Stones vs. Paul
-
Sorry, what history did I rewrite? And who said you made anything up? (Nevermind whatever the f "living in the past" is supposed to mean... : ) You've got quite the chip on that shoulder! If you are indeed a Stones fan, fair enough but it seems impossible to believe that you could bored considering what I just pointed out about them playing 13+ minute version of CYHMK - hardly a set staple - with the guitarist that made it memorable back for it. Not convinced having seen them 3 times really means much - I've seen Springsteen 12 times and still wouldn't call myself a "fan" like I am a McCartney "fan". And for what it's worth - plenty of folks there last Friday disagreed with you and your friends, at least on the Stones boards I frequent. Meanwhile! Fair play for sitting on a bus for 15 hours for Paul - I frankly wouldn't at this point in my life for pretty much anything/anybody. I'd consider it *if* he ever considered playing an album in its entirety but to hear 80% of the same songs I hear every time I see him? Love him to bits but no. I will however be there both Saturday and Monday - only 15 minutes from *my* home to the arena - and be happy to do so. Can't wait frankly. This may be the last dance for me and Paul for the amount of $$$ it's costing unless the setlist changes by quite a lot the next time. That or he plays another gig on the Kings Dock in Liverpool....
-
Holly Days:
Sorry, what history did I rewrite? And who said you made anything up? (Nevermind whatever the f "living in the past" is supposed to mean... : ) You've got quite the chip on that shoulder! If you are indeed a Stones fan, fair enough but it seems impossible to believe that you could bored considering what I just pointed out about them playing 13+ minute version of CYHMK - hardly a set staple - with the guitarist that made it memorable back for it. Not convinced having seen them 3 times really means much - I've seen Springsteen 12 times and still wouldn't call myself a "fan" like I am a McCartney "fan". And for what it's worth - plenty of folks there last Friday disagreed with you and your friends, at least on the Stones boards I frequent. Meanwhile! Fair play for sitting on a bus for 15 hours for Paul - I frankly wouldn't at this point in my life for pretty much anything/anybody. I'd consider it *if* he ever considered playing an album in its entirety but to hear 80% of the same songs I hear every time I see him? Love him to bits but no. I will however be there both Saturday and Monday - only 15 minutes from *my* home to the arena - and be happy to do so. Can't wait frankly. This may be the last dance for me and Paul for the amount of $$$ it's costing unless the setlist changes by quite a lot the next time. That or he plays another gig on the Kings Dock in Liverpool....
Good points and I am glad to hear I am not the only one who has a problem with the stones' live music..I have seen over 250 concerts and they were second worst show I have seen, love their studio work but when I saw them in '78 they sucked.
-
I appreciate this is a McCartney fan site, so many here think McCartney is the only good concert out there. But the Stones can certainly compete and do, in every area. That YOU don't like them, well, that is just an opinion. That YOU are bored at their concert is your opinion, nothing more. Their concert tours always rank higher than Paul's and their fans think their shows are amazing, and probably that Paul's are light weight. Many people out there who are not hard core fans think Paul and Mick and Co. should retire. That is their opinion, nothing more. I find it lame to slag the Stones and other acts here. Go to their fan sites and do it there. See how far it gets you.
-
Holly Days:
Sorry, what history did I rewrite? And who said you made anything up? (Nevermind whatever the f "living in the past" is supposed to mean... : ) You've got quite the chip on that shoulder! If you are indeed a Stones fan, fair enough but it seems impossible to believe that you could bored considering what I just pointed out about them playing 13+ minute version of CYHMK - hardly a set staple - with the guitarist that made it memorable back for it. Not convinced having seen them 3 times really means much - I've seen Springsteen 12 times and still wouldn't call myself a "fan" like I am a McCartney "fan". And for what it's worth - plenty of folks there last Friday disagreed with you and your friends, at least on the Stones boards I frequent. Meanwhile! Fair play for sitting on a bus for 15 hours for Paul - I frankly wouldn't at this point in my life for pretty much anything/anybody. I'd consider it *if* he ever considered playing an album in its entirety but to hear 80% of the same songs I hear every time I see him? Love him to bits but no. I will however be there both Saturday and Monday - only 15 minutes from *my* home to the arena - and be happy to do so. Can't wait frankly. This may be the last dance for me and Paul for the amount of $$$ it's costing unless the setlist changes by quite a lot the next time. That or he plays another gig on the Kings Dock in Liverpool....
I agree half with you and half with LonelyRoad. The Stones have some energy, but their renditions of the songs are hardly recognizable. They played As Tears Go By, a lovely song, 2 nights ago with Taylor Swift ops: And Mick's voice cannot do that song anymore. At least the sweetness of Paul's voice is there, and the renditions are tight as hell. And he has the energy.
-
RMartinez:
I appreciate this is a McCartney fan site, so many here think McCartney is the only good concert out there. But the Stones can certainly compete and do, in every area. That YOU don't like them, well, that is just an opinion. That YOU are bored at their concert is your opinion, nothing more. Their concert tours always rank higher than Paul's and their fans think their shows are amazing, and probably that Paul's are light weight. Many people out there who are not hard core fans think Paul and Mick and Co. should retire. That is their opinion, nothing more. I find it lame to slag the Stones and other acts here. Go to their fan sites and do it there. See how far it gets you.
I can't recognize their songs live anymore. They are the true definition of a has-been act.
