McCartney Concert Newspaper reviews
-
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
A bunch of times when I'm reading something about Paul when they're praising him they still can't resist a cheap dig at Paul. Like on NME's article called "Best Festival Performances" Paul's Glastonbury one was there & it said "There's no Mull of Kintyre or Frog Song" which didn't feel needed. Those two songs NME just love taking shots at & shoe horning it in any place they can. I agree about the setlist as well. I understand that a bunch of the songs need to remain but at the same time he's got a bunch of songs that can get changed around. I really thought we were going to get more Wings/solo stuff after the great response he got for adding Temporary Secretary, but I was an idiot as only one variation got added 'Letting Go' which has been done in the past 5 years...
-
Dan DeLuca, Philly reviewer, gave a mostly glowing newspaper account of Paul's Philly outing. Worst he wrote was that Paul "got a bit hoarse at various points in the evening" and that his "stage patter was stale."
-
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
" But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias" BJ - Unfortunately, Mr. McCartney almost deserves that remark. If he did not play such a Beatle heavy show and set list was more about Mr. McCartney the artist, I am willing to bet that Beatle remark would not have happened. Maybe I am wrong, you know the reviewer better than me.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Dan DeLuca, Philly reviewer, gave a mostly glowing newspaper account of Paul's Philly outing. Worst he wrote was that Paul "got a bit hoarse at various points in the evening" and that his "stage patter was stale."
__________________________________________________ Susy, Perhaps you missed it, but I did reply above and said that Mr. DeLuca's review did praise Paul and was fair in general. I come from Philadelphia so I know that he hasn't always been kind and fair to Paul. He has admitted in the past that he is not a Paul guy relative to the Beatles. I also have no problem with him saying that Paul "got a bit hoarse at various points in the evening" and that his stage patter was stale. That is being honest and accurate which is what a reviewer should be. It was the last paragraph where he threw his dig at Paul and I think it was totally unnecessary. He said that "while Paul may not be your favorite Beatle and with all due respect to the lovable Ringo Starr, he's (meaning Paul) the best one we've got left. On top of being a left handed complement at best, it was a sarcastic and a borderline snide remark in my opinion. Between the lines he was hinting that Paul is, for good or bad, all we Beatle fans have left. Pretty disrespectful to Paul (and Ringo) in my opinion. By the way, I read the reader comments at the end of the article and as a Paul fan, I was happy to see how many people praised Paul's show especially his stamina and energy for being 74. Several people also picked up on his "the best one we have left" remark and again thought it was off handed. At least I know it wasn't just me. I know the guy so it is easy for me to pick up his biases even if they are subtle.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
" But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias" BJ - Unfortunately, Mr. McCartney almost deserves that remark. If he did not play such a Beatle heavy show and set list was more about Mr. McCartney the artist, I am willing to bet that Beatle remark would not have happened. Maybe I am wrong, you know the reviewer better than me.
___________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, No this guy has never been a Paul fan and especially as a Solo artist. He has been the music critic in this town for many years and any praise for Paul has been few and far between. I remember him being lukewarm at best for even very good albums like Chaos or Memory Almost Full. He is a John Lennon zealot and normally people like that don't want to give Paul any credit. That's why I call him the Anti-Paul. I think when it comes to the big concerts that are sold out, however, he begrudgingly praises Paul and gives him credit since he would look pretty stupid in Philadelphia not doing so. This one was even more favorable until the end. With this guy, I think a more balanced Paul setlist would have actually work against him. Conversely a heavy Beatles setlist worked in his favor. As I said to Susy above, I shouldn't have been surprised that he was praising the concert in general. But I was waiting for the zinger and sure enough it did come at the very end. The reader comments to Mr. DeLuca were very favorable to Paul and the concert and a few like me didn't like his "the best one we have left" comment.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
" But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias" BJ - Unfortunately, Mr. McCartney almost deserves that remark. If he did not play such a Beatle heavy show and set list was more about Mr. McCartney the artist, I am willing to bet that Beatle remark would not have happened. Maybe I am wrong, you know the reviewer better than me.
