"Underappreciated Genius."
-
He was mainly self taught but he id also have lessons which he didnt like so I dont think they lasted
-
DCBeatle64:
He was mainly self taught but he id also have lessons which he didnt like so I dont think they lasted
I recall hearing that, too. I believe he said the teacher wanted him to start off with simple exercises etc., he was too impatient with that. That's the thing about geniuses. They often don't fit the normal system. At school Paul was identified by at least one teacher as being very intelligent. He won that essay contest at 11, about the Queen...I'm guessing he was daydreaming through some of the boring stuff at school, thus the comments about not reaching his potential. With creative genius, the ability to imagine, often comes impatience with normal regimented systems of learning.
-
Yeah I think he took only a couple of lessons and just didn't like it(not the piano itself, the lessons). And that's true about geniuses. I can't remember what I was watching recently but I think it actually showed one of his old report cards with the "Does not apply himself blah blah blah"(or something to that effect) on it.
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
BOYCIE:
estrella de mar:
I think the majority of his recent albums have received pretty good critical reviews - the ones I read of EA and Chaos were certainly good. Here in the UK he just doesn't get the sales any more. And I sometimes feel that he is of that era where success was measured in record sales - which isn't true any more and he still craves that kind of success. Which makes it all the more frustrating when he puts out songs like Dance Tonight as singles which, if we're honest, had no chance of charting significantly. I heard it played on the radio once. On Radio 2. I think that's also why he plays so many Beatles songs at his concerts - he knows that that's what a lot of people want to see and that's what gets him the amazing love and adoration he still gets at his concerts, but not in the charts. He's a (mega)star and like all showbiz people, he "wants to be adored" - as the Stone Roses sang! Sadly (as has been mentioned) I think he's seen as out of touch - an 'oldie' (whether or not that's true is another matter - it's perception). People don't give him a chance. My friends don't see why I like him and it's like they have a block and don't want to like him - he's not cool over here.
I don't think Paul is alone in his so called uncool position,it's the same with most artists of his pedigree.If you get beyond a certain age you're dismissed as irrelevant no matter how good your current music might be.I think Paul's in a good position musically right now, which is quite a remarkable thing considering how long he's been in the music business.
Dylan is not considered irrelevant and I believe he is older than McCartney. The same goes for Springsteen and he is 60. Maybe the difference is they never belonged to a group. Personally, I think critics are ahead of fans in regards to McCartney's later music. McCartney records have received critical acclaim and Grammy nominations but his record sales are mediocre at best. Most of the crowd at concerts just want to hear Beatle songs and they looked absolutely bored with any other songs.
Most of the concert going fans are Beatle fans and not Paul fans so anything other than the familiar songs and they look uninterested. I did say most of Paul's peers not all of them yankeefan7. I think if Dylan broke wind the critics would say it was poetry,they have a blind spot for him as far as i can see.I have bought Dylan's last few critically acclaimed albums and they are okay but not as brilliant as the reviews suggest.I think Paul's albums over the last decade or so stand up well against Dylan's "masterpieces".
I know you said "most" of his peers, just pointing out a couple of examples by mentioning Dylan and Springsteen. I find it sad that a majority of fans are so uniterested if McCartney is not singing a Beatle song in concert. McCartney has been making music for almost 50 yrs and only 7-8 yrs was as a Beatle. His wonderful career did not end in 1970 after "Let It Be" was released. I love and enjoy Beatle songs as much as anybody and was dancing up a storm at the Citifield concert. That being said, I loved the Fireman songs and songs from MAF also. I was thrilled to hear "Mrs. Vanderbilt" live for the first time. I have seen other artists live and listened to their new songs and sometimes bouught the CD because of hearing these songs in concert. To each their own but people are truly missing the point of McCartney as a great artist if they think anything worthwhile was only a Beatle song. As for Dylan, I agree with you that he is a critic darling and could do almost anything on a CD and they would find it brillant. My point and I think you agree is the critics have been very kind to McCartney's work the last decade, it is just the public that is still living in the past for the most part.
