see his right hand on the fretboard. Also the energy, style and approach Paul had in 1964 on the stage for this song is no more in 2004 video. RIP Paul.
Richard son well ya know there’s this thing called aging? 1964-2004 is 40 years...and 40 years is a long time! of course he’s not gonna have the same energy he had when he was in his 20s
There's only ever been one Paul McCartney. No Faul. No one on Earth could ever replace Paul McCartney. He's a one in a billion talent (at least), and you'd lead me to believe that he was replaced by a "look-alike" who played bass left-handed and picked up where Paul left off with the greatest songwriting duo of all time? A musician who performs at the level of Paul McCartney? NO..... Paul is alive and well and was never "replaced"... such unbelievable gibberish to believe something like that!
When Paul sang he always smiled, obviously not in melancholic songs, but his smile was clearly seen when he sang "She's a woman" and we never saw him do that again
Shame on you negative people. Great voice for 62 year old.
he always use all of his abilty, he always sing with the highest pitch than the other beatles as he's young...
He was 64 I think
@@sean6992 If he was born in 1942 then that would put him around 62 in 2004.
@@TheeReturn oh, your right, thought he was born in 1940
Great voice regardless of age.
Theres still traces of his younger voice in here as it was the early 2000s, later on his voice started to change naturally as we grow older. Paul has proven time and time again that he is one of the best songwriters/performers to ever lived.
Paul was in top form for his age around this time. I think his band had a hand in pushing him a little into taking risks with more vocally demanding material. It was around this time he started tackling more of his "screaming" songs like "I've Got A Feeling" and "Helter Skelter" and he sounded great on them too.
Paul McCartney is to modern music what Einstein was to modern physics.
I would make a similar comparison to what Beethoven ,Chopin, and Mozart was to music is what Paul is .
Wouldn't you love to be able to play & sound like this at age 61-62?
kVermond1
BE NICE AT OTHERS what you says ES MANY BIG RUDE😡
'She's a Woman' is still the jam--after 55 yrs! 😀
That's some of that Carl Perkins influence.
Absolutely love how in his live 2004 version he sings and sounds almost exactly the same as he did in 1964. Incredible! She's A Woman and Long Tall Sally are 2 of my favourite Beatle rockers. God, Macca is just on fire on those two!
Are you deaf
Absolutely! Ditto to everything you said!!
Yes, Sir! I heard the actual recording before this!
This video was 1965
One of their most underrated songs ever. Right next to Oh! Darling
I noticed this Paul has more of American accent than the Paul in 1965... maybe because of his long time association with his former wife LInda (may she rest in peace).
That is possible speaking of his accent, but the human body keeps the movements in memory and he has nothing to do with how Paul moved, it seems that his horse was stolen.
Does your voice sound the same at 22 than it did at 62? Voices change more than just at puberty.
Voltaire Lerias he sounded American on a couple of earlier beatles songs and even an interview
But of course, anyone who lives more than a decade to a particular town or country will surely adapt their dialect, their accent.
jaime loera garcia The man’s 62, and he’s been on the road since the 70s. It’s more than likely the show gets a little tiring and he slows down a bit. Not that I doubt Macca’s stamina, the man’s an absolute thoroughbred of music, but as you get older you wear down, man.
All those poor souls that compares 1964 vs 2004 note that passed 40 years?? However with almost 61 years have a fabolous tenor oficina voice , and knows how to use it. Respect this leyend please
I abousolutly love the 1965 version. The John van Hulst 1965 live RESTORATION of this (UA-cam) song is a must. This 1965 clip appears many times on UA-cam but the best clip RESTORED version by Hulst is non surpassed. Awesome
I actually like the 2004 version better. His voice is great and it sounds blusier. I never cared for this song back in the day, but the way it's done here, it's great. BTW, I saw him 3 years later at Amoeba Records in Hollywood when he was 65 and he blew everyone away. He was still singing great in his 60''s and early 70's.
Aún, increíble la voz de Sir Paul.
Sir Paul es un fenómeno del bass, de la música y del rock en general.
¡Simplemente brillante, genio!
Ringo is untouchable. His groove is something else!
God I love this song. Our band tried to perform this, but that voice is so difficult to imitate?
Easy
Paul still does it at age 81 the only difference is his growly and deep voice
It would be great if he brought both this and 'I'm Looking Through You' back for his upcoming Got Back tour, as he only seems to have played them a handful of times!
John Lennon's art of the rhythm guitar is incomparable.
Yea noticed that as well. Easy to play but Lennon's feel is unmatched
I do play like that and I’m 63 one little bit of info it was 1965 that you were showing the video
2017..... Still fab ....!!!
My favourite Beatles song..1965 best .....not enough of the 1965 version..
Paul had two Hofner base guitars, one got stolen. Lets help him find the other one.
If you see someone playing a Hofner base guitar, it must be him!
I wish they had sync'd up the audio with the video on the 1964 portion.
