OK........I Wikipedia'd it.......5 by 5 means the best of the best; I understand you completely, and "Loud and Clear". Alrighty then Even though it was before my time, L-7 made sense.
I hate remakes.....they never measure up. But this isn't TOO bad...I guess. @nyimtman....i know this is dumb, but exactly what does "5 by 5" mean? I've heard it, but not the definition. Sorry. I'm getting old, I guess.
this is nice but, for me the magic of this song was, this was an anthem for sweethearts. i lived this story, with this song, at that time. making it through high school together, then getting married. so when i listen to this song, every musical note and vocal part need to be just the way it was. anything less is not enough. even looking into Jill Jackson's eyes, is like i'm looking into my sweetheart's eyes, and that cute, condfident smile of hers seals the deal.
This performance is very nice. ....the dude is cool and handsome and the girl is very pretty has a great voice ....love her......You cannot compare to the original as people usually do. This is a cover sung by beautiful artists.
Having heard a 'ton' of remakes of this duet, I have to agree with cowboys4evr56, the original is not only better, but the voices 'fit' the song and the time period of the song so much better. I remember trying to find a 'Paula' to sing this to.
Think they should have stayed with the original arrangement, disagree with other comment here the girl looks the part and has a nice (sweet) voice, appropriate for the song. It's the backing vocals that spoil an otherwise good performance,
This is much dreamier version of the original 1953 blockbuster hit. Actually, the boy singing Paul's part is doing a nice job; however, the girl here is a far cry from Jill Jackson, the original "Paula."
wtf its hey hey not hey hey hey hey hey .....
MrKrazykev13 1 month ago
Just watched the original on you tube. This was a great attempt. Nice to see there's still an apreciation for real music.
jpete54 2 months ago
So schön
Eckat67 2 months ago
thanks for sharing this video, it's a nice rendition and continues the spirit in which music like this was meant to be enjoyed.
dray9591 2 months ago
hehe my names paula :). my boyfreind plyed this song to me the other day the little cutie
pandababyism 2 months ago
5 X 5 was a term used in short wave radio. it referred to the signal and audio quality. 5 X 5 was the best of both.
killsalive1 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Is it just me or do all Paula's hate this song how early in 80 did this come out is thi where my name came from??
froggy8030 2 months ago
OK........I Wikipedia'd it.......5 by 5 means the best of the best; I understand you completely, and "Loud and Clear". Alrighty then Even though it was before my time, L-7 made sense.
=)
Storm~
TxStorm1 2 months ago
I hate remakes.....they never measure up. But this isn't TOO bad...I guess. @nyimtman....i know this is dumb, but exactly what does "5 by 5" mean? I've heard it, but not the definition. Sorry. I'm getting old, I guess.
TxStorm1 2 months ago
EXCELLENT, 5 BY 5
nyimtman 2 months ago
as good as paul and paula
lillyfairies 2 months ago
men, always remember. under that incredible, gorgeous, awesome, beautiful, amazing, outstanding, godesslike exterior is a woman.
killsalive1 3 months ago
this is nice but, for me the magic of this song was, this was an anthem for sweethearts. i lived this story, with this song, at that time. making it through high school together, then getting married. so when i listen to this song, every musical note and vocal part need to be just the way it was. anything less is not enough. even looking into Jill Jackson's eyes, is like i'm looking into my sweetheart's eyes, and that cute, condfident smile of hers seals the deal.
damanfrom808 4 months ago
@damanfrom808 awwwww that is soooooooooo sweet gl to u both xxx
noosmum 4 months ago
I love this! The original is amazing, but this is very good too!
72DBRONCO 6 months ago
Those people comparing this unfavourably with the original recording should consider that this was being sung live on mainstream UK TV.
leoseries57 6 months ago
awful
rockville34 7 months ago
very very nice.
lydma1946 7 months ago
:]
KittyMeow14522 7 months ago
Beautiful
Lizziesmypet 1 year ago
horrible
SilverLakeDaze 1 year ago 3
great job... nice performance
Tennille55 1 year ago
this is sweet but not the same as the original! It's like comparing the Ronnettes with the Crystals. Nope.
2lovs4music 1 year ago
This performance is very nice. ....the dude is cool and handsome and the girl is very pretty has a great voice ....love her......You cannot compare to the original as people usually do. This is a cover sung by beautiful artists.
ragazzocasalino 1 year ago
beautiful cover
peppinogar 1 year ago
Very bad. Original rules.
alfqueiroz 1 year ago 3
nope nope nope u cant mimmic the pashion on the real video the voices were better in the original and they seemed more pashinet... :D
Missappletoffee 1 year ago
I think the girl farted at 1:02.
ThePattycake1313 1 year ago
the originals allways are better but i think these two did a great job of it. well done.
kingsfleet21 1 year ago
Fantastic cover,
DeffLeopard 1 year ago
Lovely song! I like so much! Great video!
marioluiz86 1 year ago
They sing it beautifully and the girl IS beautiful. It was a luck 'Paul' who got this 'Paula'!
TBirdNeil 2 years ago
are these two kidding me?
arizonaghost1 2 years ago
Having heard a 'ton' of remakes of this duet, I have to agree with cowboys4evr56, the original is not only better, but the voices 'fit' the song and the time period of the song so much better. I remember trying to find a 'Paula' to sing this to.
I love the original version.
SquireWill 2 years ago
the original
is better
cowboys4evr56 2 years ago 34
@cowboys4evr56 -----> much better!!!
painkiller2102 3 months ago
Ponders......Yep - you are - (a wally). lol.
Ms531774 2 years ago
im a wally too so people SAY
ruisliptarts 2 years ago
Great job, Wally!
thebigfist 2 years ago
Think they should have stayed with the original arrangement, disagree with other comment here the girl looks the part and has a nice (sweet) voice, appropriate for the song. It's the backing vocals that spoil an otherwise good performance,
theeuropean 2 years ago
This is much dreamier version of the original 1953 blockbuster hit. Actually, the boy singing Paul's part is doing a nice job; however, the girl here is a far cry from Jill Jackson, the original "Paula."
kurtsupreme 2 years ago
I meant to say 1963!
kurtsupreme 2 years ago
...WELL... !!!
nitti646464 2 years ago
If you cant be the original,steer clear would be my advice..sorry..
petrakimou 2 years ago
very good version of the 1963 hit....what excellent voices...thanks wallystreet 1
tonyhgv 2 years ago 4