"Underappreciated Genius."
-
tony conley:
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?
With Wings, he was trying to establish them as a band so he went out of his way to do very few Beatle numbers. I think McCartney has enjoyed doing Beatle songs never done live before he has done them on his tours. If the Beatles had lasted longer and had maybe played some of these songs live, McCartney may have not be as eager to do a heavy laden Beatle set today. That being said, I believe you have mentioned the right solution. The huge shows for the general Beatle fan who would be disappointed without lots of Beatle songs and the smaller shows for the fans who appeciate McCartney the total artist more. Doubt it will ever happen at this stage of his life, but in the words of the Beach Boys "Wouldn't It Be Nice".
-
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
-
lazydynamite88:
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
WOA tour there was only 5 Beatle songs. The first solo tour after Wings (1989), McCartney played numerous songs off "Flowers In The Dirt" and several 1950's rock and roll covers. The 1993 tour follwed the same pattern as McCartney played a bunch of songs off his new release at the time "Off The Ground". McCartney started playing more Beatle hits in the tours of 2000 but he has always added some new things like "Here Today" from "Tug of War" and "Too Many People" from "Ram". McCartney also always plays a few songs from his most current release at his concerts. I find your statement about Paul's ego not allowing anybody to leave one of his modern day concerts without being fully aware of his Beatle legacy quite funny. What planet are you on that you think McCartney needs to perform Beatle songs at his concert for people so people know his Beatle legacy. I saw McCartney at Citifield this summer and he did "Sing The Changes" and "Highway" that are fairly obscure and I bet only the most "hardcore" McCartney fans knew them from his Fireman record.. He also did "Dance Tonight" and Only "Mama Knows" from MAF. McCartney also sang "Mrs. Vanderbilt" from "BOTR" for the first time live in the US. Finally, think of other artists you have seen in concert and think about their setlist. I am willing to bet most top acts play the hits over and over again and add 4-5 new songs each tour which is probably off their latest record.
-
If you read the chapter in Paul's book on the 2003 tour "Each one Believing..." You'll see him describe how much time and thought he puts into making a set list. I understand the frustration of people who listen to his music so much they actually get tired of the most popular ones, but despite how loud those few are on here, they are in the very very small minority of the population. The great majority of people who go to his concerts, and have every right to live normal lives between concerts, absolutely love his set list, as do the critics. For most people a concert is a rare event, a live celebration of what's available on recorded media. Paul and his people have done an excellent job of selecting top hits, songs Paul feels like doing because he hasn't done them as recently, like in the Wings tours...he has many valid reasons for choosing what he does, who are we to second guess him? With so many happy with Paul's set list it's only a few who want it changed for personal reasons, not for the good of Paul or the great majority. With how the critics are reacting, and how he's bringing in new fans who explore his albums once they're "caught" with a concert or concert DVD, there's no way his choices have a negative affect on people understanding his genius!
-
Wendy2066:
If you read the chapter in Paul's book on the 2003 tour "Each one Believing..." You'll see him describe how much time and thought he puts into making a set list. I understand the frustration of people who listen to his music so much they actually get tired of the most popular ones, but despite how loud those few are on here, they are in the very very small minority of the population. The great majority of people who go to his concerts, and have every right to live normal lives between concerts, absolutely love his set list, as do the critics. For most people a concert is a rare event, a live celebration of what's available on recorded media. Paul and his people have done an excellent job of selecting top hits, songs Paul feels like doing because he hasn't done them as recently, like in the Wings tours...he has many valid reasons for choosing what he does, who are we to second guess him? With so many happy with Paul's set list it's only a few who want it changed for personal reasons, not for the good of Paul or the great majority. With how the critics are reacting, and how he's bringing in new fans who explore his albums once they're "caught" with a concert or concert DVD, there's no way his choices have a negative affect on people understanding his genius!
Exactly. Very nicely done. That sums it up for me. Many of us will always want a more eclectic setlist based on our perhaps broader knowledge than the common customer. Such is the curse of the completist, the specialist if you will. I'm sure that Paul's extended road family and staff is huge and this must be taken into account as he's paying wages for a very large company, which dictates to him as much as anything, what size the shows must be and all the decisions that go along with that. Excellent post. Thanks.
-
Wendy whilst i get the idea of your comments and to an extent you probably are right even if I dont like it I have to say recently I have noticed many critics say he is doing the same list. If even the critics think its the same setlist then that really says a lot and thats not so good.
