THE 'FRESHEN UP' TOUR 2018
-
100% correct Bob. I am happy the other poster got a meet and greet with Roger. He was probably 1 of maybe 2 people who requested that for that show. Paul would literally have to meet thousands of people per show if he were to be so "humble". And yes, if Roger was on the level of Paul's popularity he would be charging an arm and a leg as well.
I saw Mick Taylor(guitariist for the Stones during their golden years) solo in a club years ago. Humble guy. Signed autographs after the gig.
That same Mick Taylor re-joined the Stones from 2012-2014, and played a handful of songs nightly with them. Needless to say I could never got to interact with him the way I did when I saw him solo.(For $30 FYI) WHY?!?! Because he was with the Rolling F-ing Stones thats why!. Those tickets were $750 a pop!
-
Paul received an award in Australia last evening. At the end of his video acceptance speech (perhaps from England) he said "See you soon!" Not sure if that means "See all my fans out on tour soon!" or "See you in Australia soon!" but thought it was interesting.
-
hengirl wrote:
Great discussion from both of you if you will allow me to put my take on it it’s this,if Roger could fill larger venues then he would and yes he would charge more too,they all do it they’re in it to make money to say otherwise is utter nonsense,limited merch? All that means to me is he can’t sell a wide range so why stick yourself with gear you can’t shift?
i saw Bruce on the river tour a couple of years back,yes his tickets where reasonable I paid more for Billy Joel for instance,but I found his merch really expensive Roger Waters on The Wall tour,a show I’d have expected to be very expensive but ticket wise I thought good value,it was the merch which made your eyes water price wise.
point I’m trying to make I suppose one way or the other artists one way or the other are after your spending money they don’t do this for the good of their health just the good of their back balance,that any artist declined in popularity plays smaller venues they have to work that bit harder for their corn,it’s up to you if you think they’ve earned it.
to finish I wonder what price tickets for Paul if he did a Springsteen type show?
Not only have I pondered, I've wished for a scaled down production for at least one tour for Paul. For Bruce, it gives him the freedom to change setlists nightly, heck, the man takes requests!! To see Paul playing a like show would be absolutely mind blowing
-
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
100% correct Bob. I am happy the other poster got a meet and greet with Roger. He was probably 1 of maybe 2 people who requested that for that show. Paul would literally have to meet thousands of people per show if he were to be so "humble". And yes, if Roger was on the level of Paul's popularity he would be charging an arm and a leg as well.
I saw Mick Taylor(guitariist for the Stones during their golden years) solo in a club years ago. Humble guy. Signed autographs after the gig.
That same Mick Taylor re-joined the Stones from 2012-2014, and played a handful of songs nightly with them. Needless to say I could never got to interact with him the way I did when I saw him solo.(For $30 FYI) WHY?!?! Because he was with the Rolling F-ing Stones thats why!. Those tickets were $750 a pop!
And don't get me wrong, artist at this stage of their careers playing these small, intimate venues are great for the fans. Many of them do meet and greets because of hey do have to work harder for their money. But usually you pay more for it. I met the Zombies that way. Rick Springfield, Pat Benatar, Debbie Gibson, Billy Idol, Kenny Rogers, Foreigner, ZZ Top, Ozzie Osborne and many others have done it or still do it. Absolutely no knock on small venue shows, as a fan experience they can be incredible. My point is that can never take the business factors out of the equation . They will always be there. Prices and size of venues are a direct result of that. But to Wix's point, it doesn't detract from the actual show itself. I saw Peter Cetera earlier this year in a small theater near Boston....Lynn, MA......it was a great show !! But I would lie if I said that if I felt their ticket prices were too high that I would skip their shows. Paul, Bruce, The Stones, Elton John, Sting, Billy Joel and some others and I don't really wrestle with price value
-
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
-
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
-
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
-
LadyLeslie wrote:
Paul received an award in Australia last evening. At the end of his video acceptance speech (perhaps from England) he said "See you soon!" Not sure if that means "See all my fans out on tour soon!" or "See you in Australia soon!" but thought it was interesting.
His tour of Australia last year was a success, so I won't be surprised if he announces a few shows over there in late October / early November.
-
puppywhimpers wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
No reason for popcorn, not being confrontational. Just a genuine interest in seeing it
-
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Ringo was in Israel last month, so hopefully Paul will return after a 10-year absence.
