McCartney Concert Newspaper reviews
-
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake. The Boston Globe review hit a couple of spots that myself and a few others mentioned, see below. I think this review and others show that most reviews are written by fanboys/girls or at the very least they are just charmed by Mr. McCartney. You can tell in all reviews that they are trying to be as upbeat as possible. "Those who claim McCartney's not lost a note of his estimable range do him no favors by exaggerating. You notice the weather that's come into his singing in exposed moments, even as you marvel at his undimmed skill on piano, bass, and guitar." "If you've seen McCartney on his recent tours, like those that set Fenway attendance records in 2009 and 2013, you recognized half of the set list here, or more: big production numbers like "Band on the Run," "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Live and Let Die," and "Hey Jude," as well as subtler numbers like "Here Today" in honor of John Lennon, and "Something" on ukulele in George Harrison's memory." The Newark Star Ledger review was ok but pretty much the standard McCartney review. A brief mention that the band was very "tight" and supplied backup vocals. Review stated he played 38 songs but never mentioned how few were after 1980. Mentioned a few stories he told between songs but it is the same stuff he has been saying for years for the most part. Reviewer made note of the rising platform which was not there for the Metlife concert in summer of 2016. Thought is was funny that the reviewer mentioned McCartney's remark about the crowd reaction to a new song since the newest song he plays is 4 years old unless you count "45 seconds". No mention of his vocal performance which really should be in ever review of a concert. My goodness, don't you want to know the quality of the vocals of the songs that were sung - oh well.
-
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
I just read the performance review from Little Rock and it was the same basic formula. Give them credit that they mentioned the band but never said a word about his vocal performance and clueless that his stories are the same ones he has told for years.
-
yankeefan7:
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
I just read the performance review from Little Rock and it was the same basic formula. Give them credit that they mentioned the band but never said a word about his vocal performance and clueless that his stories are the same ones he has told for years.
I watched the video for Let It Be in Little Rock and he even has the audacity at this point to say something like "I know there are a few people here who have seen our show, but I am going to tell this story about..." and then he tells about being in Russia, etc. So even HE knows now! Ha ha!
-
RMartinez:
yankeefan7:
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
I just read the performance review from Little Rock and it was the same basic formula. Give them credit that they mentioned the band but never said a word about his vocal performance and clueless that his stories are the same ones he has told for years.
I watched the video for Let It Be in Little Rock and he even has the audacity at this point to say something like "I know there are a few people here who have seen our show, but I am going to tell this story about..." and then he tells about being in Russia, etc. So even HE knows now! Ha ha!
Exactly, he is not that naive to think everyone in the audience is seeing him for the first time. Is it that hard to come up with something different to say about a song.
-
The thing is, he doesn't have to tell us a story about whatever song he's about to sing! Doesn't he realize that he could go off on a tangent and tell us about something that happened to him (and/or The Beatles) in the past (something new) and we'd love it?! I'm sure if he sat down and thought about it, he could come up with tons of interesting stories!
-
Nancy R:
The thing is, he doesn't have to tell us a story about whatever song he's about to sing! Doesn't he realize that he could go off on a tangent and tell us about something that happened to him (and/or The Beatles) in the past (something new) and we'd love it?! I'm sure if he sat down and thought about it, he could come up with tons of interesting stories!
Unfortunately, I think he has become so guarded and scripted it would hard for him to go off on a tangent. Like you, I wish he would.
-
yankeefan7:
Nancy R:
The thing is, he doesn't have to tell us a story about whatever song he's about to sing! Doesn't he realize that he could go off on a tangent and tell us about something that happened to him (and/or The Beatles) in the past (something new) and we'd love it?! I'm sure if he sat down and thought about it, he could come up with tons of interesting stories!
Unfortunately, I think he has become so guarded and scripted it would hard for him to go off on a tangent. Like you, I wish he would.
to both comments 
-
I'm Glad he shares ANYTHING ..(Even if I've heard it before )
-
Paul wants to control his image, but also be seen has a spontaneous rocker like Lennon. You can't have it both ways. He could stop with the scripted stories. He just doesn't know how. He has to be him. That's McCartney. Not Lennon. No matter how many Lennon songs he plays.
-
wingsdgm:
I'm Glad he shares ANYTHING ..(Even if I've heard it before )
Wow. The man is a living legend with so many experiences he could share and you don't mind hearing the same thing over and over. To each his/her own - lol.
-
Shout out to the review below, not the same old stuff you get in most reviews. http://www.argusleader.com/story/entertainment/2016/05/03/review-paul-mccartney-rolls-out-hits-sioux-falls/83861156
-
yankeefan7:
Shout out to the review below, not the same old stuff you get in most reviews. http://www.argusleader.com/story/entertainment/2016/05/03/review-paul-mccartney-rolls-out-hits-sioux-falls/83861156
Well balanced review. Didn't just hit the fan boy moments.
-
DeniseLM227:
yankeefan7:
Shout out to the review below, not the same old stuff you get in most reviews. http://www.argusleader.com/story/entertainment/2016/05/03/review-paul-mccartney-rolls-out-hits-sioux-falls/83861156
Well balanced review. Didn't just hit the fan boy moments.
Exactly !!!