-
Guys check this out, I think it sums it all up. Rock Guitar Daily by Tony Conley Paul McCartney As a Musician Lots of thing are said about Paul McCartney these days, but it seems that very little of what's said is about his music. Most of what I see involves his social life, and personal matters, none of which are of my interest or concern. And really shouldn't be anyone else's either. What interests me is wondering if possibly Paul is the finest musician that ever lived, and why. I can already hear the naysayers, and the John Lennon fans. I love Lennon's music, don't get me wrong, but I also am not under the impression that he was anywhere near the level of McCartney in pure musicianship, nor did he have any interest in such. Before you dismiss this possibility, ask yourself this Has anyone ever done as many different things musically as well as McCartney? Sure, there might be better singers, but Paul's a great one. There are writers as good, but perhaps none better over the long haul. As a pianist, he's as facile as rock's best ( Martha My Dear, Maybe I'm Amazed, Let It Be, Hey Jude)....pretty good, eh?). His arranging skills are superb. As a guitarist, he's a brilliant lead player, and no one sounds like him on an acoustic beautiful and unique. Paul the Bassist? The capitalization is intentional. He's almost inarguably the best bassist in the history of rock and roll. Often overlooked is McCartney's fantastic abilities as an accompaniest. Listen to his bass work and background vocals on George Harrison's Something. Wow. Listen to his playing on Lennon's songs. Paul was much more of a team player than he's ever been given credit for. How many cool songs did he write for Ringo Starr to sing? How many writers give away an A Little Help from My Friends, or a Yellow Subnarine (granted a weird one, but was it not perfect for what it was?). His mastery of style is awesome ( a word that's become terribly misused, but I mean it hear as intender - awe inspiring). Early on he rocked I'm Down, then crooned Yesterday. He did Michelle around the same time he did, Got to Get You into My Life. Later, he gave Linda My Love, and Maybe I'm Amazed, while banging out Let Me Roll It, and Live and Let Die. He even tackled country rock with Rocky Racoon. He also regularly travelled the well paved roads of Ray Charles and Little Richard with piano fueled rythym and blues. Seems there's no style he can't do and do well. As a bassist, Paul is not in a league of his own, but he's got scant company. It may be said that James Jamerson played as inventively and as beautifully on most of the Motown hits of the '60s and early '70s. John Entwistle also is a member of the small group of bassists I'd consider truly great. I'd through in the underrated John Paul Jones as well. While these guys are in McCartney's league as a bass player, none of them sang while they played for the most part,or performed their own compositions, either. McCartney's bass work in all you could ever asked for from a player. Even the reasonably rather easily tossed off later hit, Coming Up, has a stunningly great bass line. His playing is perpulsive, melodic, inventive, and unpredictable. I recently enjoyed Tom Petersson of Cheap Trick's performance of the whole of the Sgt. Pepper album, and as impressed as I was with his playing, I was more taken by the fact that McCartney had originally conceived and performed such wonders. There's not a song on the record in which Paul sounds like he did anything but laboriously think out and contribute his best effort. On most every track from his long career Paul has made an effort to play a great part, as opposed to a tagged on bass line. That's where his skills as an accompaniest shine through most brightly. He always played his heart out, never just mailed it in. One wonders (no, I wonder, don't ya hate when writer's do that?) how many people listened to The Beatles's, Taxman, then went on to rave about George Harrison's ripping guitar solo, never realizing that the indeed ripping solo had been laid down by Paul McCartney. His electric lead guitar playing is brilliant, and mostly overlooked when people discuss great guitarists. While he's never made an appearance in any top 100 guitarists type polls, that's both a shame and a crime. Listen to his lead lines on his solo track, Maybe I'm Amazed. I'm absolutely amazed, alright. There's loads of great guitarists who've never played a solo as beautiful, succinct, or better for a song. Paul played lead guitar on a great many Beatles tracks, as confirmed in several books that chronicle the band's recordings. Geoff Emerick, who engineered much of The Beatles's catalogue, discusses this a great deal in hisexcellent book, Here, There, and Everywhere My Life Recording The Beatles. While to a discernible degree a McCartney apologist, Emerick's personal opinions may be one thing, but I can't question his veracity. His facts are indisputable. Fact is, McCartney is a tremendous guitar player, and that fact has been