McCartney Concert Newspaper reviews
-
I'd also like to offer a different perspective on this criticism quoted from the WP:
yankeefan7:
"That repartee provided moments of spontaneity at a concert that -- while impressive -- felt too much like a living museum diorama where the rock-and-roll songbook was played in front of a montage of flashback footage and digital video effects."
Like many on this board, I always enjoy Paul's shows, but have wished for more diversity in his setlist for a while. My favorite Paul solo era is 1978-1993, and I missed the '90 + '93 tours, so I have a huge backlog of "would love to sees." However, in one of the Paul interviews that came out this week, which are surprisingly candid, he compares his shows to Broadway shows, and this is exactly how I've started to view them. Broadway shows are scripted and mostly the same each night, but there are slight variations that arise due to audience differences, and little things that emerge on stage. Most attendees at a Broadway show are probably only going to see it that once; however, there is a smaller group of devotees who go repeatedly, both because they just love the show + performers, and because they enjoy seeing the slight variations from night to night. Recently, I've been to a couple of pop/rock shows that would best be described as scripted multimedia retrospectives: 1) The Rascals went on tour with a show a few years back that featured an Anthology-like film with interviews + clips, alternating with live performances of their biggest hits. It was fantastic. I'm enough of a fan that I enjoyed seeing it once and might have returned for a second or third show, but not enough of a fan that I would have gone enough times for it to become repetitive, nor for me to miss deeper cuts that hadn't been performed. 2) Peter Asher's brilliant live autobiography combines film clips with a live monologue, live performances, and joint live-film performances. I've seen it roughly twice at The Fest, and even though it was mostly the same both times, I greatly enjoyed it each time. These shows are probably ideal for an audience that consists mostly of casual fans who will go to at most one or two shows by the artist, and want a well put-together retrospective of songs they recognize. There are of course very different approaches to rock shows, which I think have been discussed on here. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Phish caters mostly to their large group of devotees who follow them around, and their shows in turn are all about depth, variety, and spontaneity. Dylan has done absolutely whatever he has felt like his entire career, and that's just who he is, take it or leave it. Billy has become the house band at MSG, and is basically treating his shows like his sets when he was the "house band" at a piano bar, mixing in the same standards night after night with whatever strikes his fancy or the audience requests. These are all excellent formats for shows, with very specific expectations on the part of both artist and audience. Paul seems to have been following the casual once-or-twice attendee expectation, and in turn has delivered what is essentially an outstanding scripted multimedia retrospective; so, yes, a "living museum diorama" with a multimedia backdrop is probably an apt description. Even as a Paul "aficionado," if Paul's current show were the only one of his I ever saw, I would be quite happy. I think most of the reviewers are reviewing for his exact target audience, and their reviews reflect that. We may want something different, something more like the Phish paradigm, and I think we intuitively sense that Paul would enjoy something like that -- e.g., early Wings was more that way. I think it's been frustrating because it's felt like Paul doesn't how many of us there are, and therefore hasn't thought such a thing would actually attract an audience. I think we've projected that frustration onto concert reviewers, who we feel are the ones best in a position to bring up our point of view, but the fact is that they're not writing for our point of view. Bashing the concerts for not having more spontaneous banter, 80s songs, or deep cuts from obscure Wings albums might give that target audience the wrong impression and keep them from a concert they would actually love. Paul's quote yesterday/today in the NYT was therefore like an "IT'S HAPPENING" moment. He finally seems to get it that he does have a non-trivial number of aficionados, and he knows himself that he would enjoy doing something more like what we're looking for, in addition to what he already does. I suddenly have a huge hope that our dream might become reality! I think it's in our best interest to be grateful to Paul for even considering this, and continue making him aware of us and our perspective, yet I don't think it's fair to expect mainstream concert reviewers to be the ones spreading our message. The format Paul has been following for some time is a perfectly valid one, and most reviewers are evaluating the show at it is in that format, with that target audience, and that's fine. *Hard-core music journalists interviewing him* are however in a position to bring up our perspective, and a couple have this week, so rather than criticizing the mainstream concert reviewers, or Paul himself, let's encourage these bold and well-informed journalists!
