|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 21, 2016 21:21:57 GMT -5
Not being Canadian or from the US, I can't tell the difference between the two accents. Maybe you can hear it on this. There were several Bob and Doug McKenzie videos to choose from. This one, you get a Rush song. Hope this plays where you are.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 22, 2016 4:03:42 GMT -5
Not being Canadian or from the US, I can't tell the difference between the two accents. There aren't two accents. Generally speaking, most linguists would posit about 6 varieties of Canadian English. The one that most Americans refer to as "the Canadian accent" is that spoken in Ontario, especially in working class areas, and most particularly at donut shops and in hockey rinks. However, the differences between Canadian speech communities are very small, and probably almost indistinguishable to the average non-North American person (even indistinguishable to many Canadians). Meanwhile, in the USA, there are many more generally recognized varieties of English (which are generally referred to as 'accents'), some of which include the New York-area accent, the Boston accent, the Chicago accent, the mid-west accent, the Deep South accent, etc. The major regional dialects in North American English (identified only by geographic location, so something like "Black English" is not represented) are often considered as follows: - Standard Canadian English - Western American English - North-Central American ("Upper Midwest") English - Inland Northern American ("Great Lakes") English - Midland American English - Southern American English a. Texan English b. Inland Southern American ("Appalachian") English - Western Pennsylvania ("Pittsburgh") English - Mid-Atlantic American ("Baltimore" and "Philadelphia") English - New York City English - Southwestern New England English - Southeastern New England ("Rhode Island") English - Northwestern New England ("Vermont") English - Northeastern New England ("Boston" and "Maine") English - Atlantic Canadian English These are generally mutually distinguishable to North American speakers, though how accurately one could distinguish them probably depends on one's area of residence and proximity to the given speech community. Dialects/accents are also much less socially significant in North America than in the UK, with a few exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 4:36:25 GMT -5
I'm OK with Paul imitating Wacko Jacko's voice.
I might have had a thing or two to say if Paul imitated Michael "playing" with the children.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 22, 2016 6:04:05 GMT -5
What does it mean to sound "black"? I can understand sound Canadian or Irish or Mexican or French or Samoan or Russia, but "sound Black"? Does it mean sound like Colin Powell, President Obama, Oprah or Ben Carson? I know what it sounds like when someone is under-educated. I know what it sounds like if someone has a very good vocabulary. I know what it sounds like when an immigrant is learning to speak English. If one does believe that one can "sound Black," then I guess one can "sound White," too. I think you would lose in a game of "Black, not Black." I was merely engaging JSD's initial charge that Paul was being "racist" in imitating MJ's voice. No need to now make this about me. So you can put away your PC slings and arrows. I think I would lose in a game of "Female or Not Female" when listening to MJ's voice over the phone.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 22, 2016 9:05:32 GMT -5
Read Howard Sounes book FAB about how Paul talks about and treats gay folks in private and how he talks about and treats gay folks when the cameras are rolling or he and Nancy are on some red carpet with their Hollywood friends. Paul's got a lot of old Jim McCartney in him! Why don't you just concede that Paul simply did an impression of MJ that .... sounds kinda like MJ. Paul was making fun of another human being when he imitated Michael in that caricatured way, the MMH in the audience all chuckled in that self-satisfied, knowing way, knowing that their boy Paul was mocking a guy who bested Paul in a major business deal, perhaps the most important business deal of Paul's life. Actually, when I think of persons doing condescending imitations of others to put them down, I think of Donald Trump! Whoa, Paul is like Donald Trump in some ways!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 22, 2016 16:58:29 GMT -5
Why don't you just concede that Paul simply did an impression of MJ that .... sounds kinda like MJ. Paul was making fun of another human being when he imitated Michael in that caricatured way, the MMH in the audience all chuckled in that self-satisfied, knowing way, knowing that their boy Paul was mocking a guy who bested Paul in a major business deal, perhaps the most important business deal of Paul's life. Actually, when I think of persons doing condescending imitations of others to put them down, I think of Donald Trump! Whoa, Paul is like Donald Trump in some ways! Paul did not overdo his impersonation of Michael. I though he was spot on. It doesn't sound mean spirited at all. It always seemed more like a funny story to Paul than anything he was upset by. Imitating and making fun of people is the foundation of most comedy. Paul always comes off sincere when wrapping the story up with how great an entertainer he thought Michael was. He says Michael was a "massively talented boy-man with a gentle soul" and he feels "privileged to have hung out and worked with Michael".
