"Out There" 2013 Setlist Critique and Suggestions
-
Alright, disregard the "only" part then, the point still stands.
-
If Bruce Springsteen can build an entire tour on The Ghost Of Thom Joad, then, surely, Paul can build a tour around his solo work.
-
Man I am so excited and happy Paul has made some great additions to the setlist. Watch a video of him doing Hope Of Deliverance, he does this swaying dance and he just looks so happy. Thanks for sharing some more of your babies with us Paul and never stop rockin!
-
audi:
If Bruce Springsteen can build an entire tour on The Ghost Of Thom Joad, then, surely, Paul can build a tour around his solo work.
Example of how this could go poorly...I saw Rush last night as you know, the first half of the show was just songs from 1982-2007. I only knew three of the ten songs and it was weird. It sounded SUPERB but I lost a little bit of the connection because of that. Then, after their intermision they played their new album nearly in full....appox. anhour of songs nearly no one knew. The crowd was in and out of he arena, up and down, fidgetyand few sang along. Again, it sounded sesational but they pushed the audience away. I don' think it was smart t sit there and belt out 10 consecutive songs from a brand new album. Then, they ripped through four hts from the 70's and went home.
My point is: you need more than "your four hits from the 70'" to entertain an arena of fans.
-
Cool! right on! have fun....
-
C'mon, dude. It's Rush. They are nowhere NEAR the level of McCartney. Still, I agree that ten brand-new songs in a row is too much.
-
1989: Paul McCartney - "Hey Jude/Yesterday/Get Back":
1993: Paul McCartney - Let It Be (live @ Charlotte 1993) 1997: Paul McCartney - Yesterday (live, 1997) 2002: Paul McCartney - Hello/Goodbye (live): and so on for the next ten years.... -
That's great! Paul is giving all the newcomers (again, probably the majority at each show) a chance to see their favorites performed.
-
WixRocks!:
audi:
If Bruce Springsteen can build an entire tour on The Ghost Of Thom Joad, then, surely, Paul can build a tour around his solo work.
Example of how this could go poorly...I saw Rush last night as you know, the first half of the show was just songs from 1982-2007. I only knew three of the ten songs and it was weird. It sounded SUPERB but I lost a little bit of the connection because of that. Then, after their intermision they played their new album nearly in full....appox. anhour of songs nearly no one knew. The crowd was in and out of he arena, up and down, fidgetyand few sang along. Again, it sounded sesational but they pushed the audience away. I don' think it was smart t sit there and belt out 10 consecutive songs from a brand new album. Then, they ripped through four hts from the 70's and went home.
My point is: you need more than "your four hits from the 70'" to entertain an arena of fans.
I was almost exactly your age when I got into McCartney hardcore. When Paul toured in '89/'90, I loved seeing all those never-before-performed Beatles/Wings songs. But I am telling you the God's-truth when I tell ya' that the songs that blew me away when I heard 'em live: -We Got Married -Figure Of Eight -Put It There -My Brave Face Today, it is as if those songs were never recorded.
-
Benf207:
That's great! Paul is giving all the newcomers (again, probably the majority at each show) a chance to see their favorites performed.
It's great. These songs are classics. But his tours are groundhog day.
-
Benf207:
That's great! Paul is giving all the newcomers (again, probably the majority at each show) a chance to see their favorites performed.
I don't think they're all newcomers: Just musically pedestrian.
-
audi:
C'mon, dude. It's Rush. They are nowhere NEAR the level of McCartney. Still, I agree that ten brand-new songs in a row is too much.
Exactly what I was gonna say about Springsteen..I am not a fan so I admit it although I do like some of his work..he is no McCartney..so it is hard to compare anyone to Paul...Except The Beatles..aha here we are right back to the dreaded band from the sixties....No matter what the people on this forum think they are a small number compared to all his fans..he has to try to please a lot of people not just this forum.
-
audi:
C'mon, dude. It's Rush. They are nowhere NEAR the level of McCartney. Still, I agree that ten brand-new songs in a row is too much.
Well, musically they are SO far beyond.
ops:
BUT, all round in every case- McCartney takes the cake. But regrdless, I was just focusing on an older band (that still plays arenas) setlist to try and compare just the setlists. Anyway- while I love FITD, I think it wuld b VERY obscure if all of a sudden he played more than one song from that album. I think doing one trck (like he is with HOD) would make perfect sense and fit right in, even if it means moving beatle track out.
-
audi:
WixRocks!:
audi:
If Bruce Springsteen can build an entire tour on The Ghost Of Thom Joad, then, surely, Paul can build a tour around his solo work.
Example of how this could go poorly...I saw Rush last night as you know, the first half of the show was just songs from 1982-2007. I only knew three of the ten songs and it was weird. It sounded SUPERB but I lost a little bit of the connection because of that. Then, after their intermision they played their new album nearly in full....appox. anhour of songs nearly no one knew. The crowd was in and out of he arena, up and down, fidgetyand few sang along. Again, it sounded sesational but they pushed the audience away. I don' think it was smart t sit there and belt out 10 consecutive songs from a brand new album. Then, they ripped through four hts from the 70's and went home.
My point is: you need more than "your four hits from the 70'" to entertain an arena of fans.