given short shrift. He's a great, great guitarist, regardless of how you look at it. McCartney the singer? If you fancy yourself any type of capable singer, try a few McCartney tunes on for size. His range and abilities are stunning. Wimpy? Tell me that what he sang on Helter Skelter is in any way wimpy. You kidding me? The man has been critically derided for most of his career because he happens to be as good a singer of love songs as anyone ever. We can't go about supporting someone actually espousing the beauty of love, now can we? Paul's performance on the end The Beatle's final recording, Abbey Road, should end any discussion concerning his abilities as a vocalist. Not often mentioned (people rarely discuss such matters), is McCartney's skills as a background vocalist. He's perhaps the greatest that ever lived. Again, give a listen to his accompaniment of George Harrison on Something, and you will be amazed. Throughout the entire history of The Beatles, Paul sang his heart out every time he contributed a harmony to someone else's tunes. The art of harmonization is finally returning to the world of rock after a long absence, and this is a beautiful thing. No one did it better than The Beatles. From day one they were performing wonderfully complex and sophisticated harmonies. McCartney's vocals not onlt boast great tone and range, his note selection also cannot be overlooked. Martha My Dear, a love song Paul wrote to his sheepdog, started out as a piano playing exercise. McCartney, a musician always seeking to improve his skills, devised the piano on this track as a way to sharpen his chops, and the results are obvious. One would never know that this is not the work of a brilliant pianist, which, of course, it is. Paul wrote more hit songs on his piano than perhaps anyone but Cole Porter, and his playing is always spot on. I listed but a few of these hits earlier in this article, but go back and listen to his piano playing. It stands up to the work of such greats as Nicky Hopkins, Leon Russell, or any other great rock and roll piano player. Arrangement is an art that many listeners never consider, but one that can't be overlooked (using that word a lot, aren't I?). In the history of recorded music, has anyone ever recorded a better suite of songs than that which wraps up Abbey Road? Or, how about the middle eight, bridge section of Lennon's, A Day in The Life, where McCartney supplied the brilliant, "Woke up, Fell out of bed" section? Much of Lennon and McCartney's shared brilliance lies in their ability to arrange their songs, not just play them as written. This may speak to work ethic as much as it does to talent, but they had that in spades, and it can never be forgotten that hard work is what develops great skills. Later on, McCartney showed the brilliance of his arranging and producing skills by reuniting with George Martin on the incredible, Live and Let Die, which is so seamless that you almost don't notice how complex and majestic the composition and recording are. It's a musical marvel made to sound effortless by Paul's great talents. Did I mention that he's also a very competent drummer? I didn't even go into his marvelous acoustic guitar playing, simply because that deserves it's an article of it's own, he's that good. Yeah, for my money, Paul McCartney is the all round greatest musician who ever lived. Beethoven never sang his compositions, Sinatra never wrote his songs, and no one I can think of ever so ably contributed to the work of bandmates. He wrote em, played 'em, sang 'em,and produced 'em. Who ever did it all, better? Even after all of that this man will never ever get the real credit he deserves, especially for his brilliance after the Beatles!!
-
cant argue with any of that. the guy sums it up perfectly. when you consider the facts it is quite extrodinary that paul mccartney dosent get far more credit for his brilliance.[and he still gets alot]. mccartneys problem is probably that he is just too good.nobody wants to hail the best all the time. i also think his music on albums down the years has almost been too diverse to be pigeon holed in one bracket. is he a ballad singer?,is he a rocker?,is he an experimental?,is he a writer of massive disposable pop hits? the truth is he is all those things.its almost impossible to put him in a catagory,even his rubbish songs are catchy. therein lies the problem for the critics anyway!
-
Lazydynamite88, I agree with you except for one thing. I don't like when people use the term disposable pop hits. There's absolutely nothing disposable about the fantastic hits that McCartney has written over the years! Also really thinking about it, to me there isn't a better rock singer, especially when McCartney's voice was in it's prime! This author basically said as much without even realizing it!
-
it's not a 'problem'--it's fantastic, speaks very highly of his talents and brilliance, dare one say 'genuis'--that breathtaking diversity, the eclectic mercurial nature of his tremendous gifts.
