2017 Setlist Speculation Thread
-
I think a good "realistic" setlist for Paul would be something like this 1. Venus and Mars/Rock Show 2. Jet 3. My Brave Face 4. All My Loving 5. Junior's Farm 6. Listen to What the Man Said 7. So Glad to See You Here 8. Coming Up OR Getting Better (maybe swap every other night) 9. Drive My Car 10. The Night Before 11. Let Me Roll It 12. Long and Winding Road 13. Fine Line 14. 1985 15. Maybe I'm Amazed 16. I've Just Seen a Face OR I Will 17. Ram On 18. Blackbird 19. Eleanor Rigby 20. Penny Lane OR Lovely Rita 21. C'mon People 22. The Fool on the Hill 23. Mrs. Vandebilt 24. Ob-La-Di 25. Band on the Run 26. Back in the USSR 27. A Day in the Life/Give Peace a Chance 28. Let It Be 29. Live and Let Die 30. Hey Jude 31. Lady Madonna 32. Take It Away 33. Get Back 34. Yesterday 35. No More Lonely Nights OR Mull of Kintyre 36. Helter Skelter 37. Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End
-
sirloin:
I often wonder how one could even tell if a song isn't popular. I feel like crowds cheer wildly before and after every song. Other than seeing people leave their seats and head for the restrooms and concession stands, how can they ever tell if something isn't super popular? I don't think I'd be able to tell. I'd be that dork up there like, "I'm now going to play a rejected song from the sessions for such and such an album," and in my ignorance think I just rocked the house.
Yeah, here's my main issue with his "I have to play well-known songs because people will walk out otherwise" thing... I don't doubt he's wrong about that experience -- I've heard from very casual fans who saw him in '89-'90 that the new songs were the "bathroom" songs. However, I think he doesn't realize that lesser known songs can be well-received too, depending on various factors. In 2002, I attended with a moderate Beatles yet not Paul fan who didn't know Let Me Roll It (I know, I know), but as an organ player he appreciated Wix's solo and the rest of the performance, and the song was the highlight of the night for him -- he then bought Back in the US when it came out and played that track all the time. I also recall that Mrs. Vandebilt, when added, was not a well known number, but it went over really well. And I can think of multiple instances at shows by other artists where a song that much of the audience didn't know was still a show highlight, and became a favorite among some of us who didn't or barely knew it. You're always going to have people who get up for breaks, including some who really need to. Every concert I go to I'm floored by how many people don't seem to be there for the show at all, but rather to get food & drinks and socialize. Yet for the rest of us, performances can still be just as entertaining even when we don't know the song well. I think something like Take It Away could bring the house down whether folks remember it from its heyday or not. Paul should have much more confidence in his material and playing!
sirloin:
I still wish I was that epic of a songwriter that I literally couldn't build a setlist big enough to include all of my greatest hits. Most artists can only wish they had that problem.
Amen, that's the thing underlying all of this.
-
Regardless of all... 1974-1994, 2 decades worth of material... 2 done songs in total on tour with this band through all those years and tours: 'Here Today' and 'Temporary Secretary'. And he can rehearse, perform and nail 'Comically Conscious' and 'Looking For Changes' (both 1993) easily for a millionaire benefit gig crowd. So that's not the problem. Baffling. No one would bat an eyelid if he would do the latter instead of 'Save Us' 1 out of 3 gigs, and we would fly across the world for that addition alone lol.
-
And oh yeah, for the "the venue will empty and crowd is bored when he doesn't play a big Beatles tune"-believers, I filmed the crowd response to 'Letting Go' last year, the last few seconds here:
-
nobodytoldme:
And oh yeah, for the "the venue will empty and crowd is bored when he doesn't play a big Beatles tune"-believers, I filmed the crowd response to 'Letting Go' last year, the last few seconds here:
And...on a different or a new song...play it enough & they will know it! Just like build it & they will come. Sing it & they will learn!
-
All that really needs to be said is this: there is ALWAYS a reason to play good music. There is lots of good music on Flowers in The Dirt. If Paul had written "Put it There" while he was a Beatle, it would be a classic. That's probably the only one though. That being said, there's STILL lots of good music on the record (and some not so good). "My Brave Face", "Figure of Eight", and "This One" would result in the same level of applause as "Letting Go" so long as there is confidence behind it. Do you know why Paul got a good response on "Letting Go"? It's because he just played the damn song and it rocked. There was no preface of "this is a Wings B-side from 1974..." because THAT would immediately tell about 70% of the arena "YOU DON'T KNOW THIS" which equals "MORE BEER"... :
-
AcresOfFun:
However, I think he doesn't realize that lesser known songs can be well-received too, depending on various factors. In 2002, I attended with a moderate Beatles yet not Paul fan who didn't know Let Me Roll It (I know, I know), but as an organ player he appreciated Wix's solo and the rest of the performance, and the song was the highlight of the night for him -- he then bought Back in the US when it came out and played that track all the time.
I do agree with this. Call me a bad fan, but when I saw him for the first time in 2009, I absolutely loved Got to Get You Into My Life and Flaming Pie... ...even though I'd never heard them before. *ducks*
AcresOfFun:
Yet for the rest of us, performances can still be just as entertaining even when we don't know the song well. I think something like Take It Away could bring the house down whether folks remember it from its heyday or not.
Take It Away, yes, because it's a high-energy song. I also think that Mrs. Vandebilt, to which you alluded earlier, was successful for the same reason, although I think it probably stuck around longer than it should have. However, as I've mentioned earlier, I think he has to limit how many he throws into a set at a single time. If these songs were to be added, it wouldn't be the Let Me Roll Its of the world that get the boot; it would be the Junior's Farms, the Temporary Secretarys (why couldn't that DJ have been spinning Take It Away, My Brave Face, or something else? ), and the Hi Hi His.
nobodytoldme:
And he can rehearse, perform and nail 'Comically Conscious' and 'Looking For Changes' (both 1993) easily for a millionaire benefit gig crowd. So that's not the problem. Baffling. No one would bat an eyelid if he would do the latter instead of 'Save Us' 1 out of 3 gigs, and we would fly across the world for that addition alone lol.
