Set List critique
-
audi:
Unfortunately, compared to Clapton audiences or Neil Young crowds -- or even Neil Finn crowds -- that is true.
To clarify: McCartney's shows are killer, but he is expected to be a jukebox. The aforementioned others have fans who are more open-minded about what a concert experience should be.
-
audi:
audi:
Unfortunately, compared to Clapton audiences or Neil Young crowds -- or even Neil Finn crowds -- that is true.
To clarify: McCartney's shows are killer, but he is expected to be a jukebox. The aforementioned others have fans who are more open-minded about what a concert experience should be.
Slight difference of opinion, McCartney concert tours in 1989 and 1993 were not jukebox shows. Looked back at a setlist from 1990 and there were only 3 Beatle songs done in the first 10 songs of the show. Mr. McCartney changed from those tours and made people expect a Beatle jukebox show.
-
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
-
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
Stones are down to 19 now. Kinda sucks
-
KingMacca:
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
Stones are down to 19 now. Kinda sucks
Whatever. I would rather hear a 20 song dynamic Paul set that CHANGES. He relies too much on his Beatle past.
-
yankeefan7:
audi:
audi:
Unfortunately, compared to Clapton audiences or Neil Young crowds -- or even Neil Finn crowds -- that is true.
To clarify: McCartney's shows are killer, but he is expected to be a jukebox. The aforementioned others have fans who are more open-minded about what a concert experience should be.
Slight difference of opinion, McCartney concert tours in 1989 and 1993 were not jukebox shows. Looked back at a setlist from 1990 and there were only 3 Beatle songs done in the first 10 songs of the show. Mr. McCartney changed from those tours and made people expect a Beatle jukebox show.
The difference is that after '93 The Beatles Anthology's and Live at the BBC came out and sold in the millions, then "1" came out and became the biggest selling album of the 21st century to date. There was the "LOVE" show, and the remasters and the vinyl reissues. All that new stuff didn't sell 10's of millions because McCartney played the songs in concert. But it's hard to argue the fact: He's a human jukebox! It isn't his fault he's written more hits than anyone else on the planet, and that most of those were with The Beatles, and that is why he is still one of the top concert draws worldwide.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
audi:
Unfortunately, compared to Clapton audiences or Neil Young crowds -- or even Neil Finn crowds -- that is true.
To clarify: McCartney's shows are killer, but he is expected to be a jukebox. The aforementioned others have fans who are more open-minded about what a concert experience should be.
Slight difference of opinion, McCartney concert tours in 1989 and 1993 were not jukebox shows. Looked back at a setlist from 1990 and there were only 3 Beatle songs done in the first 10 songs of the show. Mr. McCartney changed from those tours and made people expect a Beatle jukebox show.
The difference is that after '93 The Beatles Anthology's and Live at the BBC came out and sold in the millions, then "1" came out and became the biggest selling album of the 21st century to date. There was the "LOVE" show, and the remasters and the vinyl reissues. All that new stuff didn't sell 10's of millions because McCartney played the songs in concert. But it's hard to argue the fact: He's a human jukebox! It isn't his fault he's written more hits than anyone else on the planet, and that most of those were with The Beatles, and that is why he is still one of the top concert draws worldwide.
"He's a human jukebox! It isn't his fault he's written more hits than anyone else on the planet, and that most of those were with The Beatles, and that is why he is still one of the top concert draws worldwide." The "human jukebox" puts on his setlist "All Together Now and "For The Benefit of Mr. Kite" which are minor songs from the Beatles but ignores a solo song like "Take It Away" that was a top 20 single, really - lol.