___________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, No this guy has never been a Paul fan and especially as a Solo artist. He has been the music critic in this town for many years and any praise for Paul has been few and far between. I remember him being lukewarm at best for even very good albums like Chaos or Memory Almost Full. He is a John Lennon zealot and normally people like that don't want to give Paul any credit. That's why I call him the Anti-Paul. I think when it comes to the big concerts that are sold out, however, he begrudgingly praises Paul and gives him credit since he would look pretty stupid in Philadelphia not doing so. This one was even more favorable until the end. With this guy, I think a more balanced Paul setlist would have actually work against him. Conversely a heavy Beatles setlist worked in his favor. As I said to Susy above, I shouldn't have been surprised that he was praising the concert in general. But I was waiting for the zinger and sure enough it did come at the very end. The reader comments to Mr. DeLuca were very favorable to Paul and the concert and a few like me didn't like his "the best one we have left" comment.
BJ - OK, like I said you know his history of writing a lot better than me. I thought comment was snide and borderline bad taste but like I said I thought the Beatle heavy show opened him open for this type of remark. Thanks for your remarks about his opinion of Mr. McCartney's solo work, If he did not appreciate CHAOS then what can we say, it was universally praised by every critic I have read. I never understood John Lennon "zealots". Mr. Lennon was great and I think that is recognized by everyone. Having a favorite "Beatle" is usually just a difference in taste. I happened to like Mr. McCartney better and it is jut due to I like his voice better and overall enjoy his type of song writing more than Mr. Lennon's. Just because I preferred Mr. McCartney I never thought I had to downgrade Mr. Lennon's music. I understand Mr. Lennon died way too early and tragically but I don't think anyone would ever forget his importance to the Beatles. Actually, it turned out to be the reverse with many people and critics. Mr. McCartney and Mr. Harrison were sometimes dismissed as side men to Mr. Lennon which was not fair. That being said, Mr. McCartney became way too sensitive about that type of things and was quite surprised he even mentioned it in a line from "Early Days".
-
B J Conlee:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Dan DeLuca, Philly reviewer, gave a mostly glowing newspaper account of Paul's Philly outing. Worst he wrote was that Paul "got a bit hoarse at various points in the evening" and that his "stage patter was stale."
__________________________________________________ Susy, Perhaps you missed it, but I did reply above and said that Mr. DeLuca's review did praise Paul and was fair in general. I come from Philadelphia so I know that he hasn't always been kind and fair to Paul. He has admitted in the past that he is not a Paul guy relative to the Beatles. I also have no problem with him saying that Paul "got a bit hoarse at various points in the evening" and that his stage patter was stale. That is being honest and accurate which is what a reviewer should be. It was the last paragraph where he threw his dig at Paul and I think it was totally unnecessary. He said that "while Paul may not be your favorite Beatle and with all due respect to the lovable Ringo Starr, he's (meaning Paul) the best one we've got left. On top of being a left handed complement at best, it was a sarcastic and a borderline snide remark in my opinion. Between the lines he was hinting that Paul is, for good or bad, all we Beatle fans have left. Pretty disrespectful to Paul (and Ringo) in my opinion. By the way, I read the reader comments at the end of the article and as a Paul fan, I was happy to see how many people praised Paul's show especially his stamina and energy for being 74. Several people also picked up on his "the best one we have left" remark and again thought it was off handed. At least I know it wasn't just me. I know the guy so it is easy for me to pick up his biases even if they are subtle.
"By the way, I read the reader comments at the end of the article and as a Paul fan, I was happy to see how many people praised Paul's show especially his stamina and energy for being 74. " BJ - That has been one point that is always made in praising Mr. McCartney by critics and readers responding to reviews. There has never been any doubt that he gives people their money's worth in regards to concert length and quality.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
" But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias" BJ - Unfortunately, Mr. McCartney almost deserves that remark. If he did not play such a Beatle heavy show and set list was more about Mr. McCartney the artist, I am willing to bet that Beatle remark would not have happened. Maybe I am wrong, you know the reviewer better than me.
___________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, No this guy has never been a Paul fan and especially as a Solo artist. He has been the music critic in this town for many years and any praise for Paul has been few and far between. I remember him being lukewarm at best for even very good albums like Chaos or Memory Almost Full. He is a John Lennon zealot and normally people like that don't want to give Paul any credit. That's why I call him the Anti-Paul. I think when it comes to the big concerts that are sold out, however, he begrudgingly praises Paul and gives him credit since he would look pretty stupid in Philadelphia not doing so. This one was even more favorable until the end. With this guy, I think a more balanced Paul setlist would have actually work against him. Conversely a heavy Beatles setlist worked in his favor. As I said to Susy above, I shouldn't have been surprised that he was praising the concert in general. But I was waiting for the zinger and sure enough it did come at the very end. The reader comments to Mr. DeLuca were very favorable to Paul and the concert and a few like me didn't like his "the best one we have left" comment.
