Will there ever be a "normal" tour?
-
I hope when Paul tours NEW, we get a major setlist change. He pretty much has been touring the same setlist for as long as I can think back. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE every song, but I think we have all had enough of Let Me Roll It, Live and Let Die, and Jet. We literally don't get any songs added to the setlist from 1982 (except for Here Today) to present. Sometimes, like rarely, we hear Calico Skies during some sound checks today. It was on the setlist for 09 Summer Tour, but I'm pretty sure that's been the last time he has played it live continuously if I'm not mistaken. Occasionally it's played during soundcheck, but that's about it. He tried adding Hope of Deliverance back in Orlando, but took it out. I get that he plays music he wants he "thinks" his fans would want to hear, but Paul gets too insecure with his song choices for tours. IF he is only going to play A song from Tug of War or Flaming Pie, he should change it up a bit! There are sooo many good songs from those albums!!! Wanderlust, Tug of War, Young Boy, Little Willow and Beautiful Night!!!! AND as for Flowers In The Dirt? Put It There would perfect to add to the show!! There is a tribute to everybody except for Paul's father, Jim. And I think songs off Off The Ground have a total NEW meaning in society today. These songs would be perfect for today's audiences. "C'mon People let the world begin, we've got a future and it's rushing in" says a lot about society today and the changes we are seeing and experiencing. Even "Looking for Changes" is a fast rocker song that Paul could play towards the beginning of the show to keep the audience on their feet. Even though it's about animal rights, I feel it has a double meaning regarding the world today. "Well, I tell you that we'll all be looking for changes, changes in the way we treat our fellow creatures. And we will learn how to grow, yeah when we're looking for changes." This would be such a good section for Paul to add on a NEW tour.. Acoustic Tribute bit: Early Days for John (we might be hearing this sooner than later) Put It There for Father Jim Little Willow for Maureen Starkey's Children We already have/had: My Love/Maybe I'm Amazed/Calico Skies for Linda Something for George Here Today/A Day In The Life/Give Peace A Chance for John Let It Be for Mother Mary Hey Jude for Julian A dream setlist for me would be this: Figure of Eight Save Us Looking For Changes Coming Up I've Had Enough Ever Present Past Got To Get You Into My Life Silly Love Songs This One I'll Get You Your Way All My Loving You Won't See Me Anyway Maybe I'm Amazed C'mon People The Long and Winding Road Winedark Open Sea We Can Work It Out The Song We Were Singing Early Days Put It There I Owe It All To You Young Boy Calico Skies Junk I Will Rocky Raccoon Mull of Kintyre Daytime Nighttime Suffering Penny Lane She's A Woman My Brave Face Band On The Run Get Back Please Please Me That Day Is Done Pipes of Peace No Other Baby Till There Was You Back In The U.S.S.R. Queenie Eye Lady Madonna Magical Mystery Tour New Ballroom Dancing Let It Be Hey Jude Encore: Tug of War Yesterday (Give My Regards to Broad Street Medley) Here, There, and Everywhere (Give My Regards to Broad Street Medley) Wanderlust (Give My Regards to Broad Street Medley) Encore: No More Lonely Nights Beautiful Night The End Ok I know I went way past Paul's usual setlist count, but I couldn't control myself lol
-
hengirl:
audi:
Didn't Bowie's new album just debut at No. 1?
It did but i think the world thought Bowie had retired
I'm not sure the emotional 'side' stories always parlays into good chart success - I recall after Linda died, many folks thought Paul was done, if not making music, then at least performing life ever again...when he announced the tour (which became the Back in the US tour) and supporting album (Driving Rain), there was a lot of positive chatter...well, in hindsight, while the tour was most definitely a success, the new wave of post Linda publicity couldn't get Driving Rain over the 'chart success' hump (although to be fair, some of Paul's side projects leading up to that point - Run Devil Run, Wingspan, and the second fireman release - did well in various charts)
-
What I don't understand is this: Doesn't any of Paul's minions ever read what we write on this forum about wanting more solo songs in concert?! We've been harping on this on the forum for, what? 11 years? Are they too afraid to tell him what we think? :
-
Nancy R:
What I don't understand is this: Doesn't any of Paul's minions ever read what we write on this forum about wanting more solo songs in concert?! We've been harping on this on the forum for, what? 11 years? Are they too afraid to tell him what we think? :
When you're playing 50,000 seat stadiums, you don't design your set lists around what a few hundred of your most rabid fans think. Paul's been pretty explicit about his philosophy re: designing set lists. Much as I wish it would change, I don't expect it to.
-
Bruce M.:
Nancy R:
What I don't understand is this: Doesn't any of Paul's minions ever read what we write on this forum about wanting more solo songs in concert?! We've been harping on this on the forum for, what? 11 years? Are they too afraid to tell him what we think? :
When you're playing 50,000 seat stadiums, you don't design your set lists around what a few hundred of your most rabid fans think. Paul's been pretty explicit about his philosophy re: designing set lists. Much as I wish it would change, I don't expect it to.
