And now the time is near....
-
Rupert Bear:
You can't really compare McCartney to Dylan... Dylan was never about the vocals. His voice has never been a great vocal, he had his own style but he was mainly a storyteller.
I'm not comparing them vocally so much as I am comparing the quality of the concert. I have ears, and therefore am aware that Dylan was never anywhere NEAR McCartney vocally. My point is that I left that concert EXTREMELY disappointed and I have never left a McCartney concert less than elated, feeling that it was the best moment of my life. Lazy asked me if I would continue to go to Paul's concerts if his voice deteriorated to an unlistenable point (like Dylan's). My answer is no, but I don't think it will get to that point.
-
you see my fear almost is that such is experiance and singalong nature of a mccartney show that the crowd will almost always go home very satisfied. the songbook will almost always hide a multitude of sins. but i certainly dont want paul to be defined by this.of course its amazingly succsesfull and the people will always want more.. its not an easy call and i can easily see why some fans just dont ever want the rush of a mccartney gig to end.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
He was just a bit tired from all his activities and the excitements.
I knew it,I knew Nancy would wear him out eventually.
-
lazydynamite88:
but i certainly dont want paul to be defined by this
If we're being honest with ourselves (which is hard because we all love Paul's solo career so much) Paul will probably always be defined by his Beatle years, at least to the average person. He's had many so-called "missteps" in his career that have been widely criticized--Broadstreet, Pipes, Kisses, etc. None of those have defined him by any means. I think that for the most part, those of us who saw him during these years will remember it fondly and I don't think it will be the thing that defines him to the average person.
-
aakiboh:
lazydynamite88:
but i certainly dont want paul to be defined by this
If we're being honest with ourselves (which is hard because we all love Paul's solo career so much) Paul will probably always be defined by his +Beatle years, at least to the average person. He's had many so-called "missteps" in his career that have been widely criticized--Broadstreet, Pipes, Kisses, etc. None of those have defined him by any means. I think that for the most part, those of us who saw him during these years will remember it fondly and I don't think it will be the thing that defines him to the average person.
sadly you are 100% correct. i wonder if 'neil armstrong' fans think the same about his career post 1969
-
lazydynamite88:
why should he 'cut the TV gigs'?.
Because at a concert, you don't notice missed notes. You're there for the live, communal experience. But when it's televised the sound magnifies every mistake and millions of people are watching -- not 50,000, but millions. And at the Olympics it could be a billion or more. If you fall short, people are going to notice. And Paul has fallen short on most every TV appearance I can think of, with the exception of the Gershwin concert he did for Obama at the White House. Paul should stop TV gigs because -- unfortunately -- we live in a vicious internet culture that revolves around looking for famous people to make mistakes so that we can all pounce on them and tear them apart. There's nothing for Paul to gain from TV appearances and everything to lose -- as we've already seen. People might have let this drop if it was just the Jubilee, but the fact that he's going to be singing at the Olympics -- a source of national pride before the world -- means people will not let this go. I'm already dreading the inevitable stories. Bottom line: Paul over-reached with both of these high-profile gigs. But maybe the fallout will force him to realize that and make some positive changes. He's survived worse in his life.
-
Kathryn O:
TheMajor:
kedame:
The thing that hurts the most is hearing people denigrate him, saying he never had it to begin with, or "John would never have done the Jubilee..." Oh, please...as if they know what John Lennon would do. He barely knew what he would do from one minute to the next!
Yeah those people amused me. Were they referring to John Lennon MBE?
Bet he'd do it if they let Yoko sing on stage.
You use the term "sing" loosely I assume? Shriek is more like it!
-
Maybe I love Paul too much and that why I couldn't imagine that he leaves the big stages and live performances, because no matter if makes some faults on hight notes, needs to do this, even when he is not doing perfect, is a matter of survive, in a way he feed his soul in this kind of massive shows, is like a transfer of life for him. In other words Paul has been born for to this and he will do it to the end.
