McCartney Concert Newspaper reviews
-
wingsdgm wrote:
I'm Glad he shares ANYTHING ..(Even if I've heard it before )
I second that wingsdgm! I love to hear Paul's stories sometimes he tells funny ones too. And as for the songs he chooses is fine with me as well. I like how Paul's voice sounds he sounds very gentle and loving when he sings. Im always happy to hear his voice no matter what state his vo ice is in.
How ever I do wonder why Paul's band is not mentioned in he reviews but at least Paul gives them the prasie they deserve at the end of his shows.
-
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
wingsdgm wrote:
I'm Glad he shares ANYTHING ..(Even if I've heard it before )
I second that wingsdgm! I love to hear Paul's stories sometimes he tells funny ones too. And as for the songs he chooses is fine with me as well. I like how Paul's voice sounds he sounds very gentle and loving when he sings. Im always happy to hear his voice no matter what state his vo ice is in.
How ever I do wonder why Paul's band is not mentioned in he reviews but at least Paul gives them the prasie they deserve at the end of his shows.
The band has been mentioned in reviews and see my post from the Montreal review. The band got several compliments.
-
yankeefan7 wrote:
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.
I was checking out a few articles online for Rolling Stone magazine and saw a concert review for Austin City festival. After reading the review, I had to laugh about how Rolling Stone magazine supposedly hates McCartney. This review was as big a fanboy review as I have ever read regarding one of his concerts. Just gushed about the length of the show and his energy onstage. I almost laughed out loud when critic said "My Valentine" was a great song, have rarely heard anybody on this site say they thought it was any good and most people say it should be removed from set list. Critic also said he loved the two opening songs and said "Hi Hi Hi" was a deep Wings cut which I found amusing. This song was pretty popular single in 1972 and was in the encore of the WOA tour. I would not exactly classify it as a deep cut - lol. Critic never said a thing about the quality of the vocals or mentioned the band. I was shocked when he stated the emotional highlight of the night was the dedication to Geoff Emerick when he played "Benefit Of Mr. Kite". I just can't imagine anything emotionally topping him singing "Here Today" for John Lennon". The only thing I did give him credit for was he said that this crowd would have probably enjoyed the more "eccentric" tracks "Confidante" and Dominoes" more than than "Come On To Me' and "Fuh You" . At least he actually has listened to Egypt Station, will check later and see if he did the album review of it for Rolling Stone. I guess my main point in posting this is to once again show that Rolling Stone does not hate McCartney. If you check out their album reviews from the last 20 years they have been pretty positive. Yes, the magazine may have favored Lennon many years ago but that is ancient history IMO.
-
yankeefan7 wrote:
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.
I was reading Rolling Stone magazine online the other day and saw a review of the Austin City Festival and thought I would read it. After reading the review, I busted out laughing thinking of all the people who have said the magazine hates McCartney. This review was as big a fanboy review of anything I have ever read in my life - lol. The critic raved about the McCartney's energy and that is fine because it is true especially at 76 . He of course loved every Beatle song but lost me when he said that "Benefit of Mr. Kite" was the emotional high point of the show because it was dedicated to the late Geoff Emerick. Really, that was more emotional than McCartney singing "Here Today" for John Lennon. The critic showed his lack of research IMO when he called "Hi Hi Hi" a deep Wings cut. I guess he did not know it was a top 10 single and has been played live fairly often over the years. I almost fained when he said that "My Valentine" was already great when he recorded it but even better now. My goodness, he is the first person I have heard say this is a great song - lol. I did like it when he said that this crowd would have probably liked "Confidante" and or "Dominoes" better than the songs he played off Egypt Station (Come On To Me & Fuh You). Review had no mention of his band or his vocal performance. When any critic mentions he sings "Maybe I'm Amazed" I am always waiting to hear what they think of his voice on that song. Anyway, critic loved the show and I am now kind of curious if he is the same critic who reviewed Egypt Station for Rolling Stone.
-
-