-
left hand man:
Guys check this out, I think it sums it all up. Rock Guitar Daily by Tony Conley Paul McCartney: As a Musician Lots of thing are said about Paul McCartney these days, but it seems that very little of what's said is about his music. Most of what I see involves his social life, and personal matters, none of which are of my interest or concern. And really shouldn't be anyone else's either. What interests me is wondering if possibly Paul is the finest musician that ever lived, and why. I can already hear the naysayers, and the John Lennon fans. I love Lennon's music, don't get me wrong, but I also am not under the impression that he was anywhere near the level of McCartney in pure musicianship, nor did he have any interest in such. Before you dismiss this possibility, ask yourself this: Has anyone ever done as many different things musically as well as McCartney? Sure, there might be better singers, but Paul's a great one. There are writers as good, but perhaps none better over the long haul. As a pianist, he's as facile as rock's best ( Martha My Dear, Maybe I'm Amazed, Let It Be, Hey Jude)....pretty good, eh?). His arranging skills are superb. As a guitarist, he's a brilliant lead player, and no one sounds like him on an acoustic: beautiful and unique. Paul the Bassist? The capitalization is intentional. He's almost inarguably the best bassist in the history of rock and roll. Often overlooked is McCartney's fantastic abilities as an accompaniest. Listen to his bass work and background vocals on George Harrison's Something. Wow. Listen to his playing on Lennon's songs. Paul was much more of a team player than he's ever been given credit for. How many cool songs did he write for Ringo Starr to sing? How many writers give away an A Little Help from My Friends, or a Yellow Subnarine (granted a weird one, but was it not perfect for what it was?). His mastery of style is awesome ( a word that's become terribly misused, but I mean it hear as intender - awe inspiring). Early on he rocked I'm Down, then crooned Yesterday. He did Michelle around the same time he did, Got to Get You into My Life. Later, he gave Linda My Love, and Maybe I'm Amazed, while banging out Let Me Roll It, and Live and Let Die. He even tackled country rock with Rocky Racoon. He also regularly travelled the well paved roads of Ray Charles and Little Richard with piano fueled rythym and blues. Seems there's no style he can't do and do well. As a bassist, Paul is not in a league of his own, but he's got scant company. It may be said that James Jamerson played as inventively and as beautifully on most of the Motown hits of the '60s and early '70s. John Entwistle also is a member of the small group of bassists I'd consider truly great. I'd through in the underrated John Paul Jones as well. While these guys are in McCartney's league as a bass player, none of them sang while they played for the most part,or performed their own compositions, either. McCartney's bass work in all you could ever asked for from a player. Even the reasonably rather easily tossed off later hit, Coming Up, has a stunningly great bass line. His playing is perpulsive, melodic, inventive, and unpredictable. I recently enjoyed Tom Petersson of Cheap Trick's performance of the whole of the Sgt. Pepper album, and as impressed as I was with his playing, I was more taken by the fact that McCartney had originally conceived and performed such wonders. There's not a song on the record in which Paul sounds like he did anything but laboriously think out and contribute his best effort. On most every track from his long career Paul has made an effort to play a great part, as opposed to a tagged on bass line. That's where his skills as an accompaniest shine through most brightly. He always played his heart out, never just mailed it in. One wonders (no, I wonder, don't ya hate when writer's do that?) how many people listened to The Beatles's, Taxman, then went on to rave about George Harrison's ripping guitar solo, never realizing that the indeed ripping solo had been laid down by Paul McCartney. His electric lead guitar playing is brilliant, and mostly overlooked when people discuss great guitarists. While he's never made an appearance in any top 100 guitarists type polls, that's both a shame and a crime. Listen to his lead lines on his solo track, Maybe I'm Amazed. I'm absolutely amazed, alright. There's loads of great guitarists who've never played a solo as beautiful, succinct, or better for a song. Paul played lead guitar on a great many Beatles tracks, as confirmed in several books that chronicle the band's recordings. Geoff Emerick, who engineered much of The Beatles's catalogue, discusses this a great deal in hisexcellent book, Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording The Beatles. While to a discernible degree a McCartney apologist, Emerick's personal opinions may be one thing, but I can't question his veracity. His facts are indisputable. Fact is, McCartney is a tremendous guitar player, and that fact has been given short shrift. He's a great, great guitarist, regardless of how you look at it. McCartney the singer? If you fancy yourself any type of capable singer, try a few McCartney tunes on for size. His range and