McCartney Concert Newspaper reviews
-
Thanks Yankeefan. I will definitely be checking the reviews (and Setlist) for the Miami show as that will set the tone for this whole US leg. Like you, I'm not expecting many changes. If it is just a couple of Beatle changes (maybe a couple of Sgt. Pepper era additions) and that is it, then it will make my decision easy for me. No Tampa and none of the NJ/NY area shows. Let's hope that he surprises us.
-
B J Conlee:
Thanks Yankeefan. I will definitely be checking the reviews (and Setlist) for the Miami show as that will set the tone for this whole US leg. Like you, I'm not expecting many changes. If it is just a couple of Beatle changes (maybe a couple of Sgt. Pepper era additions) and that is it, then it will make my decision easy for me. No Tampa and none of the NJ/NY area shows. Let's hope that he surprises us.
Actually I am more into this thread from a journalistic point of view. I want to read and see if the reviewer actually does some research. For example, will they totally buy into the hype that the set list spans his entire career or will they point out the decades he totally has ignored in his set list and how few songs there are from after 1980.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Thanks Yankeefan. I will definitely be checking the reviews (and Setlist) for the Miami show as that will set the tone for this whole US leg. Like you, I'm not expecting many changes. If it is just a couple of Beatle changes (maybe a couple of Sgt. Pepper era additions) and that is it, then it will make my decision easy for me. No Tampa and none of the NJ/NY area shows. Let's hope that he surprises us.
Actually I am more into this thread from a journalistic point of view. I want to read and see if the reviewer actually does some research. For example, will they totally buy into the hype that the set list spans his entire career or will they point out the decades he totally has ignored in his set list and how few songs there are from after 1980.
____________________________________________________ Just going by my memory of the 2016 US reviews, it seemed as the writers were more in "awe" of seeing an actual "Beatle" than bringing any actual research to the concert or songs played. I kind of remember a few reviews that mentioned his voice difficulties on some songs but on the whole they were pretty generous with their praise as a whole. Not sure we will get much different this Summer although the bigger markets might be harder on the status of Paul's voice especially if he has difficulties. Unfortunately I think most of the writers (even those that are younger music critics) know relatively little about Paul's Solo career (after 1980) so I doubt we will see much criticism over the lack of songs from the larger portion time wise of his musical career....e.g. lack of songs from the 80's, 90's and 2000's. To me it's a shame that many of these writers don't know songs from FITD, Off the Ground, Flaming Pie, Driving Rain, Chaos, MAF etc. As we know, Paul has contributed to this lack of knowledge. It will be interesting to see if there are a few critics that are actually knowledgable or do some research in critiquing his shows objectively.
-
Yankeefan, Just read the 2 main reviews from the Miami show last night. Not surprisint, neither review and the writers ever mention some of the subjects that you were hoping to see. They were very positive about the audience (the latest review emphasized the overwhelming % of baby boomers in the crowd) reaction and Paul's energy especially at his age. Conversely, you could tell that both writers don't really follow Paul and what his shows have now become. Hardly a mention of setlist duplication from his recent tours or his general lack of coverage of his Solo Career. Also not much on hearing the same stories relative to his onstage chatter. I think we will have to wait to the New York shows to find any really knowledgable music critics/reviews of this current tour and any constructive criticism of his way too repetitive shows.
-
B J Conlee:
Yankeefan, Just read the 2 main reviews from the Miami show last night. Not surprisint, neither review and the writers ever mention some of the subjects that you were hoping to see. They were very positive about the audience (the latest review emphasized the overwhelming % of baby boomers in the crowd) reaction and Paul's energy especially at his age. Conversely, you could tell that both writers don't really follow Paul and what his shows have now become. Hardly a mention of setlist duplication from his recent tours or his general lack of coverage of his Solo Career. Also not much on hearing the same stories relative to his onstage chatter. I think we will have to wait to the New York shows to find any really knowledgable music critics/reviews of this current tour and any constructive criticism of his way too repetitive shows.