If it were up to me, I'd cut all but one, if not all, of the songs from New now that it's several years old, but he isn't touring like he did the last time he did a genuine album promotion on the Us Tour. He takes several years to cover as much ground in the US as he did in a matter of months back then, so in many ways, he's still promoting New to some of these markets for the very first time.
nobodytoldme:
And oh yeah, for the "the venue will empty and crowd is bored when he doesn't play a big Beatles tune"-believers, I filmed the crowd response to 'Letting Go' last year, the last few seconds here:
Letting Go is a Wings song, and the Wings legacy gets a respectable amount of attention in its own right. Bad example. Actually, I was unfamiliar with that song when I first heard it in 2010 and I remembered really enjoying it. I feel like he's actually done a great job of covering Wings in the grand scheme of things. In addition to Band on the Run, Let Me Roll It, Maybe I'm Amazed (assuming you count it as Wings), and Jet, which have been around forever and of which only the latter ever gets briefly rotated out, you've got Mrs. Vandebilt, Let 'Em In, Letting Go, Junior's Farm, and Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five (actually my friend's favorite song from the show we saw at Wrigley Field in 2011), which have all gotten some nice attention in recent years. Venus and Mars/Rockshow, Ram On, and Listen to What the Man Said also got some time in the sun.
WixRocks!:
If Paul had written "Put it There" while he was a Beatle, it would be a classic.
DING DING DING! Show 'im what he's won, Johnny! This right here is a spot-on assessment. I'd almost argue that if we want to place the blame on anyone for why some of these songs don't get played live, it's because they don't get played on the radio. I can turn on an 80s radio station and tell you with absolute certainty that I won't hear a single song from Flowers in the Dirt or Tug of War despite hearing Tainted Love, Working for the Weekend, or any other one-hit wonder a thousand times over, despite the Fact that Flowers in the Dirt has more great songs on it than most "greatest hits of the 80s" albums in existence. I feel like the legacy of the Beatles is so unbelievably powerful that it overshadows everything else he's done, Wings included, but his solo stuff especially so, and therefore people just don't get that exposure to his works. I'd give C'mon people a spot in the set at the end over Let It Be, but I don't ever remember hearing a single song from Off the Ground on the radio ever and I grew up in the 90s.
WixRocks!:
There was no preface of "this is a Wings B-side from 1974..." because THAT would immediately tell about 70% of the arena "YOU DON'T KNOW THIS" which equals "MORE BEER"... Rolling Eyes Laughing
There's the problem right there. Give people more beer early and suddenly every song rocks.
-
sirloin:
AcresOfFun:
However, I think he doesn't realize that lesser known songs can be well-received too, depending on various factors. In 2002, I attended with a moderate Beatles yet not Paul fan who didn't know Let Me Roll It (I know, I know), but as an organ player he appreciated Wix's solo and the rest of the performance, and the song was the highlight of the night for him -- he then bought Back in the US when it came out and played that track all the time.
I do agree with this. Call me a bad fan, but when I saw him for the first time in 2009, I absolutely loved Got to Get You Into My Life and Flaming Pie... ...even though I'd never heard them before. *ducks*
AcresOfFun:
Yet for the rest of us, performances can still be just as entertaining even when we don't know the song well. I think something like Take It Away could bring the house down whether folks remember it from its heyday or not.
Take It Away, yes, because it's a high-energy song. I also think that Mrs. Vandebilt, to which you alluded earlier, was successful for the same reason, although I think it probably stuck around longer than it should have. However, as I've mentioned earlier, I think he has to limit how many he throws into a set at a single time. If these songs were to be added, it wouldn't be the Let Me Roll Its of the world that get the boot; it would be the Junior's Farms, the Temporary Secretarys (why couldn't that DJ have been spinning Take It Away, My Brave Face, or something else? ), and the Hi Hi His.
nobodytoldme:
And he can rehearse, perform and nail 'Comically Conscious' and 'Looking For Changes' (both 1993) easily for a millionaire benefit gig crowd. So that's not the problem. Baffling. No one would bat an eyelid if he would do the latter instead of 'Save Us' 1 out of 3 gigs, and we would fly across the world for that addition alone lol.
If it were up to me, I'd cut all but one, if not all, of the songs from New now that it's several years old, but he isn't touring like he did the last time he did a genuine album promotion on the Us Tour. He takes several years to cover as much ground in the US as he did in a matter of months back then, so in many ways, he's still promoting New to some of these markets for the very first time.
nobodytoldme:
And oh yeah, for the "the venue will empty and crowd is bored when he doesn't play a big Beatles tune"-believers, I filmed the crowd response to 'Letting Go' last year, the last few seconds here:
Letting Go is a Wings song, and the Wings legacy gets a respectable amount of attention in its own right. Bad example. Actually, I was unfamiliar with that song when I first heard it in 2010 and I remembered really enjoying it. I feel like he's actually done a great job of covering Wings in the grand scheme of things. In addition to Band on the Run, Let Me Roll It, Maybe I'm Amazed (assuming you count it as Wings), and Jet, which have been around forever and of which only the latter ever gets briefly rotated out, you've got Mrs. Vandebilt, Let 'Em In, Letting Go, Junior's Farm, and Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five (actually my friend's favorite song from the show we saw at Wrigley Field in 2011), which have all gotten some nice attention in recent years. Venus and Mars/Rockshow, Ram On, and Listen to What the Man Said also got some time in the sun.
WixRocks!:
If Paul had written "Put it There" while he was a Beatle, it would be a classic.