Paul McCartney singing in 2004 more bluesy than in 1965
The most underrated bass player in history
He’s not underrated
@@smarzig5654 He is actually
@@tb9489 he isn’t loll
@@smarzig5654 Look at the top 20 bass players in rock history, Paul aint there
@@smarzig5654 The only reason Paul played bass is because there was nobody left in the Beatles to play the fucking bass
Same problem I have with all modern concerts--especially with Beatles songs:
04: Instruments sound too far apart. notes sound too precise, instruments too loud compared to the voice, base too low.
:65: The instruments sounds closer together (better blended, harder to tell them apart--
which makes the song sound more like one whole thing to me rather than like a bunch of instruments playing),
notes sound less precise (more "overtones," which is supposed to make music "richer"),
voices are definitely louder than the instruments,
base much louder (so much more fun to listen to).
The music was made for the instruments and tech of the time, I guess--and it sounds WAY better like that.
Awesome!!! Both versions...The Bellfuries also do it well.
The Vintage Equipment of the Beatles in 1964 sounds better.
Pretty good vocal for Paul being much older. He still has that high tenor voice. Singing a lot of tenor (A4) notes. He even throws in a quick real high tenor (C5) at the end a couple times.
I love this vídeo and song
Of course 1965 is better, but he still sounds great in 2004, even before you take into account the fact that he's 63
Hola hay otra versión de she is a woman del 64 en donde john esta al piano la podrias incluir esta muy simpatica todao el video al final john hace cosas muy comicas en el piano y Paul una cara simpática
Siiiiii incluye esa versión de Jhon al piano está muy simpática
Abe is playing great here in the 2004 version. Actually the entire band sounds more authentic that they usually do here. And Paul’s vocals are tremendous, those repeated A4s at 62, wow. The guitar sounds in the 2004 version are unforgivable, of course.
The best all times no questions
Классика на все времена ена!!!! Пол - гений 20 и 21 века!!!!!
This is my absolute favorite song sung by Paul and I'm disappointed that he did not sing this at Madison Square Garden. Arrrrgh~
The magic has faded, just a bit.. just a li'l bit.😉
What a wonderful life.
Alli estuve yo!!!,como suena ese bajo Hofner.
Both awesome.
Gd...he had such an amazing rock in roll voice back in 65' but even now the feeling is the same..but all that energy and vitality when he or all of us when where young is truly miraculous
This was recorded in 1964.
How bizzare I've just been listening to the 64 version as it's one of my favourite beatles songs.. I guess that's why it directed me here tho
Love it Paul McCartney
Voice sounds pretty good for 67
*61 or 62, he was born in 1942
You sing good Paul. Good song.
Wow Paul!!! Truly one of a kind
No change, just doesnt have to scream over 1000's of hysterical teenage girls (the seagulls)
En mi opinion los genios son libres y dan lo mejor de si. Libres para crear futuros musicos libres.
Imposible to make it sound better.
After listening to all The Beatles songs since when I was a child, this was the one that remained in the first place.
The 1965 version is great, but I prefer the modern 2004 version.
Still the same.. And the best
Voice equally good in both versions, but The Beatles are by far the superior band.
Yes and there is only four of them.
2019 still fab 💖
40 yrs in between still sound good
That 64 footage is from 65 Shea stadium
No, at the Shea Stadium show the Beatles were all wearing these badges that were given to them I think from the police dept. or the fire dept.
WoW love this Paul, your the man x
Very very good!!! From Russia.
When you consider that the live 1964 version was using technology that doesn't even come close to equipment good enough to be used in most garage bands today, it's incredible that they were heard at all! The Beatles were considered a "Loud Band" back then and yet they were barely heard in their live 64/65 tours.
Fast-forward to the 2020's and the audio tech has the ability to clean up and remove the voices from the crowd by about 85 to 90%.
The audio technology in the 60's didn't compliment the music. Then, when it's now obvious that the leap in audio tech has made a huge jump forward, unfortunately, now it's also apparent that the music these days, doesn't compliment the audio tech!
They need to stop using their synthesizers as a "lead instrument' and go back to applying it lightly, as a 'spice' sprinkled here and there in limited dosages.
Most of them should regroup and learn how to write, play and sing with instruments as the foundation, not as a support to a synthesized electronic, (and very predictable) sound that borderlines on just plain noise.
FWIW,
(...and you kids get off my lawn!, LOL😉)
impressive
The vintage gear sounds way fuckin better
Proof Paul is very much alive 😎😎
You are right , I heard McCartney say they were given to them by Wells Fargo security
Maybe he will bring it back on his 2023 tours , but will have to lower the key somewhat , considering he is 93
Será que son 83...?
83 or 93 what’s the diff?😂
And in my opinion 2004 version is better - is faster, harder and more rock. Really! However the beatles version is original ...and Paul was soo cute. ;)
The guitar has very weird voicing in the 2004 version
Is it just me or does it look like his lips aren't matching the music in the 64 clip???
