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😉)
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.
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
First of all this was 1965 and you really need to change that second of all I forgot that’s why this video sucks is because you cut the second video off right in the middle shame!!!!
I abousolutly love the 1965 version. The John van Hulst 1965 live RESTORATION of this (RUclips) song is a must. This 1965 clip appears many times on RUclips but the best clip RESTORED version by Hulst is non surpassed. Awesome
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.
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 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.
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.
Is it just me or does it look like his lips aren't matching the music in the 64 clip???
Beatles songs don’t sound right without Ringo
Paul McCartney singing in 2004 more bluesy than in 1965
Genius.
One of their most underrated songs ever. Right next to Oh! Darling
I wish they had sync'd up the audio with the video on the 1964 portion.
Ni caso a los comentarios detractores.Envidia.
I've seen him 7 times and he never played this tune.
Paul at 62 sounds great Remember it's not 1964
The 1965 version is great, but I prefer the modern 2004 version.
The best all times no questions
My favourite Beatles song..1965 best .....not enough of the 1965 version..
Just one thing,he's not paul.
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😉)
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.
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
Paul del 65!!!
First of all this was 1965 and you really need to change that second of all I forgot that’s why this video sucks is because you cut the second video off right in the middle shame!!!!
1965
No change, just doesnt have to scream over 1000's of hysterical teenage girls (the seagulls)
impressive
Nada que ver con las versiones de los 60s. Ahora con mucha tecnología pero muy vacía!!
Billy vs Paul
I do play like that and I’m 63 one little bit of info it was 1965 that you were showing the video
I abousolutly love the 1965 version. The John van Hulst 1965 live RESTORATION of this (RUclips) song is a must. This 1965 clip appears many times on RUclips but the best clip RESTORED version by Hulst is non surpassed. Awesome
The magic has faded, just a bit.. just a li'l bit.😉
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
Get rid of pub rockers and practice his singing crutch
You sing good Paul. Good song.
40 yrs in between still sound good
Классика на все времена ена!!!! Пол - гений 20 и 21 века!!!!!
Faul 2004
Fu
Sir Paul es un fenómeno del bass, de la música y del rock en general. ¡Simplemente brillante, genio!
Brilliant.
Proof Paul is very much alive 😎😎
1965 Paul's voice is more gritty... 2004 Paul really doesnt sound all that simular the 1965 Paul ... hhmmm.. I wonder why 🤔🤨🤐
Because he was 39 years older.
:Жалко погиб в 1966.
Love it Paul McCartney
Alli estuve yo!!!,como suena ese bajo Hofner.
Wow Paul!!! Truly one of a kind
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?😂
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.
He was younger.😂
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.
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
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.
Ringo is untouchable. His groove is something else!
Faul Vs Paul?, What do you prefer?
There is no Faul !!!
@@candidoj Are you sure, what about the Faul on the hill?
@@GeeCeeWU stop doing drugs
@@jmonellaofficial08 🤣
En mi opinion los genios son libres y dan lo mejor de si. Libres para crear futuros musicos libres.
On the actual video, should say 1965, not 1964. It’s also out of sync.