-
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
The simple answer to your first question is yes. Mr. McCartney seems so afraid of embracing more of his entire career, guess he figures he can't sell tickets if he does not do a Beatle Paul heavy show. His tours follow the same old formula, the latest record will get 3-4 songs and he may thrown in a new Beatle or Wings song. That one Beatle or Wings song will practically give some people on this board an orgasm - lol. IMO - He should trim his show to about 30 songs, cut some of the same old stuff. I say he does 17 Beatle songs that he thinks first timers need to hear. Add 4 songs from "New". ( I Can Bet, Save Us, New and Early Days ). Pick 5 Wings songs or songs from "McCartney" or Ram" (Dear Boy, 1985, BOTR, Old Siam Sir, Soily). Note** Soily would be cool first encore ending song. That leaves four songs from his solo career, let's make them songs never or rarely played live. I would suggest "Take It Away", "Promise To You Girl", "Little Willow" and "That Was Me". I will take a stab at 17 Beatle songs that would make most people happy. Can't Buy Me Love Long And Winding Road Helter Skelter Got To get You Into My Life All My Loving Another Girl Something We Can Work It Out Yesterday Get Back Things We Said Today Hey Jude Paperback Writer Birthday Golden Slumbers Carry That Weight The End Ok. My changes gives the setlist two different songs from "New" . Setlist gets three different songs from the post Beatle/Wings era. In addition, four different solo songs and there is one from the 80's, 90's and two from the current century. While it is cutting the length of the show, that is not totally a bad thing especially as Mr. McCartney is getting older.
-
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
Time to put this to bed. As a regular follower of the Stones, they actually do NOT change the songs in the set as often as folks think. They do change the sequence of the songs through the set very regularly. Consider they formed in 1962, and before they head out on tour nowadays actually jam and play through something like 100 songs! HOWEVER...their set nowadays is even shorter then in recent tours and the last setlists are/were by and large the same as what they've been dishing out for many a tour. Yes, once in a while they will dust off a gem, but their setlists remain incredibly unambitious.
-
moptops:
They do change the sequence of the songs through the set very regularly.
And McCartney can't even do THAT! Probably too hard to re-programme the teleprompter.
-
moptops:
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
Time to put this to bed. As a regular follower of the Stones, they actually do NOT change the songs in the set as often as folks think. They do change the sequence of the songs through the set very regularly. Consider they formed in 1962, and before they head out on tour nowadays actually jam and play through something like 100 songs! HOWEVER...their set nowadays is even shorter then in recent tours and the last setlists are/were by and large the same as what they've been dishing out for many a tour. Yes, once in a while they will dust off a gem, but their setlists remain incredibly unambitious.
Fair enough! Maybe they learned from Paul that audiences will buy tickets no matter what, so why bother?? I am glad U2 have not taken that path. Though it is early in their tour.
-
moptops:
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
Time to put this to bed. As a regular follower of the Stones, they actually do NOT change the songs in the set as often as folks think. They do change the sequence of the songs through the set very regularly. Consider they formed in 1962, and before they head out on tour nowadays actually jam and play through something like 100 songs! HOWEVER...their set nowadays is even shorter then in recent tours and the last setlists are/were by and large the same as what they've been dishing out for many a tour. Yes, once in a while they will dust off a gem, but their setlists remain incredibly unambitious.
But at least The Stones had the -- er, stones -- to release a bold live-album like No Security, which was almost all-newer songs at the time back in 1998. It is one of the best live-albums I've ever heard. It's a personal fave, for sure. Love it!
-
RMartinez:
moptops:
RMartinez:
Has Paul painted himself into a corner? The Stones do a set of about 25 songs and change them around. U2 do a 23 or 24 song set list and change things around. Paul does about 38 songs that are essentially the same, and he can't seem to break out of that. WHY not do 25 songs and change them around?????????????
Time to put this to bed. As a regular follower of the Stones, they actually do NOT change the songs in the set as often as folks think. They do change the sequence of the songs through the set very regularly. Consider they formed in 1962, and before they head out on tour nowadays actually jam and play through something like 100 songs! HOWEVER...their set nowadays is even shorter then in recent tours and the last setlists are/were by and large the same as what they've been dishing out for many a tour. Yes, once in a while they will dust off a gem, but their setlists remain incredibly unambitious.
Fair enough! Maybe they learned from Paul that audiences will buy tickets no matter what, so why bother?? I am glad U2 have not taken that path. Though it is early in their tour.