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 22, 2016 17:14:17 GMT -5
Actually, when I think of persons doing condescending imitations of others to put them down, I think of Donald Trump! Whoa, Paul is like Donald Trump in some ways! Yeh I've heard Paul wants to remake and remix "The Wall" and he's gonna make Pink Floyd pay for "The Wall" as well.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 22, 2016 20:29:03 GMT -5
Paul was making fun of another human being when he imitated Michael in that caricatured way, the MMH in the audience all chuckled in that self-satisfied, knowing way, knowing that their boy Paul was mocking a guy who bested Paul in a major business deal, perhaps the most important business deal of Paul's life. John, I hate to break this to you, my longtime AbbeyRd Beatles Board Buddy thru thick and thin ... but you've been known to mock a heckuva LOT of people yourself! Beginning with Pauls' kids and onward. I mean ... come on, man! Oh, I think the Trump Haters have long surpassed Trump himself in the "mockery" department in making fun of Donald! There probably isn't anyone right now who's being roasted at every breath more than The Trumpster!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 22, 2016 21:05:06 GMT -5
What does it mean to sound "black"? I can understand sound Canadian or Irish or Mexican or French or Samoan or Russia, but "sound Black"? Does it mean sound like Colin Powell, President Obama, Oprah or Ben Carson? I know what it sounds like when someone is under-educated. I know what it sounds like if someone has a very good vocabulary. I know what it sounds like when an immigrant is learning to speak English. If one does believe that one can "sound Black," then I guess one can "sound White," too. I think you would lose in a game of "Black, not Black." How about a round of "Who es most Macho"?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 22, 2016 22:31:07 GMT -5
What does it mean to sound "black"? I can understand sound Canadian or Irish or Mexican or French or Samoan or Russia, but "sound Black"? Does it mean sound like Colin Powell, President Obama, Oprah or Ben Carson? I know what it sounds like when someone is under-educated. I know what it sounds like if someone has a very good vocabulary. I know what it sounds like when an immigrant is learning to speak English. If one does believe that one can "sound Black," then I guess one can "sound White," too. I think you would lose in a game of "Black, not Black." Sounds Canadian? You mean he speaks French? People in the Upper Western area of the US, North Dakota, Minnesota..., all speak with the stereotypical Canadian accent. Okay, maybe you got me here, eh? I'll be oot and aboot, so I'll be back to read any comments.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Mar 23, 2016 0:03:41 GMT -5
Sounds Canadian? You mean he speaks French? People in the Upper Western area of the US, North Dakota, Minnesota..., all speak with the stereotypical Canadian accent. Okay, maybe you got me here, eh? I'll be oot and aboot, so I'll be back to read any comments. I worked with a Canadian (from Toronto) for a number of years, so I know about the repeated use of "eh," but explain the "oot and aboot" thing. I don't know about that one. It looks like something a Scot would say and I know that a lot of them emigrated to Canada. Is that it?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 23, 2016 4:38:07 GMT -5
There are some things aboat the Canadian accent which identify it.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 23, 2016 10:21:01 GMT -5
I've had to explain this about 1000 times to people, including my Taiwanese buddy who also makes the "oot and aboot" joke. Get it straight, people -- Canadians don't say "oot and aboot".
What we actually say is more like "oat and aboat".