-
AcresOfFun:
yankeefan7:
- 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.
Maybe they don't agree that it's that big a deal? I mentioned elsewhere that I never thought about Paul's voice during Sunday's concert. When watching my videos, I noticed a few wobbles at first, but the more I've watched, the more impressed I've become, because most of the time he sounds just like he always has. There are times when he strains more in the higher registers, but, being a pro, he has also made some adjustments to his phrasing to work around them, and I imagine he'll do more of that where he sees fit. Other times, his bandmates just pick him up on the harmonies. Does he still flub the highest notes sometimes? Sure, but he also flubbed a note on If I Fell when he was 21, which has always been on the record. Does anyone care? Likely no, if anything it just adds to the vocal's charm. I think it's unfair to claim that anyone who was at the concert and found Paul's vocal limitations too trivial to mention is simply being "awestruck" or a "fanboy."
The version of If I Fell where Paul's voice cracks on the word "vain" was corrected for the final release. The original "mistake" version was released on the Anthology. If I Fell is my favorite Beatles song!
-
AcresOfFun:
I'd also like to offer a different perspective on this criticism quoted from the WP:
yankeefan7:
"That repartee provided moments of spontaneity at a concert that -- while impressive -- felt too much like a living museum diorama where the rock-and-roll songbook was played in front of a montage of flashback footage and digital video effects."
Like many on this board, I always enjoy Paul's shows, but have wished for more diversity in his setlist for a while. My favorite Paul solo era is 1978-1993, and I missed the '90 + '93 tours, so I have a huge backlog of "would love to sees." However, in one of the Paul interviews that came out this week, which are surprisingly candid, he compares his shows to Broadway shows, and this is exactly how I've started to view them. Broadway shows are scripted and mostly the same each night, but there are slight variations that arise due to audience differences, and little things that emerge on stage. Most attendees at a Broadway show are probably only going to see it that once; however, there is a smaller group of devotees who go repeatedly, both because they just love the show + performers, and because they enjoy seeing the slight variations from night to night. Recently, I've been to a couple of pop/rock shows that would best be described as scripted multimedia retrospectives: 1) The Rascals went on tour with a show a few years back that featured an Anthology-like film with interviews + clips, alternating with live performances of their biggest hits. It was fantastic. I'm enough of a fan that I enjoyed seeing it once and might have returned for a second or third show, but not enough of a fan that I would have gone enough times for it to become repetitive, nor for me to miss deeper cuts that hadn't been performed. 2) Peter Asher's brilliant live autobiography combines film clips with a live monologue, live performances, and joint live-film performances. I've seen it roughly twice at The Fest, and even though it was mostly the same both times, I greatly enjoyed it each time. These shows are probably ideal for an audience that consists mostly of casual fans who will go to at most one or two shows by the artist, and want a well put-together retrospective of songs they recognize. There are of course very different approaches to rock shows, which I think have been discussed on here. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Phish caters mostly to their large group of devotees who follow them around, and their shows in turn are all about depth, variety, and spontaneity. Dylan has done absolutely whatever he has felt like his entire career, and that's just who he is, take it or leave it. Billy has become the house band at MSG, and is basically treating his shows like his sets when he was the "house band" at a piano bar, mixing in the same standards night after night with whatever strikes his fancy or the audience requests. These are all excellent formats for shows, with very specific expectations on the part of both artist and audience. Paul seems to have been following the casual once-or-twice attendee expectation, and in turn has delivered what is essentially an outstanding scripted multimedia retrospective; so, yes, a "living museum diorama" with