BJ - OK, like I said you know his history of writing a lot better than me. I thought comment was snide and borderline bad taste but like I said I thought the Beatle heavy show opened him open for this type of remark. Thanks for your remarks about his opinion of Mr. McCartney's solo work, If he did not appreciate CHAOS then what can we say, it was universally praised by every critic I have read. I never understood John Lennon "zealots". Mr. Lennon was great and I think that is recognized by everyone. Having a favorite "Beatle" is usually just a difference in taste. I happened to like Mr. McCartney better and it is jut due to I like his voice better and overall enjoy his type of song writing more than Mr. Lennon's. Just because I preferred Mr. McCartney I never thought I had to downgrade Mr. Lennon's music. I understand Mr. Lennon died way too early and tragically but I don't think anyone would ever forget his importance to the Beatles. Actually, it turned out to be the reverse with many people and critics. Mr. McCartney and Mr. Harrison were sometimes dismissed as side men to Mr. Lennon which was not fair. That being said, Mr. McCartney became way too sensitive about that type of things and was quite surprised he even mentioned it in a line from "Early Days".
____________________________________________________ Yankeefan, As always, thanks for your insights. I love google to find articles about our favorite subject. In the same section where you find Mr. DeLuca's article, there are several more that you might find interesting. Ed Condran from the Bucks County Courier Times wrote a very good article about Paul's show in Philly. He was obviously there. He had seen Paul in Philly and Delaware (Firefly Festival) the year before and he was fairly critical of the banter. He compared Paul's banter to Billy Joel who was just at Citizen's Bank Park 3 days before. I know you would find that interesting. There was another very recent article (Nancy Blackman from a Alabama newspaper) that wrote about the song "When I'm 64" that was also very good. It's amazing how much you can find about the Beatles and Paul in this computer age. Your reply about "Lennon zealots" was very fair. Like you, I tend to favor Macca mainly because I like the diversity in his music styles and up to a few years ago, Paul could sing all those styles well. Also like you, I love a lot of John stuff. Unlike some Lennon zealots I've met over the years, I never downgrade John's stuff just because I personally like Paul's music generally better. People like Phillip Norman (author of Shout and recent biography's on John and Paul) get under my skin because they are Lennon zealots who consider Paul and George as sidemen to John. Mr. Norman came out with his proclamation in "Shout" that John was 75% of the Beatles. I commented on the absurdity of that statement on this site so I won't bore you or repeat my feelings about that ridiculous assertion. I realize that when Shout was originally released (around 1981) Mr. Norman's desire was to "sell" books. But man would I love to debate him. He also got on Good Morning America and made the same comment. It was not only an insult to Paul, but to George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin. Again, this has nothing to do with John. In fact, I believe he would consider it crazy if he was still alive. I agree with you that Paul became too sensitive during the credits's controversy when he reversed the credits on his "live" CD around 2002 I believe. In my opinion, it made Paul look small and it is a "no win" situation for him. I've heard that Heather Mills at the time was pushing Paul to do it but regardless it was not a good move by Paul and he paid for it with bad PR. I do give Paul a slight pass however. If I was Paul and heard and saw some of the prior statement by Yoko Ono, I would have been furious too. Both John and Paul were insecure about each others accomplishments. George Martin several times mentioned that John would say during the late Beatle years that he wished he could write the kind of classic melodies that Paul always seemed to write. Mr. Martin said that he would tell John that he wrote great stuff too. After John tragically died and everyone was putting him on such a lofty pedestal, I think it was natural for Paul to feel very insecure also. And Yoko Ono's comments certainly didn't help in that matter. Relative to Early Days, I understand how some people (including yourself) feel that Paul was putting out his "agenda" on that last verse. I not saying I'm right, but I didn't look at it that way. I've heard Paul talk about the song on a couple of occasions and both times he spoke about critics in general putting out wrong "facts" as if they were there. Paul gave examples (can't remember the exact songs) that were not even Paul penned songs. I think one of them was Strawberry Fields. Call me naive but I don't think Paul was getting back to the "credits" issue when he wrote the last verse on Early Days. I really believe he was talking in general of how Books/Authors get facts wrong as if they were there. I love Early Days and the last verse doesn't take away anything from the whole song for me. I think it is one of Paul's top 10 Singer/Songwriter type songs (were lyrics are as good as the melody) of all time. As you know, I've expressed my disappointment that Paul did not include Early Days as part of his current acoustic set. That is a whole different subject that you and I could go on and on about. Talk later.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
" But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias" BJ - Unfortunately, Mr. McCartney almost deserves that remark. If he did not play such a Beatle heavy show and set list was more about Mr. McCartney the artist, I am willing to bet that Beatle remark would not have happened. Maybe I am wrong, you know the reviewer better than me.
