McCartney Concert Newspaper reviews
-
Between the "reviews" and the concerts themselves that's a helluva lot of stuff being phoned in these days.
-
moptops:
Between the "reviews" and the concerts themselves that's a helluva lot of stuff being phoned in these days.
I even think the band is phoning it in, looks like they can do this show in their sleep. They do their standard "rock star" poses when doing a solo but even that is old for them after doing some of these songs 100 times. One of the additional benefits of really changing up the set list would be to keep the band "fresh" As for the reviews, very few do any research into what McCartney has done before coming to their town. For the most part, I could probably write the next review in whatever city and most people reading it would have no clue I was not there. This is basically why I started this thread, wanted to show how bad journalism is today and how they are not really critics but fan boys/girls.
-
yankeefan7:
moptops:
Between the "reviews" and the concerts themselves that's a helluva lot of stuff being phoned in these days.
I even think the band is phoning it in, looks like they can do this show in their sleep. They do their standard "rock star" poses when doing a solo but even that is old for them after doing some of these songs 100 times. One of the additional benefits of really changing up the set list would be to keep the band "fresh" [..]
Not the case. While I thought the 3 shows I saw at the "Europe gets the warmed-up leftovers'-leg of the last tour were very synchronised, when I saw them in the opening week of the current tour the band seemed excited and freshened-up again for the first half, which contains 9 out of 15 songs which didn't get played in the last few years (or only up until the last leg of the previous tour). I especially got that feeling during the new and completely overhauled acoustic block, which was a golden move with a great and brand new song selection. It has been a long time since something changed to the structure of the tour formula, and it happened right there.
-
yankeefan7:
moptops:
Between the "reviews" and the concerts themselves that's a helluva lot of stuff being phoned in these days.
I even think the band is phoning it in, looks like they can do this show in their sleep. They do their standard "rock star" poses when doing a solo but even that is old for them after doing some of these songs 100 times. One of the additional benefits of really changing up the set list would be to keep the band "fresh" As for the reviews, very few do any research into what McCartney has done before coming to their town. For the most part, I could probably write the next review in whatever city and most people reading it would have no clue I was not there. This is basically why I started this thread, wanted to show how bad journalism is today and how they are not really critics but fan boys/girls.
I know what you mean. Great energetic players but the preening is the same. The rehearsed moves are still all the same. Huddling together for the solos, Rusty's LALD collapse, Abe's manufactured guffawing at Paul"s lame comments...
-
Abe is basically Charlie Hodge... ...who just happens to bang the drums like Ronnie Tutt.
-
yankeefan7:
moptops:
Between the "reviews" and the concerts themselves that's a helluva lot of stuff being phoned in these days.
...I could probably write the next review in whatever city and most people reading it would have no clue I was not there. ...
-
audi:
Abe is basically Charlie Hodge... ...who just happens to bang the drums like Ronnie Tutt.
-
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.
Translated the Madrid review and it was fairly negative. Reviewer just seemed the only thing worthwhile was Beatle songs. Said "Here Today was not memorable and questioned if anybody was ever a Wings fan.
-
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.
Now that he is back in the US, will be able to get reviews easier. The one from Milwaukee last night was very positive but did mention his voice was strained on two songs. To be fair, it also mentioned that is "older" voice worked well on two songs also (Yesterday & Here Today). Reviewer did mention that he tells the same stories, McCartney last played Milwaukee in 2013. He also mentioned that Rusty did the same "faint heart attack" routine during the "fireworks" during "Live and Let Die" that he did in 2013. Once again, reviewer never mentioned the music ability of the band and that there is very little music after 1980.
-
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.
Now that he is back in the US, will be able to get reviews easier. The one from Milwaukee last night was very positive but did mention his voice was strained on two songs. To be fair, it also mentioned that is "older" voice worked well on two songs also (Yesterday & Here Today). Reviewer did mention that he tells the same stories, McCartney last played Milwaukee in 2013. He also mentioned that Rusty did the same "faint heart attack" routine during the "fireworks" during "Live and Let Die" that he did in 2013. Once again, reviewer never mentioned the music ability of the band and that there is very little music after 1980.