DING DING DING! Show 'im what he's won, Johnny! This right here is a spot-on assessment. I'd almost argue that if we want to place the blame on anyone for why some of these songs don't get played live, it's because they don't get played on the radio. I can turn on an 80s radio station and tell you with absolute certainty that I won't hear a single song from Flowers in the Dirt or Tug of War despite hearing Tainted Love, Working for the Weekend, or any other one-hit wonder a thousand times over, despite the Fact that Flowers in the Dirt has more great songs on it than most "greatest hits of the 80s" albums in existence. I feel like the legacy of the Beatles is so unbelievably powerful that it overshadows everything else he's done, Wings included, but his solo stuff especially so, and therefore people just don't get that exposure to his works. I'd give C'mon people a spot in the set at the end over Let It Be, but I don't ever remember hearing a single song from Off the Ground on the radio ever and I grew up in the 90s.
WixRocks!:
There was no preface of "this is a Wings B-side from 1974..." because THAT would immediately tell about 70% of the arena "YOU DON'T KNOW THIS" which equals "MORE BEER"... Rolling Eyes Laughing
There's the problem right there. Give people more beer early and suddenly every song rocks.
"I'd almost argue that if we want to place the blame on anyone for why some of these songs don't get played live, it's because they don't get played on the radio. I can turn on an 80s radio station and tell you with absolute certainty that I won't hear a single song from Flowers in the Dirt or Tug of War despite hearing Tainted Love, Working for the Weekend, or any other one-hit wonder a thousand times over, despite the Fact that Flowers in the Dirt has more great songs on it than most "greatest hits of the 80s" albums in existence. " I agree to a point but take the song "Take It Away for TOW for example. It was top 10 single in the US and received plenty of radio air play back then. It also had a cool video that was shown fairly regularly on MTV back in the early 80's. There is absolutely no reason why this has never been done live and he does "Temporary Secretary". Does the 80's radio station you listen to play anything off TOW?
-
I picked 80s stations as an example, but honestly, be it some 80s station/playlist on Spotify, Amazon music, or even the radio (we play 80s stuff at work a fair bit), or the stations I listened to in the 90s, I don't recall ever really hearing any of Paul's solo stuff outside of Wonderful Christmastime in December. No Tug of War, Flowers in the Dirt, Flaming Pie...nothing. If it wasn't Wings or earlier (and even hearing Wings was pretty rare), I don't recall ever really hearing it on the radio. I'm only now getting around to getting myself caught up on his solo works.
-
Between local radio and XM, I can honestly say I have never heard any solo Macca songs on air that were released in the 1980-2000 range.
-
WixRocks!:
Between local radio and XM, I can honestly say I have never heard any solo Macca songs on air that were released in the 1980-2000 range.
A bunch of years ago (probably close to 10) I used to listen to local radio station that did "Acoustic" hour show ever Sunday morning on my way home from work (worked night shift back then). Anyway, the DJ for that hour took requests and I submitted one to get "Here Today" played. It took several weeks but it did get played.
-
Good discussions and many of the arguments (even if I disagree) are good ones. There is one question that keeps popping in my head in summary: Why should Paul "freeking" McCartney even be concerned if he plays a good quality (but relatively unknown) song that many in the audience aren't lighting up their phones, going crazy with applause or leave for a beer. Based on his Setlist, the audience will surely come back within a song or two when a "known" Beatle or Wings' song returns. For what Paul has done in his career or for the many great songs he has written, that shouldn't worry him at all. Many artists in Paul's category (Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Neil Young) do it all the time in their setlists. They have no problem playing their "deep" songs because they're more concerned about their songs being heard (and their true fans) than the reaction of the "casual" audience. Another thing that keeps coming back to me is that to "add" songs (particularly ones that they haven't done before) does take work and it just seems like Paul doesn't have the motivation to do it. I get that Paul is closing in on 75 and he surely doesn't have the energy he used to but he doesn't have to do it all himself. I'm not suggesting that Paul becomes a workaholic at 75. He has great musicians in his band. Just give them a short list of great songs he hasn't done before (or this band hasn't done before) each year and tell them to be ready to play them. Paul doesn't even have to play the key guitar or piano parts (like he has Rusty play on "And I love her"). The key is to just "introduce" some great songs (even if only 4 each year) never played live before. Obviously, he has pretty much exhausted his Beatle catalog but you would think that his great Solo songs would be what he wants to introduce anyway. Again, Paul doesn't have to do it all himself. What do they constantly say about a great business manager...delegate, delegate, delegate. I recently saw a thing on U-tube titled Lennon or McCartney. In the rather lengthy video, the moderator was interviewing many musicians (some were groups), actors celebrities etc. The moderator's purpose was to get they're reaction without much thought...who was the best Lennon or McCartney. I expected John to win for a couple of reasons not the least being how John tragically died. While John did win, I was surprise how Paul did relatively well and garnered many votes. Many were hesitating with their answers and from a "music" perspecitve (over lyrics or politics) were giving Paul the edge. But what did surprise me was just how many musicians/actors etc. were slamming Paul's solo career. Part of the reason was that the moderator himself was not a Paul Solo fan whatsoever and was "leading" them to put down Paul's songs in general since the 80's. Even so, the negativity about Paul after Wings did really surprise me. But when you get down to it, much of this negativity is really about the fact that many people (especially casual Beatle fans) just haven't taken the time to really listen to Paul's songs after let's say Tug of War. Unfortunately, in general, that is perception of Paul's Solo career. It happens to all "aging" rockers after they're later songs no longer get consistent radio play. In Paul's case, it is not true when you consider all the great Beatle quality songs he has written but Paul has NOT HELPED HIMSELF. As I said, Paul shouldn't be concerned that if he introduces a relatively unknown Solo song, if the audience doesn't go nuts. From a marketing point of view, it is not the audience at the show that is the "gold mine". They have already paid for the ticket to be there, It is thousands (and even million) U-tube hits that he would get when he plays a "deeper" song. That is why Paul should be introducing (relatively unknown) but great songs each year. And again, he has a very good Band that can be helping him. He doesn't need to do it all himself. But if he never does those hidden great songs, they will remain obscure. I don't keep ramming this fact because I'm a selfish fan. I'm saying this "in defense" of his Post Beatles', Post Wings' career. You would think that Paul would have a similar and even greater motivation.