-
DC, I imagine he'll change it up some before next tour, this Europe one was an extra added on because he still had energy, and moms at his kid's school said he should tour at home. Whether some of us like it or not, though, I believe it's best for him to keep in a basic core of really popular ones, classics that peope expect and would be very disappointed not to hear. Please let's not turn this thread into yet another set-list discussion. I'll refrain from saying more on that in here.
-
DCBeatle64:
Wendy whilst i get the idea of your comments and to an extent you probably are right even if I dont like it I have to say recently I have noticed many critics say he is doing the same list. If even the critics think its the same setlist then that really says a lot and thats not so good.
Let's take the recent Citifield concert for example. McCartney did "Sing the Changes and "Highway" from "Electric Arguements. He did "Dance Tonight" and "Only Mama Knows" from MAF. He did "Mrs. Vanderbilt from "BOTR" and that makes 5 solo/Wings songs he has never done live in the US. Let's add the fact that he did "I'm Down" that has been done live (9/11 Concert for NY) before but not on any US tour. McCartney also added "Helter Skelter" which has also not been on any tour that I remember. "Day Tripper" was also done and that has not be done either. So that is eight different songs that have never been done or rarely performed live. So how is this the same setlist? Does he play certain songs at ever concert, the answer is yes but so do a lot of artists. I will admit I would like to hear more of his solo work but to say that every concert is the same is untrue in my opinion.
-
Wendy2066:
If you read the chapter in Paul's book on the 2003 tour "Each one Believing..." You'll see him describe how much time and thought he puts into making a set list. I understand the frustration of people who listen to his music so much they actually get tired of the most popular ones, but despite how loud those few are on here, they are in the very very small minority of the population. The great majority of people who go to his concerts, and have every right to live normal lives between concerts, absolutely love his set list, as do the critics. For most people a concert is a rare event, a live celebration of what's available on recorded media. Paul and his people have done an excellent job of selecting top hits, songs Paul feels like doing because he hasn't done them as recently, like in the Wings tours...he has many valid reasons for choosing what he does, who are we to second guess him? With so many happy with Paul's set list it's only a few who want it changed for personal reasons, not for the good of Paul or the great majority. With how the critics are reacting, and how he's bringing in new fans who explore his albums once they're "caught" with a concert or concert DVD, there's no way his choices have a negative affect on people understanding his genius!
I don't think the "McCartney" fans expect a drastic overhaul of his set list,but i think he could include a few more "Wings Hits" than he does instead of lesser Beatle songs.As a "McCartney fan" i'm just a little surprised at the lack of imagination in the set.I never thought i'd say a Paul gig was boring but they are now. As for the critics being happy, it may be so outside the UK but here they are less enamored with the same old same old.
-
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
WOA tour there was only 5 Beatle songs. The first solo tour after Wings (1989), McCartney played numerous songs off "Flowers In The Dirt" and several 1950's rock and roll covers. The 1993 tour follwed the same pattern as McCartney played a bunch of songs off his new release at the time "Off The Ground". McCartney started playing more Beatle hits in the tours of 2000 but he has always added some new things like "Here Today" from "Tug of War" and "Too Many People" from "Ram". McCartney also always plays a few songs from his most current release at his concerts. I find your statement about Paul's ego not allowing anybody to leave one of his modern day concerts without being fully aware of his Beatle legacy quite funny. What planet are you on that you think McCartney needs to perform Beatle songs at his concert for people so people know his Beatle legacy. I saw McCartney at Citifield this summer and he did "Sing The Changes" and "Highway" that are fairly obscure and I bet only the most "hardcore" McCartney fans knew them from his Fireman record.. He also did "Dance Tonight" and Only "Mama Knows" from MAF. McCartney also sang "Mrs. Vanderbilt" from "BOTR" for the first time live in the US. Finally, think of other artists you have seen in concert and think about their setlist. I am willing to bet most top acts play the hits over and over again and add 4-5 new songs each tour which is probably off their latest record.
I said the same thing recently. I looked at the set lists from various acts that have toured in the last 3 years from Paul's "generation" or thereabouts and they all played mostly stuff that is 30 + years old. If anything Paul averaged a couple more "recent" songs than they did. He played 4 or 5 songs from the last 12 years? I looked at a setlist from the last Stones tour for example and I think they played something like 2 songs from that time period. They had a shorter setlist(about half as many songs as Paul plays so at least we're getting more bang for our buck ) so it probably averages to about the same percentage per set list. As for the UK, from what I've seen of UK critics, they'd find something to complain about no matter what he played. They'd probably complain if he did too many Wings songs as well or too many new songs. Especially as it isn't the "same old, same old" for them, he's toured there less.