______________________________________________________ Great post and subject Yankeefan. I also read the Milwaukee review. Got the feeling that the critic really likes Macca (and there is nothing wrong with that). He makes a good point about how Paul's current voice can work in his favor on some songs with the right lyrics (Here Today and Yesterday). Same could be true if he put Early Days and That Was Me in the setlist. Apparently, the reviewer has not seen Paul in person over the last 3-5 years except for the other Cincinatti show he references. No mention of the duplication of the same songs and lack of great solo songs never being played. The Philly show is coming up on Tuesday. Coming from Philadelphia, I am quite familiar with the main music critic who normally does the reviews of big artists. His name is Dan Deluca and he is not a "Paul" guy in any way. I distinctly remember his "underwhelming" reviews of Paul's shows in 2010 and 2005. Begrudgingly, he had to admit they were good shows but if they were shows from an artist he liked, he would had gone ga ga. He, of course, had to bring up a couple of songs on the setlist that he had always disliked instead of pointing out that Paul had the entire crowd in the palm of his hands all night. Everyone I spoke to and the people that were in my group thought those concerts were fantastic. For me, both shows had around 10 songs I had never heard before so I obviously thought they were great. If Mr. Deluca reviews the upcoming show and Paul struggles with his vocals, he will be all over it and it will not be pretty. Mr. Deluca probably won't go after the setlist since he is not a fan of Solo Paul anyway. Conversely, the DJ who has done the Sunday Breakfast with the Beatles' show (Andre Gardner) is a huge Macca fan like us.
-
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.
Now that he is back in the US, will be able to get reviews easier. The one from Milwaukee last night was very positive but did mention his voice was strained on two songs. To be fair, it also mentioned that is "older" voice worked well on two songs also (Yesterday & Here Today). Reviewer did mention that he tells the same stories, McCartney last played Milwaukee in 2013. He also mentioned that Rusty did the same "faint heart attack" routine during the "fireworks" during "Live and Let Die" that he did in 2013. Once again, reviewer never mentioned the music ability of the band and that there is very little music after 1980.
______________________________________________________ Great post and subject Yankeefan. I also read the Milwaukee review. Got the feeling that the critic really likes Macca (and there is nothing wrong with that). He makes a good point about how Paul's current voice can work in his favor on some songs with the right lyrics (Here Today and Yesterday). Same could be true if he put Early Days and That Was Me in the setlist. Apparently, the reviewer has not seen Paul in person over the last 3-5 years except for the other Cincinatti show he references. No mention of the duplication of the same songs and lack of great solo songs never being played. The Philly show is coming up on Tuesday. Coming from Philadelphia, I am quite familiar with the main music critic who normally does the reviews of big artists. His name is Dan Deluca and he is not a "Paul" guy in any way. I distinctly remember his "underwhelming" reviews of Paul's shows in 2010 and 2005. Begrudgingly, he had to admit they were good shows but if they were shows from an artist he liked, he would had gone ga ga. He, of course, had to bring up a couple of songs on the setlist that he had always disliked instead of pointing out that Paul had the entire crowd in the palm of his hands all night. Everyone I spoke to and the people that were in my group thought those concerts were fantastic. For me, both shows had around 10 songs I had never heard before so I obviously thought they were great. If Mr. Deluca reviews the upcoming show and Paul struggles with his vocals, he will be all over it and it will not be pretty. Mr. Deluca probably won't go after the setlist since he is not a fan of Solo Paul anyway. Conversely, the DJ who has done the Sunday Breakfast with the Beatles' show (Andre Gardner) is a huge Macca fan like us.