___________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, No this guy has never been a Paul fan and especially as a Solo artist. He has been the music critic in this town for many years and any praise for Paul has been few and far between. I remember him being lukewarm at best for even very good albums like Chaos or Memory Almost Full. He is a John Lennon zealot and normally people like that don't want to give Paul any credit. That's why I call him the Anti-Paul. I think when it comes to the big concerts that are sold out, however, he begrudgingly praises Paul and gives him credit since he would look pretty stupid in Philadelphia not doing so. This one was even more favorable until the end. With this guy, I think a more balanced Paul setlist would have actually work against him. Conversely a heavy Beatles setlist worked in his favor. As I said to Susy above, I shouldn't have been surprised that he was praising the concert in general. But I was waiting for the zinger and sure enough it did come at the very end. The reader comments to Mr. DeLuca were very favorable to Paul and the concert and a few like me didn't like his "the best one we have left" comment.
BJ - OK, like I said you know his history of writing a lot better than me. I thought comment was snide and borderline bad taste but like I said I thought the Beatle heavy show opened him open for this type of remark. Thanks for your remarks about his opinion of Mr. McCartney's solo work, If he did not appreciate CHAOS then what can we say, it was universally praised by every critic I have read. I never understood John Lennon "zealots". Mr. Lennon was great and I think that is recognized by everyone. Having a favorite "Beatle" is usually just a difference in taste. I happened to like Mr. McCartney better and it is jut due to I like his voice better and overall enjoy his type of song writing more than Mr. Lennon's. Just because I preferred Mr. McCartney I never thought I had to downgrade Mr. Lennon's music. I understand Mr. Lennon died way too early and tragically but I don't think anyone would ever forget his importance to the Beatles. Actually, it turned out to be the reverse with many people and critics. Mr. McCartney and Mr. Harrison were sometimes dismissed as side men to Mr. Lennon which was not fair. That being said, Mr. McCartney became way too sensitive about that type of things and was quite surprised he even mentioned it in a line from "Early Days".
____________________________________________________ Yankeefan, As always, thanks for your insights. I love google to find articles about our favorite subject. In the same section where you find Mr. DeLuca's article, there are several more that you might find interesting. Ed Condran from the Bucks County Courier Times wrote a very good article about Paul's show in Philly. He was obviously there. He had seen Paul in Philly and Delaware (Firefly Festival) the year before and he was fairly critical of the banter. He compared Paul's banter to Billy Joel who was just at Citizen's Bank Park 3 days before. I know you would find that interesting. There was another very recent article (Nancy Blackman from a Alabama newspaper) that wrote about the song "When I'm 64" that was also very good. It's amazing how much you can find about the Beatles and Paul in this computer age. Your reply about "Lennon zealots" was very fair. Like you, I tend to favor Macca mainly because I like the diversity in his music styles and up to a few years ago, Paul could sing all those styles well. Also like you, I love a lot of John stuff. Unlike some Lennon zealots I've met over the years, I never downgrade John's stuff just because I personally like Paul's music generally better. People like Phillip Norman (author of Shout and recent biography's on John and Paul) get under my skin because they are Lennon zealots who consider Paul and George as sidemen to John. Mr. Norman came out with his proclamation in "Shout" that John was 75% of the Beatles. I commented on the absurdity of that statement on this site so I won't bore you or repeat my feelings about that ridiculous assertion. I realize that when Shout was originally released (around 1981) Mr. Norman's desire was to "sell" books. But man would I love to debate him. He also got on Good Morning America and made the same comment. It was not only an insult to Paul, but to George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin. Again, this has nothing to do with John. In fact, I believe he would consider it crazy if he was still alive. I agree with you that Paul became too sensitive during the credits's controversy when he reversed the credits on his "live" CD around 2002 I believe. In my opinion, it made Paul look small and it is a "no win" situation for him. I've heard that Heather Mills at the time was pushing Paul to do it but regardless it was not a good move by Paul and he paid for it with bad PR. I do give Paul a slight pass however. If I was Paul and heard and saw some of the prior statement by Yoko Ono, I would have been furious too. Both John and Paul were insecure about each others accomplishments. George Martin several times mentioned that John would say during the