-
Wendy2066:
Please let's not turn this thread into yet another set-list discussion. I'll refrain from saying more on that in here.
Wendy is right here. Please continue the discussion on the set list on one of the several threads dedicated to the topic. Thank you.
-
calicoskych2001:
Wendy2066:
Please let's not turn this thread into yet another set-list discussion. I'll refrain from saying more on that in here.
Wendy is right here. Please continue the discussion on the set list on one of the several threads dedicated to the topic. Thank you.
The "setlist" discussion was one of the points of this discussion so why can't we discuss it here. The point was that most fans that go to McCartney concerts don't appreciate his solo works and maybe that is why McCartney is not totally appreciated as a artist. If you review 90% of the posts on this thread, it has nothing to do with his setlist. Who are you to tell us what we can discuss in a thread. It is not like we are starting a new thread about the setlist.
-
Perhaps we should make a list of all the ways in which Paul is a genius, then we can more easily discuss if he's under-apreciated for each item and over-all. There may also me some debate about what exactly he is a genius in, so it would be good to come to some sort of concensus before we can decide if he's under-appreciated on some or all of the ways he is. I'll start it out with what comes to mind (they might not all end up on my personal list): 1) Musical composition -- pop melodies, soft balads (Yesterday...) 2) Musical composition -- pop melodies, hard rock (Helter Skelter...) 3) Musical composition -- classical style (Standing Sone...) 4) Musical composition -- experimental (Fireman instrumentals...) 5) Lyrics -- love songs -- (Silly Love songs...) 6) Lyrics -- Social message (C'mon People...) 7) Lyrics -- Raunchy (Hi Hi Hi...) Poetry 9) Children's book authour 10) Essays (Environmental speeches, Queen's Jubilee...) 11) PR writing (Messages to fans...) 12) Screenwriting 13) Visual art (paintings) 14) Film directing 15) Vocalist 16) Instrumentalist (could be separated into each instrument he plays 17) Teacher/mentor 1 Theatre? (Did he write/visualise the pre-show for 2003 tour?) 19) Album concepts 20) Live Performance (connection with audience etc.) 21) Live concert planning (set lists, visuals, band members...)
-
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
WOA tour there was only 5 Beatle songs. The first solo tour after Wings (1989), McCartney played numerous songs off "Flowers In The Dirt" and several 1950's rock and roll covers. The 1993 tour follwed the same pattern as McCartney played a bunch of songs off his new release at the time "Off The Ground". McCartney started playing more Beatle hits in the tours of 2000 but he has always added some new things like "Here Today" from "Tug of War" and "Too Many People" from "Ram". McCartney also always plays a few songs from his most current release at his concerts. I find your statement about Paul's ego not allowing anybody to leave one of his modern day concerts without being fully aware of his Beatle legacy quite funny. What planet are you on that you think McCartney needs to perform Beatle songs at his concert for people so people know his Beatle legacy. I saw McCartney at Citifield this summer and he did "Sing The Changes" and "Highway" that are fairly obscure and I bet only the most "hardcore" McCartney fans knew them from his Fireman record.. He also did "Dance Tonight" and Only "Mama Knows" from MAF. McCartney also sang "Mrs. Vanderbilt" from "BOTR" for the first time live in the US. Finally, think of other artists you have seen in concert and think about their setlist. I am willing to bet most top acts play the hits over and over again and add 4-5 new songs each tour which is probably off their latest record.
errr..what planet im i on??? planet earth the last time i checked. without going over old ground here about 'set lists' etc lets just say my opinions are pretty widespread for the 'mccartney' fans i know. it appears there is a general difference in the thoughts of your average 'uk' paul fan and your average 'american' paul fan. here in the 'uk' we prefer to call a spade a spade and no matter how much we admire 'paul' he is not beyond mild and harsh criticism at times. my perception may be wrong but your average 'american' fan appears to show a remarkably hostile reaction to anyone daring to take a pop however small at any of 'pauls' choices.. personally ive never been a fan of blind loyalty,but each to their own.i suppose it is the official paul mccartney forum after all. it seems we all agree that paul really is a 'genious' and you wont get an argument from me on that..i just hope he spends his last serious working years doing what he does best and creates lots of new 'rock/pop' records.its the one thing that truely excites me still about him. i dont really care much for his 'groundhog day' concerts anymore .ive never really been that interested in his classical works or indeed any of his political global issues.hes entitled to his opinion but thats exactly what it is. a new 'mccartney' record will do fine for me .even an 'average' mccartney record like 'memory almost full' has more good stuff on it than the rest of the current charts put together..