Yep because most of these type reviewers never do any research for the most part. They get swept up in the "oh my God", it is a Beatle" and never critically analyze the show. Obviously, the Beatle songs and the boomers reaction should be part of the review but not the only thing. A true journalist would not only mention that but write about his voice, the band, his in between song stories and of course the selection of songs. At least in NY area, you will usually get reviewer who has actually seen him play before and will generally take a more critical view of the show. BTW - take a look at the "What's More Unfortunate" thread, OP seems to be taking a shot at people like you and me ( we are whiners - lol). Check out my response.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Yankeefan, Just read the 2 main reviews from the Miami show last night. Not surprisint, neither review and the writers ever mention some of the subjects that you were hoping to see. They were very positive about the audience (the latest review emphasized the overwhelming % of baby boomers in the crowd) reaction and Paul's energy especially at his age. Conversely, you could tell that both writers don't really follow Paul and what his shows have now become. Hardly a mention of setlist duplication from his recent tours or his general lack of coverage of his Solo Career. Also not much on hearing the same stories relative to his onstage chatter. I think we will have to wait to the New York shows to find any really knowledgable music critics/reviews of this current tour and any constructive criticism of his way too repetitive shows.
Yep because most of these type reviewers never do any research for the most part. They get swept up in the "oh my God", it is a Beatle" and never critically analyze the show. Obviously, the Beatle songs and the boomers reaction should be part of the review but not the only thing. A true journalist would not only mention that but write about his voice, the band, his in between song stories and of course the selection of songs. At least in NY area, you will usually get reviewer who has actually seen him play before and will generally take a more critical view of the show. BTW - take a look at the "What's More Unfortunate" thread, OP seems to be taking a shot at people like you and me ( we are whiners - lol). Check out my response.
______________________________________________________ Yankeefan, will do. I made a similar reply on the Miami thread a little while ago.
-
B J Conlee:
Yankeefan, Just read the 2 main reviews from the Miami show last night. Not surprisint, neither review and the writers ever mention some of the subjects that you were hoping to see. They were very positive about the audience (the latest review emphasized the overwhelming % of baby boomers in the crowd) reaction and Paul's energy especially at his age. Conversely, you could tell that both writers don't really follow Paul and what his shows have now become. Hardly a mention of setlist duplication from his recent tours or his general lack of coverage of his Solo Career. Also not much on hearing the same stories relative to his onstage chatter. I think we will have to wait to the New York shows to find any really knowledgable music critics/reviews of this current tour and any constructive criticism of his way too repetitive shows.
Finally got around to reading the Miami show reviews I believed you read. The one from Ben Crandell (South Florida) was the better of the two I read. He mentioned McCartney's voice (thinner and did not strain too much on the highs and lows of MIA) which is something that needs to be mentioned in any review of a concert. He gave shout out to the band and mentioned them by name and the instrument they played which was good to see. He mentioned the stories he told like for "Blackbird" and to the casual fan reading the review will never know it is story than has been repeated hundreds of times. Much to your dismay and mine, he said the crowd seemed to like "45 seconds" so I guess that is now a keeper - lol. he also said that maybe some of the production enhancements were during "Live And Let Die", wondering if is any different now. Overall IMO a decent review but like you said he probably has no knowledge of recent McCartney tours.
-
-
Another Tampa review, this from Herald-Tribune: http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20170711/review-paul-mccartney-delights-sold-out-crowd-in-tampa
-
I have seen a few more honest reviews from Duluth and Bossier City (last night's show) where the writers do speak of Paul struggles with singing MIA. These reviews have also been listing all of Paul's Band members and how good they are. Yankee fan would love this one. From last night's show from KTAL, a local TV station. Their brief article starts out with this Paul description "Former Beatle turned Solo Artist..." I guess someone should inform them that Paul has been a Solo artist (even if you start in 1980 and Post Wings) for like 37 years. If you just go with his Post Beatles career, it has been 47 years. Unfortunatey, that is the kind of respect that Paul's Solo career often gets.