That's almost exactly what Roger Daltrey said ( in Rolling Stone) about next years planned tour by The Who: "The Who spent the last couple of years playing Quadrophenia throughout America and Europe, but next time out they will center the show around their vast catalog of hits. "People don't want new stuff," says Daltrey. "The fans might want that, but most people that want to come to a show want to hear what they grew up with. Let's not kid ourselves. We will always sell more tickets if we play the hits. That's a fact. The economics of the road, obviously, demand that you sell a lot of tickets." Fans hoping to hear the Who break out rarities like The Who by Numbers deep cut "Slip Kid" are going to be disappointed. "It's easy for fans to stick their heads in the sand and not understand the economics of touring," Daltrey says. "It's incredibly expensive to put on a show, so you have to put buns in seats. There might be 40,000 total people in America who want to hear 'Slip Kid.' That won't be enough to put us on the road. That's the problem." Daltrey also said if The Who make a new record and decide to play new songs they will do so in separate shows and advertise them so people will know what to expect. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-who-to-launch-last-big-tour-in-2015-20131029 Daltrey is almost certainly right about both the expenses involved in touring and the majority of ticket buyers wanting to hear the hits ( although it's curious the way he refers to " the fans" as somehow different to the other "people" who will be at the shows!) However why would Daltrey be bothered about the expense of touring? He's worth hundreds of millions so it won't matter a bit if The Who toured and didn't make millions ( it wouldn't even matter if they lost millions!) The same applies to McCartney-there's no reason at all why he has to play massive venues and if he does it doesn't matter if the shows don't sell-Paul has even less of an excuse than The Who because he has so many well known songs that he doesn't play whereas The Who have a smaller catalogue to draw from. I remember an interview with Paul Simon from a few years ago-he said every tour he had done in recent times actually cost him a lot of money because the combination of music he wanted to play, the venues he wanted to play in and the cost of paying his band meant that even if every show sold out he would still lose money. He said he kept touring because he could afford to and loved to do it. I'm sure the occasional S&G stadium/arena tour helped him recoup losses but the point still stands! The question is why do The Who and Macca have to play massive venues and/or why do they care if the shows sell-out? They certainly don't need the money.
-
Good points streetlegal!
-
streetlegal:
Bruce M.:
Nancy R:
What I don't understand is this: Doesn't any of Paul's minions ever read what we write on this forum about wanting more solo songs in concert?! We've been harping on this on the forum for, what? 11 years? Are they too afraid to tell him what we think? :
When you're playing 50,000 seat stadiums, you don't design your set lists around what a few hundred of your most rabid fans think. Paul's been pretty explicit about his philosophy re: designing set lists. Much as I wish it would change, I don't expect it to.
That's almost exactly what Roger Daltrey said ( in Rolling Stone) about next years planned tour by The Who: "The Who spent the last couple of years playing Quadrophenia throughout America and Europe, but next time out they will center the show around their vast catalog of hits. "People don't want new stuff," says Daltrey. "The fans might want that, but most people that want to come to a show want to hear what they grew up with. Let's not kid ourselves. We will always sell more tickets if we play the hits. That's a fact. The economics of the road, obviously, demand that you sell a lot of tickets." Fans hoping to hear the Who break out rarities like The Who by Numbers deep cut "Slip Kid" are going to be disappointed. "It's easy for fans to stick their heads in the sand and not understand the economics of touring," Daltrey says. "It's incredibly expensive to put on a show, so you have to put buns in seats. There might be 40,000 total people in America who want to hear 'Slip Kid.' That won't be enough to put us on the road. That's the problem." Daltrey also said if The Who make a new record and decide to play new songs they will do so in separate shows and advertise them so people will know what to expect. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-who-to-launch-last-big-tour-in-2015-20131029 Daltrey is almost certainly right about both the expenses involved in touring and the majority of ticket buyers wanting to hear the hits ( although it's curious the way he refers to " the fans" as somehow different to the other "people" who will be at the shows!) However why would Daltrey be bothered about the expense of touring? He's worth hundreds of millions so it won't matter a bit if The Who toured and didn't make millions ( it wouldn't even matter if they lost millions!) The same applies to McCartney-there's no reason at all why he has to play massive venues and if he does it doesn't matter if the shows don't sell-Paul has even less of an excuse than The Who because he has so many well known songs that he doesn't play whereas The Who have a smaller catalogue to draw from. I remember an interview with Paul Simon from a few years ago-he said every tour he had done in recent times actually cost him a lot of money because the combination of music he wanted to play, the venues he wanted to play in and the cost of paying his band meant that even if every show sold out he would still lose money. He said he kept touring because he could afford to and loved to do it. I'm sure the occasional S&G stadium/arena tour helped him recoup losses but the point still stands! The question is why do The Who and Macca have to play massive venues and/or why do they care if the shows sell-out? They certainly don't need the money.
I have used this argument asking why McCartney can't play smaller markets like New Mexico. Yes, I know he has a high asking price, but why can't he take a "cut in pay" and come play in Albuquerque? Usually people will respond saying "He is Paul McCartney, he needs to get paid the most" Or "His production is very expensive." Only McCartney knows. It's probably in how the numbers are crunched. Paul Simon plays smaller venues, not arenas or stadiums. And his staging is just him, his band, and some lights and a PA. And Simon uses the venues stage and such. McCartney travels with a HUGE stage that needs to be moved from venue to venue, with his own lights, sound system, caterer, etc. MUCH more expensive. I don't see McCartney doing what Simon does. But he could strip things down and do a compromise, in a good way I mean. How about an all arena show with great lights and sound, but that's it? And great songs. 50% hits and 50% new and obscure songs.
-
And get rid of that damn stage that rises up and makes him much further away for 98% of the show!
-
Nancy R:
And get rid of that damn stage that rises up and makes him much further away for 98% of the show!
McCartney does NOT NEED these stage tricks! He is cool enough on his own!