-
lazydynamite88:
a new 'mccartney' record will do fine for me .even an 'average' mccartney record like 'memory almost full' has more good stuff on it than the rest of the current charts put together
Even a "brilliant" McCartney record like Memory Almost Full has more fantatstic stuff on it that the rest of the current charts put together. The rest is generally a truism,but we do have to be careful we're not too cynical as it becomes contagious.I have noticed that i have started to get too negative on Paul things,mostly on the set list,so i'm trying to be less cynical.I'm not sure i can hold out from it though.
-
Paul McCatney is not a genius. He's just got the knack of composing memorable melodies and thats about it. His work is generally far too inconsistant and superficial to be classed as a work of a genius. But Paul's still top of his tree, I can't think of anyone who is better at doing what Paul McCartney does.
-
Kestrel:
Paul McCatney is not a genius. He's just got the knack of composing memorable melodies and thats about it. His work is generally far too inconsistant and superficial to be classed as a work of a genius. But Paul's still top of his tree, I can't think of anyone who is better at doing what Paul McCartney does.
I don't think being a genius, particularly a genius artist, means that everything the person does is genius level or that it's consistent. In fact artistic geniuses are often inconsistent. Not all of them, but plenty of them. Heck even academic geniuses can fail tests.
-
Kestrel:
Paul McCatney is not a genius. He's just got the knack of composing memorable melodies and thats about it. His work is generally far too inconsistant and superficial to be classed as a work of a genius. But Paul's still top of his tree, I can't think of anyone who is better at doing what Paul McCartney does.
It depends on your definition of "genius",i think there have been "genius" moments but i agree that his music over the last 40 years especially is too inconsistent to qualify for "genius" status.I do think that there's still a lot of great work in there but consistent no.My only frustration is that the critics and the public in general think he's released nothing of consequence since the Beatles and that's not true.The typical insult is "Frog Chorus or "Mull Of Kintyre" if you mention you're a Paul fan and it's so bloody ignorant.I suppose that's something he's going to have to live with,always an ex-Beatle.
-
The problem is exactly that we presume to say things such as, "my definition of genius." That's a slippery slope that our culture has embraced. No, words have existing definitions. We then use language in either an appropriate or inappropriate way. I have a strange and abiding love for language, maybe because I'm NOT a genius. So I went to the old dictionary, and sure enough genius means about what I thought it meant. On points 1,2,4, and 8 (of the definition which follows from Websters) it's hard to argue McCartney's right to be considered a genius. He did things that had never been done within the contexts in which he worked. His natural capacity of intellect is rather obvious, as the man achieved success in several realms of the creative world for an extremely long period. By the world's best measure (Money), he's even a genius at business. He runs his own business - he hires managers, like any executive. If McCartney is not a genius, based on the word's definition, I'm boggled as to imagine who is. I don't know Paul's IQ, but his work has almost unquestionably, if looked at with dispassion, qualified him to be referred to as a genius. Some seem to consider John Lennon a genius because he didn't labor intensely. Would one say the same of Edison or Einstein becausse they did? In there world the mistakes just don't get published, never think they're not made. A large part of genius is the ability to focus and actually do the work of which you are capable. If we look at the facts, it's my belief that the man's a genius. The definition now follows. genius - 4 dictionary results gen⋅ius /ˈdʒinyəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jeen-yuhs] ?noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i /ˈdʒiniˌaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jee-nee-ahy] 1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart. 2. a person having such capacity. 3. a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an IQ above 140. 4. natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius for leadership. 5. distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or language. 6. the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc. 7. either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life. 8. a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character, conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil genius of Russian politics. 9. genie (defs. 1, 3). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin: 1350?1400; ME < L: tutelary deity or genius of a person; cf. genus
-
lazydynamite88:
yankeefan7:
lazydynamite88:
he can do nothing with his legacy these days that will alter my fantastic opinion of his solo work. it is awe inspiring ,every note interests me.its highs are at least the equal of anything he did as a 'beatle'.its lows are not as often as the critics would have you believe. there is something interesting about almost every mccartney solo/wings album.its a real shame that he prefers to leave most of it on the shelf. but hey,he cant please everyone and mccartney has always been a cold blooded buisnessman at times..he plays the beatles hits for the disposable 'fan for the night' who want to see a bit of history and are prepared to pay top dollar. a 'hardcore' mccartney solo fan does not have a hope in hell of seeing any of his more obscure songs live any time soon.pauls 'ego' would never allow anybody leaving one of his modern day concerts without fully being aware of his beatles legacy.