a multimedia backdrop is probably an apt description. Even as a Paul "aficionado," if Paul's current show were the only one of his I ever saw, I would be quite happy. I think most of the reviewers are reviewing for his exact target audience, and their reviews reflect that. We may want something different, something more like the Phish paradigm, and I think we intuitively sense that Paul would enjoy something like that -- e.g., early Wings was more that way. I think it's been frustrating because it's felt like Paul doesn't how many of us there are, and therefore hasn't thought such a thing would actually attract an audience. I think we've projected that frustration onto concert reviewers, who we feel are the ones best in a position to bring up our point of view, but the fact is that they're not writing for our point of view. Bashing the concerts for not having more spontaneous banter, 80s songs, or deep cuts from obscure Wings albums might give that target audience the wrong impression and keep them from a concert they would actually love. Paul's quote yesterday/today in the NYT was therefore like an "IT'S HAPPENING" moment. He finally seems to get it that he does have a non-trivial number of aficionados, and he knows himself that he would enjoy doing something more like what we're looking for, in addition to what he already does. I suddenly have a huge hope that our dream might become reality! I think it's in our best interest to be grateful to Paul for even considering this, and continue making him aware of us and our perspective, yet I don't think it's fair to expect mainstream concert reviewers to be the ones spreading our message. The format Paul has been following for some time is a perfectly valid one, and most reviewers are evaluating the show at it is in that format, with that target audience, and that's fine. *Hard-core music journalists interviewing him* are however in a position to bring up our perspective, and a couple have this week, so rather than criticizing the mainstream concert reviewers, or Paul himself, let's encourage these bold and well-informed journalists!
Very interesting response and let me address some of the points. It is sad for me to hear that Mr. McCartney compares his show to a scripted Broadway show. A Broadway show is scripted every night because it is telling the same story but a "rock" concert should not IMO be that totally scripted. I get the same songs being done due to lighting etc. It boggles my mind that his banter/stories have to be that scripted and he either does not want to or he does not have the ability to once in awhile just "wing" it . (pun intended). Myself and a few others really don't expect a totally deep cuts concert from Mr. McCartney although it would be nice - lol. Several times on this board I have suggested a set list of 36 songs which had 20 Beatle and 5 Wings on it which IMO is enough to satisfy any first time person seeing Mr. McCartney. The other 11 songs were IMO excellent songs which he has never performed live or played live many years ago. (exp. My Brave Face). Every review mentions him doing "Temporary Secretary" because it is a deep cut, imagine if he did a few others. I do believe it is the reviewers responsibility to inform the audience that while the set list may span his entire career, that it is very little of it is past 1982. In other words, they are informing the audience it is in reality an "oldies" show. The idea behind any review is supposed to provide critical analysis of the performance and informing the general public of the contents of the show.
-
-
I don't get the objection to a show being scripted. Different performers have different styles. Some like to improvise and shake things up. Some like to work out something they think is solid, refine till it's as good as they think they can make it, then do it that way rather than risk giving audiences a lesser experience. One approach isn't better than the other, they're just different. Not every artist likes to (or can) work in the same way.
-
Bruce M.:
I don't get the objection to a show being scripted. Different performers have different styles. Some like to improvise and shake things up. Some like to work out something they think is solid, refine till it's as good as they think they can make it, then do it that way rather than risk giving audiences a lesser experience. One approach isn't better than the other, they're just different. Not every artist likes to (or can) work in the same way.