-
B J Conlee:
Good discussions and many of the arguments (even if I disagree) are good ones. There is one question that keeps popping in my head in summary: Why should Paul "****ing" McCartney even be concerned if he plays a good quality (but relatively unknown) song that many in the audience aren't lighting up their phones, going crazy with applause or leave for a beer. Based on his Setlist, the audience will surely come back within a song or two when a "known" Beatle or Wings' song returns. For what Paul has done in his career or for the many great songs he has written, that shouldn't worry him at all. Many artists in Paul's category (Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Neil Young) do it all the time in their setlists. They have no problem playing their "deep" songs because they're more concerned about their songs being heard (and their true fans) than the reaction of the "casual" audience. Another thing that keeps coming back to me is that to "add" songs (particularly ones that they haven't done before) does take work and it just seems like Paul doesn't have the motivation to do it. I get that Paul is closing in on 75 and he surely doesn't have the energy he used to but he doesn't have to do it all himself. I'm not suggesting that Paul becomes a workaholic at 75. He has great musicians in his band. Just give them a short list of great songs he hasn't done before (or this band hasn't done before) each year and tell them to be ready to play them. Paul doesn't even have to play the key guitar or piano parts (like he has Rusty play on "And I love her"). The key is to just "introduce" some great songs (even if only 4 each year) never played live before. Obviously, he has pretty much exhausted his Beatle catalog but you would think that his great Solo songs would be what he wants to introduce anyway. Again, Paul doesn't have to do it all himself. What do they constantly say about a great business manager...delegate, delegate, delegate. I recently saw a thing on U-tube titled Lennon or McCartney. In the rather lengthy video, the moderator was interviewing many musicians (some were groups), actors celebrities etc. The moderator's purpose was to get they're reaction without much thought...who was the best Lennon or McCartney. I expected John to win for a couple of reasons not the least being how John tragically died. While John did win, I was surprise how Paul did relatively well and garnered many votes. Many were hesitating with their answers and from a "music" perspecitve (over lyrics or politics) were giving Paul the edge. But what did surprise me was just how many musicians/actors etc. were slamming Paul's solo career. Part of the reason was that the moderator himself was not a Paul Solo fan whatsoever and was "leading" them to put down Paul's songs in general since the 80's. Even so, the negativity about Paul after Wings did really surprise me. But when you get down to it, much of this negativity is really about the fact that many people (especially casual Beatle fans) just haven't taken the time to really listen to Paul's songs after let's say Tug of War. Unfortunately, in general, that is perception of Paul's Solo career. It happens to all "aging" rockers after they're later songs no longer get consistent radio play. In Paul's case, it is not true when you consider all the great Beatle quality songs he has written but Paul has NOT HELPED HIMSELF. As I said, Paul shouldn't be concerned that if he introduces a relatively unknown Solo song, if the audience doesn't go nuts. From a marketing point of view, it is not the audience at the show that is the "gold mine". They have already paid for the ticket to be there, It is thousands (and even million) U-tube hits that he would get when he plays a "deeper" song. That is why Paul should be introducing (relatively unknown) but great songs each year. And again, he has a very good Band that can be helping him. He doesn't need to do it all himself. But if he never does those hidden great songs, they will remain obscure. I don't keep ramming this fact because I'm a selfish fan. I'm saying this "in defense" of his Post Beatles', Post Wings' career. You would think that Paul would have a similar and even greater motivation.
This is a really interesting post and you raise a lot of good points. The one thing I would say is that when an artist goes down the greatest hits route, it can be difficult to get out of it. People know if they see Bob Dylan and the others that you mentioned that they are going to be challenged by the set list. But when people see the likes of The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson, Barry Gibb etc. they want to hear the hits. I think that Paul is probably in this camp now and he knows it. I personally think he should add more solo songs - probably a lot more, but it could be worse. I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! As for the solo career, the past 20 years does deserve a lot more attention but this is also the period with the fewest hits unfortunately.
