The Stones only came into this discussion because a poster felt the need to drag them in for some reason, seemingly only to complain about them or say how they don't stack up to Paul. Nothing to do with the topic. Would've been halfway relevant if there was mention of how *their* setlist changes (or doesn't) but it wasn't. We're all here because we're McCartney fans - what some of us have a problem with is why mention of anyone else seems to be taken as a slight on Paul or that no one else can be as good in concert, etc. It's not a contest - these "discussions" are on a par with "my dad can beat up your dad" ones you have when you're five years old. Paul was literally everything once upon a time in my life but at 49, that's not possible any longer, nor would I want it to be. My main issue with any of this was that as (I hope!) music lovers, to hear a musician and/or band with 50+ years performing under his/their belt get slagged off as being "just OK" is absurd. One might not be into it on that day - or at all - but it's a gross insult and flat out disrespectful unless it was genuinely an off-night, in which case, simply state that instead. If I invited a non-Paul fan to one of his shows, I wouldn't expect them to love it all (despite my obviously trying to convince them they should!) so I wouldn't be upset on that front. I *would* however be upset if they said it was "just OK" because that implies something was pretty wrong musically/performance-wise throughout the entire show, which is practically an impossibility with the level of expertise and professionalism that goes into these performances. It's how any of them have managed to sustain the hugely successful careers they've had - and continue to have. Respect to all of them! (And less of the hyperbole re "unrecognizability of songs" - not true anyway but if you're going to go there, I'll try not to drag what Paul did to Give Peace A Chance into this!)