abilities are stunning. Wimpy? Tell me that what he sang on Helter Skelter is in any way wimpy. You kidding me? The man has been critically derided for most of his career because he happens to be as good a singer of love songs as anyone ever. We can't go about supporting someone actually espousing the beauty of love, now can we? Paul's performance on the end The Beatle's final recording, Abbey Road, should end any discussion concerning his abilities as a vocalist. Not often mentioned (people rarely discuss such matters), is McCartney's skills as a background vocalist. He's perhaps the greatest that ever lived. Again, give a listen to his accompaniment of George Harrison on Something, and you will be amazed. Throughout the entire history of The Beatles, Paul sang his heart out every time he contributed a harmony to someone else's tunes. The art of harmonization is finally returning to the world of rock after a long absence, and this is a beautiful thing. No one did it better than The Beatles. From day one they were performing wonderfully complex and sophisticated harmonies. McCartney's vocals not onlt boast great tone and range, his note selection also cannot be overlooked. Martha My Dear, a love song Paul wrote to his sheepdog, started out as a piano playing exercise. McCartney, a musician always seeking to improve his skills, devised the piano on this track as a way to sharpen his chops, and the results are obvious. One would never know that this is not the work of a brilliant pianist, which, of course, it is. Paul wrote more hit songs on his piano than perhaps anyone but Cole Porter, and his playing is always spot on. I listed but a few of these hits earlier in this article, but go back and listen to his piano playing. It stands up to the work of such greats as Nicky Hopkins, Leon Russell, or any other great rock and roll piano player. Arrangement is an art that many listeners never consider, but one that can't be overlooked (using that word a lot, aren't I?). In the history of recorded music, has anyone ever recorded a better suite of songs than that which wraps up Abbey Road? Or, how about the middle eight, bridge section of Lennon's, A Day in The Life, where McCartney supplied the brilliant, "Woke up, Fell out of bed" section? Much of Lennon and McCartney's shared brilliance lies in their ability to arrange their songs, not just play them as written. This may speak to work ethic as much as it does to talent, but they had that in spades, and it can never be forgotten that hard work is what develops great skills. Later on, McCartney showed the brilliance of his arranging and producing skills by reuniting with George Martin on the incredible, Live and Let Die, which is so seamless that you almost don't notice how complex and majestic the composition and recording are. It's a musical marvel made to sound effortless by Paul's great talents. Did I mention that he's also a very competent drummer? I didn't even go into his marvelous acoustic guitar playing, simply because that deserves it's an article of it's own, he's that good. Yeah, for my money, Paul McCartney is the all round greatest musician who ever lived. Beethoven never sang his compositions, Sinatra never wrote his songs, and no one I can think of ever so ably contributed to the work of bandmates. He wrote em, played 'em, sang 'em,and produced 'em. Who ever did it all, better? Even after all of that this man will never ever get the real credit he deserves, especially for his brilliance after the Beatles!!
Great post. I heard there was a joke going around a long time ago that Ringo was the 2nd best drummer in the Beatles.
-
Thanks. I'd have never had the audacity to post that here, but am glad someone did. I appreciate the kind words. I believe I'm simply speaking the rather obvious, but overlooked. Hope it's enjoyed. cheers,tc
-
I'm glad Tony gave permission to have his article posted right on here, it's such a good one. You might want to see it with the pictures, though, on his blog. http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/
lazydynamite88:
cant argue with any of that. the guy sums it up perfectly. when you consider the facts it is quite extrodinary that paul mccartney dosent get far more credit for his brilliance.[and he still gets alot]. mccartneys problem is probably that he is just too good.nobody wants to hail the best all the time. i also think his music on albums down the years has almost been too diverse to be pigeon holed in one bracket. is he a ballad singer?,is he a rocker?,is he an experimental?,is he a writer of massive disposable pop hits? the truth is he is all those things.its almost impossible to put him in a catagory,even his rubbish songs are catchy. therein lies the problem for the critics anyway!
I agree! As has been hinted at, I believe Paul will only get the full recognition after he's gone from us, which I hope is a long time from now. As soon as he goes, the media around the world will be filled with retrospectives which gather his whole career together and make everyone realise how amazing his whole career has been (and still is, at this point). There will be no lack of praise for his work in the future, I'm confident. His ghost will be at the top of the charts for a long time.
