Set List critique
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Thisbe211:
I respect, and even agree somewhat, with audi's comments. I often fear Paul is treading a little too close to becoming what some of those "oldie" acts are, the ones that bill themselves with the original group name, but only contain one of the original members. Yes, I realize how difficult it must be to put together a playlist to try to include something for everyone in the audience. Some changes are needed, though. I took some people to see him for their first time, and of course they were blown-away by the show. I took them again two years later, and they commented on how it was almost the exact same show, with the same stories told, etc. I, too, am afraid Paul's shows now are mainly for all those people who say they are checking it off their "bucket list", they've seen a "Beatle." At the same time, I'm happy he is still "Out There" and given the chance, I'm sure I'll go see him again!
"Oldies acts" do not sell out stadiums worldwide, and Paul does not try and pass himself off as "The Beatles". ...
That's what I said six years ago when somebody else started a thread, declaring that Paul McCartney was officially an oldies act.
-
LiveForever:
Oh, and I'd venture to say, he respects the hell outta his solo catalogue. And in his heart of hearts probably would LOVE to one day just play all solo and/or Wings tunes and it would be a helluva concert. But why? If you've read the book "man on the run" it chronicles Paul in the 1970s and showed a lost man trying to outrun his Beatles past and find himself. Now, 40 years later he no longer feels the need. What he did as a solo artist stands alone. Of course. But he was a Beatle first and will always be that to most people. So, to quote the man himself, "And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know."
If he respected his solo catalog, this thread wouldn't even exist.
-
javilu:
Great post by my dear friend Audi.
-
audi:
LiveForever:
Oh, and I'd venture to say, he respects the hell outta his solo catalogue. And in his heart of hearts probably would LOVE to one day just play all solo and/or Wings tunes and it would be a helluva concert. But why? If you've read the book "man on the run" it chronicles Paul in the 1970s and showed a lost man trying to outrun his Beatles past and find himself. Now, 40 years later he no longer feels the need. What he did as a solo artist stands alone. Of course. But he was a Beatle first and will always be that to most people. So, to quote the man himself, "And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know."
If he respected his solo catalog, this thread wouldn't even exist.
Clearly you stopped reading my post after one sentence. And if stopped playing the beloved Beatles songs, this thread would not only still exist, it would also be about "why is Paul not playing Beatles songs? Is he trying to disrespect Lennon and Harrison? Is he ashamed of his time with them, etc., etc."
-
I'm going to use Eric Clapton as an example, once more: Clapton has, basically, had as many hits as Paul McCartney. When you attend his concerts, he -- like McCartney -- has his own signature songs that you can expect to hear: -Crossroads -Layla -Cocaine -Wonderful Tonight But that list could easily be three times that. But Clapton keeps it short -- because he leaves plenty of room to keep his overall show fresh. Clapton will blow the dust off of his '90s material ("Motherless Child" and "Pretending"); his early-'80s stuff ("I've Got A Rock & Roll Heart"); the '70s ("Tell The Truth"); and, of course, he includes choice, obscure blues essentials to keep his audience educated. McCartney takes the jukebox route. It's as if the audience is so unintelligent that the mere suggestion of sitting through four or five neglected, moderately successful '80s/'90s singles will most assuredly clear the building or something.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Thisbe211:
I respect, and even agree somewhat, with audi's comments. I often fear Paul is treading a little too close to becoming what some of those "oldie" acts are, the ones that bill themselves with the original group name, but only contain one of the original members. Yes, I realize how difficult it must be to put together a playlist to try to include something for everyone in the audience. Some changes are needed, though. I took some people to see him for their first time, and of course they were blown-away by the show. I took them again two years later, and they commented on how it was almost the exact same show, with the same stories told, etc. I, too, am afraid Paul's shows now are mainly for all those people who say they are checking it off their "bucket list", they've seen a "Beatle." At the same time, I'm happy he is still "Out There" and given the chance, I'm sure I'll go see him again!
"Oldies acts" do not sell out stadiums worldwide, and Paul does not try and pass himself off as "The Beatles". He does not base his setlist on people who have seen his show multiple times. Also, modern sound technology and his ace band give enough energy to the songs to make them fresh sounding, even urgent. His 50 year old Beatles tunes sound just as good today as they ever did, and fit right along side of My Valentine and the NEW songs. That's because a great song is a great song, and he's the guy that wrote them! People would go see him stand there and "drink it all in" for three hours, because he is, after all, a living legend...one of The Beatles. He could just "phone it in" as so many do. Fortunately for us though, he puts on one hell of a show instead!
