Set List critique
-
Why do you think Macca worked with Godrich only once?
-
audi:
Why do you think Macca worked with Godrich only once?
See clip below, the classic line answers the question - lol
-
-
graystoke:
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.
Not just the Teleprompter...It's all computerized, every light and laser beam and projection to every song. It all has to be sequenced and it all costs a jillion dollars to put on that show every time. That's one big reason there are no setlist changes. But you will notice that most every group or performer is that way also. The big exception is Phish who never play the same set twice. But they are the exception.
-
Yea the thing with the Stones is that in the second half of their set, each song goes for about 10mins (or seesm to) hence. They actually dont play that many songs but show still goes for 2.5 hrs.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
graystoke:
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.
Not just the Teleprompter...It's all computerized, every light and laser beam and projection to every song. It all has to be sequenced and it all costs a jillion dollars to put on that show every time. That's one big reason there are no setlist changes. But you will notice that most every group or performer is that way also. The big exception is Phish who never play the same set twice. But they are the exception.
That's really a non-argument. It's programmed for every song, up to digital snapshots of rehearsal sound mixes for the FOH sound man for any potential song in the catalogue. But because of that, in this day and age, they are in the position to spontaneously swap around and still have everything cued up perfectly.
-
nobodytoldme:
beatlesfanrandy:
graystoke:
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.
Not just the Teleprompter...It's all computerized, every light and laser beam and projection to every song. It all has to be sequenced and it all costs a jillion dollars to put on that show every time. That's one big reason there are no setlist changes. But you will notice that most every group or performer is that way also. The big exception is Phish who never play the same set twice. But they are the exception.
That's really a non-argument. It's programmed for every song, up to digital snapshots of rehearsal sound mixes for the FOH sound man for any potential song in the catalogue. But because of that, in this day and age, they are in the position to spontaneously swap around and still have everything cued up perfectly.
Thy speaketh the truth. Just ANOTHER myth perpetuated by the McCartney organisation to argue AGAINST setlist changes. THEY would have us believe it CANNOT be done. It is just bulltish.
-
John Mellencamp nails it in this 2014 interview: Please watch 35:50 thru 37:15
This is the integrity that so many of us have been trying to get Paul McCartney to friggin' embrace. -
audi:
John Mellencamp nails it in this 2014 interview: Please watch 35:50 thru 37:15
This is the integrity that so many of us have been trying to get Paul McCartney to friggin' embrace."I don't want to play for drunks." True, but JM kind of dug his own grave early on with songs that appealed to hard-partying people. Paul's biggest hits have mostly been pretty squeaky clean; "Hi Hi Hi" and "Picasso's Last Words" are/were anomalies in his set, plus at the height of 'Wingsmania' their set included a song warning against the dangers of partying too hard ("Medicine Jar"). There just aren't enough fans like us to fill arenas to watch Paul do obscure tracks, I don't think. If he tried to, he'd arguably get more drunk people in the audience, because they'd be getting more drinks out of boredom (although obviously the arena would love that!). In almost every single review of his shows in local newspapers, on local TV channels, and so on, the focus is that Paul makes a huge audience happy. This is his goal, to have the tightest, most entertaining show out there, and he seems to have calibrated it to include just a few nuggets that will make people say "Oh, I remember that one!" but rarely anything that will make people say, "Oh, I don't know that one at all." The few obscure ones ("My Valentine," "Here Today") tend to be infused with intensely deep meaning beforehand ("This is for my lovely wife," "This is for my dear departed friend"). To do the kind of show WE would salivate over, he'd have to play much smaller venues. But he just doesn't seem to have the appetite for that. It seems clear that it's his band that comes up with many of the setlist suggestions; Paul has to be kind of dragged into agreeing, or so it seems.
-
Don't think I've seen many drunk people at a McCartney concert. Maybe there have been one or two but I don't think his music attracts a whole crowd of rowdy rock & rollers out of control. I have to admit that I kind of missed it especially the last time I saw him in 2004. Lots of people in their forties and fifties, it was almost too straight for its own good. I know that 'rock is dead', but...
-
audi:
John Mellencamp nails it in this 2014 interview: Please watch 35:50 thru 37:15
This is the integrity that so many of us have been trying to get Paul McCartney to friggin' embrace.Yes. He is correct! I don't think he is saying fans should come to his show and listen to only obscure material. But he cited Neil Young. Not Paul McCartney. Is Paul's show tight and fun and entertaining? Yes. Does he challenge his audience? No. Everyone talks about how Paul is the most amazing thing since sliced bread. Well, if he is, his audience should CELEBRATE him playing ten hits, then ten new songs from his new LP, then ten more hits. Why is that too much to ask of an audience that is supposed to be his fans? The truth is, most big stars, when playing to FANS, play to audiences of about 10,000 people. If your goal is to always play to 40,000 people, then yes, you HAVE to play only hits to fill that venue. And play it safe. Paul could do what Neil Young does and still entertain people. But he would have to tour and play to 10,000 people a show and (gasp!) maybe make only $500,000 to $800,000 per show. God forbid.
