5-10 Solo Songs Never or Very Rarely Performed Live
-
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
-
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
-
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
"Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out." BJ Good point and very true but Mr. McCartney has gotten very good critical acclaim for almost every album dating back to FITD. I think since it is over 45 yrs since he left the Beatles and 35 since Wings ended, the "pressure" should be off - lol.
-
Getting back to the topic, I think that, in retrospect, it was a big tactical error on Paul's part not to have given his Post Beatles' career more weight in his Setlists since let's say 2002. I agree totally with Yankeefan when he talks about the 10 songs he could have devoted to Post Beatle pr solo songs in his Setlist (on top of the 3 songs from the latest album he was promoting on the tour). It could even had been 6 or 8 songs but just providing a much better balance to the Setlist covering his total career. It think of a song like "Don't Let It Bring You Down" from Londontown. There's a song he's never done live but yet I can hear Rusty's guitar doing that song. A real unknown gem of a song that should be much more known. What better opportunity would Paul have had than to throw it in one of the 2000 tours. Who cares if it didn't get that immediate reaction. The press (critics) would surely have been talking about it after the show not to mention the U-tube hits. Unfortunately, as we have said, I think Paul is now too old to give his Post Beatle career the justice it deserved at the time. And I don't think he can do it vocally now which is the big questlion at this point. Just to throw out another gem...how about Tomorrow from Wildlife.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
I disagree. I think Ringo was very animated and excited in that interview, whereas Paul seemed aloof (as he can be) and disconnected since he had to share with someone, an equal, who was there too and could give an assessment of those events that may not jive with Paul's. Criticism of Ringo's contribution to the Beatles is based primarily on ignorance of drumming and ignorance of how music as an art and a business function. Anyone who knows anything about music knows Ringo was crucial to the Beatles' success and that, no, the Beatles would NOT have been the Beatles with any other competent drummer. If that were true, they would have kept Pete Best. I can't think of any professional drummer or anyone in the music business who knows what they are talking about who has that negative view of Ringo Starr. But there are plenty of amateur musicians, armchair rock stars, and Paul McCartney fan boys who hold that ridiculous opinion.
-
B J Conlee:
Getting back to the topic, I think that, in retrospect, it was a big tactical error on Paul's part not to have given his Post Beatles' career more weight in his Setlists since let's say 2002. I agree totally with Yankeefan when he talks about the 10 songs he could have devoted to Post Beatle pr solo songs in his Setlist (on top of the 3 songs from the latest album he was promoting on the tour). It could even had been 6 or 8 songs but just providing a much better balance to the Setlist covering his total career. It think of a song like "Don't Let It Bring You Down" from Londontown. There's a song he's never done live but yet I can hear Rusty's guitar doing that song. A real unknown gem of a song that should be much more known. What better opportunity would Paul have had than to throw it in one of the 2000 tours. Who cares if it didn't get that immediate reaction. The press (critics) would surely have been talking about it after the show not to mention the U-tube hits. Unfortunately, as we have said, I think Paul is now too old to give his Post Beatle career the justice it deserved at the time. And I don't think he can do it vocally now which is the big questlion at this point. Just to throw out another gem...how about Tomorrow from Wildlife.
I would have loved to have heard Tomorrow in concert (in 1976 or 1990 when he could still pull it off!) But he wouldn't be able to today.
-
Nancy R:
B J Conlee:
Getting back to the topic, I think that, in retrospect, it was a big tactical error on Paul's part not to have given his Post Beatles' career more weight in his Setlists since let's say 2002. I agree totally with Yankeefan when he talks about the 10 songs he could have devoted to Post Beatle pr solo songs in his Setlist (on top of the 3 songs from the latest album he was promoting on the tour). It could even had been 6 or 8 songs but just providing a much better balance to the Setlist covering his total career. It think of a song like "Don't Let It Bring You Down" from Londontown. There's a song he's never done live but yet I can hear Rusty's guitar doing that song. A real unknown gem of a song that should be much more known. What better opportunity would Paul have had than to throw it in one of the 2000 tours. Who cares if it didn't get that immediate reaction. The press (critics) would surely have been talking about it after the show not to mention the U-tube hits. Unfortunately, as we have said, I think Paul is now too old to give his Post Beatle career the justice it deserved at the time. And I don't think he can do it vocally now which is the big questlion at this point. Just to throw out another gem...how about Tomorrow from Wildlife.
I would have loved to have heard Tomorrow in concert (in 1976 or 1990 when he could still pull it off!) But he wouldn't be able to today.
I love that song!