__________________________________________________________ Very good points Bruce. I do think Paul's personality is far more the "rote" type performer. I always thought the reason that many journalists back in the day labeled John the "smart" one is that John could talk extemporaneously (and well) about many subjects. Journalists found John to be much more interesting because they could easily get him to talk about many subjects. Not everyone has that talent. Bono certainly has it for example. To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality. That doesn't necessarily make John or Bono smarter than Paul (or certainly more musical), but it is more Paul's type of personality or style as Bruce puts it. For long time Beatle fans, the good news is that while Paul is more guarded and rote in his show banter, he loves to tour. That certainly wasn't true in John's and George's case. I doubt either one of them would be touring in their older years like Paul is. They didn't really love it like Paul (and Ringo) do even when they were young. One thing that I really like about Paul's shows (and some of the reviewers have pointed it out) is that you really get a sense of how Paul composed some of his songs. I love how he talks about writing "You won't see me" on this tour. You get that from very few big name "live" performers anymore. The reviewers have also pointed out on this tour how accomplished he is on multiple instruments. Paul in my opinion still puts on one of the best shows (despite the usual stories which has to be boring for fans who attend many shows) because you do get the feeling that he is talking to each one of us. A few years back I saw the Stones perform and while it was a great show, Mick was still being the "rock God". You never got the feeling that their show had any "personal" side to it. In fact, Mick hardly said a word all night. As a big time fan, my main and only beef with Paul's shows over the last few years is the Setlist. I like the way Yankeefan breaks it down. If the setlist has 36 songs, 20 Beatle songs and 5 Wings songs are plenty enough for the casual and Beatle fans plus all the first timers. The other 11 or 12 songs should be from late Wings to today. That's a lot of years and that is where I had always wished that Paul would have given "true" representation to his full career. Because there was so much duplication from last year's set list, I didn't push to attend any Paul "one on one" shows despite the fact that I am back in the Northeast (New Jersey) and could have if Paul had done something like Yankeefan was suggesting. Even doing the same "NEW" songs made little sense to me. Why not add some Solo songs he's never done before or a few Solo songs that he only did during one tour. Now that would have motivated me to get to one of the shows.
-
-
B J Conlee:
Bruce M.:
I don't get the objection to a show being scripted. Different performers have different styles. Some like to improvise and shake things up. Some like to work out something they think is solid, refine till it's as good as they think they can make it, then do it that way rather than risk giving audiences a lesser experience. One approach isn't better than the other, they're just different. Not every artist likes to (or can) work in the same way.
__________________________________________________________ Very good points Bruce. I do think Paul's personality is far more the "rote" type performer. I always thought the reason that many journalists back in the day labeled John the "smart" one is that John could talk extemporaneously (and well) about many subjects. Journalists found John to be much more interesting because they could easily get him to talk about many subjects. Not everyone has that talent. Bono certainly has it for example. To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality. That doesn't necessarily make John or Bono smarter than Paul (or certainly more musical), but it is more Paul's type of personality or style as Bruce puts it. For long time Beatle fans, the good news is that while Paul is more guarded and rote in his show banter, he loves to tour. That certainly wasn't true in John's and George's case. I doubt either one of them would be touring in their older years like Paul is. They didn't really love it like Paul (and Ringo) do even when they were young. One thing that I really like about Paul's shows (and some of the reviewers have pointed it out) is that you really get a sense of how Paul composed some of his songs. I love how he talks about writing "You won't see me" on this tour. You get that from very few big name "live" performers anymore. The reviewers have also pointed out on this tour how accomplished he is on multiple instruments. Paul in my opinion still puts on one of the best shows (despite the usual stories which has to be boring for fans who attend many shows) because you do get the feeling that he is talking to each one of us. A few years back I saw the Stones perform and while it was a great show, Mick was still being the "rock God". You never got the feeling that their show had any "personal" side to it. In fact, Mick hardly said a word all night. As a big time fan, my main and only beef with Paul's shows over the last few years is the Setlist. I like the way Yankeefan breaks it down. If the setlist has 36 songs, 20 Beatle songs and 5 Wings songs are plenty enough for the casual and Beatle fans plus all the first timers. The other 11 or 12 songs should be from late Wings to today. That's a lot of years and that is where I had always wished that Paul would have given "true" representation to his full career. Because there was so much duplication from last year's set list, I didn't push to attend any Paul "one on one" shows despite the fact that I am back in the Northeast (New Jersey) and could have if Paul had done something like Yankeefan was suggesting. Even doing the same "NEW" songs made little sense to me. Why not add some Solo songs he's never done before or a few Solo songs that he only did during one tour. Now that would have motivated me to get to one of the shows.