-
Should happen while he's still around. He deserves to hear something beyond Beatle adulation (which ain't really bad, but....) I think the shame is in the fact that it isn't already an accepted notion. Maybe the world thinks it would be disrespectful to John? Who knows? I rest my case based on the merits of the man's work. I've racked my brain and can't think of another truly serious contender, and I consider myself both fairminded and reasonably knowledgable. One word on photographs. What I use in my blog I get from google images. I don't credit them because there's no commerce, and I'm frankly a bit lazy about it, if anyone wanted credit,I'd surely give it. I try to use shots that flatter the artist and look cool to the reader.
-
tony conley:
I've racked my brain and can't think of another truly serious contender, and I consider myself both fairminded and reasonably knowledgable.
I'm with you, Tony!
-
tony conley:
Should happen while he's still around. He deserves to hear something beyond Beatle adulation (which ain't really bad, but....) I think the shame is in the fact that it isn't already an accepted notion. Maybe the world thinks it would be disrespectful to John? Who knows? I rest my case based on the merits of the man's work. I've racked my brain and can't think of another truly serious contender, and I consider myself both fairminded and reasonably knowledgable. One word on photographs. What I use in my blog I get from google images. I don't credit them because there's no commerce, and I'm frankly a bit lazy about it, if anyone wanted credit,I'd surely give it. I try to use shots that flatter the artist and look cool to the reader.
If you ever need any concert shots , let me know. Got a few cool ones from "Back In the US Tour" that I took.
-
[quote="Wendy2066"]I'm glad Tony gave permission to have his article posted right on here, it's such a good one. You might want to see it with the pictures, though, on his blog. http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/
lazydynamite88:
cant argue with any of that. the guy sums it up perfectly. when you consider the facts it is quite extrodinary that paul mccartney dosent get far more credit for his brilliance.[and he still gets alot]. mccartneys problem is probably that he is just too good.nobody wants to hail the best all the time. i also think his music on albums down the years has almost been too diverse to be pigeon holed in one bracket. is he a ballad singer?,is he a rocker?,is he an experimental?,is he a writer of massive disposable pop hits? the truth is he is all those things.its almost impossible to put him in a catagory,even his rubbish songs are catchy. therein lies the problem for the critics anyway!
I agree! As has been hinted at, I believe Paul will only get the full recognition after he's gone from us, which I hope is a long time from now. As soon as he goes, the media around the world will be filled with retrospectives which gather his whole career together and make everyone realise how amazing his whole career has been (and still is, at this point). There will be no lack of praise for his work in the future, I'm confident. His ghost will be at the top of the charts for a long time.[/quote IMO - I think part of the blame is also on the majority of fans that go to his concerts. The media sees that the crowd reacts wildly to Beatle songs but little else so this plays to that image that only his Beatle work matters to his fans. This is not true if you read this board but the media does not do that plus McCartney does not sell a mass quantity of records for his new releases anymore.
-
Mr. Conley I want to say thank you for being open minded and looking at McCartney for more than just being a Beatle! I like the Beatles, but I'm really a Paul McCartney fan. I rarely listen to the Beatles, but I'm always listening to Wings and solo McCartney. I also feel that McCartney himself hasn't helped matters by performing a Beatle heavy setlist tour after tour after tour. The fans would get into his post Beatle music even more if he would just perform it. There is evidence that the fans appreciate more diversity, just look at his latest concert DVD, the fans are really into the non Beatle songs. On different websites more and more people are starting to say that McCartney needs to change his setlist. I really wish there was someone, anyone that would seriously get the message to McCartney that people really do like and want him to perform much more of his post Beatles music! His genius wouldn't be underappreciated !
-
Hi Everyone!.........Let me tell you why for me the old Bealtles songs at the concerts are so cool.........In an instant I am young again! All the Adult Stuff (responsibility) falls away and once again I am Freeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! I look around and everyone is so happy, and they're all my age and I think feeling the same thing, just plain happy. When I go to a Paul McCartney concert I go to hear whatever he is singing, what a rich voice. Some of it is new to me, I have to settle down and listed. Its not that I don't like it, believe me.