-
B J Conlee:
Getting back to the topic, I think that, in retrospect, it was a big tactical error on Paul's part not to have given his Post Beatles' career more weight in his Setlists since let's say 2002. I agree totally with Yankeefan when he talks about the 10 songs he could have devoted to Post Beatle pr solo songs in his Setlist (on top of the 3 songs from the latest album he was promoting on the tour). It could even had been 6 or 8 songs but just providing a much better balance to the Setlist covering his total career. It think of a song like "Don't Let It Bring You Down" from Londontown. There's a song he's never done live but yet I can hear Rusty's guitar doing that song. A real unknown gem of a song that should be much more known. What better opportunity would Paul have had than to throw it in one of the 2000 tours. Who cares if it didn't get that immediate reaction. The press (critics) would surely have been talking about it after the show not to mention the U-tube hits. Unfortunately, as we have said, I think Paul is now too old to give his Post Beatle career the justice it deserved at the time. And I don't think he can do it vocally now which is the big questlion at this point. Just to throw out another gem...how about Tomorrow from Wildlife.
"Just to throw out another gem...how about Tomorrow from Wildlife." "Wildlife" was absolutely awful record but "Tomorrow" is one of the few things that is very good. Like others said, he could not even come close to handling that type of vocal now and he may have had to had done it in the early 80's. Personally, I would love to see him do "The Mess" with this band.
-
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
I disagree. I think Ringo was very animated and excited in that interview, whereas Paul seemed aloof (as he can be) and disconnected since he had to share with someone, an equal, who was there too and could give an assessment of those events that may not jive with Paul's. Criticism of Ringo's contribution to the Beatles is based primarily on ignorance of drumming and ignorance of how music as an art and a business function. Anyone who knows anything about music knows Ringo was crucial to the Beatles' success and that, no, the Beatles would NOT have been the Beatles with any other competent drummer. If that were true, they would have kept Pete Best. I can't think of any professional drummer or anyone in the music business who knows what they are talking about who has that negative view of Ringo Starr. But there are plenty of amateur musicians, armchair rock stars, and Paul McCartney fan boys who hold that ridiculous opinion.
_____________________________________________________ RMartinez, I do hear what you are saying about Ringo's contribution. In fact in my statement above, I was disagreeing with what many have said about Ringo's importance to the Beatles. I think that Ringo's contribution was huge. His drumming was perfect for the group. He and Paul worked perfectly in tandem in their drumming and bass respectively. As far as CBS's 50th Celebration, you are right that Ringo was animated and excited. From Ringo's point of view, this was important event for him. It was a time where other musicians were defending Ringo's importance to the Beatles. Ringo was jumping at that opportunity and rightfully so. I was just saying (and I watched CBS's 50th Celebration closely) that in a couple of cases, Ringo was almost finishing their specific complements for them. He was anxious for the complements to come his way and rightfully so...his contribution to the overall group in many cases were grossly understated. I do disagree with your assessment of Paul at this show. I didn't see Paul in any way being selfish and not wanting to share the stage with Ringo. Paul did not disagree with any of Ringo's assessments of what made the Fabs so great nor did I feel that they were competing with each other's mike time in any way. In fact, I thought Paul was in many ways deliberately taking a back seat and giving Ringo plenty of time and space. I give Paul tremendous kudos for that. As I said, when Paul did speak he was matter of fact about how great the Beatles were and he definitely included Ringo in that mix. I think Paul understands that Ringo has been mistreated by many over the years relative to Ringo's importance. Paul also was very instrumental in Ringo getting in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. From what I read, it was Paul that was the key figure in his admission.
-
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
I disagree. I think Ringo was very animated and excited in that interview, whereas Paul seemed aloof (as he can be) and disconnected since he had to share with someone, an equal, who was there too and could give an assessment of those events that may not jive with Paul's. Criticism of Ringo's contribution to the Beatles is based primarily on ignorance of drumming and ignorance of how music as an art and a business function. Anyone who knows anything about music knows Ringo was crucial to the Beatles' success and that, no, the Beatles would NOT have been the Beatles with any other competent drummer. If that were true, they would have kept Pete Best. I can't think of any professional drummer or anyone in the music business who knows what they are talking about who has that negative view of Ringo Starr. But there are plenty of amateur musicians, armchair rock stars, and Paul McCartney fan boys who hold that ridiculous opinion.