"To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality" BJ, I would have no problem with him being scripted if he would at least change the script every tour. Ever notice he does not really tell any story about a solo song he wrote with few exception like "Here Today" and the reason for that is obvious.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Bruce M.:
I don't get the objection to a show being scripted. Different performers have different styles. Some like to improvise and shake things up. Some like to work out something they think is solid, refine till it's as good as they think they can make it, then do it that way rather than risk giving audiences a lesser experience. One approach isn't better than the other, they're just different. Not every artist likes to (or can) work in the same way.
__________________________________________________________ Very good points Bruce. I do think Paul's personality is far more the "rote" type performer. I always thought the reason that many journalists back in the day labeled John the "smart" one is that John could talk extemporaneously (and well) about many subjects. Journalists found John to be much more interesting because they could easily get him to talk about many subjects. Not everyone has that talent. Bono certainly has it for example. To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality. That doesn't necessarily make John or Bono smarter than Paul (or certainly more musical), but it is more Paul's type of personality or style as Bruce puts it. For long time Beatle fans, the good news is that while Paul is more guarded and rote in his show banter, he loves to tour. That certainly wasn't true in John's and George's case. I doubt either one of them would be touring in their older years like Paul is. They didn't really love it like Paul (and Ringo) do even when they were young. One thing that I really like about Paul's shows (and some of the reviewers have pointed it out) is that you really get a sense of how Paul composed some of his songs. I love how he talks about writing "You won't see me" on this tour. You get that from very few big name "live" performers anymore. The reviewers have also pointed out on this tour how accomplished he is on multiple instruments. Paul in my opinion still puts on one of the best shows (despite the usual stories which has to be boring for fans who attend many shows) because you do get the feeling that he is talking to each one of us. A few years back I saw the Stones perform and while it was a great show, Mick was still being the "rock God". You never got the feeling that their show had any "personal" side to it. In fact, Mick hardly said a word all night. As a big time fan, my main and only beef with Paul's shows over the last few years is the Setlist. I like the way Yankeefan breaks it down. If the setlist has 36 songs, 20 Beatle songs and 5 Wings songs are plenty enough for the casual and Beatle fans plus all the first timers. The other 11 or 12 songs should be from late Wings to today. That's a lot of years and that is where I had always wished that Paul would have given "true" representation to his full career. Because there was so much duplication from last year's set list, I didn't push to attend any Paul "one on one" shows despite the fact that I am back in the Northeast (New Jersey) and could have if Paul had done something like Yankeefan was suggesting. Even doing the same "NEW" songs made little sense to me. Why not add some Solo songs he's never done before or a few Solo songs that he only did during one tour. Now that would have motivated me to get to one of the shows.
"To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality" BJ, I would have no problem with him being scripted if he would at least change the script every tour. Ever notice he does not really tell any story about a solo song he wrote with few exception like "Here Today" and the reason for that is obvious.
_____________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, Couldn't agree more. Part of this goes back to the Setlist. I still don't get that he has played "Let Me Roll It" on every tour since Wings Over America. While it is a very good song, I don't consider it a signature song like Hey Jude or Band on the Run. I'm rather tired of it now and his current vocal doesn't come close to a few years ago. Changing out that song for another Solo song he has never done (e.g. Take It Away or Young Boy) would give the potential of a new story rather than to yet again hear the Jimmy Hendrix story.
-
St. Louis Post-Dispatch concert review Busch Stadium, St. Louis, MO August 13, 2016 Paul McCartney's Busch Stadium concert was like revisiting old friends in song by Kevin C. Johnson If ever there was a case for more concerts downtown at Busch Stadium, it was the magical night of music that was Paul McCartney's sold-out concert Saturday night. http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/music/kevin-johnson/ Moderator edit: Post edited to conform with Copyright Forum Rules
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Bruce M.:
I don't get the objection to a show being scripted. Different performers have different styles. Some like to improvise and shake things up. Some like to work out something they think is solid, refine till it's as good as they think they can make it, then do it that way rather than risk giving audiences a lesser experience. One approach isn't better than the other, they're just different. Not every artist likes to (or can) work in the same way.
