Indio, CA - Desert Trip Festival - Oct. 7-9+14-16 - ARCHIVE
-
nobodytoldme:
Jillian Mapes for Pitchfork.: "The ranking went a little something like this: Roger Waters was the best (with some credit due to Lucius' Jess Wolfe and Holly Laessig, who brought new life to Floyd's iconic vocal solos and accompaniments), followed by Neil Young (again with a nod to his backing players, Willie Nelson's sons' band Promise of the Real, who've leveled up). Then came the Who, the Stones, Dylan, and McCartney. Essentially, the three "most important" acts delivered the weakest shows. If you've seen McCartney's last few tours, you likely know his routine: the story about Jimi Hendrix (almost) learning Sgt. Pepper's in a few days and playing it live with the Beatles in the crowd, the intro to "Here Today" in which he laments not expressing his love to John Lennon before he died, the bit about George Harrison being a great ukulele player ahead of "Something," how "Blackbird" was his encouragement of the Civil Rights movement. And like his fellow septuagenarian icons (with the exception of Jagger), McCartney's voice has accumulated noticeable weak spots, mostly in the mid to high range. When Dylan--whose vocal decline and (even more noticeable) apathy for what fans want has become common knowledge over the last decade--outperforms you, it's time to shake things up a bit. You know, beyond clunkily reworking Rihanna and Kanye's parts in "FourFiveSeconds." But one high point came when Macca was joined by Young on "Why Don't We Do It in the Road," a song McCartney had apparently never performed live before Saturday, as well as "A Day in the Life" and "Give Peace a Chance." The two have played together before, but their bromance felt rare in its giddiness, particularly after seeing Young's scowl peek out under his hat during his own scorched-earth opening set of fresh environmental pleas and improvised favorites (including a 22-minute "After the Gold Rush" that felt like the true Zenith of Neil). Instead, a "pinch me" smile was plastered on Young's face as he stared at McCartney and screamed Lennon's words of peace--an expression appreciated, and maybe even echoed, in the crowd." http://pitchfork.com/features/festival-report/9960-surviving-oldchella-scenes-from-the-ultimate-classic-rock-rager/
22 minute After the Goldrush??? :
-
Bruce M.:
So it's a sign of anti-Paul bias when a critic makes the exact same complaints that lots of us on this board make all the time? :
This. European reviewers caught up with our criticism a few years ago, now the US - as always behind - is as well. I'm not glad it's happening because I respect the artist Paul McCartney too much and it kinda pains me to not longer prove them wrong. But on the other hand I hope it will reach him and make him do one last shake-up for the final days of this touring set-up.
-
The usual "two times 45 seconds" promo video: http://desert.sn/2dXJc8f
-
So no pro-shot from this gig?
-
Erkka86:
So no pro-shot from this gig?
I wouldn't count on it, only the bits posted above. If they going to publish more in any way, it gotta be heavily edited.
-
Bruce M.:
So it's a sign of anti-Paul bias when a critic makes the exact same complaints that lots of us on this board make all the time? :
__________________________________________________________ Bruce, It is true that here on this board I have often complained about the lack of creativity and variety in Paul's setlist. But I'm talking about me, a huge fan who has seen Paul 12 times from 1989 to about 2011 (my last time). Over the last few years however I have stated that I won't pay those kinds of ticket prices until there are significant changes in the setlist. I could have seen him in the Philadelphia and New York areas this year but declined. Not knocking Paul because I understand that the large majority of people seeing Paul these days are first or 2nd timers who want to hear a Beatle heavy setlist. I, however, have seen him do those songs many times. I'm still a big fan but this is just the way I feel. Conversely, this "review" is a whole different thing from my "personal" feeling about Paul's recent setlist or shows. The critic from Pitchfork right at the beginning began criticizing Paul's performance at the festival due to Paul's tired repetition of the same stories about various songs over his last few tours. His "routine" as the critic sarcastically puts it. This critic however is "assuming" that the majority in the audience have seen Paul multiple times over that time span. Since this was a unique festival with the likes of the Stones, Dylan, Neil Young, the Who, Roger Waters etc, I would bet that the majority of the audience may have never seen McCartney before. And many more maybe have only seen him once. For those people, these stories are not "tired" at all but indeed are very interesting and informative. It is one of the things that makes a McCartney show so special. He is very personal at his shows unlike a Mick Jagger that primarily plays the "rock God". Not knocking Mick or the Stones, but the stories does make Paul's shows unique. I don't criticize this critic for saying that Paul's voice isn't what it use to be because it isn't. That is fact. But he can't base ranking Paul's show dead "last" because the the audience is tired of Paul's same stories when he has no idea of just how many people in the audience have never heard most of them. Pretty lame in my opinion. Again I would bet that many in the audience have not heard most of these stories. I could also tell from his review that he isn't objective about Paul when he sarcastically says that Paul's set didn't even outperform Dylan. First of all, I like Bob Dylan a lot and secondly, I can bet that thousands in the audience loved Paul's performance. It is obvious to me that he doesn't like Paul. This doesn't bother me in the least however because the last time I will remember this reviewer is about the time I finish writing this reply.