-
Turk Thrust:
B J Conlee:
Good discussions and many of the arguments (even if I disagree) are good ones. There is one question that keeps popping in my head in summary: Why should Paul "****ing" McCartney even be concerned if he plays a good quality (but relatively unknown) song that many in the audience aren't lighting up their phones, going crazy with applause or leave for a beer. Based on his Setlist, the audience will surely come back within a song or two when a "known" Beatle or Wings' song returns. For what Paul has done in his career or for the many great songs he has written, that shouldn't worry him at all. Many artists in Paul's category (Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Neil Young) do it all the time in their setlists. They have no problem playing their "deep" songs because they're more concerned about their songs being heard (and their true fans) than the reaction of the "casual" audience. Another thing that keeps coming back to me is that to "add" songs (particularly ones that they haven't done before) does take work and it just seems like Paul doesn't have the motivation to do it. I get that Paul is closing in on 75 and he surely doesn't have the energy he used to but he doesn't have to do it all himself. I'm not suggesting that Paul becomes a workaholic at 75. He has great musicians in his band. Just give them a short list of great songs he hasn't done before (or this band hasn't done before) each year and tell them to be ready to play them. Paul doesn't even have to play the key guitar or piano parts (like he has Rusty play on "And I love her"). The key is to just "introduce" some great songs (even if only 4 each year) never played live before. Obviously, he has pretty much exhausted his Beatle catalog but you would think that his great Solo songs would be what he wants to introduce anyway. Again, Paul doesn't have to do it all himself. What do they constantly say about a great business manager...delegate, delegate, delegate. I recently saw a thing on U-tube titled Lennon or McCartney. In the rather lengthy video, the moderator was interviewing many musicians (some were groups), actors celebrities etc. The moderator's purpose was to get they're reaction without much thought...who was the best Lennon or McCartney. I expected John to win for a couple of reasons not the least being how John tragically died. While John did win, I was surprise how Paul did relatively well and garnered many votes. Many were hesitating with their answers and from a "music" perspecitve (over lyrics or politics) were giving Paul the edge. But what did surprise me was just how many musicians/actors etc. were slamming Paul's solo career. Part of the reason was that the moderator himself was not a Paul Solo fan whatsoever and was "leading" them to put down Paul's songs in general since the 80's. Even so, the negativity about Paul after Wings did really surprise me. But when you get down to it, much of this negativity is really about the fact that many people (especially casual Beatle fans) just haven't taken the time to really listen to Paul's songs after let's say Tug of War. Unfortunately, in general, that is perception of Paul's Solo career. It happens to all "aging" rockers after they're later songs no longer get consistent radio play. In Paul's case, it is not true when you consider all the great Beatle quality songs he has written but Paul has NOT HELPED HIMSELF. As I said, Paul shouldn't be concerned that if he introduces a relatively unknown Solo song, if the audience doesn't go nuts. From a marketing point of view, it is not the audience at the show that is the "gold mine". They have already paid for the ticket to be there, It is thousands (and even million) U-tube hits that he would get when he plays a "deeper" song. That is why Paul should be introducing (relatively unknown) but great songs each year. And again, he has a very good Band that can be helping him. He doesn't need to do it all himself. But if he never does those hidden great songs, they will remain obscure. I don't keep ramming this fact because I'm a selfish fan. I'm saying this "in defense" of his Post Beatles', Post Wings' career. You would think that Paul would have a similar and even greater motivation.
This is a really interesting post and you raise a lot of good points. The one thing I would say is that when an artist goes down the greatest hits route, it can be difficult to get out of it. People know if they see Bob Dylan and the others that you mentioned that they are going to be challenged by the set list. But when people see the likes of The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson, Barry Gibb etc. they want to hear the hits. I think that Paul is probably in this camp now and he knows it. I personally think he should add more solo songs - probably a lot more, but it could be worse. I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! As for the solo career, the past 20 years does deserve a lot more attention but this is also the period with the fewest hits unfortunately.
" I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! " I love Brian Wilson as much as any Beach Boy fan but you can't compare his solo career with Paul McCartney.
-
Turk Thrust:
B J Conlee:
Good discussions and many of the arguments (even if I disagree) are good ones. There is one question that keeps popping in my head in summary: Why should Paul "****ing" McCartney even be concerned if he plays a good quality (but relatively unknown) song that many in the audience aren't lighting up their phones, going crazy with applause or leave for a beer. Based on his Setlist, the audience will surely come back within a song or two when a "known" Beatle or Wings' song returns. For what Paul has done in his career or for the many great songs he has written, that shouldn't worry him at all. Many artists in Paul's category (Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Neil Young) do it all the time in their setlists. They have no problem playing their "deep" songs because they're more concerned about their songs being heard (and their true fans) than the reaction of the "casual" audience. Another thing that keeps coming back to me is that to "add" songs (particularly ones that they haven't done before) does take work and it just seems like Paul doesn't have the motivation to do it. I get that Paul is closing in on 75 and he surely doesn't have the energy he used to but he doesn't have to do it all himself. I'm not suggesting that Paul becomes a workaholic at 75. He has great musicians in his band. Just give them a short list of great songs he hasn't done before (or this band hasn't done before) each year and tell them to be ready to play them. Paul doesn't even have to play the key guitar or piano parts (like he has Rusty play on "And I love her"). The key is to just "introduce" some great songs (even if only 4 each year) never played live before. Obviously, he has pretty much exhausted his Beatle catalog but you would think that his great Solo songs would be what he wants to introduce anyway. Again, Paul doesn't have to do it all himself. What do they constantly say about a great business manager...delegate, delegate, delegate. I recently saw a thing on U-tube titled Lennon or McCartney. In the rather lengthy video, the moderator was interviewing many musicians (some were groups), actors celebrities etc. The moderator's purpose was to get they're reaction without much thought...who was the best Lennon or McCartney. I expected John to win for a couple of reasons not the least being how John tragically died. While John did win, I was surprise how Paul did relatively well and garnered many votes. Many were hesitating with their answers and from a "music" perspecitve (over lyrics or politics) were giving Paul the edge. But what did surprise me was just how many musicians/actors etc. were slamming Paul's solo career. Part of the reason was that the moderator himself was not a Paul Solo fan whatsoever and was "leading" them to put down Paul's songs in general since the 80's. Even so, the negativity about Paul after Wings did really surprise me. But when you get down to it, much of this negativity is really about the fact that many people (especially casual Beatle fans) just haven't taken the time to really listen to Paul's songs after let's say Tug of War. Unfortunately, in general, that is perception of Paul's Solo career. It happens to all "aging" rockers after they're later songs no longer get consistent radio play. In Paul's case, it is not true when you consider all the great Beatle quality songs he has written but Paul has NOT HELPED HIMSELF. As I said, Paul shouldn't be concerned that if he introduces a relatively unknown Solo song, if the audience doesn't go nuts. From a marketing point of view, it is not the audience at the show that is the "gold mine". They have already paid for the ticket to be there, It is thousands (and even million) U-tube hits that he would get when he plays a "deeper" song. That is why Paul should be introducing (relatively unknown) but great songs each year. And again, he has a very good Band that can be helping him. He doesn't need to do it all himself. But if he never does those hidden great songs, they will remain obscure. I don't keep ramming this fact because I'm a selfish fan. I'm saying this "in defense" of his Post Beatles', Post Wings' career. You would think that Paul would have a similar and even greater motivation.