I didn't say he WAS an oldies act, just that I worry sometimes that that is how he may end up being perceived by some people. There is no bigger Beatles fan than me, and I love hearing and seeing him playing those songs. He will always be a Beatle first and foremost to me. It's just that when someone going to only their second show finds it somewhat stale, and when other pe0ple go only wanting Beatles songs, that I get a little worried. I'll back Paul up till the end of time; anything I say here is always done with love, and I believe that is true for most of us here.
-
Thisbe211:
I respect, and even agree somewhat, with audi's comments. I often fear Paul is treading a little too close to becoming what some of those "oldie" acts are, the ones that bill themselves with the original group name, but only contain one of the original members. Yes, I realize how difficult it must be to put together a playlist to try to include something for everyone in the audience. Some changes are needed, though. I took some people to see him for their first time, and of course they were blown-away by the show. I took them again two years later, and they commented on how it was almost the exact same show, with the same stories told, etc. I, too, am afraid Paul's shows now are mainly for all those people who say they are checking it off their "bucket list", they've seen a "Beatle." At the same time, I'm happy he is still "Out There" and given the chance, I'm sure I'll go see him again!
Good points! I think what I'm saying is reasonable: After all, Paul McCartney has been performing the majority of these songs since 1989.
-
LiveForever:
audi:
LiveForever:
Oh, and I'd venture to say, he respects the hell outta his solo catalogue. And in his heart of hearts probably would LOVE to one day just play all solo and/or Wings tunes and it would be a helluva concert. But why? If you've read the book "man on the run" it chronicles Paul in the 1970s and showed a lost man trying to outrun his Beatles past and find himself. Now, 40 years later he no longer feels the need. What he did as a solo artist stands alone. Of course. But he was a Beatle first and will always be that to most people. So, to quote the man himself, "And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know."
If he respected his solo catalog, this thread wouldn't even exist.
Clearly you stopped reading my post after one sentence. And if stopped playing the beloved Beatles songs, this thread would not only still exist, it would also be about "why is Paul not playing Beatles songs? Is he trying to disrespect Lennon and Harrison? Is he ashamed of his time with them, etc., etc."
Au contraire. I read both paragraphs.
-
This past tour, especially, illustrates the experience for the TYPICAL McCartney concert viewer, which is admittedly not even me anymore. I have friends and family who saw McCartney for the first time in places like Albany, Lincoln Nebraska, Greensboro and Salt Lake City. My friend in Lincoln was not exaggerating when he called it one of the biggest nights in the history of the city. I myself took a dear friend who was seeing Paul for the first time in Jacksonville (this friend was 63 years old) and the entire ride back to south Florida the next day, he kept saying the same thing over and over: "I still can't believe I saw a Beatle in concert. And not only that, but he played 3 hours and EVERY one of his signature Beatles song." This sentiment was repeated by each of the friends who attended the aforementioned shows in Lincoln, Albany, Greensboro and Salt Lake. It was the first time for each of these individuals (most of whom who shelled out 250+ per ticket). And all of them were in awe, ages spanning late 20s to mid 60s. That is the mentality and experience of the typical McCartney concert viewer. This, in no way, minimizes or dismisses or disrespects his time with Wings or as a solo artist. But let's face it, not many first timers leave his show exclaiming, "I just saw a Wing in concert!"
-
audi:
beatlesfanrandy:
Thisbe211:
I respect, and even agree somewhat, with audi's comments. I often fear Paul is treading a little too close to becoming what some of those "oldie" acts are, the ones that bill themselves with the original group name, but only contain one of the original members. Yes, I realize how difficult it must be to put together a playlist to try to include something for everyone in the audience. Some changes are needed, though. I took some people to see him for their first time, and of course they were blown-away by the show. I took them again two years later, and they commented on how it was almost the exact same show, with the same stories told, etc. I, too, am afraid Paul's shows now are mainly for all those people who say they are checking it off their "bucket list", they've seen a "Beatle." At the same time, I'm happy he is still "Out There" and given the chance, I'm sure I'll go see him again!
"Oldies acts" do not sell out stadiums worldwide, and Paul does not try and pass himself off as "The Beatles". ...
That's what I said six years ago when somebody else started a thread, declaring that Paul McCartney was officially an oldies act.
I'll add that plenty of oldies acts fill arenas and stadiums worldwide. Three that come immediately to mind are Def Leppard, Fleetwood Mac and Journey (with Steve Perry sound-alike #3, mind you).