WOA tour there was only 5 Beatle songs. The first solo tour after Wings (1989), McCartney played numerous songs off "Flowers In The Dirt" and several 1950's rock and roll covers. The 1993 tour follwed the same pattern as McCartney played a bunch of songs off his new release at the time "Off The Ground". McCartney started playing more Beatle hits in the tours of 2000 but he has always added some new things like "Here Today" from "Tug of War" and "Too Many People" from "Ram". McCartney also always plays a few songs from his most current release at his concerts. I find your statement about Paul's ego not allowing anybody to leave one of his modern day concerts without being fully aware of his Beatle legacy quite funny. What planet are you on that you think McCartney needs to perform Beatle songs at his concert for people so people know his Beatle legacy. I saw McCartney at Citifield this summer and he did "Sing The Changes" and "Highway" that are fairly obscure and I bet only the most "hardcore" McCartney fans knew them from his Fireman record.. He also did "Dance Tonight" and Only "Mama Knows" from MAF. McCartney also sang "Mrs. Vanderbilt" from "BOTR" for the first time live in the US. Finally, think of other artists you have seen in concert and think about their setlist. I am willing to bet most top acts play the hits over and over again and add 4-5 new songs each tour which is probably off their latest record.
errr..what planet im i on??? planet earth the last time i checked. without going over old ground here about 'set lists' etc lets just say my opinions are pretty widespread for the 'mccartney' fans i know. it appears there is a general difference in the thoughts of your average 'uk' paul fan and your average 'american' paul fan. here in the 'uk' we prefer to call a spade a spade and no matter how much we admire 'paul' he is not beyond mild and harsh criticism at times. my perception may be wrong but your average 'american' fan appears to show a remarkably hostile reaction to anyone daring to take a pop however small at any of 'pauls' choices.. personally ive never been a fan of blind loyalty,but each to their own.i suppose it is the official paul mccartney forum after all. it seems we all agree that paul really is a 'genious' and you wont get an argument from me on that..i just hope he spends his last serious working years doing what he does best and creates lots of new 'rock/pop' records.its the one thing that truely excites me still about him. i dont really care much for his 'groundhog day' concerts anymore .ive never really been that interested in his classical works or indeed any of his political global issues.hes entitled to his opinion but thats exactly what it is. a new 'mccartney' record will do fine for me .even an 'average' mccartney record like 'memory almost full' has more good stuff on it than the rest of the current charts put together..
You can criticize McCartney all you want, that is your right and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My "planet earth" comment was because I could not believe that you actually thought McCartney had to play Beatle songs at concerts for people to make them fully aware of his Beatle legacy. I am going to go out on a limb and say that 99.9% of the concert audience is going to the show to hear Beatle songs so they are fully aware of his Beatle legacy. There are quite a few fans on this board that do not have the "blind" loyalty that you mention and they are from the US. I have had no problem with trashing McCartney records I thought were horrible (exp. "Wild Life", "McCartney II", "Pipes Of Peace" etc). I really don't care about his political causes either but don't blame him for using his celebrity to advance these causes. If you think his concerts are the same old thing, then so be it and there will be others that agree with you. I would love to hear more solo McCartney songs in concert but that is just my wish and probably never happen so I will let it go. As I mentioned above, he does perform different songs and he is no different from most artists who do the same things with their shows. For example, I have seen Elton John a few times recently and his show was not much different from the first time I saw him to the last time. The rock band "The Who" basically performed the same show for decades, did you criticize them? Bill Joel has not put out a new record since 1993 and has toured with a almost identical show several times. So if we are going to criticize McCartney about a setlist, lets criticize other well known "classic rock" artists. Finally, I think this last decade has been some of McCartney's finest recordings since leaving the Beatles. (certainly blows away other decades like the 80"s).