late Beatle years that he wished he could write the kind of classic melodies that Paul always seemed to write. Mr. Martin said that he would tell John that he wrote great stuff too. After John tragically died and everyone was putting him on such a lofty pedestal, I think it was natural for Paul to feel very insecure also. And Yoko Ono's comments certainly didn't help in that matter. Relative to Early Days, I understand how some people (including yourself) feel that Paul was putting out his "agenda" on that last verse. I not saying I'm right, but I didn't look at it that way. I've heard Paul talk about the song on a couple of occasions and both times he spoke about critics in general putting out wrong "facts" as if they were there. Paul gave examples (can't remember the exact songs) that were not even Paul penned songs. I think one of them was Strawberry Fields. Call me naive but I don't think Paul was getting back to the "credits" issue when he wrote the last verse on Early Days. I really believe he was talking in general of how Books/Authors get facts wrong as if they were there. I love Early Days and the last verse doesn't take away anything from the whole song for me. I think it is one of Paul's top 10 Singer/Songwriter type songs (were lyrics are as good as the melody) of all time. As you know, I've expressed my disappointment that Paul did not include Early Days as part of his current acoustic set. That is a whole different subject that you and I could go on and on about. Talk later.
Good point about difference in stage patter (see below). I saw Billy Joel last December and he really is in the moment, don't think much of it is rehearsed. I also like his mashup of "River Of Dreams" and "Hard Day's Night". What was also cool was he let audience decide what song he would do and gave them two options, loudest ovation won. He did that twice during the show which was neat. "That's where McCartney differs from Billy Joel, who played Citizens Bank Park Saturday night. Joel's patter is in the moment and he slips in songs that he hasn't played in years. During Joel's show, he delivered "Angry Young Man," which he hasn't performed in six years."
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
Gordy JS:
B J Conlee:
Because Philadelphia is my home town, I'm hoping that Dan DeLuca is not going to give the review for this show. While I want honesty in the review, I don't want nastiness. My fear is that Mr. DeLuca can go beyond negative if Paul struggles vocally. As I said, he doesn't like Paul. I've seen his past reviews when Paul put on amazing shows. He admits that he is a "John" guy and never really liked Paul. The one thing that I liked about Cincinnati (and I could feel it from watching the Periscope videos) is that Paul made the audience feel so good. At a time when there is so much going wrong in the world and the US, Paul's songs do really lift you up (e.g. Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, Band on the Run etc.) and that is what the country needs right now. I hope the audiences in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, New York) get that same vibe.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20160713_Paul_McCartney_is_a_crowd-pleaser_at_sold-out_Citizens_Bank_Park.html Here's his review, it's actually quite a good review, as it praises him for his performances but acknowledges how a bunch of the stuff is similar. But overall I say it's a fair review
_________________________________________________________ Thanks for the quick review Gordy. As I said, I'm quite familiar with Mr. DeLuca. I was actually surprised that he praised Paul for most of the review and he wasn't in general nasty or unfair. I also don't have a problem with DeLuca or any reviewer criticizing Paul for the lack of variety in the setlist or repeating the same stories. As much as I love Paul, I have similar problems with the lack of creativity in his shows. I purposely have chosen to stay away from this year's tour because of the setlist. But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias. That one line bothered me. As much as I dislike the direction that Paul's shows have taken over the last few years (mainly the setlist), he is the one person that has done more to preserve and enhance the Beatles' legacy than anyone else by far. Millions of people around the world have seen him and would beg to differ with DeLuca's snide comment immensely. They are thrilled that Paul is still around. Because I have read his sarcastic and "left handed complements" before, I know exactly what he meant between the lines. Thanks again for the post.
" But as always, I dislike the "digs" and bias against Paul that Mr. DeLuca has always shown. Last night he waited to the last paragraph and as usual couldn't help himself. His comment on the status of the current Beatles..."he's the best one we've got left" reeked with sarcasm and bias" BJ - Unfortunately, Mr. McCartney almost deserves that remark. If he did not play such a Beatle heavy show and set list was more about Mr. McCartney the artist, I am willing to bet that Beatle remark would not have happened. Maybe I am wrong, you know the reviewer better than me.
