"Out There" 2013 Setlist Critique and Suggestions
-
WixRocks!:
audi:
WixRocks!:
Wow, that's just what I'd expect from this forum. Everyone gets on here everyday and complains about no changes to the set and this and that and blah blah blah, then he finally does a noteworthy overhaul... 2009- 22 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 7 Solo 2010- 22 Beatles/ 10 Wings/ 5 Solo 2011- 25 Beatles/ 7 Wings/ 5 Solo 2012- 26 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 6 Solo --- 2013?- 23 Beatles/ 9 Songs/ 4 Solo ...
I'd like to see those numbers from each of those years...flipped.
I don't! But opinions aside, it isn't realistic at all. Paul McCartney is special and not really comparable. He certainly is not an oldies act either. I don't know any oldies acts that sell out stadiums. The Beach Boys are an oldies act. An Oldies act is something that takes songs that were hits back in their hey-day and just keeps cramming them at you. Paul takes songs that are 30+ years old, and consistently changes most of them. He has the biggest body of work in the history of modern music and while he could be more adventurous, the man has a LOT to accomplish in a night. He has to please so many different people...the newbies, the skeptic seconds, the significant other that was dragged along, the rock dinosaur that's seen him 100 times, the beatle fans, the wings fans, the solo fans (does anyone JUST like the solo music!? ) and the most important one....JOE SHMO. Joe Shmo is the one that won't be logical. He will be at the watercooler Monday morning talking to the rest of the world about how Paul "surprised everyone with Eleanor Rigby" and "told great stories about George Harrison and Jimi Hendrix"...that is the general public. That's probably about 60% of the fans at EVERY show.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say, but Paul is essentially playing songs from thirty years ago and further back. Just like the Beach Boys do. And the songs really are not being given any new spin or arrangements. SOMETHING is an exception. Having said that, when Paul releases a new CD later this year, and if he does a major tour and plays five songs off the new CD, then he will have regained the title of "relevant artist." And he IS still relevant, but he is also playing decades old music. I chuckled when I read Martin's post saying the new album Paul is promoting is WINGS OVER AMERICA! Come on!!
-
RMartinez:
audi:
This is my favorite post of yours yet!!
Well, I put a tremendous amount of thought into it. So, thanks for noticing.
-
Unless he has a record to plug (in which case he'll throw in a new song and drop it ASAP) for all intents and purposes Macca is an oldies act. If you'd have seen last nites show 30 years ago you'd know pretty much all the songs. Pretty pathetic really, especially when people lap it up and reinforce his tired Beatles tribute show...
-
Tyrion_Lannister:
Unless he has a record to plug (in which case he'll throw in a new song and drop it ASAP) for all intents and purposes Macca is an oldies act. If you'd have seen last nites show 30 years ago you'd know pretty much all the songs. Pretty pathetic really, especially when people lap it up and reinforce his tired Beatles tribute show...
Playing BENEFIT OF MR. KITE doesn't help. That song is 500% John Lennon!!!
-
I got through high-school playing Press To Play from beginning to end all the time. I went to college motivated by Flowers In The Dirt and Off The Ground. And I bought every CD-single for Off The Ground. Same for Flaming Pie, which blew me away. As a young professional, I was delighted to see Paul get back in the saddle and floor me with monsters like "Run Devil Run" and 'Try not To Cry." And he's been on a roll since Driving Rain...and on and on. These are memories of my Paul McCartney experience. And they deserve every bit as much respect as any other Beatles or Wings hit.
-
RMartinez:
WixRocks!:
audi:
WixRocks!:
Wow, that's just what I'd expect from this forum. Everyone gets on here everyday and complains about no changes to the set and this and that and blah blah blah, then he finally does a noteworthy overhaul... 2009- 22 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 7 Solo 2010- 22 Beatles/ 10 Wings/ 5 Solo 2011- 25 Beatles/ 7 Wings/ 5 Solo 2012- 26 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 6 Solo --- 2013?- 23 Beatles/ 9 Songs/ 4 Solo ...
I'd like to see those numbers from each of those years...flipped.
