So, since the mid-sixties people have been saying that Paul McCartney was murdered in 1966 and replaced by a double that is taller, with detached earlobes and a different shaped head, along with other subtle physical changes. He looks uncannily similar and his voice sounds the same, but no, he is some guy that looks like Paul, who people nickname "Faul." There are clues in the lyrics, back masking and album covers, like the fact that Paul is barefoot and walking out of step with the other Beatles on the Abbey Road cover or the back masking in Revolution 9 -- "Turn me on, dead man." Or "I buried Paul" in "Strawberry Fields Forever" (which was actually "Cranberry Sauce," which makes sense because of the "s" sound at the end). Fans also like to show Faul's slip-ups when he is doing TV interviews, like the fact that he couldn't remember how many years the Beatles had been together. The famous quote was, "My fans know my history much better than I do." He was in his sixties at the time - it would be perfectly normal for him to forget things. Also, as a former Beatle and as probably the most famous and well-liked Beatle, the man has probably done more interviews than almost any musician. Obviously he's going to make some mistakes because of the sheer number of interviews he has done.
You could write an essay on all the clues pointing to Paul's "death." Someone should, or maybe they already have. Apparently, he was murdered in a car crash by some government hit men because he was against the info war that government was trying to start. Or something crazy like that. It makes for a great story, definitely a great idea for a movie script, but I don't believe it at all.
Paul McCartney is always standing out in the album covers and photos after 1966, but could that maybe be because he was the fan favourite and the star of the band? No, no, the Beatles are trying to tell us that Paul is dead. That is the only thing it could be.
Anyway, The worst part is that believers of this conspiracy hate all the post-1966 "crap" churned out by Paul McCartney and the Beatles.
So let's compare the music written by "the real Paul" to the music of "Faul"...
The real Paul (post-1966):
(I am including all the 1966 hits that he wrote, because I don't know when he "died")
I Saw Her Standing There (with John Lennon)
Please Please Me (with Lennon)
Love Me Do (with Lennon)
Love Me Do (with Lennon)
It Won't Be Long (with Lennon)
I Want to Hold Your Hand (with Lennon)
From Me to You (with Lennon)
She Loves You (with Lennon)
Can't Buy Me Love
Eight Days a Week (with Lennon)
Ticket to Ride (with Lennon doing most of the work on this one, although Paul thought of the awesome drum part)
I'm Looking Through You (with Lennon)
We Can Work it Out (with Lennon)
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (that's right, one of his first songs after replacing the "the real Paul" was this!!)
With a Little Help From My Friends (with Lennon)
When I'm Sixty-Four
A Day in the Life (with Lennon)
Maxwell's Silver Hammer
Martha My Dear
Let it Be
The Long and Winding Road
Faul's solo work (many, many, many albums, by the way):
Silly Love Songs
Let 'em in
Ebony and Ivory
Say Say Say (with Michael Jackson)
Ever Present Past
Live and Let Die
I noticed a few things... Before 1966, most of his songs were very traditional, 1950s-style rock-and-roll ditties. Also, he had a little help from his friends -- John Lennon co-wrote most of the songs before he "died." The only hits he wrote himself before '66 were "Yesterday", "Eleanor Rigby", "Yellow Submarine" and "Can't Buy Me Love".
I also noticed that Faul seems to be a pretty awesome songwriter. "Blackbird," "Let it Be," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," "Helter Skelter," "Ob-La-Di," etc. And his voice and musical style is still quite similar to the pre-1966 style, although the songs are more innovative.
Also, I noticed that their songs started getting deeper and more harmonically complex around 1965 and 1966, with "Eleanor Rigby" and "Yellow Submarine" and the albums "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul." This means that the quality of the music getting better or worse does not line up with the year Paul allegedly died. Instead the music was gradually getting better and better, peaking in 1968 and 1969, I would say. This might have something to do with new musical innovations as the years progressed, the fact that they were visiting different countries and the fact that they had started to smoke marijuana (1964) and do acid (1965). I think the more valid argument is not that losing Paul in a car crash ruined their further music, but that doing weed and acid in the mid-sixties made them write much better music!
In fact, if I had to choose between losing all the pre-1966 Beatles songs or all the post-1966 Beatles songs, I think I would get rid of the original Paul stuff.
In short, if McCartney died and was replaced by a look-a-like, I like the new guy better.