-
Paul is a big boy and longtime music industry vet, and doesn't need "protecting." If he didn't have fun with the big t.v. gigs, he wouldn't do them. Apparently he doesn't give a toss what anybody says. If he wants to go on t.v., he will, and he does. At this stage, he's more in a league of his own than ever. That legendary one of a kind status can't really be touched or tarnished, it will always shine with the most intense glory. He still sounds like Paul McCartney--the seventy year old Paul he is now, he still is recognizable as Paul McCartney singing. Not the age 20s or age 30s Paul, but still Paul. And more often than some will admit, he still sounds at least kind of like he did when in his full "glory days," on a lot of his songs and in parts of other songs. Not as often "live" on t.v. as in other venues. Looks like live on t.v. isn't a strong suit anymore. Nor is it an unmitigated failure. As Avitah Akiboh pointed out, Paul sounded wonderful, glorious, in his concerts she's seen in this decade and in the past few years of this decade. I heard it for myself when I attended his July 1210 concert in Charlotte, N.C. He sounded great, and very loud and I didn't notice any vocal flaws at all. Here was the Paul I've always loved. Not the really young version, but who he is now, and that was quite enough and more than enough! If you really want to "protect" him then encourage instead of tear down. Artists need some encouragement. It's obvious he's undaunted when it comes to these sporadic t.v. gigs, he does them if he wants to no matter what anyone says afterwards. He's gutsy and brave and fierce in his Liddypool native and show biz veteran way. He has fun with these no matter what, and really truly major fun with his extended concert gigs which are also extremely lucrative so he's not going to give them up because of various rantings from some on the Net. This won't preclude his coming out with more albums. He still will. You can be positive or negative about this, Paul himself has always been positive. Would rather be like Paul.
-
If you find these fair and balanced comments from huge fans like us difficult then I suggest you stay in that little bubble you seem to live in and don't ask the rest of the public for their opinion on the performance. Why do some people on here seemingly have huge issues with anybody talking the truth? I guess it's easier to be like this? *susy mode on* Paul sounded great *susy mode off*
-
Oh come now, Suzy. Seems to me Paul gets plenty of encouragement. Standing in front of 150,000 adoring fans in Mexico last month is as much encouragement as any one person needs in a lifetime and he's been getting that for 50 years. Paul gets asked to do all these big shows and he agrees because he loves the spotlight. Nothing wrong with loving the spotlight if you're a born performer. But that doesn't mean it's in his best interest to do all of these high-profile TV gigs. There is such a thing as being over-exposed -- especially when you're an aging performer whose voice isn't what it used to be and that makes you vulnerable to criticism. I just saw a Web site that did a piece of satire that made this very point. The headline was: Paul McCartney Is Booked to Play the Apocalypse
-
oobu24:
DYLAN : BOB DYLAN : really?
Listen to him when he did Madison Square Garden with the Grateful Dead in the late 80s. Mulitple times. worst shows I've ever heard. and I'm a big fan of both him and the Dead. and they did this one more then once.
-
Paul Mc. does t.v. gigs if he wants to, obviously not caring what anyone says, and why should he given his one of a kind legendary status, in a league of his own, and all that. Why make such a huge deal out of this, it won't make a dent in his brilliant career. I know I made a lot of sense no matter what sour negativity gets thrown at me. If I'm in a "bubble" then it is shared with many, many hundreds of thousands, millions of adoring fans who flock to his concerts in massive hordes, and enjoy themselves greatly. Yes, their encouraging feedback drowns out any objections from naysayers. He's used to critical jibes and jabs as well as gushing praise, having been at this glamorous exalted line of work for most of his life. Obviously he's developed a thick hide.
-
Kathryn O:
oobu24:
DYLAN : BOB DYLAN : really?