I was almost exactly your age when I got into McCartney hardcore. When Paul toured in '89/'90, I loved seeing all those never-before-performed Beatles/Wings songs. But I am telling you the God's-truth when I tell ya' that the songs that blew me away when I heard 'em live: -We Got Married -Figure Of Eight -Put It There -My Brave Face Today, it is as if those songs were never recorded.
You rock Audi !! Agree totally
-
WixRocks!:
audi:
If Bruce Springsteen can build an entire tour on The Ghost Of Thom Joad, then, surely, Paul can build a tour around his solo work.
Example of how this could go poorly...I saw Rush last night as you know, the first half of the show was just songs from 1982-2007. I only knew three of the ten songs and it was weird. It sounded SUPERB but I lost a little bit of the connection because of that. Then, after their intermision they played their new album nearly in full....appox. anhour of songs nearly no one knew. The crowd was in and out of he arena, up and down, fidgetyand few sang along. Again, it sounded sesational but they pushed the audience away. I don' think it was smart t sit there and belt out 10 consecutive songs from a brand new album. Then, they ripped through four hts from the 70's and went home.
My point is: you need more than "your four hits from the 70'" to entertain an arena of fans.
McCartney plays more than 4 hits from the 60's and 70's -lol. I am realistic and understand that Beatles/Wings are going to dominate the setlist. All I want is about 8-10 songs from a current setlist of 36 to be his solo work that he has not done live. IMO-25 songs from Beatles/Wings era should be enough to satisfy those fans. I also think McCartney is smart enough to know how to mix the solo songs into the setlist so the Beatle fans don't get too bored - lol.
-
WixRocks!:
audi:
C'mon, dude. It's Rush. They are nowhere NEAR the level of McCartney. Still, I agree that ten brand-new songs in a row is too much.
Well, musically they are SO far beyond.
ops:
BUT, all round in every case- McCartney takes the cake. But regrdless, I was just focusing on an older band (that still plays arenas) setlist to try and compare just the setlists. Anyway- while I love FITD, I think it wuld b VERY obscure if all of a sudden he played more than one song from that album. I think doing one trck (like he is with HOD) would make perfect sense and fit right in, even if it means moving beatle track out.
Fine then do the following and mix them in around Beatle/Wings songs. Tug Of War- Take It Away FITD - My Brave Face Off the Ground - Hope of Deliverance Run Devil Run - Run Devil Run Flaming Pie - Little Willow Driving Rain - About You CHAOS - Promise To You Girl MAF - House of Wax EA- Dance Til We're High
-
I would love to hear little willow....I would like to hear a lot off Flaming pie besides the title track and calico..
-
kelly campbell:
I would love to hear little willow....I would like to hear a lot off Flaming pie besides the title track and calico..
Yep, I think "Little Willow" would be a wonderful addition to acoustic set.
-
kelly campbell:
audi:
C'mon, dude. It's Rush. They are nowhere NEAR the level of McCartney. Still, I agree that ten brand-new songs in a row is too much.
Exactly what I was gonna say about Springsteen..I am not a fan so I admit it although I do like some of his work..he is no McCartney..so it is hard to compare anyone to Paul...Except The Beatles..aha here we are right back to the dreaded band from the sixties....No matter what the people on this forum think they are a small number compared to all his fans..he has to try to please a lot of people not just this forum.
You are right we are a small number but we are the ones not only attending concerts,we are buying his recent releases. I am willing to bet 50% of the audience has not bought record/CD since the 70's. Like I said in other posts, give me 8-10 songs out of 36 and I am perfectly happy.
-
yankeefan7:
WixRocks!:
audi:
If Bruce Springsteen can build an entire tour on The Ghost Of Thom Joad, then, surely, Paul can build a tour around his solo work.
Example of how this could go poorly...I saw Rush last night as you know, the first half of the show was just songs from 1982-2007. I only knew three of the ten songs and it was weird. It sounded SUPERB but I lost a little bit of the connection because of that. Then, after their intermision they played their new album nearly in full....appox. anhour of songs nearly no one knew. The crowd was in and out of he arena, up and down, fidgetyand few sang along. Again, it sounded sesational but they pushed the audience away. I don' think it was smart t sit there and belt out 10 consecutive songs from a brand new album. Then, they ripped through four hts from the 70's and went home.
My point is: you need more than "your four hits from the 70'" to entertain an arena of fans.
McCartney plays more than 4 hits from the 60's and 70's -lol. I am realistic and understand that Beatles/Wings are going to dominate the setlist. All I want is about 8-10 songs from a current setlist of 36 to be his solo work that he has not done live. IMO-25 songs from Beatles/Wings era should be enough to satisfy those fans. I also think McCartney is smart enough to know how to mix the solo songs into the setlist so the Beatle fans don't get too bored - lol.
Paul is smart enough that's for sure because until there's gaps in the seats as people stop going he will play sell out show after sell out show with pretty much the same set list as he's doing now. I too would love to hear songs certainly from McCartney 2,perhaps my favorite solo album but i guess im a bit of a realist and accept that Paul is Paul and he will continue to play the hits as he see's them. And while we're talking other artists its true Paul is on another level to everyone else,he operates on a different plain to other artists,in the past year ive been to plenty of gigs and am going to plenty more in the coming months but i'd give them up in a heartbeat to see him,thats not to say i dont criticize him i do he's far from perfect but while we have to chance i'd see him once a day and twice on a Sunday and i can think of no one else i would say that about.