"Fair enough! Maybe they learned from Paul that audiences will buy tickets no matter what, so why bother?? " Maybe because you get tired of playing the same old stuff for 40 years. Maybe because you actually think new music you created after the 60's and 70's are good songs and deserve to be heard. When you have a catalog of music that these artists have it blows my mind how little they play of it. Yes, I understand they need to play the hits but how much of the concert should be the "hits". I made a setlist for Mr. McCartney that was 30 songs in previous post. I had 17 Beatle songs and two Wings songs that everybody should know (BOTR, 1985). That is about 65% hits and if that is not enough for people than too bad IMO. I am willing to bet this setlist would make Mr. McCartney feel he is disappointing the first timers which is a shame. I also feel Mr. McCartney does have an ego problem that prevents him from doing something like my setlist. Some of them would get lukewarm response probably from the Beatle Paul fans and that would upset him because the crowd must go "crazy" after every song.
-
And I'm sure that he hears -- on a daily basis -- from his handlers and hangers-on (who also have a financial stake in these Beatlefests): "Man, you were one of the BEATLES!" "You're an effin' BEATLE!!! That's awesome! The people LOVE that and only that about you!" "You gotta' give 'em The BEATLES, man! You were a BEATLE!" And on and on ... probably every day and everywhere he goes.
-
How about something like this? JUNIOR?S FARM COMING UP TOO MANY PEOPLE ANOTHER DAY ALL MY LOVING LET ME ROLL IT SAVE US MY BRAVE FACE CAN?T BUY ME LOVE TWENTY FLIGHT ROCK WE CAN WORK IT OUT RAM ON AND I LOVE HER EVERY NIGHT HOPE OF DELIVERANCE MICHELLE YOUNG BOY HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE YESTERDAY NEW MY LOVE LADY MADONNA FLAMING PIE FOR NO ONE FINE LINE LET IT BE LIVE AND LET DIE PAPERBACK WRITER FIXING A HOLE PENNY LANE SGT. PEPPERS/THE END BAND ON THE RUN ONLY MAMA KNOWS HELTER SKELTER I SAW HER STANDING THERE HEY JUDE
-
Would I want more solo gems added? Yes. But -- truth be told -- I would become a McCartney fan all over again if he did that very setlist. It's excellent. And no one would leave disappointed.
-
Yeah, something like this and maybe five or so songs can be switched out every night or when he does multiple dates in once city. One can dream....
-
RMartinez:
How about something like this? JUNIOR?S FARM COMING UP TOO MANY PEOPLE ANOTHER DAY ALL MY LOVING LET ME ROLL IT SAVE US MY BRAVE FACE CAN?T BUY ME LOVE TWENTY FLIGHT ROCK WE CAN WORK IT OUT RAM ON AND I LOVE HER EVERY NIGHT HOPE OF DELIVERANCE MICHELLE YOUNG BOY HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE YESTERDAY NEW MY LOVE LADY MADONNA FLAMING PIE FOR NO ONE FINE LINE LET IT BE LIVE AND LET DIE PAPERBACK WRITER FIXING A HOLE PENNY LANE SGT. PEPPERS/THE END BAND ON THE RUN ONLY MAMA KNOWS HELTER SKELTER I SAW HER STANDING THERE HEY JUDE
While I may prefer some different songs, I agree with the concept. I would actually shell out the big money to see him again if he did a concert like this one.
-
audi:
And I'm sure that he hears -- on a daily basis -- from his handlers and hangers-on (who also have financial stake in these Beatlefests): "Man, you were one of the BEATLES!" "You're an effin' BEATLE!!! That's awesome! The people LOVE that and only that about you!" "You gotta' give 'em The BEATLES, man! You were a BEATLE!" And on and on ... probably every day and everywhere he goes.
Truer words have never been spoken - lol.
-
audi:
And I'm sure that he hears -- on a daily basis -- from his handlers and hangers-on (who also have financial stake in these Beatlefests): "Man, you were one of the BEATLES!" "You're an effin' BEATLE!!! That's awesome! The people LOVE that and only that about you!" "You gotta' give 'em The BEATLES, man! You were a BEATLE!" And on and on ... probably every day and everywhere he goes.
Wouldn't it be great if some of his handlers were actually like Nigel Godrich and told him the truth. Mr. Godrich was great telling Mr. McCartney some of his songs were crap in the beginning of recording CHAOS. Would love some of his handlers to tell him to wake up and smell the roses, The Beatles ended 45 years ago and you have recorded a lot of music since then so you can play some more of it. He is still going to sell tickets, he is Beatle Paul - lol.