-
Hey guys, remember me? I just thought I'd add in on my dear friend's audi post. I haven't been to any of Paul's recent tours. Why, you ask? Not because I couldn't, because I didn't want to. I will say that the people who are still going to his shows repeatedly are not going for the music, but are going because they have made friends with others who do the same, and it's a party for them. Why else would anyone continue to pay thousands of dollars for the same show? I would be more active on here, but there is nothing new to discuss with Paul. It's the same old thing, and while he may be stuck in the past, I'm not.
-
audi:
audi:
beatlesfanrandy:
Thisbe211:
I respect, and even agree somewhat, with audi's comments. I often fear Paul is treading a little too close to becoming what some of those "oldie" acts are, the ones that bill themselves with the original group name, but only contain one of the original members. Yes, I realize how difficult it must be to put together a playlist to try to include something for everyone in the audience. Some changes are needed, though. I took some people to see him for their first time, and of course they were blown-away by the show. I took them again two years later, and they commented on how it was almost the exact same show, with the same stories told, etc. I, too, am afraid Paul's shows now are mainly for all those people who say they are checking it off their "bucket list", they've seen a "Beatle." At the same time, I'm happy he is still "Out There" and given the chance, I'm sure I'll go see him again!
"Oldies acts" do not sell out stadiums worldwide, and Paul does not try and pass himself off as "The Beatles". ...
That's what I said six years ago when somebody else started a thread, declaring that Paul McCartney was officially an oldies act.
I'll add that plenty of oldies acts fill arenas and stadiums worldwide. Three that come immediately to mind are Def Leppard, Fleetwood Mac and Journey (with Steve Perry sound-alike #3, mind you).
I Wouldn't consider any of those "oldies acts." Now, The Zombies and Herman's Hermits who are playing local community college auditoriums and county fairs on the other hand, that's a different story.
-
BarbB:
Hey guys, remember me? I just thought I'd add in on my dear friend's audi post. I haven't been to any of Paul's recent tours. Why, you ask? Not because I couldn't, because I didn't want to. I will say that the people who are still going to his shows repeatedly are not going for the music, but are going because they have made friends with others who do the same, and it's a party for them. Why else would anyone continue to pay thousands of dollars for the same show? I would be more active on here, but there is nothing new to discuss with Paul. It's the same old thing, and while he may be stuck in the past, I'm not.
I've seen him 5 times in 12 years and it's ALL about the music. Everyone has a right to their opinion, obviously but this is one of those clear polarizing topics where one side will never be able to convince the other. My only question is why bother coming on here just to complain and spread negativity? That part I don't get it. Let the people who still enjoy the shows, enjoy them without having to defend themselves. The negative posts can be saved for another forum.
-
LiveForever:
audi:
audi:
beatlesfanrandy:
Thisbe211:
I respect, and even agree somewhat, with audi's comments. I often fear Paul is treading a little too close to becoming what some of those "oldie" acts are, the ones that bill themselves with the original group name, but only contain one of the original members. Yes, I realize how difficult it must be to put together a playlist to try to include something for everyone in the audience. Some changes are needed, though. I took some people to see him for their first time, and of course they were blown-away by the show. I took them again two years later, and they commented on how it was almost the exact same show, with the same stories told, etc. I, too, am afraid Paul's shows now are mainly for all those people who say they are checking it off their "bucket list", they've seen a "Beatle." At the same time, I'm happy he is still "Out There" and given the chance, I'm sure I'll go see him again!
"Oldies acts" do not sell out stadiums worldwide, and Paul does not try and pass himself off as "The Beatles". ...
That's what I said six years ago when somebody else started a thread, declaring that Paul McCartney was officially an oldies act.
I'll add that plenty of oldies acts fill arenas and stadiums worldwide. Three that come immediately to mind are Def Leppard, Fleetwood Mac and Journey (with Steve Perry sound-alike #3, mind you).
I Wouldn't consider any of those "oldies acts." Now, The Zombies and Herman's Hermits who are playing local community college auditoriums and county fairs on the other hand, that's a different story.
Peter Noone and The Zombies are definitely on the lower-tier of the oldies-acts roster. Paul McCartney is not an oldies act -- but even with four or five songs from a new album which debuted in the Top Ten in the set, he prepares his setlist like one. Actually, it's worse than that: He prepares his setlist as if he were The Beatles. I don't know if you're a Tina Turner fan, but my dream is for Paul McCartney to put together a setlist like her Wildest Dreams Tour in the late-'90s: The first three songs were from a new album (the opener, "Whatever You Want," kicked ass!), and she continued her practice of closing her show with a new song from the album. She was a legend who still sold out soccer stadiums (she recorded her first single three years before The Beatles ever even walked into a recording studio); yet, her dedication to her new material was enthusiastically appreciated by her audiences. I'd like to think that Paul McCartney is as disciplined as Tina Turner.