やっぱり1966年日本公演の演奏が一番いいな😤👍✨
Paul at 62 sounds great Remember it's not 1964
Na que lá época os caras tinha Jon lenno agr não mais
I've seen him 7 times and he never played this tune.
Paul del 65!!!
Genius.
1965
Beatles's version is the best!!!!
I agree., so much energy in that version
And the Real Paul - not Billy the Bluff.
No comparison. Beatles best. Who else could play the guitars and drums better? No one.
Sir Paul, what happened to your grammar?
I heard she done died in a flood.
Yes, there are several unproven theories, but the strongest is that he did not die and was replaced, by a boy who already appeared in lectures and photos, even from the year 64
facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004678396843
64!!!
Why does it say 2004 v 1965 when it is 2004 v 1964?
Black & white show April 11th 1965
He's cute
40 years on, you want the man to sound, look and behave the same? Really? I wish he could, of course.
Put this song to again set.
:Жалко погиб в 1966.
What's the point? He is a great singer. You try singing it in this key.
Who the fuck says this man died in 60's?
People who like conspiracy theories.
Nice juxtapo', but probably would've been more effective if you'd have interspersed it at every verse/chorus rather than play an entire period's performance after another. But whatever your intent was, McCartney still kicks ass. Some half his age can't deliver like this anymore.
Yeah, he's Paul
On the actual video, should say 1965, not 1964. It’s also out of sync.
Sounds the same
They aren't the same person. This man is one of four people that play(ed) the Paul role. He was around in some of the earlier years, but may not have been a performing Paul. One of their first concerts was Circus Krone and this could be him. Just thank your lucky stars that the guy that couldn't play Yesterday correctly from 1971 through 1976 and then came back in like 1984 through 1998. With the wonky eye. We're never see one of them in particular again. Or,. he hasn't been a around in a long time. If there is a real Paul or John, they met in 1955. The entire Circus Fete legend with playing 20-Flight-Rock never happened. Only Pete Shotton will say it did. But he's compromised. The art school Lennon and Stu (Andy Warhol) went to was for special people and most of them were put on the world stage to play their role in the game. Thank you.
Stop doing Drugs
Ni caso a los comentarios detractores.Envidia.
Paul sang the original, Faul is singing this one, with his higher type voice than Paul's was.
Actually I believe one of the highest notes Paul hits is on "Money" from 1963. But you can believe in your crappy Faul story.
Still in plenty XXI , with all the technology and knowledge out there, we have people with IQ = 0 and no brain. Here is an example -> Watcher the brainless
*idiot!*
Hay gente que sigue creyendo esa tontería?
Paul in 1964 didn't look at his fretboard as though he had mastered the instrument. In 2004 I notice him often see his right hand on the fretboard. Also the energy, style and approach Paul had in 1964 on the stage for this song is no more in 2004 video. RIP Paul.
Richard son well ya know there’s this thing called aging? 1964-2004 is 40 years...and 40 years is a long time! of course he’s not gonna have the same energy he had when he was in his 20s
Faul could never imitate Paul's technique when he strummed the bass, if he never did to move like Paul, unless he was going to play like him.
Boy u should see their rooftop concert and when he's singing Get Back u could see that he's looking at the fretboard. Tia
I agree with you, something so easy like little steps, he doesn't do.
@@jaimeloeragarcia5675 Asshole "faul" doesn't exist
A pesar de la tecnología actual el sonido de los Beatles es superior....
1964 better by far than 2004.
Paul sounded fine. The chorus effect only the 2004 guitars is what made me cringe.
Son dos faules distintos. El de 1965 era Jule o June (así lo llamó John antes de cantar Ticket to Ride ese mismo día), el otro es Billy.
jajajajaja. Cuánto disparate lee uno a través de los comentarios de UA-cam
There's only ever been one Paul McCartney. No Faul. No one on Earth could ever replace Paul McCartney. He's a one in a billion talent (at least), and you'd lead me to believe that he was replaced by a "look-alike" who played bass left-handed and picked up where Paul left off with the greatest songwriting duo of all time? A musician who performs at the level of Paul McCartney? NO..... Paul is alive and well and was never "replaced"... such unbelievable gibberish to believe something like that!
Brazilian idiot
1964
Faul Vs Paul?, What do you prefer?
There is no Faul !!!
@@candidoj Are you sure, what about the Faul on the hill?
Pauls voice has been dubbed.
You're nuts. LOL
the Beatles is better
Nada que ver con las versiones de los 60s. Ahora con mucha tecnología pero muy vacía!!
1965 is better
When Paul sang he always smiled, obviously not in melancholic songs, but his smile was clearly seen when he sang "She's a woman" and we never saw him do that again
Kelvin Art there's no comparison. He had the enthusiasm of youth.
Almost like it's 39 years earlier.
But aint it great that Paul is still doing his best? He couldn't be doing it at all, is that what you mean?
@@jaimeloeragarcia5675 dude watch any other comments...he always smiles and especially here he is SOO ENTHUSIASTIC...wtf do you mean?