-
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake. The Boston Globe review hit a couple of spots that myself and a few others mentioned, see below. I think this review and others show that most reviews are written by fanboys/girls or at the very least they are just charmed by Mr. McCartney. You can tell in all reviews that they are trying to be as upbeat as possible. "Those who claim McCartney's not lost a note of his estimable range do him no favors by exaggerating. You notice the weather that's come into his singing in exposed moments, even as you marvel at his undimmed skill on piano, bass, and guitar." "If you've seen McCartney on his recent tours, like those that set Fenway attendance records in 2009 and 2013, you recognized half of the set list here, or more: big production numbers like "Band on the Run," "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Live and Let Die," and "Hey Jude," as well as subtler numbers like "Here Today" in honor of John Lennon, and "Something" on ukulele in George Harrison's memory." The Newark Star Ledger review was ok but pretty much the standard McCartney review. A brief mention that the band was very "tight" and supplied backup vocals. Review stated he played 38 songs but never mentioned how few were after 1980. Mentioned a few stories he told between songs but it is the same stuff he has been saying for years for the most part. Reviewer made note of the rising platform which was not there for the Metlife concert in summer of 2016. Thought is was funny that the reviewer mentioned McCartney's remark about the crowd reaction to a new song since the newest song he plays is 4 years old unless you count "45 seconds". No mention of his vocal performance which really should be in ever review of a concert. My goodness, don't you want to know the quality of the vocals of the songs that were sung - oh well.
Most NY area reviews recently have been pretty much the standard McCartney reviews. The Syracuse one from last night gets big time shout out for it's detail about McCartney's band. Kudos were given to Abe for not only his fine drumming but covering for McCartney on the high notes of songs. Reviewer did make note that McCartney winces and cracks in the higher register. Reviewer complimented Wix for his aural wizardry on his computer keyboard and masterful takes on accordion and harmonica. Rusty got shout out for his "romantic" acoustic flourishes on "My Valentine. I love when reviewer does this because it means they really were at the show and not just "phoning" in a typical McCartney review. I also loved it when the reviewer mentioned how grumpy Dylan was at a recent show there and how much more affable McCartney is in concert. Also, it was noted that there is only a years difference between the two but review said he seems like McCartney is half Dylan's age - lol.
-
yankeefan7:
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake. The Boston Globe review hit a couple of spots that myself and a few others mentioned, see below. I think this review and others show that most reviews are written by fanboys/girls or at the very least they are just charmed by Mr. McCartney. You can tell in all reviews that they are trying to be as upbeat as possible. "Those who claim McCartney's not lost a note of his estimable range do him no favors by exaggerating. You notice the weather that's come into his singing in exposed moments, even as you marvel at his undimmed skill on piano, bass, and guitar." "If you've seen McCartney on his recent tours, like those that set Fenway attendance records in 2009 and 2013, you recognized half of the set list here, or more: big production numbers like "Band on the Run," "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Live and Let Die," and "Hey Jude," as well as subtler numbers like "Here Today" in honor of John Lennon, and "Something" on ukulele in George Harrison's memory." The Newark Star Ledger review was ok but pretty much the standard McCartney review. A brief mention that the band was very "tight" and supplied backup vocals. Review stated he played 38 songs but never mentioned how few were after 1980. Mentioned a few stories he told between songs but it is the same stuff he has been saying for years for the most part. Reviewer made note of the rising platform which was not there for the Metlife concert in summer of 2016. Thought is was funny that the reviewer mentioned McCartney's remark about the crowd reaction to a new song since the newest song he plays is 4 years old unless you count "45 seconds". No mention of his vocal performance which really should be in ever review of a concert. My goodness, don't you want to know the quality of the vocals of the songs that were sung - oh well.