I don't! But opinions aside, it isn't realistic at all. Paul McCartney is special and not really comparable. He certainly is not an oldies act either. I don't know any oldies acts that sell out stadiums. The Beach Boys are an oldies act. An Oldies act is something that takes songs that were hits back in their hey-day and just keeps cramming them at you. Paul takes songs that are 30+ years old, and consistently changes most of them. He has the biggest body of work in the history of modern music and while he could be more adventurous, the man has a LOT to accomplish in a night. He has to please so many different people...the newbies, the skeptic seconds, the significant other that was dragged along, the rock dinosaur that's seen him 100 times, the beatle fans, the wings fans, the solo fans (does anyone JUST like the solo music!? ) and the most important one....JOE SHMO. Joe Shmo is the one that won't be logical. He will be at the watercooler Monday morning talking to the rest of the world about how Paul "surprised everyone with Eleanor Rigby" and "told great stories about George Harrison and Jimi Hendrix"...that is the general public. That's probably about 60% of the fans at EVERY show.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say, but Paul is essentially playing songs from thirty years ago and further back. Just like the Beach Boys do. And the songs really are not being given any new spin or arrangements. SOMETHING is an exception. Having said that, when Paul releases a new CD later this year, and if he does a major tour and plays five songs off the new CD, then he will have regained the title of "relevant artist." And he IS still relevant, but he is also playing decades old music. I chuckled when I read Martin's post saying the new album Paul is promoting is WINGS OVER AMERICA! Come on!!
I think I failed to mention one other thing. Since The Beach Boys are a good example again, they've been touring practically non-stop since 1961. Paul has toured more since 2000 than he has his entire career. I think he's sort of "playing catch up" too...
-
Pre-show, still DJ Chris Holmes:
And still the breathtaking Booker T. intro: -
WixRocks!:
RMartinez:
WixRocks!:
audi:
WixRocks!:
Wow, that's just what I'd expect from this forum. Everyone gets on here everyday and complains about no changes to the set and this and that and blah blah blah, then he finally does a noteworthy overhaul... 2009- 22 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 7 Solo 2010- 22 Beatles/ 10 Wings/ 5 Solo 2011- 25 Beatles/ 7 Wings/ 5 Solo 2012- 26 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 6 Solo --- 2013?- 23 Beatles/ 9 Songs/ 4 Solo ...
I'd like to see those numbers from each of those years...flipped.
I don't! But opinions aside, it isn't realistic at all. Paul McCartney is special and not really comparable. He certainly is not an oldies act either. I don't know any oldies acts that sell out stadiums. The Beach Boys are an oldies act. An Oldies act is something that takes songs that were hits back in their hey-day and just keeps cramming them at you. Paul takes songs that are 30+ years old, and consistently changes most of them. He has the biggest body of work in the history of modern music and while he could be more adventurous, the man has a LOT to accomplish in a night. He has to please so many different people...the newbies, the skeptic seconds, the significant other that was dragged along, the rock dinosaur that's seen him 100 times, the beatle fans, the wings fans, the solo fans (does anyone JUST like the solo music!? ) and the most important one....JOE SHMO. Joe Shmo is the one that won't be logical. He will be at the watercooler Monday morning talking to the rest of the world about how Paul "surprised everyone with Eleanor Rigby" and "told great stories about George Harrison and Jimi Hendrix"...that is the general public. That's probably about 60% of the fans at EVERY show.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say, but Paul is essentially playing songs from thirty years ago and further back. Just like the Beach Boys do. And the songs really are not being given any new spin or arrangements. SOMETHING is an exception. Having said that, when Paul releases a new CD later this year, and if he does a major tour and plays five songs off the new CD, then he will have regained the title of "relevant artist." And he IS still relevant, but he is also playing decades old music. I chuckled when I read Martin's post saying the new album Paul is promoting is WINGS OVER AMERICA! Come on!!
I think I failed to mention one other thing. Since The Beach Boys are a good example again, they've been touring practically non-stop since 1961. Paul has toured more since 2000 than he has his entire career. I think he's sort of "playing catch up" too...
I can see that. In hindsight, McCartney should have done a couple of world tours in the 80s.
-
audi:
I got through high-school playing Press To Play from beginning to end all the time. I went to college motivated by Flowers In The Dirt and Off The Ground. And I bought every CD-single for Off The Ground. Same for Flaming Pie, which blew me away. As a young professional, I was delighted to see Paul get back in the saddle and floor me with monsters like "Run Devil Run" and 'Try not To Cry." And he's been on a roll since Driving Rain...and on and on. These are memories of my Paul McCartney experience. And they deserve every bit as much respect as any other Beatles or Wings hit.
I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything but...they don't. Did they change the world? They changed your world, and I love that. But, there are VERY few people on this earth that have had the experience you have had. A lot more people have had The Beatles experience, so that's the one that gets the most attention. There's also far more songs for that "experience". Personally, I'm after the Paul McCartney experience. I want to hear everything. The Beatles started it for me, but he is so much more. And I don't look at The Beatles as a separate portion of his career, it was just the first decade of his writing...arguably, the best. Recorded by the best, and produced by the best.