-
nobodytoldme:
Jillian Mapes for Pitchfork.: "The ranking went a little something like this: Roger Waters was the best (with some credit due to Lucius' Jess Wolfe and Holly Laessig, who brought new life to Floyd's iconic vocal solos and accompaniments), followed by Neil Young (again with a nod to his backing players, Willie Nelson's sons' band Promise of the Real, who've leveled up). Then came the Who, the Stones, Dylan, and McCartney. Essentially, the three "most important" acts delivered the weakest shows. If you've seen McCartney's last few tours, you likely know his routine: the story about Jimi Hendrix (almost) learning Sgt. Pepper's in a few days and playing it live with the Beatles in the crowd, the intro to "Here Today" in which he laments not expressing his love to John Lennon before he died, the bit about George Harrison being a great ukulele player ahead of "Something," how "Blackbird" was his encouragement of the Civil Rights movement. And like his fellow septuagenarian icons (with the exception of Jagger), McCartney's voice has accumulated noticeable weak spots, mostly in the mid to high range. When Dylan--whose vocal decline and (even more noticeable) apathy for what fans want has become common knowledge over the last decade--outperforms you, it's time to shake things up a bit. You know, beyond clunkily reworking Rihanna and Kanye's parts in "FourFiveSeconds." But one high point came when Macca was joined by Young on "Why Don't We Do It in the Road," a song McCartney had apparently never performed live before Saturday, as well as "A Day in the Life" and "Give Peace a Chance." The two have played together before, but their bromance felt rare in its giddiness, particularly after seeing Young's scowl peek out under his hat during his own scorched-earth opening set of fresh environmental pleas and improvised favorites (including a 22-minute "After the Gold Rush" that felt like the true Zenith of Neil). Instead, a "pinch me" smile was plastered on Young's face as he stared at McCartney and screamed Lennon's words of peace--an expression appreciated, and maybe even echoed, in the crowd." http://pitchfork.com/features/festival-report/9960-surviving-oldchella-scenes-from-the-ultimate-classic-rock-rager/
It's too bad someone has to go and rank these performances. I think each artist will give excellent concerts in their own way. After all, these are the people who developed the Rock music genre as we know it, and into what it became. What we now term Classic Rock. 6 different styles, each wrote songs which have been embedded in the world consciousness for over 50 years.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
nobodytoldme:
Jillian Mapes for Pitchfork.: "The ranking went a little something like this: Roger Waters was the best (with some credit due to Lucius' Jess Wolfe and Holly Laessig, who brought new life to Floyd's iconic vocal solos and accompaniments), followed by Neil Young (again with a nod to his backing players, Willie Nelson's sons' band Promise of the Real, who've leveled up). Then came the Who, the Stones, Dylan, and McCartney. Essentially, the three "most important" acts delivered the weakest shows. If you've seen McCartney's last few tours, you likely know his routine: the story about Jimi Hendrix (almost) learning Sgt. Pepper's in a few days and playing it live with the Beatles in the crowd, the intro to "Here Today" in which he laments not expressing his love to John Lennon before he died, the bit about George Harrison being a great ukulele player ahead of "Something," how "Blackbird" was his encouragement of the Civil Rights movement. And like his fellow septuagenarian icons (with the exception of Jagger), McCartney's voice has accumulated noticeable weak spots, mostly in the mid to high range. When Dylan--whose vocal decline and (even more noticeable) apathy for what fans want has become common knowledge over the last decade--outperforms you, it's time to shake things up a bit. You know, beyond clunkily reworking Rihanna and Kanye's parts in "FourFiveSeconds." But one high point came when Macca was joined by Young on "Why Don't We Do It in the Road," a song McCartney had apparently never performed live before Saturday, as well as "A Day in the Life" and "Give Peace a Chance." The two have played together before, but their bromance felt rare in its giddiness, particularly after seeing Young's scowl peek out under his hat during his own scorched-earth opening set of fresh environmental pleas and improvised favorites (including a 22-minute "After the Gold Rush" that felt like the true Zenith of Neil). Instead, a "pinch me" smile was plastered on Young's face as he stared at McCartney and screamed Lennon's words of peace--an expression appreciated, and maybe even echoed, in the crowd." http://pitchfork.com/features/festival-report/9960-surviving-oldchella-scenes-from-the-ultimate-classic-rock-rager/
It's too bad someone has to go and rank these performances. I think each artist will give excellent concerts in their own way. After all, these are the people who developed the Rock music genre as we know it, and into what it became. What we now term Classic Rock. 6 different styles, each wrote songs which have been embedded in the world consciousness for over 50 years.