-
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Usually I think that Fans On The Run page is not a confiable source. I have no idea where this rumor comes from.
Last year FOTR said that Australia and New Zealand shows were cancelled. That wrong infomation caused panic for some fans. Not cool.
-
5th-beatle wrote:
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Ringo was in Israel last month, so hopefully Paul will return after a 10-year absence.
Yes he was. And I attended the show (which was great!). I hope Paul will return to Tel Aviv, but I couldn't find anything related to the rumors Fans On The Run posted unfortunately
-
Renan Takenouchi wrote:
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Usually I think that Fans On The Run page is not a confiable source. I have no idea where this rumor comes from.
Last year FOTR said that Australia and New Zealand shows were cancelled. That wrong infomation caused panic for some fans. Not cool.
Yes... I hope the rumors are true. It's been 10 years since his last (and first) visit to Israel
-
Renan Takenouchi wrote:
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Usually I think that Fans On The Run page is not a confiable source. I have no idea where this rumor comes from.
Last year FOTR said that Australia and New Zealand shows were cancelled. That wrong infomation caused panic for some fans. Not cool.
I agree, I do not trust them at all. I also doubt Paul would come back to Australia after one year of visiting, when he previously left a 25 year gap. I would also doubt Israel if they are the only source of the information.
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
I cannot give you that in writing from an outside source.
-
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
I cannot give you that in writing from an outside source.
Ok, fair enough. Thought you might be quoting a industry article or magazine article that could be pulled up. Would be interested in seeing it if true. The times I've seen Brian, the venues have been packed and meet and greet lines long so the statement rather surprised me
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
I cannot give you that in writing from an outside source.
Ok, fair enough. Thought you might be quoting a industry article or magazine article that could be pulled up. Would be interested in seeing it if true. The times I've seen Brian, the venues have been packed and meet and greet lines long so the statement rather surprised me
I agree, I was shocked when informed as well, perhaps it was an exaggeration on this person's part but they explained the laundry list of needs that Brian Wilson has off stage for his personal health when traveling that add up, in addition to the massive band he carries and the typically small venues he plays.
-
I don't agree with the arguments that Paul's primary motivation to play live is to make money. If it was then he's pretty useless at it.
If I were his manager then I'd suggest, for example, that he did 10 consecutive nights at the O2 arena in London . Get a support act in,who would perform for free just for the opportunity to support Paul on tour. Then for Paul himself,play a one hour set, playing acoustic guitar or a piano. No backing band, no pyrotechnics, no films, just Paul alone on stage playing his hits...unplugged as it were. Keep everything as low key and as cheap as possible to maximise profit.
But Paul doesn't do that. He has a backing band who needs paying, he has all the expense of assembling and dismantling the lighting rig etc for just one show, he has the films, pyrotechnics etc etc, all of which cost money. I'm sure he does make a slight profit from each show but no where near as much as he could do if he was only motovated by making as much money as possible. Naturally, Paul doesn't want to make a loss but as far as I'm concerned he's prime motivation is as its always has been, he simply loves playing live and enjoying the feedback from his audience.
-
Kestrel wrote:
I don't agree with the arguments that Paul's primary motivation to play live is to make money. If it was then he's pretty useless at it.
If I were his manager then I'd suggest, for example, that he did 10 consecutive nights at the O2 arena in London . Get a support act in,who would perform for free just for the opportunity to support Paul on tour. Then for Paul himself,play a one hour set, playing acoustic guitar or a piano. No backing band, no pyrotechnics, no films, just Paul alone on stage playing his hits...unplugged as it were. Keep everything as low key and as cheap as possible to maximise profit.
But Paul doesn't do that. He has a backing band who needs paying, he has all the expense of assembling and dismantling the lighting rig etc for just one show, he has the films, pyrotechnics etc etc, all of which cost money. I'm sure he does make a slight profit from each show but no where near as much as he could do if he was only motovated by making as much money as possible. Naturally, Paul doesn't want to make a loss but as far as I'm concerned he's prime motivation is as its always has been, he simply loves playing live and enjoying the feedback from his audience.
I think it is obvious he loves to perform. Personally, I would much rather see an acoustic show like you mentioned even if it was only for an hour. Of course, it goes without saying I would like to see a few solo songs he has never done live thrown into the shortened setlist but that is just me being picky - lol.