I am quite sure the review will not be pretty for the reasons you mentioned. The reviewers in big cities (especially East Coast) in the US are not McCartney fan boys/girls and have seen him live before this current tour. They have praised him when he has deserved it but his weakened vocals, same stories and oldie set list will be main themes of review. I would be quite shocked if he gets glowing reviews in Philly, Boston etc. As I stated in the opening of this thread, part of the reason I created it was to show how bad/lazy music journalism has become today. They do little research and things that seem to "thrill" them about a show is pretty common to people like you and me. They review the show like a fan boy/girl and seem to be in awe more than doing a critical review.
-
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 review from Cincinnati Enquirer was one of the better ones I have read from this tour. He actually mentioned how excellent the band is and mentioned them by name. He also made a point that this band has been together with McCartney since 2002 and played with him longer than anyone. My favorite part of the review was that he said the highlights of the show depended on the age of the individual audience member. As for non-Beatle tunes, he said "1985" and "Band On The Run" were the big crowd favorites. He said the three songs from "New" went over pretty well with the audience which was nice to hear. Reviewer did mention that 21 of the 37 songs were Beatle songs but did not say how much of the show was over 35 years ago. There was no mention of his voice quality. I said this review was one of the better ones because the reviewer actually did some research by knowing how long the band had played with McCartney, when the album "New" came out etc. The reviewer's name is Bill Thompson.
-
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/2016/07/11/paul-mccartney-treats-fans-magical-musical-tour/86847288/ Nothing wrong with great reviews but it still just says all the same stuff that I've been reading for ages... I feel like I could write a review without going to the show.
-
Gordy JS:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/2016/07/11/paul-mccartney-treats-fans-magical-musical-tour/86847288/ Nothing wrong with great reviews but it still just says all the same stuff that I've been reading for ages... I feel like I could write a review without going to the show.
Understood and I made the same point earlier in the thread (see below). What I thought was different is how he mentioned the quality of the band and how long they were together. Most reviews rarely make a point about the quality of the band. "As for the reviews, very few do any research into what McCartney has done before coming to their town. For the most part, I could probably write the next review in whatever city and most people reading it would have no clue I was not there."
-
yankeefan7:
Gordy JS:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/2016/07/11/paul-mccartney-treats-fans-magical-musical-tour/86847288/ Nothing wrong with great reviews but it still just says all the same stuff that I've been reading for ages... I feel like I could write a review without going to the show.
Understood and I made the same point earlier in the thread (see below). What I thought was different is how he mentioned the quality of the band and how long they were together. Most reviews rarely make a point about the quality of the band. "As for the reviews, very few do any research into what McCartney has done before coming to their town. For the most part, I could probably write the next review in whatever city and most people reading it would have no clue I was not there."
Yeah just saw your point, sorry about that. But I have been seeing it a lot & have been thinking that each time I read one of these. But at least they enjoyed the show, just would be nice if they acknowledged the similar setlist. I've always been frustrated when a review says "Not one bit of his career has been untouched". Very little research is required to know that that's not true
-
Gordy JS:
yankeefan7:
Gordy JS:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/2016/07/11/paul-mccartney-treats-fans-magical-musical-tour/86847288/ Nothing wrong with great reviews but it still just says all the same stuff that I've been reading for ages... I feel like I could write a review without going to the show.
Understood and I made the same point earlier in the thread (see below). What I thought was different is how he mentioned the quality of the band and how long they were together. Most reviews rarely make a point about the quality of the band. "As for the reviews, very few do any research into what McCartney has done before coming to their town. For the most part, I could probably write the next review in whatever city and most people reading it would have no clue I was not there."
Yeah just saw your point, sorry about that. But I have been seeing it a lot & have been thinking that each time I read one of these. But at least they enjoyed the show, just would be nice if they acknowledged the similar setlist. I've always been frustrated when a review says "Not one bit of his career has been untouched". Very little research is required to know that that's not true
"I've always been frustrated when a review says "Not one bit of his career has been untouched". Very little research is required to know that that's not true" Exactly and it has frustrated myself and a few others. I really expect more from reviews from major cities where McCartney has played a bunch and not that long ago.
-
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
-
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
-
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
-
BJ, it figures he couldn't resist one dig at Paul!