-
Yes, they do. Because a lot of his solo music is superior to even his superior Beatles songs.
-
Why didn't Paul tour in the 80's? I've hypothesized it was a combination of John's death, less commercially successful albums, Wings collapse, and the whole Japan thing. And what prompted the return to touring for FITD?
-
WixRocks!:
Why didn't Paul tour in the 80's? I've hypothesized it was a combination of John's death, less commercially successful albums, Wings collapse, and the whole Japan thing. And what prompted the return to touring for FITD?
Paul's '86 Prince's Trust set is the impetus for him planning his '89 tour.
-
Am I being too hard on Paul? It's just that -- to me -- the fact that he's a 70-year-old man -- is a non-issue. I still see him as the 40'ish creative genius that continues to thrive. why can't his concerts reflect that more? He's been touring his ass off since 2002. Trust me: He has sufficiently covered his Beatles catalog. Time for a new show.
-
WixRocks!:
Why didn't Paul tour in the 80's? I've hypothesized it was a combination of John's death, less commercially successful albums, Wings collapse, and the whole Japan thing. And what prompted the return to touring for FITD?
I'll tell you what prompted McCartney's return to the concert stage: He was in danger of becoming irrelevant in the music business. As you pointed out, he could no longer sell albums on the strength of hi name brand alone. Also, ignoring his Beatle past was costing him too. Remember, John and Paul signed a deal in 1963 that was NOT very good and can only be renegotiated after the writers die. So, John's estate was actually getting more money in royalties for songs like YESTERDAY and LET IT BE, than McCartney was receiving. That is what prompted his playing a Beatles heavy set list, even to this day. Of course, he also wanted to reclaim his legacy and certainly enjoys the rapturous reception the Beatles songs get. But it was a business decision to make money at concerts, to sell new CDs, and to move Beatles products to up his royalty income. THAT is why he still promotes those old LPs.
-
audi:
Am I being too hard on Paul? It's just that -- to me -- the fact that he's a 70-year-old man -- is a non-issue. I still see him as the 40'ish creative genius that continues to thrive. why can't his concerts reflect that more? He's been touring his ass off since 2002. Trust me: He has sufficiently covered his Beatles catalog. Time for a new show.
Nope! You're a fan just like the rest of us and have your say! I don't see him with an age. He is Paul McCartney. For the record, while I am thrilled about all the songs debuted last night...he really should not be playing Eight Days a Week or Mr. Kite....no matter who wrote them, John sang those songs and made them what they are to our ears. According to youtube, Paul does a fine job on them and I can't wait to hear them...but I do not want them to stick around like A day in the life and I've Got a Feeling did. That wasn't really right by me...
-
RMartinez:
WixRocks!:
Why didn't Paul tour in the 80's? I've hypothesized it was a combination of John's death, less commercially successful albums, Wings collapse, and the whole Japan thing. And what prompted the return to touring for FITD?
I'll tell you what prompted McCartney's return to the concert stage: He was in danger of becoming irrelevant in the music business. As you pointed out, he could no longer sell albums on the strength of hi name brand alone. Also, ignoring his Beatle past was costing him too. Remember, John and Paul signed a deal in 1963 that was NOT very good and can only be renegotiated after the writers die. So, John's estate was actually getting more money in royalties for songs like YESTERDAY and LET IT BE, than McCartney was receiving. That is what prompted his playing a Beatles heavy set list, even to this day. Of course, he also wanted to reclaim his legacy and certainly enjoys the rapturous reception the Beatles songs get. But it was a business decision to make money at concerts, to sell new CDs, and to move Beatles products to up his royalty income. THAT is why he still promotes those old LPs.
Sadly, it does always seem to turn back to money. My thought now is, would Paul still be selling out stadiums if he had toured consistently with the apropriate group since 1962? Or like The Beach Boys...would he be headlining Ocean City's Sun Fest this fall.
-
WixRocks!:
audi:
Am I being too hard on Paul? It's just that -- to me -- the fact that he's a 70-year-old man -- is a non-issue. I still see him as the 40'ish creative genius that continues to thrive. why can't his concerts reflect that more? He's been touring his ass off since 2002. Trust me: He has sufficiently covered his Beatles catalog. Time for a new show.
