Anyone notice a pattern?
-
oobu24:
favoritething:
Seriously. You're Paul McCartney The mainstream press loves your concerts. Everyone loves the new song. You're selling out arenas. But a couple of dozen members on the forum are objecting to your decisions. Who are ya gonna listen to? I mean, really??
You think Paul is reading this? It's just that song...and SNL. Everyone holds their collective breath when he does SNL. He could have sung a more recent song that has been written in a better key.
Exactly. He doesn't care. Why do we care?
-
The most asinine question I've heard today.
-
audi:
The most asinine question I've heard today.
We all discuss it because we care. And again...this is a discussion board. If we all agreed on everything it would be pretty boring.
-
Let the church say "Amen."
-
Amen!
-
Being a human means having a thinking mind, the capacity to reason and discern. If not, we would be robots who merely sought self gain and mere survival. Being evolved means living in a world of culture, with music and art and beauty. If not, then we truly are just animals. We may be animals, but we are also much more than that. I think the word "care" is not the correct one to use in this context, though I see it thrown around here a lot. It is not about caring. It is about discerning whether something has value or is worth doing or listening to or looking at or spending money on. It is about choice and free will. To say Paul McCartney does not "care" about what his fans think reduces him to being a despot, a totalitarian who merely does what he does for the ultimate gain of self aggrandizement and makes him into the supreme narcissist. To say fans should not criticize him or, if they do, they are not worthy to be in his realm or his forum or to call themselves "fans" or they don't care, reduces them to being traitors. The name callers are reduced to being sycophants. The truth be told, the public at large do not "care" what Paul McCartney does any more than he "cares" what they think. Yes, rabid fans on a forum are much more engaged in everything he does. Most people are not. They are living their lives, accidently catch him on the Grammys, and buy a ticket to his concert, attend the concert for three hours, then go back to living their lives. I don't know that I ever "cared" about such things. But I did enjoy being a fan much more in years past than in the present. Paul McCartney may not "care" what I think. But "care" less and less what he thinks as well. And I know many fans who have lost interest in recent years. So it's not just a few people here on these forums. That is why I choose, less and less, to spend money on his products. The most recent collaborations are an example. In the 80s I purchased all his collaborations with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson. I don't do that anymore. I don't expect Paul McCartney to "care" what I think. A one on one, personal relationship is necessary for that sort of concern. But it is a two way road.
-
RMartinez:
... I think the word "care" is not the correct one to use in this context, though I see it thrown around here a lot. It is not about caring. It is about discerning whether something has value or is worth doing or listening to or looking at or spending money on. It is about choice and free will. To say Paul McCartney does not "care" about what his fans think reduces him to being a despot, a totalitarian who merely does what he does for the ultimate gain of self aggrandizement and makes him into the supreme narcissist. ...
I'm impressed.
-
You all don't get my point (or I didn't express myself well). Of course Paul doesn't read this, but everybody acts as if he does, like Paul is happy that somebody is "looking out for his best interests" here. You're deluded. Maybe somebody gives him a general sense of the posts here, but that's it. He's not reading the "messages to Paul" that people are posting, sorry. You're perfectly fine expressing your points of view, you're perfectly entitled. IF he took these opinions into account, he would not be happy (in my opinion), but clearly he doesn't take them into account, because he keeps doing what he wants to do, just maybe occasionally throwing a bone like "Too Many People" to the dedicated fans. He's not a despot, he just doesn't have time for our posts. It's not a judgment, it's just reality. We're talking to each other, not him. He's focused on his wife and daughter; wouldn't you be?
-
Why didnt Paul have a classic singer with pipes sing Maybe I'm Amazed on SNL40, while he played piano and sang some harmonies. It could have been very memorable. I just cant imagine Paul could watch his SNL40 performance & be happy with it. But, if he is, then o.k. I guess. The world expects excellence from him. As a fan, I cringed, & most objective reviewers would say it was sub-par at best.
-
Yes, there's a pattern: Paul being the number two in other artist's songs. That's the pattern I see, and that's the reason of my complain. Lady Gaga is great, Rihanna is great and I guess Kanye is great but Paul McCartney is a L-E-G-E-N-D, and a legend should always be the main character. That's my opinion and I don't expect to convince anybody. I mean, I rather see Paul doing bad albums, but not doing things like 'Fourfive seconds'. Really.