__________________________________________________________ Very good points Bruce. I do think Paul's personality is far more the "rote" type performer. I always thought the reason that many journalists back in the day labeled John the "smart" one is that John could talk extemporaneously (and well) about many subjects. Journalists found John to be much more interesting because they could easily get him to talk about many subjects. Not everyone has that talent. Bono certainly has it for example. To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality. That doesn't necessarily make John or Bono smarter than Paul (or certainly more musical), but it is more Paul's type of personality or style as Bruce puts it. For long time Beatle fans, the good news is that while Paul is more guarded and rote in his show banter, he loves to tour. That certainly wasn't true in John's and George's case. I doubt either one of them would be touring in their older years like Paul is. They didn't really love it like Paul (and Ringo) do even when they were young. One thing that I really like about Paul's shows (and some of the reviewers have pointed it out) is that you really get a sense of how Paul composed some of his songs. I love how he talks about writing "You won't see me" on this tour. You get that from very few big name "live" performers anymore. The reviewers have also pointed out on this tour how accomplished he is on multiple instruments. Paul in my opinion still puts on one of the best shows (despite the usual stories which has to be boring for fans who attend many shows) because you do get the feeling that he is talking to each one of us. A few years back I saw the Stones perform and while it was a great show, Mick was still being the "rock God". You never got the feeling that their show had any "personal" side to it. In fact, Mick hardly said a word all night. As a big time fan, my main and only beef with Paul's shows over the last few years is the Setlist. I like the way Yankeefan breaks it down. If the setlist has 36 songs, 20 Beatle songs and 5 Wings songs are plenty enough for the casual and Beatle fans plus all the first timers. The other 11 or 12 songs should be from late Wings to today. That's a lot of years and that is where I had always wished that Paul would have given "true" representation to his full career. Because there was so much duplication from last year's set list, I didn't push to attend any Paul "one on one" shows despite the fact that I am back in the Northeast (New Jersey) and could have if Paul had done something like Yankeefan was suggesting. Even doing the same "NEW" songs made little sense to me. Why not add some Solo songs he's never done before or a few Solo songs that he only did during one tour. Now that would have motivated me to get to one of the shows.
"To me it is not surprising that Paul's shows are as scripted as they are because of his personality" BJ, I would have no problem with him being scripted if he would at least change the script every tour. Ever notice he does not really tell any story about a solo song he wrote with few exception like "Here Today" and the reason for that is obvious.
_____________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, Couldn't agree more. Part of this goes back to the Setlist. I still don't get that he has played "Let Me Roll It" on every tour since Wings Over America. While it is a very good song, I don't consider it a signature song like Hey Jude or Band on the Run. I'm rather tired of it now and his current vocal doesn't come close to a few years ago. Changing out that song for another Solo song he has never done (e.g. Take It Away or Young Boy) would give the potential of a new story rather than to yet again hear the Jimmy Hendrix story.
BJ , I agree and think I read in one of these threads that Nancy loves "Let Me Roll It" - oh well - lol.
-
stlblues67:
St. Louis Post-Dispatch concert review Busch Stadium, St. Louis, MO August 13, 2016 Paul McCartney's Busch Stadium concert was like revisiting old friends in song by Kevin C. Johnson If ever there was a case for more concerts downtown at Busch Stadium, it was the magical night of music that was Paul McCartney's sold-out concert Saturday night. http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/music/kevin-johnson/ Moderator edit: Post edited to conform with Copyright Forum Rules
Review was typical of way too may reviews and I could have written the same review without going to the show - lol.
-
For the record, while I have no problem with Paul's shows being scripted, I certainly agree with the idea of retiring some oft-told stories and replacing them with something fresh. I'm willing to bet Paul has a few interesting anecdotes he hasn't told in his tours.
-
Bruce M.:
For the record, while I have no problem with Paul's shows being scripted, I certainly agree with the idea of retiring some oft-told stories and replacing them with something fresh. I'm willing to bet Paul has a few interesting anecdotes he hasn't told in his tours.