This is a really interesting post and you raise a lot of good points. The one thing I would say is that when an artist goes down the greatest hits route, it can be difficult to get out of it. People know if they see Bob Dylan and the others that you mentioned that they are going to be challenged by the set list. But when people see the likes of The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson, Barry Gibb etc. they want to hear the hits. I think that Paul is probably in this camp now and he knows it. I personally think he should add more solo songs - probably a lot more, but it could be worse. I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! As for the solo career, the past 20 years does deserve a lot more attention but this is also the period with the fewest hits unfortunately.
________________________________________________________ Turk Thrust, Great post and your explanations are very good and sound. One great point you raise is "going down the greatest hits route". In retrospect, I think Paul should have made an adjustment from 2005 on. And the big question right now is whether Paul has the voice for it at this late date. "Love Me Do" was a great choice for an addition last year. Not only is it instantly recognizable to Beatle fans and first timers, it is quite easy to sing. After the first line, the audience is singing along. Some of the really great, never performed songs I would love to hear (e.g. Lovers that Never Were, That Day is Done) I wonder myself if he has the vocals to do it anymore even if he wanted. He would definitely need a lot of help vocally from the Band. I saw Paul in 1990, 1993 (Flowers in the Dirt and Off the Ground toura) and 2002. The first 2 were his 1st worldwide tours since 1976 where he did very little Beatle songs. By the early 1990's all the Beatle songs during those tours sounded so fresh. Many of them had never been performed before. Then with Linda's illness and death, it was close to 10 years until he performed worldwide again in 2002. Again, the heavy Beatle setlist was still very fresh plus he still had new Beatle additions like Hello Goodbye which as we know was the opening song. To me, 2005 was the time to bring a few of his really great (but only well known to the Macca geeks like me) solo songs especially from Tug of War and Flaming Pie that he had never done. Actually, Tug of War was a huge seller so many people would recognize Take it Away (a hit record) and Wanderlust. I'm not saying in 2005 he should have added a lot but maybe 4 or 5 just to let the world know that he was still doing real quality stuff in the 80's and 90's. From Flaming Pie, he could have done Young Boy and Little Willow. These are just examples but you get the message here. His voice was also still quite strong at that point. But he never made that transition and continued in the vein of his greatest Beatle/Wings hits. Not saying he was wrong from a commercial and sales point of view but as far as creating a better balance of his overall career, it was something he overlooked. Till this day, I believe his Solo Career has been shortchanged and terribly underrated in the long run. Many people continue to malign his songs after Tug of War and it really isn't true.
-
B J Conlee:
Turk Thrust:
B J Conlee:
Good discussions and many of the arguments (even if I disagree) are good ones. There is one question that keeps popping in my head in summary: Why should Paul "****ing" McCartney even be concerned if he plays a good quality (but relatively unknown) song that many in the audience aren't lighting up their phones, going crazy with applause or leave for a beer. Based on his Setlist, the audience will surely come back within a song or two when a "known" Beatle or Wings' song returns. For what Paul has done in his career or for the many great songs he has written, that shouldn't worry him at all. Many artists in Paul's category (Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Neil Young) do it all the time in their setlists. They have no problem playing their "deep" songs because they're more concerned about their songs being heard (and their true fans) than the reaction of the "casual" audience. Another thing that keeps coming back to me is that to "add" songs (particularly ones that they haven't done before) does take work and it just seems like Paul doesn't have the motivation to do it. I get that Paul is closing in on 75 and he surely doesn't have the energy he used to but he doesn't have to do it all himself. I'm not suggesting that Paul becomes a workaholic at 75. He has great musicians in his band. Just give them a short list of great songs he hasn't done before (or this band hasn't done before) each year and tell them to be ready to play them. Paul doesn't even have to play the key guitar or piano parts (like he has Rusty play on "And I love her"). The key is to just "introduce" some great songs (even if only 4 each year) never played live before. Obviously, he has pretty much exhausted his Beatle catalog but you would think that his great Solo songs would be what he wants to introduce anyway. Again, Paul doesn't have to do it all himself. What do they constantly say about a great business manager...delegate, delegate, delegate. I recently saw a thing on U-tube titled Lennon or McCartney. In the rather lengthy video, the moderator was interviewing many musicians (some were groups), actors celebrities etc. The moderator's purpose was to get they're reaction without much thought...who was the best Lennon or McCartney. I expected John to win for a couple of reasons not the least being how John tragically died. While John did win, I was surprise how Paul did relatively well and garnered many votes. Many were hesitating with their answers and from a "music" perspecitve (over lyrics or politics) were giving Paul the edge. But what did surprise me was just how many musicians/actors etc. were slamming Paul's solo career. Part of the reason was that the moderator himself was not a Paul Solo fan whatsoever and was "leading" them to put down Paul's songs in general since the 80's. Even so, the negativity about Paul after Wings did really surprise me. But when you get down to it, much of this negativity is really about the fact that many people (especially casual Beatle fans) just haven't taken the time to really listen to Paul's songs after let's say Tug of War. Unfortunately, in general, that is perception of Paul's Solo career. It happens to all "aging" rockers after they're later songs no longer get consistent radio play. In Paul's case, it is not true when you consider all the great Beatle quality songs he has written but Paul has NOT HELPED HIMSELF. As I said, Paul shouldn't be concerned that if he introduces a relatively unknown Solo song, if the audience doesn't go nuts. From a marketing point of view, it is not the audience at the show that is the "gold mine". They have already paid for the ticket to be there, It is thousands (and even million) U-tube hits that he would get when he plays a "deeper" song. That is why Paul should be introducing (relatively unknown) but great songs each year. And again, he has a very good Band that can be helping him. He doesn't need to do it all himself. But if he never does those hidden great songs, they will remain obscure. I don't keep ramming this fact because I'm a selfish fan. I'm saying this "in defense" of his Post Beatles', Post Wings' career. You would think that Paul would have a similar and even greater motivation.