-
left hand man:
Mr. Conley I want to say thank you for being open minded and looking at McCartney for more than just being a Beatle! I like the Beatles, but I'm really a Paul McCartney fan. I rarely listen to the Beatles, but I'm always listening to Wings and solo McCartney. I also feel that McCartney himself hasn't helped matters by performing a Beatle heavy setlist tour after tour after tour. The fans would get into his post Beatle music even more if he would just perform it. There is evidence that the fans appreciate more diversity, just look at his latest concert DVD, the fans are really into the non Beatle songs. On different websites more and more people are starting to say that McCartney needs to change his setlist. I really wish there was someone, anyone that would seriously get the message to McCartney that people really do like and want him to perform much more of his post Beatles music! His genius wouldn't be underappreciated !
First, McCartney has a hardcore number of fans who appreciate his solo work and they are the people that constantly buy his new releases. Most of his recent work sells around 500,000 in the US and rarely more. Due to this, his concerts are not filled with people who know or appreciate his solo work. Even if he plays more solo songs in concert, they will hear it once and forget it the next time they see McCartney. My sister in law hasl seen McCartney every time he tours the US but has never bought a solo record in her lifetime, he is Beatle Paul to her. Second, McCartney has been appreciated by the critics especially this last decade. All of his new records have been given good to excellent reviews including the "Fireman" record. McCartney has received a bunch of Grammy nominations from records like "Flaming Pie", "CHAOS" and "MAF" so he is not being totally ignored. McCartney has also recently been nominated for a Golden Globe for his song "I Want To Come Home" from the latest DiNero movie. McCartney concert tours have been praised as great shows by the critics and that speaks to Mccartney the live performer. Finally, the Beatle legacy is huge and to not understand that is a huge hurdle to climb is a mistake. Even if Lennon had lived, he would have been in the same boat as McCartney and people would still think of him as Beatle first. I agree with you it is frustrating because I also love McCartney the total arrtist not just his days as Beatle Paul.
-
yankeefan7:
left hand man:
Mr. Conley I want to say thank you for being open minded and looking at McCartney for more than just being a Beatle! I like the Beatles, but I'm really a Paul McCartney fan. I rarely listen to the Beatles, but I'm always listening to Wings and solo McCartney. I also feel that McCartney himself hasn't helped matters by performing a Beatle heavy setlist tour after tour after tour. The fans would get into his post Beatle music even more if he would just perform it. There is evidence that the fans appreciate more diversity, just look at his latest concert DVD, the fans are really into the non Beatle songs. On different websites more and more people are starting to say that McCartney needs to change his setlist. I really wish there was someone, anyone that would seriously get the message to McCartney that people really do like and want him to perform much more of his post Beatles music! His genius wouldn't be underappreciated !
First, McCartney has a hardcore number of fans who appreciate his solo work and they are the people that constantly buy his new releases. Most of his recent work sells around 500,000 in the US and rarely more. Due to this, his concerts are not filled with people who know or appreciate his solo work. Even if he plays more solo songs in concert, they will hear it once and forget it the next time they see McCartney. My sister in law hasl seen McCartney every time he tours the US but has never bought a solo record in her lifetime, he is Beatle Paul to her. Second, McCartney has been appreciated by the critics especially this last decade. All of his new records have been given good to excellent reviews including the "Fireman" record. McCartney has received a bunch of Grammy nominations from records like "Flaming Pie", "CHAOS" and "MAF" so he is not being totally ignored. McCartney has also recently been nominated for a Golden Globe for his song "I Want To Come Home" from the latest DiNero movie. McCartney concert tours have been praised as great shows by the critics and that speaks to Mccartney the live performer. Finally, the Beatle legacy is huge and to not understand that is a huge hurdle to climb is a mistake. Even if Lennon had lived, he would have been in the same boat as McCartney and people would still think of him as Beatle first. I agree with you it is frustrating because I also love McCartney the total arrtist not just his days as Beatle Paul.
And to add to that, it was only a scant few years ago that everyone complained there wasn't enough Beatle songs in the set list, pretty much everything performed was a Band on the Run, Venus and Mars or Speed of Sound song...and he let other players (Denny Laine and Jimmy McCulloch) take lead vocals....at least I think it was only a few years ago
-
Consider this though....For many ears Paul toured with Wings doing his sets as he wished, with great sound and monitors. Maybe now he just digs being able to tour Beatle tunes with these modern luxuries that the Fab Four never had. I kind of wish he could alternate tours, a few months doing huge shows, then some smaller, more esoteric, exploratory ventures. But that's my fans selfishness more than anything. Paul's show though, at the end of the day, right?