-
favoritething:
You all don't get my point. Of course Paul doesn't read this, but everybody acts as if he does, like Paul is happy that somebody is "looking out for his best interests" here. You're deluded. Maybe somebody gives him a general sense of the posts here, but that's it. He's not reading the "messages to Paul" that people are posting, sorry. You're perfectly fine expressing your points of view, you're perfectly entitled. IF he took these opinions into account, he would not be happy (in my opinion), but clearly he doesn't take them into account, because he keeps doing what he wants to do, just maybe occasionally throwing a bone like "Too Many People" to the dedicated fans. He's not a despot, he just doesn't have time for our posts. It's not a judgment, it's just reality. We're talking to each other, not him. He's focused on his wife and daughter; wouldn't you be?
Thank you for making my point for me. You make it sound like he's the only one who is focused on his own life. So are we. Or most of us, anyway. I never said he was a despot. What I said was if all he cared about was himself he might be. Paul actually does care how he is thought of by the public. That is a fact. But I agree with you, he is not reading anything here to make professional decisions. I never claimed he did.
-
RMartinez:
favoritething:
You all don't get my point. Of course Paul doesn't read this, but everybody acts as if he does, like Paul is happy that somebody is "looking out for his best interests" here. You're deluded. Maybe somebody gives him a general sense of the posts here, but that's it. He's not reading the "messages to Paul" that people are posting, sorry. You're perfectly fine expressing your points of view, you're perfectly entitled. IF he took these opinions into account, he would not be happy (in my opinion), but clearly he doesn't take them into account, because he keeps doing what he wants to do, just maybe occasionally throwing a bone like "Too Many People" to the dedicated fans. He's not a despot, he just doesn't have time for our posts. It's not a judgment, it's just reality. We're talking to each other, not him. He's focused on his wife and daughter; wouldn't you be?
Thank you for making my point for me. You make it sound like he's the only one who is focused on his own life. So are we. Or most of us, anyway. I never said he was a despot. What I said was if all he cared about was himself he might be. Paul actually does care how he is thought of by the public. That is a fact. But I agree with you, he is not reading anything here to make professional decisions. I never claimed he did.
Cool, I agree with you.
-
lisalou7:
Michelley:
moptops:
I think many older supporters of Paul seem dismayed generally or even confused at many of his recent decisions: artistically but also what seems to be perceived as dubious judgement on his behalf.
The only dubious judgment Paul has made recently is his decision to sing Maybe I'm Amazed on live TV, knowing full well that it was a very difficult song to sing when he was in his prime, let alone now. Other than that, he hasn't made any dubious decisions of late. He's made a lot of smart and interesting choices that show his eagerness to create. Collaborating with Kanye was an artistic decision that has produced two good songs and two global hits so far. What's been embarrassing to see is the reaction of some of Paul's older fans to this collaboration. The drama queen over-reactions, the borderline racist (and sometimes overt racist) comments, the complete denial of the legitimacy of other genres of music. You want dubious judgments? THOSE are the dubious judgments. Not Paul doing what artists should do and taking risks.
I haven't been very active on here lately but of course have been keeping up with all things Paul! I have really admired how energised Paul seems of late. I love his decisions to try something new, to create music within different genres. Hasn't he always done that? What I haven't enjoyed hearing is he still can't relinquish certain songs and he doesn't know how to rest up before a big tv performance.
"What I haven't enjoyed hearing is he still can't relinquish certain songs and he doesn't know how to rest up before a big tv performance." He can certainly make you shake your head at times. He knows this is going to draw big TV audience and he plays a concert the night before that started pretty late I believe. Then he picks probably one of the hardest songs of his to sing , what was he thinking. This is the one time he should have sang some fairly easy Beatle tune that he can sing with ease.