Most NY area reviews recently have been pretty much the standard McCartney reviews. The Syracuse one from last night gets big time shout out for it's detail about McCartney's band. Kudos were given to Abe for not only his fine drumming but covering for McCartney on the high notes of songs. Reviewer did make note that McCartney winces and cracks in the higher register. Reviewer complimented Wix for his aural wizardry on his computer keyboard and masterful takes on accordion and harmonica. Rusty got shout out for his "romantic" acoustic flourishes on "My Valentine. I love when reviewer does this because it means they really were at the show and not just "phoning" in a typical McCartney review. I also loved it when the reviewer mentioned how grumpy Dylan was at a recent show there and how much more affable McCartney is in concert. Also, it was noted that there is only a years difference between the two but review said he seems like McCartney is half Dylan's age - lol.
__________________________________________________________ Great post Yankeefan. I just read the Syracuse review before I saw your comments and couldn't agree more. As you said, you knew that the reviewer was at the show and put a lot of effort to write a honest review. Pointing out the individual members of Pauls Band and their specific contributions is something I have rarely seen in recent and past reviews. Kudos to the reviewer here. While still thinking how much better Paul's shows could be for the "true" fans, there is still this remarkable enthusiasm that Paul brings to his concerts that is breathtaking. You wonder how he still has this ability while singing the same songs for countless shows. For the 1st timers it is like he is singing those signature songs for the 1st time. However, after seeing the setlist at the end of this article it still makes me wonder how much better McCartney shows could be for the true fans who continue to buy his Solo CD's. There are so many songs I only wished Paul would have done live over the last 15 years. Many of those songs are from his criminally underrated SOLO career from Tug of War onward that have never or very rarely been performed. Just wish he appreciated his Solo Career as much as you and I do. As this reviewer points out about the vocal skill level of this Band (especially Abe) is, Paul could have made these shows far more truly representative of his entire career especially from 1982 to the present. It shouldn't matter to Paul that the Solo songs don't get the Beatle like frenzy from the audience. The real point is that Paul would be playing a large number of Solo songs that should be far better known. Just doing these songs would be heard (post concert) by the masses through U Tube videos and other channels. That is what I would think Paul should be more concerned with. But I guess for the 1st timers and very casual fans who grew up with Beatles' music, Paul's current concerts are a dream come true.
-
yankeefan7:
I also loved it when the reviewer mentioned how grumpy Dylan was at a recent show there and how much more affable McCartney is in concert. Also, it was noted that there is only a years difference between the two but review said he seems like McCartney is half Dylan's age - lol.
That part cracked me up because I've come to use Paul and Bob as exemplars of opposite ends of the audience engagement spectrum. Paul puts most of his effort throughout the show into making sure every person in the crowd is engaged; Bob seems to hover between active disdain of his crowd and oblivion of their existence. Paul encourages photos & videos and even jokes about phone lights; Bob bans phones altogether when he can. I think it's great because their styles perfectly match the public personas they've always had. Interestingly, they take similar approaches to their setlists, with a lot having become standardized and only little changes during multi-show runs. I'll keep seeing Bob because he and the band do sound really good and, well, it's Bob Dylan, but there is just no comparison to the kind of shows Paul puts on, how exciting, energetic, elaborate, and even long (in a good way!) they are. Oh, and I'll note that the flipside is that Bob's tickets tend to be much less expensive, and he plays more intimate venues much more often.
-
I would not walk across the street to see a Bob Dylan concert! (Well, maybe if it was free!)
-
AcresOfFun:
yankeefan7:
I also loved it when the reviewer mentioned how grumpy Dylan was at a recent show there and how much more affable McCartney is in concert. Also, it was noted that there is only a years difference between the two but review said he seems like McCartney is half Dylan's age - lol.