-
LiveForever:
BarbB:
Hey guys, remember me? I just thought I'd add in on my dear friend's audi post. I haven't been to any of Paul's recent tours. Why, you ask? Not because I couldn't, because I didn't want to. I will say that the people who are still going to his shows repeatedly are not going for the music, but are going because they have made friends with others who do the same, and it's a party for them. Why else would anyone continue to pay thousands of dollars for the same show? I would be more active on here, but there is nothing new to discuss with Paul. It's the same old thing, and while he may be stuck in the past, I'm not.
...My only question is why bother coming on here just to complain and spread negativity? That part I don't get it. Let the people who still enjoy the shows, enjoy them without having to defend themselves. The negative posts can be saved for another forum.
And I ask you: If you still enjoy the music, why even bother clicking on a link called "Set List critique"?
-
Semi-Relevant: I would NOT label The Zombies as an oldies act. They just released a new album in 2012(ish) and feature several tracks from it regularly live. The show is very musically invigorating, and yes...they open and close with the classics...but so what? A concert isn't just an opener and a closer. Peter Noone on the otherhand, is the textbook definition of an oldies act...and he's good at it! That's what his fans want, and it's what he wants. I don't think there's a large mass of people out there going..."Damn! I wish I had some new Peter Noone tracks!"...
-
Can't argue with that. Nice to know that Rod Argent is still recording.
-
LiveForever:
BarbB:
Hey guys, remember me? I just thought I'd add in on my dear friend's audi post. I haven't been to any of Paul's recent tours. Why, you ask? Not because I couldn't, because I didn't want to. I will say that the people who are still going to his shows repeatedly are not going for the music, but are going because they have made friends with others who do the same, and it's a party for them. Why else would anyone continue to pay thousands of dollars for the same show? I would be more active on here, but there is nothing new to discuss with Paul. It's the same old thing, and while he may be stuck in the past, I'm not.
I've seen him 5 times in 12 years and it's ALL about the music. Everyone has a right to their opinion, obviously but this is one of those clear polarizing topics where one side will never be able to convince the other. My only question is why bother coming on here just to complain and spread negativity? That part I don't get it. Let the people who still enjoy the shows, enjoy them without having to defend themselves. The negative posts can be saved for another forum.
This thread was labeled, "Set List Critique", am I wrong? So I'm sure I'm not the first in this thread to complain about the set list. I'm also not attacking anyone. I never said there was nothing wrong with going to see your friends and sharing a good time, now did I? All I did was state why I don't go to the shows anymore (because of the set list being the same) and the fact that many people only go to enjoy a good time with their friends. 5 times is nothing compared to the folks I'm talking about. As you can see, a handful of regular boardies have finally reached their point with Paul where enough is enough. I'm sad and never thought the day would happen, but what can you do?
-
Sgt._Pepper:
beatlesfanrandy:
oobu24:
Not my words...Taken from a friend's post on another board: "Another problem is the overwhelming Beatleness of the set list. Fans of Wings and his solo work are constantly short changed so Paul can continue to fill stadiums with Beatle obsessed casual fans. In his current set, there is not one song taken from a thirty year span between "Here Today" and "My Valentine". That's a whole career for some folks, but Paul doesn't acknowledge any of his work from that period." A very accurate observation.
As I said, Paul has explained the setlist to people very clearly, and very recently. I don't need to defend him, he's perfectly capable. I don't even disagree with other opinions, I would love to see a whole section of just 80's, 90's, and 2000's songs live, but it's not gonna happen. People do not go and see him for those songs, unfortunately. So for people to continue to say it's boring or stale here is only being disrespectful to him. To me it's the discussion that's boring and stale, not his concerts. I'm not saying anything new, but neither is anybody else on this thread.
Look, I love Paul. I think everyone on this board does. But it isn't disrespectful to make comments or suggestions about his setlist in a thread called "Set List critique." This thread (and this board) both exist to help facilitate discussion. If people want to complain about the setlist, that's their prerogative. And if you want to say that the setlist is fine the way it is, then that's ok, too. I'm just saying that it's silly for you to call folks "disrespectful" in a thread that is supposed to allow people to make suggestions for Paul's setlist.
^ That was from a few weeks ago.
-
And it would take so little to turn things around. It may be a lost cause: I did a major *facepalm* when McCartney said in that radio-interview that he likes to challenge himself: So he learned Lennon's "Mr. Kite." Oy vey. I think the real challenge would be more like "Back Seat Of My Car," "Rinse The Raindrops," "The Pound Is Sinking" or "Beautiful Night."