_____________________________________________________ Couldn't agree more Randy.
-
B J Conlee:
Bruce M.:
So it's a sign of anti-Paul bias when a critic makes the exact same complaints that lots of us on this board make all the time? :
__________________________________________________________ Bruce, It is true that here on this board I have often complained about the lack of creativity and variety in Paul's setlist. But I'm talking about me, a huge fan who has seen Paul 12 times from 1989 to about 2011 (my last time). Over the last few years however I have stated that I won't pay those kinds of ticket prices until there are significant changes in the setlist. I could have seen him in the Philadelphia and New York areas this year but declined. Not knocking Paul because I understand that the large majority of people seeing Paul these days are first or 2nd timers who want to hear a Beatle heavy setlist. I, however, have seen him do those songs many times. I'm still a big fan but this is just the way I feel. Conversely, this "review" is a whole different thing from my "personal" feeling about Paul's recent setlist or shows. The critic from Pitchfork right at the beginning began criticizing Paul's performance at the festival due to Paul's tired repetition of the same stories about various songs over his last few tours. His "routine" as the critic sarcastically puts it. This critic however is "assuming" that the majority in the audience have seen Paul multiple times over that time span. Since this was a unique festival with the likes of the Stones, Dylan, Neil Young, the Who, Roger Waters etc, I would bet that the majority of the audience may have never seen McCartney before. And many more maybe have only seen him once. For those people, these stories are not "tired" at all but indeed are very interesting and informative. It is one of the things that makes a McCartney show so special. He is very personal at his shows unlike a Mick Jagger that primarily plays the "rock God". Not knocking Mick or the Stones, but the stories does make Paul's shows unique. I don't criticize this critic for saying that Paul's voice isn't what it use to be because it isn't. That is fact. But he can't base ranking Paul's show dead "last" because the the audience is tired of Paul's same stories when he has no idea of just how many people in the audience have never heard most of them. Pretty lame in my opinion. Again I would bet that many in the audience have not heard most of these stories. I could also tell from his review that he isn't objective about Paul when he sarcastically says that Paul's set didn't even outperform Dylan. First of all, I like Bob Dylan a lot and secondly, I can bet that thousands in the audience loved Paul's performance. It is obvious to me that he doesn't like Paul. This doesn't bother me in the least however because the last time I will remember this reviewer is about the time I finish writing this reply.
Thanks! Enjoyed and agree with your response!!
-
Any word on soundcheck?
-
-
Have fun!
-
oobu24:
Have fun!
Thanks!