-
audi:
It's not just boardies. I shared this guy's YouTube vid the day after the SNL thing; it's got about 20,000 views. That's small potatoes in the grand scheme, but it's worth noting the following comments: ________________________________________________________________ "F-ck Paul McCartney can't sing worth a s**t anymore, makes me cringe whenever he gets behind a mic anymore. But he's old what the **** do you expect? ..." "My type of music is quality vocals this wasnt quality at all " "I am a big Beatle fan but this guy is spot on. A bad performance. I have noticed a bifg drop off in his vocals especially the past couple years. IMHO, it is from perfoming concerts alot. as you get older you need to rest your vocal chords. He played a full concert the night befor and I watched some of the videos, and while again a big decline from a few years back , most were pretty decent. so singers get sick or hoarse perhaps the performance should not have gone on or at least change to an easier song..." "You're 100% right. I thought the same thing. He sounded awful! And Steven Perry IS a GREAT singer. I agree with everything you said. I thought McCartney was trying to sound bad at first, but then realized he wasn't. He needs to retire, I think. Maybe he's been sick or something. Maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt. But he shouldn't have been singing on TV." "PAUL MCCARTNEY STARTED OFF SINGING BAD BUT<HE PUT IT TOGETHER I THINK HE WAS GREAT HE HAS BEEN ILL ..." "Paul's over 70 years old, he doesn't have close to the same voice he used to. Up until, I'd say around the mid 90's, he had an absolutely incredibly voice with tremendous range. Listen to the original versions of 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Helter Skelter', 'Wanderlust', 'I'm Down', or 'Golden Slumbers' and you'll see the type of voice he had. But that's not the only thing that made him a great musician..." "I think his voice was hoarse from the concert the night before." "The song started out with him sounding rough - kind of old man quavery - but when he warmed and got to the hollering parts of the song he could still punch it. He is simply past the age where he should be performing - but he's 1/2 of The Beatles song-writing team (or 1/3rd if you count George Martin) and he had a solid career after them. He is a musical icon. He can still hit the hard notes, it's the lighter tones he's lost to a quaver." WOw ! Paul Mccartney Performance Live On Snl 40th Anniversary show (Review) Sounds Like crap WTF ! !:
________________________________________________________ The point is this: Paul McCartney has been a musical idol of mine for many years now, and when casual fans start making observations like this, it's time to face some hard truths.Playing a concert the night before and then singing live on TV a song that is incredibly hard for anyone to sing much less a man in his 70's makes you wonder about his thought process. Like I said in another post, this is the one time he should have been "Beatle Paul "and sang a fairly easy Beatle tune.
-
yankeefan7:
audi:
It's not just boardies. I shared this guy's YouTube vid the day after the SNL thing; it's got about 20,000 views. That's small potatoes in the grand scheme, but it's worth noting the following comments: ________________________________________________________________ "F-ck Paul McCartney can't sing worth a s**t anymore, makes me cringe whenever he gets behind a mic anymore. But he's old what the **** do you expect? ..." "My type of music is quality vocals this wasnt quality at all " "I am a big Beatle fan but this guy is spot on. A bad performance. I have noticed a bifg drop off in his vocals especially the past couple years. IMHO, it is from perfoming concerts alot. as you get older you need to rest your vocal chords. He played a full concert the night befor and I watched some of the videos, and while again a big decline from a few years back , most were pretty decent. so singers get sick or hoarse perhaps the performance should not have gone on or at least change to an easier song..." "You're 100% right. I thought the same thing. He sounded awful! And Steven Perry IS a GREAT singer. I agree with everything you said. I thought McCartney was trying to sound bad at first, but then realized he wasn't. He needs to retire, I think. Maybe he's been sick or something. Maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt. But he shouldn't have been singing on TV." "PAUL MCCARTNEY STARTED OFF SINGING BAD BUT<HE PUT IT TOGETHER I THINK HE WAS GREAT HE HAS BEEN ILL ..." "Paul's over 70 years old, he doesn't have close to the same voice he used to. Up until, I'd say around the mid 90's, he had an absolutely incredibly voice with tremendous range. Listen to the original versions of 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Helter Skelter', 'Wanderlust', 'I'm Down', or 'Golden Slumbers' and you'll see the type of voice he had. But that's not the only thing that made him a great musician..." "I think his voice was hoarse from the concert the night before." "The song started out with him sounding rough - kind of old man quavery - but when he warmed and got to the hollering parts of the song he could still punch it. He is simply past the age where he should be performing - but he's 1/2 of The Beatles song-writing team (or 1/3rd if you count George Martin) and he had a solid career after them. He is a musical icon. He can still hit the hard notes, it's the lighter tones he's lost to a quaver." WOw ! Paul Mccartney Performance Live On Snl 40th Anniversary show (Review) Sounds Like crap WTF ! !:
________________________________________________________ The point is this: Paul McCartney has been a musical idol of mine for many years now, and when casual fans start making observations like this, it's time to face some hard truths.Playing a concert the night before and then singing live on TV a song that is incredibly hard for anyone to sing much less a man in his 70's makes you wonder about his thought process. Like I said in another post, this is the one time he should have been "Beatle Paul "and sang a fairly easy Beatle tune.