That part cracked me up because I've come to use Paul and Bob as exemplars of opposite ends of the audience engagement spectrum. Paul puts most of his effort throughout the show into making sure every person in the crowd is engaged; Bob seems to hover between active disdain of his crowd and oblivion of their existence. Paul encourages photos & videos and even jokes about phone lights; Bob bans phones altogether when he can. I think it's great because their styles perfectly match the public personas they've always had. Interestingly, they take similar approaches to their setlists, with a lot having become standardized and only little changes during multi-show runs. I'll keep seeing Bob because he and the band do sound really good and, well, it's Bob Dylan, but there is just no comparison to the kind of shows Paul puts on, how exciting, energetic, elaborate, and even long (in a good way!) they are. Oh, and I'll note that the flipside is that Bob's tickets tend to be much less expensive, and he plays more intimate venues much more often.
______________________________________________________________ Another great post AcresofFun. I have always admired Bob Dylan's tremendous talent especially as one of the greatest songwriters in the modern era and I would attend one of his concerts as long as the price wasn't super high. I would however probably find Dylan's "performing" skills rather boring and stark which isn't the main reason you normally seek for your entertainment dollars. That being said, I would go just for the unbelievable talent the man possesses. The other thing I really like about Mr. Dylan is that he went totally against the grain in his fairly recent Rollingstone article when asked about the Beatles and specifically Paul. Fulling realizing that a large percentage of Rollingstone's readership are not big Macca fans (they tend to be more "rocker" types and would favor John's music and politics) he went out of his way complementing the tremendous talents that Paul possesses. Bob even said that Paul was the only living current artist that he is in "awe of". I liked that about Bob...he wasn't giving the standard cliche type answers about the individual Beatles that other musicians who don't have 10% of Bob's talent often give. Now getting to the total "contrast" that Paul's shows give to the audience compared to Mr. Dylan's. I love the way Paul demonstrates that in many ways he is just an everyday type of person despite having all that talent. I like the way Paul engages his audience and the way he personalizes his shows especially all of the special "tributes" he gives to his "love ones" that have passed. I once saw the Stones in Concert in Philadelphia about 8 years ago. It was a great show and you could tell how Mick and Keith's total teamt took great pains in creating a terrific show playing all the hits. Mick had a whole bunch of great backup singers that really disguised his current vocal abilities. The show really "recreates" very well the studio sound of their hit singles. But I would personally take Paul's shows over the Stones any day of the week because Mick and Keith came across as "Rock Gods" the entire concert. They didn't engage with the audience in the least bit. I personally prefer when a great artist who, at the end of the concert, you feel like you really "know" them. As I said in my earlier post, Paul is fantastic at engaging the audience and being very "real". He doesn't come across as a Rock and Roll God in any way. My only criticism of Paul's shows (as I, Yankeefan and a few others have consistently pointed out) is his Setlists. For the hard core fans like many on this Site, Paul just duplicates too many of the songs for my taste. Too many non-signature songs gets played time and time again at the expense of "neglected" great songs from his Solo career. I want more variety. And when he does make changes, they are normally of the recycled variety instead of brand new additions. If Paul would only spend more time with perfecting a setlist that is truly representative of his entire career, than a fan like me would be totally satisfied. And I mean with each new tour and even within new "legs" of the given tour that becomes too lengthy He has such a great prolific Catalog and each time certain parts of his full career get totally ignored. I didn't attend one of his shows on this leg of the One-On-One (when I easily could have) because of his lack of change. Adding more "neglected" Solo songs with each new tour would also make Paul's on stage banter much better. A good example is Paul's continued playing of "Let Me Roll It". I loved the song early on...Wing's Over America tour, the 2002 tour etc. but it has been played to death at the expense of other great Post Beatles's songs he has never or very rarely played. Then, of course, as a veteran of attending Paul's shows, you get the same Jimi Hendrix story each time. And there are other examples like this as well. That is pretty much my main complaint of Paul's shows. Too much duplication and subsequent same stories. Otherwise, he puts on a fantastic concert and definitely worth the money especially for first timers and casual fans.