-
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
Minneapolis review was pretty good but I was a bit surprised at the mentions of his voice (see below) since most people posted on the Minneapolis thread he sounded much better. I give the reviewer some style points for noticing that only 5 songs performed last night were after 1982. My favorite part of the review was first item below. "It's been a tough, tragic year for fans of classic rock. David Bowie, the Eagles' Glenn Frey and our own Prince left us unexpectedly. Perhaps the perfect antidote for our grief is Paul McCartney, who opened a two-night stand on Wednesday at Target Center in Minneapolis. We needed someone to take a sad song and make it better, someone to sing silly love songs that we could sing along with, someone to assure us that it's OK to long for yesterday when things changed suddenly." "That McCartney sounded like he had a cold -- some of his high notes were so raw it seemed as if he'd swallowed Joe Cocker -- didn't matter much. " "even his 2015 collaboration with Kanye West and Rihanna, "FourFiveSeconds," which not only featured uncharacteristically gruff vocals but was built around rhythm, not melody, which is un-Paul like" " a very tender, slightly trembly "Yesterday," among others."
-
yankeefan7:
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
Minneapolis review was pretty good but I was a bit surprised at the mentions of his voice (see below) since most people posted on the Minneapolis thread he sounded much better. See below. I give the reviewer some style points for noticing that only 5 songs performed last night were after 1982. My favorite part of the review was first item below. "It's been a tough, tragic year for fans of classic rock. David Bowie, the Eagles' Glenn Frey and our own Prince left us unexpectedly. Perhaps the perfect antidote for our grief is Paul McCartney, who opened a two-night stand on Wednesday at Target Center in Minneapolis. We needed someone to take a sad song and make it better, someone to sing silly love songs that we could sing along with, someone to assure us that it's OK to long for yesterday when things changed suddenly." "That McCartney sounded like he had a cold -- some of his high notes were so raw it seemed as if he'd swallowed Joe Cocker -- didn't matter much. " "even his 2015 collaboration with Kanye West and Rihanna, "FourFiveSeconds," which not only featured uncharacteristically gruff vocals but was built around rhythm, not melody, which is un-Paul like" " a very tender, slightly trembly "Yesterday," among others."
Fair assessment. Sounds like a splendid time was had by all!
-
yankeefan7:
Shout out to the review below, not the same old stuff you get in most reviews. http://www.argusleader.com/story/entertainment/2016/05/03/review-paul-mccartney-rolls-out-hits-sioux-falls/83861156
I wrote that, and thank you very much for your kind words!
-
Maccafan82:
yankeefan7:
Shout out to the review below, not the same old stuff you get in most reviews. http://www.argusleader.com/story/entertainment/2016/05/03/review-paul-mccartney-rolls-out-hits-sioux-falls/83861156
I wrote that, and thank you very much for your kind words!
Your welcome and in the other thread about that concert, I made other comments about your review that I enjoyed. See below. "Best review I have read of one of his shows in a very long time. You actually have seen him before and could tell people stories have been told before and it is a formula. You mentioned the good and not so good (voice problems at times). I liked how you stated "Temporary Secretary" was not one of your favorites but it works better live, adds some depth to a review. One of my other favorite comments was singing along to "Hey Jude" may be corny but it is so much fun. I also enjoyed the "Odds and Ends" notations in the review. Once again, good job !!"
-
yankeefan7:
wingsdgm:
I'm Glad he shares ANYTHING ..(Even if I've heard it before )
Wow. The man is a living legend with so many experiences he could share and you don't mind hearing the same thing over and over. To each his/her own - lol.
HAPPY to be there ..
-
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
After getting the interview in Cordoba Argentina translated from Spanish to English, it was fairly decent review. It mentioned the usual review items like his stories for George and John. It also mentioned the standard amazement that he does not during water during the show. Amazed that these people don't understand that this practice is not good for your vocal chords. The best part of the review IMO was the reviewer actual mentioned his musical virtuosity and the show was structured on that basis. There were no mentions of his vocal performance and while review mentioned the the songs spanned his entire career reviewer did not say that very little came after 1982.
-
yankeefan7:
For quite a few years I have enjoyed checking out the local newspapers after a McCartney concert. Below of some of my observations of them over the years up until this year 1) Reviewers for the most part are fanboys/fangirls of Mr. McCartney. It is one thing of fans like the people on this board to be awestruck of seeing a Beatle live but reviewers are suppose to check that at the door and offer critical analysis of concert.(good and bad) 2) All reviews rave about how long Mr. McCartney plays and this is a very valid point. He does give the audience their money's worth and his sets are longer than people half his age. 3) Reviews mention that his shows span his entire career but they almost always fail to mention that 90% of his show is before 1982. 4) It is rare that reviews mention how good and versatile a musician Mr. McCartney is which is surprising. The man is one of the all time great bass players and is pretty good acoustic guitar and piano player. The few times he does play lead guitar he handles it very well. 5) I am surprised more reviews don't mention his band, they do play a decent role in the sound of the music. It is one thing if he has played this city with the current band before but it should be mentioned if he is playing a city for the first time IMO. 6) The state of Mr. McCartney's voice is generally over looked. When it has been mentioned that he does not sound as good at times, it is brushed off as it should be expected due to his age. A good critic should then follow up and actually say what others have said and suggest he eliminate some songs or change their key. 7) Reviewers tend to be lazy especially in cities that he has not played before in his career. The stories that he constantly repeats (Hendrix, George loved the ukele etc). are reviewed like he told them for the first time that night. Do a little research and actually know what you are writing about for goodness sake.
Pretty boring and standard review from the Buenos Aires Herald today. One thing I have noticed is not one review has mentioned that "Hard Day's Night" was sung by John Lennon. Once again review says setlist spans his total career which is true but never mentions how few songs there are after 1980. No mention of his vocals and the usual mention of his vitality.