-
B J Conlee:
Bruce M.:
So it's a sign of anti-Paul bias when a critic makes the exact same complaints that lots of us on this board make all the time? :
__________________________________________________________ Bruce, It is true that here on this board I have often complained about the lack of creativity and variety in Paul's setlist. But I'm talking about me, a huge fan who has seen Paul 12 times from 1989 to about 2011 (my last time). Over the last few years however I have stated that I won't pay those kinds of ticket prices until there are significant changes in the setlist. I could have seen him in the Philadelphia and New York areas this year but declined. Not knocking Paul because I understand that the large majority of people seeing Paul these days are first or 2nd timers who want to hear a Beatle heavy setlist. I, however, have seen him do those songs many times. I'm still a big fan but this is just the way I feel. Conversely, this "review" is a whole different thing from my "personal" feeling about Paul's recent setlist or shows. The critic from Pitchfork right at the beginning began criticizing Paul's performance at the festival due to Paul's tired repetition of the same stories about various songs over his last few tours. His "routine" as the critic sarcastically puts it. This critic however is "assuming" that the majority in the audience have seen Paul multiple times over that time span. Since this was a unique festival with the likes of the Stones, Dylan, Neil Young, the Who, Roger Waters etc, I would bet that the majority of the audience may have never seen McCartney before. And many more maybe have only seen him once. For those people, these stories are not "tired" at all but indeed are very interesting and informative. It is one of the things that makes a McCartney show so special. He is very personal at his shows unlike a Mick Jagger that primarily plays the "rock God". Not knocking Mick or the Stones, but the stories does make Paul's shows unique. I don't criticize this critic for saying that Paul's voice isn't what it use to be because it isn't. That is fact. But he can't base ranking Paul's show dead "last" because the the audience is tired of Paul's same stories when he has no idea of just how many people in the audience have never heard most of them. Pretty lame in my opinion. Again I would bet that many in the audience have not heard most of these stories. I could also tell from his review that he isn't objective about Paul when he sarcastically says that Paul's set didn't even outperform Dylan. First of all, I like Bob Dylan a lot and secondly, I can bet that thousands in the audience loved Paul's performance. It is obvious to me that he doesn't like Paul. This doesn't bother me in the least however because the last time I will remember this reviewer is about the time I finish writing this reply.
The idea that the critic is assuming most of the audience has seen Paul multiple times has no basis in the actual review. The writer is simply pointing out something that's obviously true: Paul has been playing most of the same songs and telling nearly all of these stories for ages. Many artists work to keep things fresh so that people will want to come see them again. It's no doubt true that many in the audience were seeing Paul for the first time, but that's likely also in part because folks who've already seen him more than once don't all feel they need a rerun.
-
Gonna make some predictions prior to the start of the show: I wanna be your man is out and Junior's Farm will replace Jet or Letting Go. I also think that if there is to be a mega jam between all the artists, it'll be tonight. only a little while left..
-
forget 64:
B J Conlee:
Bruce M.:
So it's a sign of anti-Paul bias when a critic makes the exact same complaints that lots of us on this board make all the time? :
__________________________________________________________ Bruce, It is true that here on this board I have often complained about the lack of creativity and variety in Paul's setlist. But I'm talking about me, a huge fan who has seen Paul 12 times from 1989 to about 2011 (my last time). Over the last few years however I have stated that I won't pay those kinds of ticket prices until there are significant changes in the setlist. I could have seen him in the Philadelphia and New York areas this year but declined. Not knocking Paul because I understand that the large majority of people seeing Paul these days are first or 2nd timers who want to hear a Beatle heavy setlist. I, however, have seen him do those songs many times. I'm still a big fan but this is just the way I feel. Conversely, this "review" is a whole different thing from my "personal" feeling about Paul's recent setlist or shows. The critic from Pitchfork right at the beginning began criticizing Paul's performance at the festival due to Paul's tired repetition of the same stories about various songs over his last few tours. His "routine" as the critic sarcastically puts it. This critic however is "assuming" that the majority in the audience have seen Paul multiple times over that time span. Since this was a unique festival with the likes of the Stones, Dylan, Neil Young, the Who, Roger Waters etc, I would bet that the majority of the audience may have never seen McCartney before. And many more maybe have only seen him once. For those people, these stories are not "tired" at all but indeed are very interesting and informative. It is one of the things that makes a McCartney show so special. He is very personal at his shows unlike a Mick Jagger that primarily plays the "rock God". Not knocking Mick or the Stones, but the stories does make Paul's shows unique. I don't criticize this critic for saying that Paul's voice isn't what it use to be because it isn't. That is fact. But he can't base ranking Paul's show dead "last" because the the audience is tired of Paul's same stories when he has no idea of just how many people in the audience have never heard most of them. Pretty lame in my opinion. Again I would bet that many in the audience have not heard most of these stories. I could also tell from his review that he isn't objective about Paul when he sarcastically says that Paul's set didn't even outperform Dylan. First of all, I like Bob Dylan a lot and secondly, I can bet that thousands in the audience loved Paul's performance. It is obvious to me that he doesn't like Paul. This doesn't bother me in the least however because the last time I will remember this reviewer is about the time I finish writing this reply.
Thanks! Enjoyed and agree with your response!!
Me too!
-
pre-show is playing - listening to periscope now
-
Same opening songs Edit: Got to Get You Into My Life in the Can't Buy Me Love slot A Hard Day's Set Night Jet Got To Get You Into My Life Life
-
A Hard Day's Night Jet Got to Get You Into My Life Letting Go
-
Day Tripper