This is a really interesting post and you raise a lot of good points. The one thing I would say is that when an artist goes down the greatest hits route, it can be difficult to get out of it. People know if they see Bob Dylan and the others that you mentioned that they are going to be challenged by the set list. But when people see the likes of The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson, Barry Gibb etc. they want to hear the hits. I think that Paul is probably in this camp now and he knows it. I personally think he should add more solo songs - probably a lot more, but it could be worse. I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! As for the solo career, the past 20 years does deserve a lot more attention but this is also the period with the fewest hits unfortunately.
________________________________________________________ Turk Thrust, Great post and your explanations are very good and sound. One great point you raise is "going down the greatest hits route". In retrospect, I think Paul should have made an adjustment from 2005 on. And the big question right now is whether Paul has the voice for it at this late date. "Love Me Do" was a great choice for an addition last year. Not only is it instantly recognizable to Beatle fans and first timers, it is quite easy to sing. After the first line, the audience is singing along. Some of the really great, never performed songs I would love to hear (e.g. Lovers that Never Were, That Day is Done) I wonder myself if he has the vocals to do it anymore even if he wanted. He would definitely need a lot of help vocally from the Band. I saw Paul in 1990, 1993 (Flowers in the Dirt and Off the Ground toura) and 2002. The first 2 were his 1st worldwide tours since 1976 where he did very little Beatle songs. By the early 1990's all the Beatle songs during those tours sounded so fresh. Many of them had never been performed before. Then with Linda's illness and death, it was close to 10 years until he performed worldwide again in 2002. Again, the heavy Beatle setlist was still very fresh plus he still had new Beatle additions like Hello Goodbye which as we know was the opening song. To me, 2005 was the time to bring a few of his really great (but only well known to the Macca geeks like me) solo songs especially from Tug of War and Flaming Pie that he had never done. Actually, Tug of War was a huge seller so many people would recognize Take it Away (a hit record) and Wanderlust. I'm not saying in 2005 he should have added a lot but maybe 4 or 5 just to let the world know that he was still doing real quality stuff in the 80's and 90's. From Flaming Pie, he could have done Young Boy and Little Willow. These are just examples but you get the message here. His voice was also still quite strong at that point. But he never made that transition and continued in the vein of his greatest Beatle/Wings hits. Not saying he was wrong from a commercial and sales point of view but as far as creating a better balance of his overall career, it was something he overlooked. Till this day, I believe his Solo Career has been shortchanged and terribly underrated in the long run. Many people continue to malign his songs after Tug of War and it really isn't true.
I think especially the last section of B J Conlee statement describes the "tragedy" in the case of McCartney's underrated solo songs very well! Following this assessment we (my wife is fan of mccartney complete career too) guess that this w'll be corrected afterwards thru future appreciations after he pass away IMO there is only the question how to improve the chance that McCartney recognize that such desirable setlist changes (as often described here) are important and good for his ego and a gift for his fans (bought all his post beatles albums... and valuate them all). Maybe the continuation of this thread :
-
B J Conlee:
Turk Thrust:
B J Conlee:
Good discussions and many of the arguments (even if I disagree) are good ones. There is one question that keeps popping in my head in summary: Why should Paul "****ing" McCartney even be concerned if he plays a good quality (but relatively unknown) song that many in the audience aren't lighting up their phones, going crazy with applause or leave for a beer. Based on his Setlist, the audience will surely come back within a song or two when a "known" Beatle or Wings' song returns. For what Paul has done in his career or for the many great songs he has written, that shouldn't worry him at all. Many artists in Paul's category (Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Neil Young) do it all the time in their setlists. They have no problem playing their "deep" songs because they're more concerned about their songs being heard (and their true fans) than the reaction of the "casual" audience. Another thing that keeps coming back to me is that to "add" songs (particularly ones that they haven't done before) does take work and it just seems like Paul doesn't have the motivation to do it. I get that Paul is closing in on 75 and he surely doesn't have the energy he used to but he doesn't have to do it all himself. I'm not suggesting that Paul becomes a workaholic at 75. He has great musicians in his band. Just give them a short list of great songs he hasn't done before (or this band hasn't done before) each year and tell them to be ready to play them. Paul doesn't even have to play the key guitar or piano parts (like he has Rusty play on "And I love her"). The key is to just "introduce" some great songs (even if only 4 each year) never played live before. Obviously, he has pretty much exhausted his Beatle catalog but you would think that his great Solo songs would be what he wants to introduce anyway. Again, Paul doesn't have to do it all himself. What do they constantly say about a great business manager...delegate, delegate, delegate. I recently saw a thing on U-tube titled Lennon or McCartney. In the rather lengthy video, the moderator was interviewing many musicians (some were groups), actors celebrities etc. The moderator's purpose was to get they're reaction without much thought...who was the best Lennon or McCartney. I expected John to win for a couple of reasons not the least being how John tragically died. While John did win, I was surprise how Paul did relatively well and garnered many votes. Many were hesitating with their answers and from a "music" perspecitve (over lyrics or politics) were giving Paul the edge. But what did surprise me was just how many musicians/actors etc. were slamming Paul's solo career. Part of the reason was that the moderator himself was not a Paul Solo fan whatsoever and was "leading" them to put down Paul's songs in general since the 80's. Even so, the negativity about Paul after Wings did really surprise me. But when you get down to it, much of this negativity is really about the fact that many people (especially casual Beatle fans) just haven't taken the time to really listen to Paul's songs after let's say Tug of War. Unfortunately, in general, that is perception of Paul's Solo career. It happens to all "aging" rockers after they're later songs no longer get consistent radio play. In Paul's case, it is not true when you consider all the great Beatle quality songs he has written but Paul has NOT HELPED HIMSELF. As I said, Paul shouldn't be concerned that if he introduces a relatively unknown Solo song, if the audience doesn't go nuts. From a marketing point of view, it is not the audience at the show that is the "gold mine". They have already paid for the ticket to be there, It is thousands (and even million) U-tube hits that he would get when he plays a "deeper" song. That is why Paul should be introducing (relatively unknown) but great songs each year. And again, he has a very good Band that can be helping him. He doesn't need to do it all himself. But if he never does those hidden great songs, they will remain obscure. I don't keep ramming this fact because I'm a selfish fan. I'm saying this "in defense" of his Post Beatles', Post Wings' career. You would think that Paul would have a similar and even greater motivation.