-
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.
Last night review of the Grand Rapids concert that I read was excellent piece of writing. It was obvious the reviewer was a big fan but was not overtly gushing. Highlighted the excellence of the band which is always a big plus to me when reading a review. He mentioned Mr. McCartney was in fine vocal form for the most part and that has been pretty consistent point in all reviews of this tour. I liked it when he mentioned the songs are the emphasis of the show and said "Maybe I'm Amazed" was the evenings most affecting number. Another thing I enjoyed was when reviewer noticed security guard mouthing the words of a song while scanning the crowd. This type of thing shows the reviewer was capturing the experience of the concert last night. Reviewer also rated the show (4 stars out of 4 stars) and had a box which had highlights, lowlights (None) and length of show. Overall, this is in the top 5 reviews I have read on this tour.
-
[quote="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. Last night review of the Grand Rapids concert that I read was excellent piece of writing. It was obvious the reviewer was a big fan but was not overtly gushing. Highlighted the excellence of the band which is always a big plus to me when reading a review. He mentioned Mr. McCartney was in fine vocal form for the most part and that has been pretty consistent point in all reviews of this tour. I liked it when he mentioned the songs are the emphasis of the show and said "Maybe I'm Amazed" was the evenings most affecting number. Another thing I enjoyed was when reviewer noticed security guard mouthing the words of a song while scanning the crowd. This type of thing shows the reviewer was capturing the experience of the concert last night. Reviewer also rated the show (4 stars out of 4 stars) and had a box which had highlights, lowlights (None) and length of show. Overall, this is in the top 5 reviews I have read on this tour.
Good to hear... cos I reckon these days the "papers" just send any punk out there to review concerts.... and they just ply the same vanilla stuff.... they look on-line beforehand, work out what they are going to write beforehand, have it at the ready of the publisher ("press to play")..... so it is always welcome to hear a proper review, done with the deserved due diligence.
-
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.
Cleveland review was very bland, another one that almost could be written without being there. No mention of the band and very generic description of the songs in setlist. Reviewer even had to leave concert one hour early to make deadline, I feel like saying to him why bother. Funniest thing was reviewer thought Mr. McCartney hitting the stage 20 minutes late was really late - lol. Guess he has not seen to many concerts. Review did mention that Mr. McCartney's voice was not like his Beatle days, no kidding - lol.
-
Yankeefan, I thought another review from Cleveland (Cleveland Scene Weekly) was very good. You could tell the reviewer was actually there. He mentioned how good Paul's Band was and he gave detailed accounts of many of the songs performed including the Non-Beatle and non signature songs. He also concentrated on Paul's prowess as a showman in pleasing the audience. Despite my personal feelings about the lack of changes in the setlist, this tour has certainly been a success. Paul loves to please his audience and fans and he continues to do just that. I just hope that Paul is going to take 2017 off and concentrate on a new album and new songs. Resting his voice probably won't hurt too.
-
B J Conlee:
Yankeefan, I thought another review from Cleveland (Cleveland Scene Weekly) was very good. You could tell the reviewer was actually there. He mentioned how good Paul's Band was and he gave detailed accounts of many of the songs performed including the Non-Beatle and non signature songs. He also concentrated on Paul's prowess as a showman in pleasing the audience. Despite my personal feelings about the lack of changes in the setlist, this tour has certainly been a success. Paul loves to please his audience and fans and he continues to do just that. I just hope that Paul is going to take 2017 off and concentrate on a new album and new songs. Resting his voice probably won't hurt too.
Thanks BJ, will check it out. I usually go for the big newspapers in a city for the reviews I have read. I am looking forward to new music also. It is the only thing that gets me excited now since I know I will never see a set list I would really love at this point.
-
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. 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."
Going to revive this thread when the tour starts in a few weeks. I will really be interested in the reviews from the NY area since they have see him many times over the last 20 years. I think the Miami review could also be interesting also since it is the first stop on the tour.