Nope! You're a fan just like the rest of us and have your say! I don't see him with an age. He is Paul McCartney. For the record, while I am thrilled about all the songs debuted last night...he really should not be playing Eight Days a Week or Mr. Kite....no matter who wrote them, John sang those songs and made them what they are to our ears. According to youtube, Paul does a fine job on them and I can't wait to hear them...but I do not want them to stick around like A day in the life and I've Got a Feeling did. That wasn't really right by me...
-
WixRocks!:
RMartinez:
WixRocks!:
Why didn't Paul tour in the 80's? I've hypothesized it was a combination of John's death, less commercially successful albums, Wings collapse, and the whole Japan thing. And what prompted the return to touring for FITD?
I'll tell you what prompted McCartney's return to the concert stage: He was in danger of becoming irrelevant in the music business. As you pointed out, he could no longer sell albums on the strength of hi name brand alone. Also, ignoring his Beatle past was costing him too. Remember, John and Paul signed a deal in 1963 that was NOT very good and can only be renegotiated after the writers die. So, John's estate was actually getting more money in royalties for songs like YESTERDAY and LET IT BE, than McCartney was receiving. That is what prompted his playing a Beatles heavy set list, even to this day. Of course, he also wanted to reclaim his legacy and certainly enjoys the rapturous reception the Beatles songs get. But it was a business decision to make money at concerts, to sell new CDs, and to move Beatles products to up his royalty income. THAT is why he still promotes those old LPs.
Sadly, it does always seem to turn back to money. My thought now is, would Paul still be selling out stadiums if he had toured consistently with the apropriate group since 1962? Or like The Beach Boys...would he be headlining Ocean City's Sun Fest this fall.
Probably not, if the Beatles stayed together, they would have remained a major force, but probably would be something like the Stones or The Who. But I can only guess. I also wonder how it would have been had he toured in 1989 to promote FITD but also played a McCartney and Wings heavy set, with about five Beatles songs he wrote sprinkled here and there in the set. With the advent of the 89 tour, I don't think Paul can go back. He let the Beatles pandora out of the box. I am not complaining, just making an observation.
-
RMartinez:
WixRocks!:
audi:
WixRocks!:
Wow, that's just what I'd expect from this forum. Everyone gets on here everyday and complains about no changes to the set and this and that and blah blah blah, then he finally does a noteworthy overhaul... 2009- 22 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 7 Solo 2010- 22 Beatles/ 10 Wings/ 5 Solo 2011- 25 Beatles/ 7 Wings/ 5 Solo 2012- 26 Beatles/ 6 Wings/ 6 Solo --- 2013?- 23 Beatles/ 9 Songs/ 4 Solo ...
I'd like to see those numbers from each of those years...flipped.
I don't! But opinions aside, it isn't realistic at all. Paul McCartney is special and not really comparable. He certainly is not an oldies act either. I don't know any oldies acts that sell out stadiums. The Beach Boys are an oldies act. An Oldies act is something that takes songs that were hits back in their hey-day and just keeps cramming them at you. Paul takes songs that are 30+ years old, and consistently changes most of them. He has the biggest body of work in the history of modern music and while he could be more adventurous, the man has a LOT to accomplish in a night. He has to please so many different people...the newbies, the skeptic seconds, the significant other that was dragged along, the rock dinosaur that's seen him 100 times, the beatle fans, the wings fans, the solo fans (does anyone JUST like the solo music!? ) and the most important one....JOE SHMO. Joe Shmo is the one that won't be logical. He will be at the watercooler Monday morning talking to the rest of the world about how Paul "surprised everyone with Eleanor Rigby" and "told great stories about George Harrison and Jimi Hendrix"...that is the general public. That's probably about 60% of the fans at EVERY show.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say, but Paul is essentially playing songs from thirty years ago and further back. Just like the Beach Boys do. And the songs really are not being given any new spin or arrangements. SOMETHING is an exception. Having said that, when Paul releases a new CD later this year, and if he does a major tour and plays five songs off the new CD, then he will have regained the title of "relevant artist." And he IS still relevant, but he is also playing decades old music. I chuckled when I read Martin's post saying the new album Paul is promoting is WINGS OVER AMERICA! Come on!!
I would FR E A K I N love it if he changed up some of his oldies. Like a cover band. Everyone would still know all the words & could sing along & everyone may say...wow how current of him. But no...same key same everything. He will never do 5 of his new songs at one show.
-
audi:
The consistent complaint I'm hearing is the glaring lack of material from his relatively more-recent solo albums. I love the setlist changes he's made...but, unfortunately, it is not the setlist of a current recording artist. It is the setlist of an oldies act. But, as I've said, South America is a place of perpetual Beatlemania. This leg of the tour makes sense over there.