___________________________________________________________ Yankeefan, No this guy has never been a Paul fan and especially as a Solo artist. He has been the music critic in this town for many years and any praise for Paul has been few and far between. I remember him being lukewarm at best for even very good albums like Chaos or Memory Almost Full. He is a John Lennon zealot and normally people like that don't want to give Paul any credit. That's why I call him the Anti-Paul. I think when it comes to the big concerts that are sold out, however, he begrudgingly praises Paul and gives him credit since he would look pretty stupid in Philadelphia not doing so. This one was even more favorable until the end. With this guy, I think a more balanced Paul setlist would have actually work against him. Conversely a heavy Beatles setlist worked in his favor. As I said to Susy above, I shouldn't have been surprised that he was praising the concert in general. But I was waiting for the zinger and sure enough it did come at the very end. The reader comments to Mr. DeLuca were very favorable to Paul and the concert and a few like me didn't like his "the best one we have left" comment.
BJ - OK, like I said you know his history of writing a lot better than me. I thought comment was snide and borderline bad taste but like I said I thought the Beatle heavy show opened him open for this type of remark. Thanks for your remarks about his opinion of Mr. McCartney's solo work, If he did not appreciate CHAOS then what can we say, it was universally praised by every critic I have read. I never understood John Lennon "zealots". Mr. Lennon was great and I think that is recognized by everyone. Having a favorite "Beatle" is usually just a difference in taste. I happened to like Mr. McCartney better and it is jut due to I like his voice better and overall enjoy his type of song writing more than Mr. Lennon's. Just because I preferred Mr. McCartney I never thought I had to downgrade Mr. Lennon's music. I understand Mr. Lennon died way too early and tragically but I don't think anyone would ever forget his importance to the Beatles. Actually, it turned out to be the reverse with many people and critics. Mr. McCartney and Mr. Harrison were sometimes dismissed as side men to Mr. Lennon which was not fair. That being said, Mr. McCartney became way too sensitive about that type of things and was quite surprised he even mentioned it in a line from "Early Days".
____________________________________________________ Yankeefan, As always, thanks for your insights. I love google to find articles about our favorite subject. In the same section where you find Mr. DeLuca's article, there are several more that you might find interesting. Ed Condran from the Bucks County Courier Times wrote a very good article about Paul's show in Philly. He was obviously there. He had seen Paul in Philly and Delaware (Firefly Festival) the year before and he was fairly critical of the banter. He compared Paul's banter to Billy Joel who was just at Citizen's Bank Park 3 days before. I know you would find that interesting. There was another very recent article (Nancy Blackman from a Alabama newspaper) that wrote about the song "When I'm 64" that was also very good. It's amazing how much you can find about the Beatles and Paul in this computer age. Your reply about "Lennon zealots" was very fair. Like you, I tend to favor Macca mainly because I like the diversity in his music styles and up to a few years ago, Paul could sing all those styles well. Also like you, I love a lot of John stuff. Unlike some Lennon zealots I've met over the years, I never downgrade John's stuff just because I personally like Paul's music generally better. People like Phillip Norman (author of Shout and recent biography's on John and Paul) get under my skin because they are Lennon zealots who consider Paul and George as sidemen to John. Mr. Norman came out with his proclamation in "Shout" that John was 75% of the Beatles. I commented on the absurdity of that statement on this site so I won't bore you or repeat my feelings about that ridiculous assertion. I realize that when Shout was originally released (around 1981) Mr. Norman's desire was to "sell" books. But man would I love to debate him. He also got on Good Morning America and made the same comment. It was not only an insult to Paul, but to George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin. Again, this has nothing to do with John. In fact, I believe he would consider it crazy if he was still alive. I agree with you that Paul became too sensitive during the credits's controversy when he reversed the credits on his "live" CD around 2002 I believe. In my opinion, it made Paul look small and it is a "no win" situation for him. I've heard that Heather Mills at the time was pushing Paul to do it but regardless it was not a good move by Paul and he paid for it with bad PR. I do give Paul a slight pass however. If I was Paul and heard and saw some of the prior statement by Yoko Ono, I would have been furious too. Both John and Paul were insecure about each others accomplishments. George Martin several times mentioned that John would say during the late Beatle years that he wished he could write the kind of classic melodies that Paul always seemed to write. Mr. Martin said that he would tell John that he wrote great stuff too. After John tragically died and everyone was putting him on such a lofty pedestal, I think it was natural for Paul to feel very insecure also. And Yoko Ono's comments certainly didn't help in that matter. Relative to Early Days, I understand how some people (including yourself) feel that Paul was putting out his "agenda" on that last verse. I not saying I'm right, but I didn't look at it that way. I've heard Paul talk about the song on a couple of occasions and both times he spoke about critics in general putting out wrong "facts" as if they were there. Paul gave examples (can't remember the exact songs) that were not even Paul penned songs. I think one of them was Strawberry Fields. Call me naive but I don't think Paul was getting back to the "credits" issue when he wrote the last verse on Early Days. I really believe he was talking in general of how Books/Authors get facts wrong as if they were there. I love Early Days and the last verse doesn't take away anything from the whole song for me. I think it is one of Paul's top 10 Singer/Songwriter type songs (were lyrics are as good as the melody) of all time. As you know, I've expressed my disappointment that Paul did not include Early Days as part of his current acoustic set. That is a whole different subject that you and I could go on and on about. Talk later.