_________________________________________________________ Yankeefan...exactly my thoughts. After doing a late 2 hour concert the night before, he should have done something easy like "All My Loving" where the Band is singing along with him. It's one of those songs that everyone likes to hear. I think one of the problems is that Paul doesn't have a "real" Manager where he has total trust...good or bad. Tony Bennett albeit 10 years older has the perfect manager...his son. I've seen the pair interviewed. Tony has total trust in his son. He knows his son really loves him and will always look out for his best interest. I heard Tony say that when it comes to his Son and his career, his son has the final say. If Tony was Paul's age, I doubt he would allowed him to sing MIA knowing the situation and if it was one of Tony's most difficult songs to sing. And you can't blame Paul's band. It is very hard to tell the boss what he should do. The worse part for me is that MIA is one of my favorite songs (out of so many). I love the original studio version. It is so hard for me and other true fans to see Paul struggling so much compared to his vocals from even 5-10 years ago. I know in his far more controlled concert settings he occasionally can nail it, but more times than not, he really struggles. I hate to hear people who never appreciated Paul's full talents and especially those who obviously hate Paul, revel in seeing Paul in embarrassing situations. Just a bad song choice for Paul to have made. I don't believe in any way however, that this is going to ruin Paul's career. Paul is too much of a fighter and worker in his craft. He will forge ahead and continue to write new songs. My hope is that he stays off the road and spend more time in the studio for the rest of 2015. I know he has the make up shows in Japan and South Korea but I hope it is a very abbreviated tour. For the people of Australia, I certainly could see him playing a couple of dates (if he is up to it) but on the whole I hope he spends much more musical time in the studio. Hopefully we will get a new album and the next Remasters (Tug of War and Pipes of Peace) over the next year or two. By that time, people (hard core and casual fans) will long forget his SNL debacle. __________________________________________________________
-
Wow, a video bashing Paul has 20,000 views? Guys, that's absolutely nothing.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Anyone noticed a pattern here lately? I have. ANYTHING Paul does that is new or different is up for a slam fest here. Paul plays with Kanye and gets slammed. Paul plays with Rihanna and Kanye and gets slammed. Paul plays on the Grammy's and SNL and gets slammed. Paul plays with Taylor Swift and gets slammed. I think it's sad and disgusting that the people who are supposedly fans of his and members of his own website can be so petty and negative about anything he does lately. It looks like he's having some fun to me, and the people he's playing with look like they're having fun too. Lighten up, people! He may not be doing or playing what YOU want. But he is doing and playing what HE wants. All the bitching in the world here is not going to change that. Sure, you have the right to talk about it, but it does not have to be so negative about everything!
I did think it would be a joyous place when I joined, and it is in parts. I joined because I like just about everything McCartney has put out over the years, and wanted to celebrate and discuss it - but I agree, there is rather a lot of criticism.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
audi:
It's not just boardies. I shared this guy's YouTube vid the day after the SNL thing; it's got about 20,000 views. That's small potatoes in the grand scheme, but it's worth noting the following comments: ________________________________________________________________ "F-ck Paul McCartney can't sing worth a s**t anymore, makes me cringe whenever he gets behind a mic anymore. But he's old what the **** do you expect? ..." "My type of music is quality vocals this wasnt quality at all " "I am a big Beatle fan but this guy is spot on. A bad performance. I have noticed a bifg drop off in his vocals especially the past couple years. IMHO, it is from perfoming concerts alot. as you get older you need to rest your vocal chords. He played a full concert the night befor and I watched some of the videos, and while again a big decline from a few years back , most were pretty decent. so singers get sick or hoarse perhaps the performance should not have gone on or at least change to an easier song..." "You're 100% right. I thought the same thing. He sounded awful! And Steven Perry IS a GREAT singer. I agree with everything you said. I thought McCartney was trying to sound bad at first, but then realized he wasn't. He needs to retire, I think. Maybe he's been sick or something. Maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt. But he shouldn't have been singing on TV." "PAUL MCCARTNEY STARTED OFF SINGING BAD BUT<HE PUT IT TOGETHER I THINK HE WAS GREAT HE HAS BEEN ILL ..." "Paul's over 70 years old, he doesn't have close to the same voice he