This is a really interesting post and you raise a lot of good points. The one thing I would say is that when an artist goes down the greatest hits route, it can be difficult to get out of it. People know if they see Bob Dylan and the others that you mentioned that they are going to be challenged by the set list. But when people see the likes of The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson, Barry Gibb etc. they want to hear the hits. I think that Paul is probably in this camp now and he knows it. I personally think he should add more solo songs - probably a lot more, but it could be worse. I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! As for the solo career, the past 20 years does deserve a lot more attention but this is also the period with the fewest hits unfortunately.
________________________________________________________ Turk Thrust, Great post and your explanations are very good and sound. One great point you raise is "going down the greatest hits route". In retrospect, I think Paul should have made an adjustment from 2005 on. And the big question right now is whether Paul has the voice for it at this late date. "Love Me Do" was a great choice for an addition last year. Not only is it instantly recognizable to Beatle fans and first timers, it is quite easy to sing. After the first line, the audience is singing along. Some of the really great, never performed songs I would love to hear (e.g. Lovers that Never Were, That Day is Done) I wonder myself if he has the vocals to do it anymore even if he wanted. He would definitely need a lot of help vocally from the Band. I saw Paul in 1990, 1993 (Flowers in the Dirt and Off the Ground toura) and 2002. The first 2 were his 1st worldwide tours since 1976 where he did very little Beatle songs. By the early 1990's all the Beatle songs during those tours sounded so fresh. Many of them had never been performed before. Then with Linda's illness and death, it was close to 10 years until he performed worldwide again in 2002. Again, the heavy Beatle setlist was still very fresh plus he still had new Beatle additions like Hello Goodbye which as we know was the opening song. To me, 2005 was the time to bring a few of his really great (but only well known to the Macca geeks like me) solo songs especially from Tug of War and Flaming Pie that he had never done. Actually, Tug of War was a huge seller so many people would recognize Take it Away (a hit record) and Wanderlust. I'm not saying in 2005 he should have added a lot but maybe 4 or 5 just to let the world know that he was still doing real quality stuff in the 80's and 90's. From Flaming Pie, he could have done Young Boy and Little Willow. These are just examples but you get the message here. His voice was also still quite strong at that point. But he never made that transition and continued in the vein of his greatest Beatle/Wings hits. Not saying he was wrong from a commercial and sales point of view but as far as creating a better balance of his overall career, it was something he overlooked. Till this day, I believe his Solo Career has been shortchanged and terribly underrated in the long run. Many people continue to malign his songs after Tug of War and it really isn't true.
If people really wanted to look back at reviews of his albums from FITD to now, it is extremely positive for the most part. Even Rolling Stone magazine which many people on this board think hates Mr. McCartney, has praised him quite often since 1989. I believe Rolling Stone had "New" as the 4th best album of 2013. Mr. McCartney has also received multiple Grammy nominations for album of the year (TOW, Flaming Pie & CHAOS) . His last "Fireman" record (EA) was also critically acclaimed. One of the reasons his solo career has been shortchanged is he has not been commercially successful since the early 1980's. That means he receives little radio play so the casual music fans are clueless that he has all these good/great songs. In addition, Mr. McCartney has not helped himself by ignoring his solo career for the most part in concert unless it is his current album. I actually think 2002 would have been the perfect time to play a few more solo songs in concert. He had new band which needed to learn his entire set list so he could have done anything he wanted with them. He also had not toured in almost 10 years so the crowds would have "loved" anything he played which should have given him the freedom to do maybe a 50-50 type of show. He was 15 years younger than and his voice could have handled anything we would love to have heard him sing. It is a shame that this opportunity was lost.
-
^ Your last paragraph says it all!
-
yankeefan7:
" I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! " I love Brian Wilson as much as any Beach Boy fan but you can't compare his solo career with Paul McCartney.
No, I agree that there is a big difference in the quality and success of their solo careers. I was just giving the example of another peer who did play plenty of solo songs, before they slowly disappeared from the set list and were replaced by the oldies. It is sadly a very common thing.
-
Turk Thrust:
yankeefan7:
" I notice that Brian Wilson now only plays 1 song from the past 40 years in his sets! " I love Brian Wilson as much as any Beach Boy fan but you can't compare his solo career with Paul McCartney.
No, I agree that there is a big difference in the quality and success of their solo careers. I was just giving the example of another peer who did play plenty of solo songs, before they slowly disappeared from the set list and were replaced by the oldies. It is sadly a very common thing.
I saw Brian Wilson in 2005 and his set list was all Beach Boys with the exception of "Love And Mercy". I did a search of his 1999 tour and the set list I saw had only 4 songs out of 28 that were not Beach Boy songs and one of them was a Ronettes cover. Check out Robert Plant (Led Zepplin), he has never played mostly Zepplin songs in his set lists.