_____________________________________________________ RMartinez, I do hear what you are saying about Ringo's contribution. In fact in my statement above, I was disagreeing with what many have said about Ringo's importance to the Beatles. I think that Ringo's contribution was huge. His drumming was perfect for the group. He and Paul worked perfectly in tandem in their drumming and bass respectively. As far as CBS's 50th Celebration, you are right that Ringo was animated and excited. From Ringo's point of view, this was important event for him. It was a time where other musicians were defending Ringo's importance to the Beatles. Ringo was jumping at that opportunity and rightfully so. I was just saying (and I watched CBS's 50th Celebration closely) that in a couple of cases, Ringo was almost finishing their specific complements for them. He was anxious for the complements to come his way and rightfully so...his contribution to the overall group in many cases were grossly understated. I do disagree with your assessment of Paul at this show. I didn't see Paul in any way being selfish and not wanting to share the stage with Ringo. Paul did not disagree with any of Ringo's assessments of what made the Fabs so great nor did I feel that they were competing with each other's mike time in any way. In fact, I thought Paul was in many ways deliberately taking a back seat and giving Ringo plenty of time and space. I give Paul tremendous kudos for that. As I said, when Paul did speak he was matter of fact about how great the Beatles were and he definitely included Ringo in that mix. I think Paul understands that Ringo has been mistreated by many over the years relative to Ringo's importance. Paul also was very instrumental in Ringo getting in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. From what I read, it was Paul that was the key figure in his admission.
Fair enough. My comments about Paul were mainly the interview I saw he and Ringo give at the Ed Sullivan theater, so you and I were talking about two different events. I do think Paul and Ringo "get" each other, and why wouldn't they? They are brothers.
-
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
I disagree. I think Ringo was very animated and excited in that interview, whereas Paul seemed aloof (as he can be) and disconnected since he had to share with someone, an equal, who was there too and could give an assessment of those events that may not jive with Paul's. Criticism of Ringo's contribution to the Beatles is based primarily on ignorance of drumming and ignorance of how music as an art and a business function. Anyone who knows anything about music knows Ringo was crucial to the Beatles' success and that, no, the Beatles would NOT have been the Beatles with any other competent drummer. If that were true, they would have kept Pete Best. I can't think of any professional drummer or anyone in the music business who knows what they are talking about who has that negative view of Ringo Starr. But there are plenty of amateur musicians, armchair rock stars, and Paul McCartney fan boys who hold that ridiculous opinion.
_____________________________________________________ RMartinez, I do hear what you are saying about Ringo's contribution. In fact in my statement above, I was disagreeing with what many have said about Ringo's importance to the Beatles. I think that Ringo's contribution was huge. His drumming was perfect for the group. He and Paul worked perfectly in tandem in their drumming and bass respectively. As far as CBS's 50th Celebration, you are right that Ringo was animated and excited. From Ringo's point of view, this was important event for him. It was a time where other musicians were defending Ringo's importance to the Beatles. Ringo was jumping at that opportunity and rightfully so. I was just saying (and I watched CBS's 50th Celebration closely) that in a couple of cases, Ringo was almost finishing their specific complements for them. He was anxious for the complements to come his way and rightfully so...his contribution to the overall group in many cases were grossly understated. I do disagree with your assessment of Paul at this show. I didn't see Paul in any way being selfish and not wanting to share the stage with Ringo. Paul did not disagree with any of Ringo's assessments of what made the Fabs so great nor did I feel that they were competing with each other's mike time in any way. In fact, I thought Paul was in many ways deliberately taking a back seat and giving Ringo plenty of time and space. I give Paul tremendous kudos for that. As I said, when Paul did speak he was matter of fact about how great the Beatles were and he definitely included Ringo in that mix. I think Paul understands that Ringo has been mistreated by many over the years relative to Ringo's importance. Paul also was very instrumental in Ringo getting in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. From what I read, it was Paul that was the key figure in his admission.
Fair enough. My comments about Paul were mainly the interview I saw he and Ringo give at the Ed Sullivan theater, so you and I were talking about two different events. I do think Paul and Ringo "get" each other, and why wouldn't they? They are brothers.
________________________________________________________ Yes, I agree with you. I think that Paul and Ringo's relationship right now is as good as it ever has been. It can't be easy for Ringo when Paul gets so much more publicity but I think that Paul has proven what a loyal friend he is. I do criticize Paul on certain things like his Setlist but I do think he is generally a very good guy and will be the first one to defend Ringo whenever needed.