Listen to him when he did Madison Square Garden with the Grateful Dead in the late 80s. Mulitple times. worst shows I've ever heard. and I'm a big fan of both him and the Dead. and they did this one more then once.
yes, i know...he is not on the same level at all with paul.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Paul Mc. does t.v. gigs if he wants to, obviously not caring what anyone says, and why should he given his one of a kind legendary status, in a league of his own, and all that. Why make such a huge deal out of this, it won't make a dent in his brilliant career. I know I made a lot of sense no matter what sour negativity gets thrown at me. If I'm in a "bubble" then it is shared with many, many hundreds of thousands, millions of adoring fans who flock to his concerts in massive hordes, and enjoy themselves greatly. Yes, their encouraging feedback drowns out any objections from naysayers. He's used to critical jibes and jabs as well as gushing praise, having been at this glamorous exalted line of work for most of his life. Obviously he's developed a thick hide.
Personally I think you haven't even bothered reading the thread or the points people have made. 1) Paul sounded terrible at the Jubilee gig 2) The public picked up on this, along with a few drab song choices 3) This DOES affect his image and DOES impact on how the younger generation remembers him 4) It is perfectly valid to suggest he should either stop these performances, rearrange his songs into easier arrangements, sing less challenging songs, see a voice coach, see a specialist voice doctor or all of the above. 5) If he doesn't do something about it, over a billion people will potentially see a bad performance at the Olympics. I don't see how any of those statements are in the slightest bit unfair. I'm a huge fan and this is why I feel the need to have this conversation. If I didn't like him I wouldn't give a damn how bad he sang!
-
cfergoid:
If you find these fair and balanced comments from huge fans like us difficult then I suggest you stay in that little bubble you seem to live in and don't ask the rest of the public for their opinion on the performance. Why do some people on here seemingly have huge issues with anybody talking the truth? I guess it's easier to be like this? *susy mode on* Paul sounded great *susy mode off*
maybe some people don't keep up with...or go to more than one show, or see all the DVDs or listen to all the cds & end up not knowing...or hearing.
-
oobu24:
maybe some people don't keep up with...or go to more than one show, or see all the DVDs or listen to all the cds & end up not knowing...or hearing.
That's completely irrelevant here, we're talking about his live vocal at the Jubilee (and SNL and X Factor for that matter)
-
cfergoid:
oobu24:
maybe some people don't keep up with...or go to more than one show, or see all the DVDs or listen to all the cds & end up not knowing...or hearing.
That's completely irrelevant here, we're talking about his live vocal at the Jubilee (and SNL and X Factor for that matter)
well if one hasn't kept up with any of these happenings in his career...then one can hardly have an educated opinion about it.
-
oobu24:
well if one hasn't kept up with any of these happenings in his career...then one can hardly have an educated opinion about it.
People form opinions though and first impressions are hard to break. If I had never heard of Macca or only vaguely recalled his name (like most if my generation and definitely most of the generation below), would I be compelled to find out more? No! It just allows the general perception of Macca to continue and it's something I find very sad. Like I've said, YouTube most of the classic songs and the first hits are dodgy performances, that's not a good thing to leave behind.
-
I've got ears, have listened to oodles of Paul's works for years, am plenty educated, and trust my ear for music and it was a treat that he popped up at the Diamond Jubilee concert. He sounded fine (not perfect, but good and at least always okay, regardless) to me. Flubbed a little here and there but nothing ruinous. I'm not as picky or nit picky as some. We just saw a cropped version on ABC, only got to see Kylie Minogue, Madness, Elton, Stevie Wonder and Will.i.am., a bit of Tom Jones, and all of Paul's except for "Magical Mystery Tour." Paul and Elton got to stand right behind Prince Charles as he extolled his "mummy." Camilla stood beside Paul as I recall and the Queen beside Camilla on the other side. The Queen chose to wear a solomn dignified expression as Charles praised her reign, she didn't stand there smiling and beaming but made a big impression, as usual. I'm grateful I didn't have to sit through Cliff Richard's and Gary Barlowe's appearances. Didn't have to take "Take That." Fireworks were spectacular on "live and Let Die" and even more so, of course, at the concert's end.