"Relative to Early Days, I understand how some people (including yourself) feel that Paul was putting out his "agenda" on that last verse. I not saying I'm right, but I didn't look at it that way. I've heard Paul talk about the song on a couple of occasions and both times he spoke about critics in general putting out wrong "facts" as if they were there. Paul gave examples (can't remember the exact songs) that were not even Paul penned songs. I think one of them was Strawberry Fields. Call me naive but I don't think Paul was getting back to the "credits" issue when he wrote the last verse on Early Days. I really believe he was talking in general of how Books/Authors get facts wrong as if they were there." Interesting take on that point BJ. I love the song "Early Days" and wish he would do it live. I thought it would be cool if he switched off and sang "Early Days" as a tribute to Mr. Lennon one night and then "Here Today" another night.
-
The "best Beatle we've got left" line in DeLuca's review doesn't bother me. He's just telling the truth--Paul Mc. is a triple threat with singing, songwriting, playing instruments, always has been and Ringo, while musical, is obviously not in Paul's league. Ringo can take solace in being the most popular Beatle (it's often been written) when the Fabs first came to America. Starr was the most beloved during Beatlemania in the States, supposedly.
-
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.
-
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."
Review from Hershey was pathetic and was everything I complained about from lots of reviews. It seems he never witnessed or read about McCartney concert in his life because acted like these stories were new- lol. Once again, review mentioned that concert had old and new but failed to point out how little of the concert is after 1981. No mention of the band or the quality of Mr. McCartney's voice or musicianship.
-
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.
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."
-
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."
The Hamilton review was your basic McCartney review that could have been written in almost any city. This review like most others mentioned the same songs, I think I would faint if somebody said something different like they really liked "Save Us". Review did mention that stories had been told hundred's of times but McCartney made them seem fresh - lol. Also mentioned his voice was strained and wobbly at times but still very good. No mention of the band or that show was basically oldies show.
-
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.
NY Newsday review was pretty good, I like it when review mentions the band by name and noted songs which the band helps make the music better. Reviewer said that "New" was under appreciated and it was nice they he may have actually listened to it and liked it. Review mentioned that Mr. McCartney teased crowd that they know what songs the crowd likes and they notice the phones go dark doing new songs. He then said they don't care. My first reaction is "good", then do more unknown songs - lol. It was also mentioned his voice was not as pliable as years ago but makes the most of it. While mentioning Mr. McCartney is engaging an audience with stories of creation of songs and old friends, fails to mentioned these are basically recited from a script. Once again, reviewer fails to mention this is basically an oldies show. Overall a bit better than the standard McCartney concert review.
-
The D.C. show reviewed in the Baltimore newspaper. http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/music/midnight-sun-blog/bal-paul-mccartney-verizon-center-washington-20160810-story.html Now if we can finally get a show in Baltimore (last was in 1964) and a review in a Washington paper.
-
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 Washington Post quote below says it all to me, think BJ and others will agree. "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."
-
Bill813:
The D.C. show reviewed in the Baltimore newspaper. http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/music/midnight-sun-blog/bal-paul-mccartney-verizon-center-washington-20160810-story.html Now if we can finally get a show in Baltimore (last was in 1964) and a review in a Washington paper.
Washington Post review https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/paul-mccartney-draws-on-a-half-century-of-songs-as-only-he-can/2016/08/10/d6a50db0-5f0b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html
-
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."