-
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
RMartinez:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
toris:
Bruce M.:
I can't prove this, but I think Paul is one of those people who really, really wants everyone to like him and hates for the audience to be unhappy even for a moment. When he plays newer stuff onstage, he can sense the lessened enthusiasm from most of the crowd. So he limits those "down" moments to a few tunes from the album he's promoting at the moment and a handful of other less-known songs, but he mostly gives people the tunes he knows will produce wild applause and have everyone singing along. Arguably one could chalk this up to insecurity, but I'm not going to psychoanalyze. He is in this sense the exact opposite of Dylan, who's often seemed to enjoy messing with his audience and upending the crowd's expectations. Arguably, there's a happy medium in between those 2 extremes -- say, half a dozen more solo tunes and a few more variations on the arrangements of familiar Beatles/Wings hits. But Paul ain't gonna go there. And as some have said, it does become sort of a vicious cycle, as songs that have been filed and forgotten for 20 years tend to stay forgotten, and get even less response if he does play one of them. Sigh... That said, I'm not sure it's that Paul doesn't respect his solo work. I think he believes most fans don't know or respect it. And he's not entirely wrong, but I wish he's pull against the current a bit more than he does.
I concur
I can't prove this but I believe Ringo is truly a happy man, absolutely comfortable in his skin. I don't believe Paul is. I don't believe he ever was.
Having seen Ringo recently, I think you're absolutely right about him. He struck me as a man absolutely at peace with his life and delighted to be where he was. As for Paul, you may be right. From a distance, it's hard to tell, and as I said before, I shy away from long-distance psychoanalysis of someone I've never met. But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak.
" But there are certainly aspects of his behavior that seem consistent with an insecure streak." I think his obsession about "who did what" with the Beatles that was mentioned in lyrics of song "Early Days" after all these years is an example IMO.
________________________________________________________ Bruce is right...it is hard to say. I think that to be any one of the Beatles would create all kinds of insecurities at various times during their lives. Looking back at CBS's 50th Anniversary Show (which I really liked), I thought Ringo appeared at times to be insecure. When he and Paul were interviewed, Ringo seemed to be over- anxious about hearing others talk about "his" contribution to the group. When the camera was on his face it was like the guest throwing out the complement couldn't get it out fast enough. Paul on the other hand generally had a "matter of fact" look...like, yes we were a great group. Just a little observation I noticed at the time. I am not knocking Ringo here. There is no doubt that of all the Beatles, his individual contribution is the most criticized for having the least amount of talent...like the Beatles could have used any competent drummer and still be the Beatles. I don't agree with this at all but over the years you see many comments to that effect. At the same time, I think that between Paul and Ringo, Paul has had the most pressure. Paul is considered along with John to be the chief composers and architects of the Fabs and that alone is a lot of pressure relative to any new music that Paul puts out. I don't think Ringo has that pressure nearly as much since people's expectations are relatively low anyway. It does stand to reason that Ringo from an expectation point of view seems to be more comfortable in his own skin than Paul. Barbara Bach also seems to have had a very positive effect on Ringo. There has been a good amount written about how Ringo had some big alcohol problems years ago and it appears as though Barbara has really helped Ringo conquer those demons. As I said, I think most people would agree that being a Beatle in itself would create a great deal of insecurities. George talked about that aspect a lot when he was alive.
I disagree. I think Ringo was very animated and excited in that interview, whereas Paul seemed aloof (as he can be) and disconnected since he had to share with someone, an equal, who was there too and could give an assessment of those events that may not jive with Paul's. Criticism of Ringo's contribution to the Beatles is based primarily on ignorance of drumming and ignorance of how music as an art and a business function. Anyone who knows anything about music knows Ringo was crucial to the Beatles' success and that, no, the Beatles would NOT have been the Beatles with any other competent drummer. If that were true, they would have kept Pete Best. I can't think of any professional drummer or anyone in the music business who knows what they are talking about who has that negative view of Ringo Starr. But there are plenty of amateur musicians, armchair rock stars, and Paul McCartney fan boys who hold that ridiculous opinion.