Now you know.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 23, 2016 11:29:05 GMT -5
Yay! I got it right! Not bad for a Brit.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 23, 2016 11:31:42 GMT -5
I've had to explain this about 1000 times to people, including my Taiwanese buddy who also makes the "oot and aboot" joke. Get it straight, people -- Canadians don't say "oot and aboot". What we actually say is more like "oat and aboat". Now you know. I own a cottage in Ontario. Have owned it since 1985. My Canadian friends say "ewt" and "abewt." Or "Hewse" instead of house. oot and aboot is too closed on the vowels and oat and aboat is too open on the vowels. It's more in the middle of those two, eh?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 23, 2016 17:17:17 GMT -5
Then you get someone like Canadian Mike Myers who speaks with standard Canadianisms peppered with Beatle speak. His parents were from Liverpool, so he comes by it naturally.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 23, 2016 22:17:32 GMT -5
I worked with a Canadian (from Toronto) for a number of years, so I know about the repeated use of "eh," but explain the "oot and aboot" thing. I don't know about that one. It looks like something a Scot would say and I know that a lot of them emigrated to Canada. Is that it? Okay. I stand corrected about "out" and "about." Guess it's more like "a boat."
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 23, 2016 22:48:09 GMT -5
If I might get off topic for a second, this got me thinking about Paul's "It's you that brought me around, Got me out and about" line from Dear Boy.
I always thought that was about Lennon and Paul in the Quarrymen days.
I always say Paul throws in random thoughts and emotions in his otherwise nonsense songs. Paul says Dear Boy was about Joe See. Not likely the "It's you that brought me around, Got me out and about" line.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Mar 29, 2016 0:49:44 GMT -5
When I stepped in, my heart was down and out, But her love came through and brought me 'round, Got me up and about.
SHE. He's addressing Linda in that portion of the song. It's very in line with the sentiment in songs like Maybe I'm Amazed and Every Night.
As for the earlier digs in this thread about Paul changing credits? From all the interviews I've ever read and heard these appear to be the circumstances in which he's brought up credit changes:
1) He wanted the version of Yesterday on the Anthology album to be credited McCartney/Lennon and asked Yoko for permission to do that. She refused.
2) He has done and wished to changed credits on his solo live albums (on songs he primarily wrote) to 'written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon'. Yoko was NOT happy. (he did this on Wings Over America with no complaint from J&Y)
3) In a poetry anthology he saw, on Yesterday, he wished he was credited McCartney or, at the very least, McCartney/Lennon. He's also expressed concern at systems where there's not enough room to credit both authors and so he's seen songbooks with a song like Blackbird or Yesterday (can't remember which) solely credited to Lennon because his name comes first.
He's never once expressed any desire for the credits on official Beatles albums to be altered. He's expressed a great deal of pride in and affection for the Lennon/McCartney label.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 29, 2016 7:10:10 GMT -5
When I stepped in, my heart was down and out, But her love came through and brought me 'round, Got me up and about.SHE. He's addressing Linda in that portion of the song. It's very in line with the sentiment in songs like Maybe I'm Amazed and Every Night. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 30, 2016 2:13:27 GMT -5
1) He wanted the version of Yesterday on the Anthology album to be credited McCartney/Lennon and asked Yoko for permission to do that. She refused. This was just insanity, or ego run rampant, or both. Seriously, what was he thinking? Here it is, the long-awaited Beatles' Anthology project, 25 years in the making, network TV, triple-CD, media hype, Threetles single. Paul takes this moment to try to give himself more credit, with the world watching! No, he couldn't have asked Yoko in 1986 before the CDs were issued, or after 'Off the Ground' bored fans, he had to calculate until the exact right moment of The Beatles 'reunion' for maximum ego gratification and audience awareness. 