-
KingMacca:
RMartinez:
I appreciate this is a McCartney fan site, so many here think McCartney is the only good concert out there. But the Stones can certainly compete and do, in every area. That YOU don't like them, well, that is just an opinion. That YOU are bored at their concert is your opinion, nothing more. Their concert tours always rank higher than Paul's and their fans think their shows are amazing, and probably that Paul's are light weight. Many people out there who are not hard core fans think Paul and Mick and Co. should retire. That is their opinion, nothing more. I find it lame to slag the Stones and other acts here. Go to their fan sites and do it there. See how far it gets you.
I can't recognize their songs live anymore. They are the true definition of a has-been act.
To call the Stones a "has been" act is utter and complete nonsense,sure they're very long in the tooth now but it seems to me they've always played their songs their own way always a little off kilter than the recorded version its just them i suppose. So what if they had Taylor Swift singing the other night i guess thats the pulling power of the band even at this late stage in the game and lets not forget Paul too has his vocal off nights,shall we call them,everyone does its life. I like the Stones they've made some classic songs in their time,i don't however like the price they charge to see them it cuts out many fans in these hard times and if the big ticket seats aren't sold then frankly im glad they charge far,far too much for a bog standard seat and by bog standard i mean no meet and greet/soundcheck etc. This is probably the last time the stones will tour its sad but there you go,they're not has beens they're a band that like Paul helped define the music we still listen to today.
-
KingMacca:
Holly Days:
Sorry, what history did I rewrite? And who said you made anything up? (Nevermind whatever the f "living in the past" is supposed to mean... : ) You've got quite the chip on that shoulder! If you are indeed a Stones fan, fair enough but it seems impossible to believe that you could bored considering what I just pointed out about them playing 13+ minute version of CYHMK - hardly a set staple - with the guitarist that made it memorable back for it. Not convinced having seen them 3 times really means much - I've seen Springsteen 12 times and still wouldn't call myself a "fan" like I am a McCartney "fan". And for what it's worth - plenty of folks there last Friday disagreed with you and your friends, at least on the Stones boards I frequent. Meanwhile! Fair play for sitting on a bus for 15 hours for Paul - I frankly wouldn't at this point in my life for pretty much anything/anybody. I'd consider it *if* he ever considered playing an album in its entirety but to hear 80% of the same songs I hear every time I see him? Love him to bits but no. I will however be there both Saturday and Monday - only 15 minutes from *my* home to the arena - and be happy to do so. Can't wait frankly. This may be the last dance for me and Paul for the amount of $$$ it's costing unless the setlist changes by quite a lot the next time. That or he plays another gig on the Kings Dock in Liverpool....
I agree half with you and half with LonelyRoad. The Stones have some energy, but their renditions of the songs are hardly recognizable. They played As Tears Go By, a lovely song, 2 nights ago with Taylor Swift ops: And Mick's voice cannot do that song anymore. At least the sweetness of Paul's voice is there, and the renditions are tight as hell. And he has the energy.
That is your opinion. I know people who have the same opinion about McCartney that you do of Jagger.
-
KingMacca:
RMartinez:
I appreciate this is a McCartney fan site, so many here think McCartney is the only good concert out there. But the Stones can certainly compete and do, in every area. That YOU don't like them, well, that is just an opinion. That YOU are bored at their concert is your opinion, nothing more. Their concert tours always rank higher than Paul's and their fans think their shows are amazing, and probably that Paul's are light weight. Many people out there who are not hard core fans think Paul and Mick and Co. should retire. That is their opinion, nothing more. I find it lame to slag the Stones and other acts here. Go to their fan sites and do it there. See how far it gets you.
I can't recognize their songs live anymore. They are the true definition of a has-been act.
So is McCartney, given your criteria.
-
BTW, at least the Rolling Stones are advertising this tour as a 50th anniversary tour. They are not touring claiming it is "new" and "minty fresh" like someone I know! That means it is supposed to be a "greatest hits" retrospective of their career.
-
The Stones only came into this discussion because a poster felt the need to drag them in for some reason, seemingly only to complain about them or say how they don't stack up to Paul. Nothing to do with the topic. Would've been halfway relevant if there was mention of how *their* setlist changes (or doesn't) but it wasn't. We're all here because we're McCartney fans - what some of us have a problem with is why mention of anyone else seems to be taken as a slight on Paul or that no one else can be as good in concert, etc. It's not a contest - these "discussions" are on a par with "my dad can beat up your dad" ones you have when you're five years old. Paul was literally everything once upon a time in my life but at 49, that's not possible any longer, nor would I want it to be. My main issue with any of this was that as (I hope!) music lovers, to hear a musician and/or band with 50+ years performing under his/their belt get slagged off as being "just OK" is absurd. One might not be into it on that day - or at all - but it's a gross insult and flat out disrespectful unless it was genuinely an off-night, in which case, simply state that instead. If I invited a non-Paul fan to one of his shows, I wouldn't expect them to love it all (despite my obviously trying to convince them they should!) so I wouldn't be upset on that front. I *would* however be upset if they said it was "just OK" because that implies something was pretty wrong musically/performance-wise throughout the entire show, which is practically an impossibility with the level of expertise and professionalism that goes into these performances. It's how any of them have managed to sustain the hugely successful careers they've had - and continue to have. Respect to all of them! (And less of the hyperbole re "unrecognizability of songs" - not true anyway but if you're going to go there, I'll try not to drag what Paul did to Give Peace A Chance into this!)