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake. The Boston Globe review hit a couple of spots that myself and a few others mentioned, see below. I think this review and others show that most reviews are written by fanboys/girls or at the very least they are just charmed by Mr. McCartney. You can tell in all reviews that they are trying to be as upbeat as possible. "Those who claim McCartney's not lost a note of his estimable range do him no favors by exaggerating. You notice the weather that's come into his singing in exposed moments, even as you marvel at his undimmed skill on piano, bass, and guitar." "If you've seen McCartney on his recent tours, like those that set Fenway attendance records in 2009 and 2013, you recognized half of the set list here, or more: big production numbers like "Band on the Run," "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Live and Let Die," and "Hey Jude," as well as subtler numbers like "Here Today" in honor of John Lennon, and "Something" on ukulele in George Harrison's memory." The Newark Star Ledger review was ok but pretty much the standard McCartney review. A brief mention that the band was very "tight" and supplied backup vocals. Review stated he played 38 songs but never mentioned how few were after 1980. Mentioned a few stories he told between songs but it is the same stuff he has been saying for years for the most part. Reviewer made note of the rising platform which was not there for the Metlife concert in summer of 2016. Thought is was funny that the reviewer mentioned McCartney's remark about the crowd reaction to a new song since the newest song he plays is 4 years old unless you count "45 seconds". No mention of his vocal performance which really should be in ever review of a concert. My goodness, don't you want to know the quality of the vocals of the songs that were sung - oh well.
Most NY area reviews recently have been pretty much the standard McCartney reviews. The Syracuse one from last night gets big time shout out for it's detail about McCartney's band. Kudos were given to Abe for not only his fine drumming but covering for McCartney on the high notes of songs. Reviewer did make note that McCartney winces and cracks in the higher register. Reviewer complimented Wix for his aural wizardry on his computer keyboard and masterful takes on accordion and harmonica. Rusty got shout out for his "romantic" acoustic flourishes on "My Valentine. I love when reviewer does this because it means they really were at the show and not just "phoning" in a typical McCartney review. I also loved it when the reviewer mentioned how grumpy Dylan was at a recent show there and how much more affable McCartney is in concert. Also, it was noted that there is only a years difference between the two but review said he seems like McCartney is half Dylan's age - lol.
__________________________________________________________ Great post Yankeefan. I just read the Syracuse review before I saw your comments and couldn't agree more. As you said, you knew that the reviewer was at the show and put a lot of effort to write a honest review. Pointing out the individual members of Pauls Band and their specific contributions is something I have rarely seen in recent and past reviews. Kudos to the reviewer here. While still thinking how much better Paul's shows could be for the "true" fans, there is still this remarkable enthusiasm that Paul brings to his concerts that is breathtaking. You wonder how he still has this ability while singing the same songs for countless shows. For the 1st timers it is like he is singing those signature songs for the 1st time. However, after seeing the setlist at the end of this article it still makes me wonder how much better McCartney shows could be for the true fans who continue to buy his Solo CD's. There are so many songs I only wished Paul would have done live over the last 15 years. Many of those songs are from his criminally underrated SOLO career from Tug of War onward that have never or very rarely been performed. Just wish he appreciated his Solo Career as much as you and I do. As this reviewer points out about the vocal skill level of this Band (especially Abe) is, Paul could have made these shows far more truly representative of his entire career especially from 1982 to the present. It shouldn't matter to Paul that the Solo songs don't get the Beatle like frenzy from the audience. The real point is that Paul would be playing a large number of Solo songs that should be far better known. Just doing these songs would be heard (post concert) by the masses through U Tube videos and other channels. That is what I would think Paul should be more concerned with. But I guess for the 1st timers and very casual fans who grew up with Beatles' music, Paul's current concerts are a dream come true.