2) He has done and wished to changed credits on his solo live albums (on songs he primarily wrote) to 'written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon'. Yoko was NOT happy. (he did this on Wings Over America with no complaint from J&Y) Exactly. Which is fine. That's all he had to do. On his album, under his name, he can go ahead and reverse the credits any way he wants. He could have done it on 'Tripping the Live Fantastic' (worst title ever) or any other of the 276 live albums, mostly of worn-out Beatle hits, he's issued since, and nobody would have cared. But no, he had to make a big storm by asking Yoko to change a credit on a Beatles group release, which is about the most un-group thing you could possibly suggest. (It's funny how George didn't take advantage of the 'Anthology' project to try to suddenly get writing credit for the many John and others' songs he helped a great deal with.) 3) In a poetry anthology he saw, on Yesterday, he wished he was credited McCartney or, at the very least, McCartney/Lennon. He's also expressed concern at systems where there's not enough room to credit both authors and so he's seen songbooks with a song like Blackbird or Yesterday (can't remember which) solely credited to Lennon because his name comes first. Yes, poor Paul, world's richest rock star and Guinness-Book-of-Records' Most Successful songwriter in world history, just isn't getting enough credit. Why all this fuss over one song, 'Yesterday'? Has it occurred to Paul that in 200 years' time, future kids may be looking at Beatles' songs and seeing only ONE song after 1963 with a 'McCartney / Lennon' credit. They will then naturally assume that that is the only song between 'With The Beatles' and 'Abbey Road' that Paul mainly wrote. They'll naturally assume that John is the real author of 'And I Love Her', 'Eleanor Rigby', and 'Let It Be'. Does Paul not get this? Is he really this petty and stupid? He's never once expressed any desire for the credits on official Beatles albums to be altered. He's expressed a great deal of pride in and affection for the Lennon/McCartney label. Sure, as long as everyone knows -- and he dictated a media-hyped book to make sure no one missed it -- that he wrote 21.354% of 'No Reply' and 42.756% of 'Strawberry Fields Forever', etc. As long as everyone knows that he did everything, he's very proud of the Lennon/McCartney label. I love Paul's music (well, some of it) and have enormous respect for his gargantuan musical talents and the joy his music has brought me through my life. But his endless search for credit since the 80s is incredibly embarrassing and is probably going to permanently color his legacy for generations after his own death. The fact that he hasn't realized this yet after 30+ years of publicly embarrassing himself is the most amazing part. But then again, it wasn't until the late-80s that he seemed to understand that he was going to be mainly remembered for having been a Beatle.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 30, 2016 14:47:28 GMT -5
As long as everyone knows that he did everything, he's very proud of the Lennon/McCartney label. Paul deserves all the credit he claims surely? I think it's important to be able to put this straight on the "Paul McCartney & his beatles" Abbey Road forum.
Here's where the issue of song credits came up. Hear it from the great band leader himself: Unfortunately this interview was 35 years too late for a comment from the 'Lennon' guy, who only hard core fans will recall, played a minor part in co-writing (mainly), the band's unheard b-sides (with McCartney). He also occasionally sung lead vocals on a song or two when Paul felt the song wasn't suited to his own voice (or simply not of the quality he expected).
Thankfully Paul's ear for a great tune meant the Beatles kept having hit singles throughout the 1960s until he decided his backing band was no longer required in the spring of 1970. The split only came after John (Lennon - for those who don't recall) the band's rhythm guitarist recorded his own album without McCartney's permission. The song 'God' was the nail in the coffin. McCartney first thought this was an affectionate tribute to him from his 6-string strumming old mate until he heard the lyrics. Paul said "I didn't realise at first because the words were a little too complex for anything I'd put in a song. But it was actually quite nasty about me being just a concept and causing him pain."
Although, years later, Paul has now admitted that he played on the album under one of his many pseudonyms - Klaus Voorman and even contributed 90% of the vowels in the main lyrics.
Admittedly Lennon went on to have a minor hit 'Imagine' (inspired by Paul's song 'Let it Be;) before jacking it all in and moving to America to become a child minder. There he could live off the earnings of the songs McCartney generously gave him a 50% song writing credit on. "This was because, he'd often suggest a line or two and even had a couple of chords he'd bring along before I wrote the songs", said Paul. "I've no problem with it. Many people just thought John strummed a few chords but he was a vital part of the band in his supporting role to me. He deserves every penny he gets. But Yoko, she doesn't!"
In recent news, George Martin, the music producer, whose career was built on the back of McCartney's undoubted musical talents sadly passed away earlier this month........
.............
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 30, 2016 18:15:29 GMT -5
"Feeling quite a-Paul-ling"
|
|