used to. Up until, I'd say around the mid 90's, he had an absolutely incredibly voice with tremendous range. Listen to the original versions of 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Helter Skelter', 'Wanderlust', 'I'm Down', or 'Golden Slumbers' and you'll see the type of voice he had. But that's not the only thing that made him a great musician..." "I think his voice was hoarse from the concert the night before." "The song started out with him sounding rough - kind of old man quavery - but when he warmed and got to the hollering parts of the song he could still punch it. He is simply past the age where he should be performing - but he's 1/2 of The Beatles song-writing team (or 1/3rd if you count George Martin) and he had a solid career after them. He is a musical icon. He can still hit the hard notes, it's the lighter tones he's lost to a quaver." WOw ! Paul Mccartney Performance Live On Snl 40th Anniversary show (Review) Sounds Like crap WTF ! !:
________________________________________________________ The point is this: Paul McCartney has been a musical idol of mine for many years now, and when casual fans start making observations like this, it's time to face some hard truths.Playing a concert the night before and then singing live on TV a song that is incredibly hard for anyone to sing much less a man in his 70's makes you wonder about his thought process. Like I said in another post, this is the one time he should have been "Beatle Paul "and sang a fairly easy Beatle tune.
_________________________________________________________ Yankeefan...exactly my thoughts. After doing a late 2 hour concert the night before, he should have done something easy like "All My Loving" where the Band is singing along with him. It's one of those songs that everyone likes to hear. I think one of the problems is that Paul doesn't have a "real" Manager where he has total trust...good or bad. Tony Bennett albeit 10 years older has the perfect manager...his son. I've seen the pair interviewed. Tony has total trust in his son. He knows his son really loves him and will always look out for his best interest. I heard Tony say that when it comes to his Son and his career, his son has the final say. If Tony was Paul's age, I doubt he would allowed him to sing MIA knowing the situation and if it was one of Tony's most difficult songs to sing. And you can't blame Paul's band. It is very hard to tell the boss what he should do. The worse part for me is that MIA is one of my favorite songs (out of so many). I love the original studio version. It is so hard for me and other true fans to see Paul struggling so much compared to his vocals from even 5-10 years ago. I know in his far more controlled concert settings he occasionally can nail it, but more times than not, he really struggles. I hate to hear people who never appreciated Paul's full talents and especially those who obviously hate Paul, revel in seeing Paul in embarrassing situations. Just a bad song choice for Paul to have made. I don't believe in any way however, that this is going to ruin Paul's career. Paul is too much of a fighter and worker in his craft. He will forge ahead and continue to write new songs. My hope is that he stays off the road and spend more time in the studio for the rest of 2015. I know he has the make up shows in Japan and South Korea but I hope it is a very abbreviated tour. For the people of Australia, I certainly could see him playing a couple of dates (if he is up to it) but on the whole I hope he spends much more musical time in the studio. Hopefully we will get a new album and the next Remasters (Tug of War and Pipes of Peace) over the next year or two. By that time, people (hard core and casual fans) will long forget his SNL debacle. __________________________________________________________
Excellent post and I agree. Mr. McCartney may not have a manager he trusts but I would hope maybe he would listen to his wife and children who obviously can tell that he did not perform that song well and maybe it is time to remove it. Maybe some "tough" love would be good for him and he would accept it from his loved ones. IMO - Mr. McCartney is one of the greatest live acts ever, very few even close to him. He has nothing to prove and I understand he still enjoys it but I don't want him ending up a laughing stock in his later years. I am like you, hope he forges ahead in the studio and makes new music.
-
yankeefan7:
I am like you, hope he forges ahead in the studio and makes new music.
And the beauty of writing,recording and releasing new material is that Paul can then perform the new songs live without constantly having his singing ability compared in a negative way to those performances given years ago when he was younger and in top form vocally.
-
Kestrel:
yankeefan7:
I am like you, hope he forges ahead in the studio and makes new music.
And the beauty of writing,recording and releasing new material is that Paul can then perform the new songs live without constantly having his singing ability compared in a negative way to those performances given years ago when he was younger and in top form vocally.
Post Of The Day!