Thanks BJ. The one thing I am waiting for and know it will not happen (lol) is for some reviewer to really analyze the McCartney setlist. You read about how it spans his entire career which is technically true but if you look hard enough so little of it is after 1981. In other words, it is basically an "oldies" show and they should just say it in the review. As for the solo songs, you know how much I agree with you. Like we both stated way too many times, he could satisfy the first timers with the 25 Beatle/Wings hits but just give us a few solo gems never played live in the remaining dozen songs. I don't get why it seems to get to him that some songs don't get the Beatle frenzy reaction. Maybe if he actually said something about some of these songs before he played them it might help the crowd get into it. All he does for the most part is say something like, "this is a new song" - lol.
-
B J Conlee:
AcresOfFun:
yankeefan7:
I also loved it when the reviewer mentioned how grumpy Dylan was at a recent show there and how much more affable McCartney is in concert. Also, it was noted that there is only a years difference between the two but review said he seems like McCartney is half Dylan's age - lol.
That part cracked me up because I've come to use Paul and Bob as exemplars of opposite ends of the audience engagement spectrum. Paul puts most of his effort throughout the show into making sure every person in the crowd is engaged; Bob seems to hover between active disdain of his crowd and oblivion of their existence. Paul encourages photos & videos and even jokes about phone lights; Bob bans phones altogether when he can. I think it's great because their styles perfectly match the public personas they've always had. Interestingly, they take similar approaches to their setlists, with a lot having become standardized and only little changes during multi-show runs. I'll keep seeing Bob because he and the band do sound really good and, well, it's Bob Dylan, but there is just no comparison to the kind of shows Paul puts on, how exciting, energetic, elaborate, and even long (in a good way!) they are. Oh, and I'll note that the flipside is that Bob's tickets tend to be much less expensive, and he plays more intimate venues much more often.
______________________________________________________________ Another great post AcresofFun. I have always admired Bob Dylan's tremendous talent especially as one of the greatest songwriters in the modern era and I would attend one of his concerts as long as the price wasn't super high. I would however probably find Dylan's "performing" skills rather boring and stark which isn't the main reason you normally seek for your entertainment dollars. That being said, I would go just for the unbelievable talent the man possesses. The other thing I really like about Mr. Dylan is that he went totally against the grain in his fairly recent Rollingstone article when asked about the Beatles and specifically Paul. Fulling realizing that a large percentage of Rollingstone's readership are not big Macca fans (they tend to be more "rocker" types and would favor John's music and politics) he went out of his way complementing the tremendous talents that Paul possesses. Bob even said that Paul was the only living current artist that he is in "awe of". I liked that about Bob...he wasn't giving the standard cliche type answers about the individual Beatles that other musicians who don't have 10% of Bob's talent often give. Now getting to the total "contrast" that Paul's shows give to the audience compared to Mr. Dylan's. I love the way Paul demonstrates that in many ways he is just an everyday type of person despite having all that talent. I like the way Paul engages his audience and the way he personalizes his shows especially all of the special "tributes" he gives to his "love ones" that have passed. I once saw the Stones in Concert in Philadelphia about 8 years ago. It was a great show and you could tell how Mick and Keith's total teamt took great pains in creating a terrific show playing all the hits. Mick had a whole bunch of great backup singers that really disguised his current vocal abilities. The show really "recreates" very well the studio sound of their hit singles. But I would personally take Paul's shows over the Stones any day of the week because Mick and Keith came across as "Rock Gods" the entire concert. They didn't engage with the audience in the least bit. I personally prefer when a great artist who, at the end of the concert, you feel like you really "know" them. As I said in my earlier post, Paul is fantastic at engaging the audience and being very "real". He doesn't come across as a Rock and Roll God in any way. My only criticism of Paul's shows (as I, Yankeefan and a few others have consistently pointed out) is his Setlists. For the hard core fans like many on this Site, Paul just duplicates too many of the songs for my taste. Too many non-signature songs gets played time and time again at the expense of "neglected" great songs from his Solo career. I want more variety. And when he does make changes, they are normally of the recycled variety instead of brand new additions. If Paul would only spend more time with perfecting a setlist that is truly representative of his entire career, than a fan like me would be totally satisfied. And I mean with each new tour and even within new "legs" of the given tour that becomes too lengthy He has such a great prolific Catalog and each time certain parts of his full career get totally ignored. I didn't attend one of his shows on this leg of the One-On-One (when I easily could have) because of his lack of change. Adding more "neglected" Solo songs with each new tour would also make Paul's on stage banter much better. A good example is Paul's continued playing of "Let Me Roll It". I loved the song early on...Wing's Over America tour, the 2002 tour etc. but it has been played to death at the expense of other great Post Beatles's songs he has never or very rarely played. Then, of course, as a veteran of attending Paul's shows, you get the same Jimi Hendrix story each time. And there are other examples like this as well. That is pretty much my main complaint of Paul's shows. Too much duplication and subsequent same stories. Otherwise, he puts on a fantastic concert and definitely worth the money especially for first timers and casual fans.