-
I think 95% of the audience at at McCartney stadium concert aren't exactly fans but they are fond of certain songs, mostly the familiar songs... The Beatles. David Bowie played the stadiums in the 80s but found out that that a huge crowd wasn't satifactory from a creative point of view and went back to the arenas. It may seem like it's a step back for other artists, McCartney, Springsteen, U2... They want to fill the biggest places, like they used to do.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
I think 95% of the audience at at McCartney stadium concert aren't exactly fans but they are fond of certain songs, mostly the familiar songs... The Beatles. David Bowie played the stadiums in the 80s but found out that that a huge crowd wasn't satifactory from a creative standpoint and went back to the arenas. It may seem like it's a step back for other artists, McCartney, Springsteen, U2... They want to fill the biggest Places, like they uesed to.
Yes, but U2 is playing new songs and even songs from their last CD. It isn't merely a greatest hits concert. Why can't Paul play five songs from NEW, but also Only Mama Knows, Fine Line, Flaming Pie, Hope Of Deliverance and My Brave Face? How would that ruin his show?
-
He says Neil Young said "Take the Rough Road"...well Paul could easily do Rough Ride. And I don't want OBSCURE tracks. I just want tracks from the last 30 years.
-
RMartinez:
audi:
John Mellencamp nails it in this 2014 interview: Please watch 35:50 thru 37:15
This is the integrity that so many of us have been trying to get Paul McCartney to friggin' embrace.Yes. He is correct! I don't think he is saying fans should come to his show and listen to only obscure material. But he cited Neil Young. Not Paul McCartney. Is Paul's show tight and fun and entertaining? Yes. Does he challenge his audience? No. ... ...Paul could do what Neil Young does and still entertain people. But he would have to tour and play to 10,000 people a show and (gasp!) maybe make only $500,000 to $800,000 per show. God forbid.
Bingo.
-
oobu24:
He says Neil Young said "Take the Rough Road"...well Paul could easily do Rough Ride. And I don't want OBSCURE tracks. I just want tracks from the last 30 years.
Agreed.
-
I love that Mellencamp will not apologe for telling his audiences that they will be challenged. That's what growing older as an artist should be all about.
-
RMartinez:
Hendrix Ibsen:
I think 95% of the audience at at McCartney stadium concert aren't exactly fans but they are fond of certain songs, mostly the familiar songs... The Beatles. David Bowie played the stadiums in the 80s but found out that that a huge crowd wasn't satifactory from a creative standpoint and went back to the arenas. It may seem like it's a step back for other artists, McCartney, Springsteen, U2... They want to fill the biggest Places, like they uesed to.
Yes, but U2 is playing new songs and even songs from their last CD. It isn't merely a greatest hits concert. Why can't Paul play five songs from NEW, but also Only Mama Knows, Fine Line, Flaming Pie, Hope Of Deliverance and My Brave Face? How would that ruin his show?
-
audi:
I love that Mellencamp will not apologe for telling his audiences that they will be challenged. That's what growing older as an artist should be all about.
Hey, I agree, it would be nice. But the flip side of that is that Mellencamp seems annoyed at people who DO expect just the hits at his concerts, which means those people are there, and if you're a more discerning fan, you may have to sit next to them and endure their grousing about being challenged. This is what I've experienced at many Elvis Costello concerts. He ALWAYS challenges the audience, but the bigger the audience, the less tolerant they are, and if there's a row of drunk, noisy a-holes in front of you constantly going back and forth to get drinks (true story), then it's not exactly a fulfilling experience for the dedicated fans. The last time I saw Elvis, it was at a small theater, which was perfect, because he could do literally anything and have a good level of attention and appreciation from the fans. But, as RMartinez points out, it doesn't seem likely that Paul would mount a small-scale tour like that. But again, I don't know if Paul even WANTS to re-learn songs he hasn't played in years, or decades, obscure or not.
-
Well, If you wrote a good song, I don't think it matter if you wrote it fifty years ago or fifty days ago. Only bad music are like news, here today gone tomorrow. I don't know if Mellencamp have the material for something like this. or if he wished he had... I played "Scarecrow" and "The Lonesome Jubilee" a lot in the 80s. In those days he was almost up there with Springsteen. But I lost track of his records in the 90s. Maybe he still write songs on this level. It might be me... if I went to see Mellencamp, whom I'd never seen live, I'd love to hear some of his 80s songs... His newer songs... Weeeelll,