_____________________________________________________ RMartinez, I do hear what you are saying about Ringo's contribution. In fact in my statement above, I was disagreeing with what many have said about Ringo's importance to the Beatles. I think that Ringo's contribution was huge. His drumming was perfect for the group. He and Paul worked perfectly in tandem in their drumming and bass respectively. As far as CBS's 50th Celebration, you are right that Ringo was animated and excited. From Ringo's point of view, this was important event for him. It was a time where other musicians were defending Ringo's importance to the Beatles. Ringo was jumping at that opportunity and rightfully so. I was just saying (and I watched CBS's 50th Celebration closely) that in a couple of cases, Ringo was almost finishing their specific complements for them. He was anxious for the complements to come his way and rightfully so...his contribution to the overall group in many cases were grossly understated. I do disagree with your assessment of Paul at this show. I didn't see Paul in any way being selfish and not wanting to share the stage with Ringo. Paul did not disagree with any of Ringo's assessments of what made the Fabs so great nor did I feel that they were competing with each other's mike time in any way. In fact, I thought Paul was in many ways deliberately taking a back seat and giving Ringo plenty of time and space. I give Paul tremendous kudos for that. As I said, when Paul did speak he was matter of fact about how great the Beatles were and he definitely included Ringo in that mix. I think Paul understands that Ringo has been mistreated by many over the years relative to Ringo's importance. Paul also was very instrumental in Ringo getting in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. From what I read, it was Paul that was the key figure in his admission.
Fair enough. My comments about Paul were mainly the interview I saw he and Ringo give at the Ed Sullivan theater, so you and I were talking about two different events. I do think Paul and Ringo "get" each other, and why wouldn't they? They are brothers.
________________________________________________________ Yes, I agree with you. I think that Paul and Ringo's relationship right now is as good as it ever has been. It can't be easy for Ringo when Paul gets so much more publicity but I think that Paul has proven what a loyal friend he is. I do criticize Paul on certain things like his Setlist but I do think he is generally a very good guy and will be the first one to defend Ringo whenever needed.
"I do criticize Paul on certain things like his Setlist but I do think he is generally a very good guy and will be the first one to defend Ringo whenever needed" You may criticize his setlist but even that is a "positive" because you are praising his solo career songs and wishing he would play more of it.
-
Nancy R:
Sorry, but he could never do Oh! Darling justice today.
I think he could do Oh! Darling solo on piano without screaming and pull it off. Like he did You Never Give Me Your Money on the Driving USA tour.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Nancy R:
Sorry, but he could never do Oh! Darling justice today.
I think he could do Oh! Darling solo on piano without screaming and pull it off. Like he did You Never Give Me Your Money on the Driving USA tour.
No way could he hit the high notes, even without the screaming.
-
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
Nancy R:
Sorry, but he could never do Oh! Darling justice today.
I think he could do Oh! Darling solo on piano without screaming and pull it off. Like he did You Never Give Me Your Money on the Driving USA tour.
No way could he hit the high notes, even without the screaming.
It would sound like Maybe I'm Amazed these days. The bridge on Oh Darling is no more difficult to sing than the bridge on Maybe I'm Amazed.
-
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
Nancy R:
Sorry, but he could never do Oh! Darling justice today.
I think he could do Oh! Darling solo on piano without screaming and pull it off. Like he did You Never Give Me Your Money on the Driving USA tour.
No way could he hit the high notes, even without the screaming.
It would sound like Maybe I'm Amazed these days. The bridge on Oh Darling is no more difficult to sing than the bridge on Maybe I'm Amazed.
We must agree to disagree.
-
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
Nancy R:
Sorry, but he could never do Oh! Darling justice today.
I think he could do Oh! Darling solo on piano without screaming and pull it off. Like he did You Never Give Me Your Money on the Driving USA tour.
No way could he hit the high notes, even without the screaming.
It would sound like Maybe I'm Amazed these days. The bridge on Oh Darling is no more difficult to sing than the bridge on Maybe I'm Amazed.
"It would sound like Maybe I'm Amazed these days. The bridge on Oh Darling is no more difficult to sing than the bridge on Maybe I'm Amazed." Sounding like "Maybe I'm Amazed" is not a good thing and I agree with Nancy, "Oh Darling" is tougher song to sing.
-
yankeefan7:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
Nancy R:
Sorry, but he could never do Oh! Darling justice today.
I think he could do Oh! Darling solo on piano without screaming and pull it off. Like he did You Never Give Me Your Money on the Driving USA tour.
No way could he hit the high notes, even without the screaming.
It would sound like Maybe I'm Amazed these days. The bridge on Oh Darling is no more difficult to sing than the bridge on Maybe I'm Amazed.
"It would sound like Maybe I'm Amazed these days. The bridge on Oh Darling is no more difficult to sing than the bridge on Maybe I'm Amazed." Sounding like "Maybe I'm Amazed" is not a good thing and I agree with Nancy, "Oh Darling" is tougher song to sing.
Why are you all so worked up? He isn't going to perform the song. I was merely suggesting, as many have, that he should diversify his set list. Which he isn't going to do. Both songs are challenging vocally. I know from experience.
-
I find hard to believe to believe Paul & Co. couldn't do something like this, even if he sang the middle in falsetto.