I complain about the same old stories but at least Mr. McCartney to his credit does engage the audience unlike others you have mentioned. I just wish once in awhile he would tell a story about songs like "New" or "Queenie Eye" for example before he played them.
-
-
I finally got around to finding a few reviews from the shows in Australia and they were the standard McCartney reviews. One did say something about his "older"voice but other than that these reviews could have been written by me from the U.S. I will give them a lot less slack because they have not seen him perform in many years.
-
yankeefan7 wrote:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake. The Boston Globe review hit a couple of spots that myself and a few others mentioned, see below. I think this review and others show that most reviews are written by fanboys/girls or at the very least they are just charmed by Mr. McCartney. You can tell in all reviews that they are trying to be as upbeat as possible. "Those who claim McCartney's not lost a note of his estimable range do him no favors by exaggerating. You notice the weather that's come into his singing in exposed moments, even as you marvel at his undimmed skill on piano, bass, and guitar." "If you've seen McCartney on his recent tours, like those that set Fenway attendance records in 2009 and 2013, you recognized half of the set list here, or more: big production numbers like "Band on the Run," "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Live and Let Die," and "Hey Jude," as well as subtler numbers like "Here Today" in honor of John Lennon, and "Something" on ukulele in George Harrison's memory." The Newark Star Ledger review was ok but pretty much the standard McCartney review. A brief mention that the band was very "tight" and supplied backup vocals. Review stated he played 38 songs but never mentioned how few were after 1980. Mentioned a few stories he told between songs but it is the same stuff he has been saying for years for the most part. Reviewer made note of the rising platform which was not there for the Metlife concert in summer of 2016. Thought is was funny that the reviewer mentioned McCartney's remark about the crowd reaction to a new song since the newest song he plays is 4 years old unless you count "45 seconds". No mention of his vocal performance which really should be in ever review of a concert. My goodness, don't you want to know the quality of the vocals of the songs that were sung - oh well.
With the new "Freshen Up" tour, I thought I would check out some of the newpaper reviews. To my delight, the one from the Montreal Gazette was one of the better ones I have read in sometime. Reviewer knew his stuff and made some points I thought were good and not being just a Beatle fanboy. He mentioned that McCartney's sequencing of songs raised his eyebrow when songs like "Eleanor Rigby" and "Lady Madonna" were placed side by side by debateable efforts like "45 Seconds" and "Fuh You" I enjoyed that he called the band of the greatest backing bands of all time and they were mentioned by name in the review. The horn section got a rave and he called "Letting Go" an "unvervalued Wings gem". He did do the usual shoutouts to how long McCartney plays and his incredible positive energy. Egypt Station was called a wonderful album and there were songs played from it. As for the vocals, he said the band rocks hard enough to smooth over the roughness in his voice now. He made mention that you notice on songs like "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "I've Got A Feeling". In the end I like how he summed up the night, he said "Few thunderous ovations - or post show cups of tea and honey- have ever been so well deserved.