Set List critique
-
RMartinez:
moptops:
Speaks volumes that so far what's generated the most buzz was the one off Let's Go Crazy surprise. If he even did the following, it would engender so much more genuine intetest and buzz... Remove Save Us and replace it with Junior's Farm. Scrap Here, There and Everywhere, Fool On The Hill and Maybe I'm Amazed, all of which he cannot sing, and replace them with Wings or Solo. In the back end rotate songs through the Back In The USSR slot. These are not impossible to do. I say again, too much same from the last tour and even the new additions are pretty pedestrian. In Spite Of All The Danger again? I mean...seriously, come on. That's either seriouslylazy or he's taking the piss.
I know. Why not play I Lost My Little Girl?
Mmmm...once was enough and that's what makes those little outings so special. A short burst (that's all there is) of Thinking of Linking might be less painful. Btw...I know you're kidding!
-
JoeySmith:
What happened to the Paul McCartney who refused to play Beatles songs on his 1972 UK Tour? The real fans want that live Paul back. Instead, he looks like Elton up there on stage rehashing the past singing the oldies...
There aren't enough real fans to fill baseball stadiums anymore. 85% of the people attending his shows WANT a Beatles nostalgia act. A few Wings/early solo hits are fine, but anything past 1980 or so loses them. I don't like it, but that's reality.
-
Bruce M.:
JoeySmith:
What happened to the Paul McCartney who refused to play Beatles songs on his 1972 UK Tour? The real fans want that live Paul back. Instead, he looks like Elton up there on stage rehashing the past singing the oldies...
There aren't enough real fans to fill baseball stadiums anymore. 85% of the people attending his shows WANT a Beatles nostalgia act. A few Wings/early solo hits are fine, but anything past 1980 or so loses them. I don't like it, but that's reality.
You are correct.
-
The task at hand is to make 'em appreciate the more obscure songs. Clapton does that. Prince did it. Tina Turner almost always closed her concerts with a new song from her latest album at the time, which always went over well. Therefore, are we supposed to accept a false notion that Paul McCartney's audiences are, comparatively, less musically intelligent? Not this fan.
-
We need a "Pure Mccartney tour"
To listen fresh song instead of Let it be-Let me roll it, etc etc Also an Unplugged II would be cool. The mtv unplugged was a very amazing setlist.
-
corchians:
We need a "Pure Mccartney tour"
To listen fresh song instead of Let it be-Let me roll it, etc etc Also an Unplugged II would be cool. The mtv unplugged was a very amazing setlist.
Paul needs to give his voice a rest before doing ANY of these things he is not going to do.
-
-
corchians:
We need a "Pure Mccartney tour" ...
I think a one-off show of this sort would be great. Record it. Put it out on Blu-ray. I would make every effort to attend that gig -- at top dollar -- and I would certainly buy the live-album/DVD, etc.
-
Drop songs like maybe im amazed and add song like one of these days and Also is voice will feel better.
-
He sounds like his ol' self here (when the little girl played bass with him onstage in Argentina).
-
audi:
He sounds like his ol' self here (when the little girl played bass with him onstage in Argentina).
Get Back is the sort of song Paul should be doing. The melody is almost like a Lennon song, with a horizontal melody that does not have extreme intervals between notes. The opposite of Here There and Everywhere.
-
The key of A is Macca's sweet spot.
-
moptops:
JoeySmith:
What happened to the Paul McCartney who refused to play Beatles songs on his 1972 UK Tour? The real fans want that live Paul back. Instead, he looks like Elton up there on stage rehashing the past singing the oldies...
That bloke is long gone. This one is touring a Vegas lounge act. And he'll keep doingit until his voice is a whisper.
People change and so Paul. That was kind of "indie" Paul and this is kind of "mainstream" Paul. And he'll probably go back to indie one day. "I go back so far, I'm in front of me!"....
-
audi:
The task at hand is to make 'em appreciate the more obscure songs. Clapton does that. Prince did it. Tina Turner almost always closed her concerts with a new song from her latest album at the time, which always went over well. Therefore, are we supposed to accept a false notion that Paul McCartney's audiences are, comparatively, less musically intelligent? Not this fan.
But that task needs some kind of ... altruist/indie whatever the word attitude Paul don't have now. Well, he's having it now a bit more than some years before, cause Temporary Secretary would be kind of a impossible, science fiction thing some years ago. It's not the audiences but the artist. In my last Elton show he just played a couple of songs written after... 1985. lol, now that's going back through the mist of time... But I see your point, will Paul sell less tickets if he plays less hits???? I don't know cause I'm not a marketing expert (in spite of having a degree!). But I don't think people checks much the setlists before going to see an artist... Springsteen has changed recently from doing shows of kind of 80% random obscure 20% hits to mostly hits, and from what I know the audience size is kind of the same. Do most of the people really care of what they play as the long as the star is there on the stage??? Maybe some things as appearing on the news because of getting married/divorced, into hospital, etc have way bigger more importance at ticket sales than setlists. ... To make it more complicated.... Paul has HUGE hits that he almosts never plays live anyway!. Hope Of Deliverance is like the biggest single ever in Germany or so and Mull Of Kyntire is kind of the same in the UK. Yet he does way most of the shows in Germany and UK with no signs of those songs. Now... only Paul CAN DO THAT. Being the writer, singer of the biggest hits in some country, doing a concert there, and not playing it. Maybe he just wants to make them appreciate the more obscure songs like Eleanor Rigby, Golden Slumbers, etc.
-
Let's look at the songs that do NOT appeal to the so called "Beatles/Seeing a Legend" crowd. Current set list Save Us Temporary Secretary My Valentine 1985 Here Today Queenie Eye New FourFiveSeconds If you could the Golden Slumbers Melody as one song, then that makes 8/36 (22%) songs geared towards Solo Macca fans. I would even argue that songs like "Letting Go, Let Me Roll It, Hi Hi Hi, and In Spite of All the Danger" are also songs that the "Beatle/seeing A Legend" audience doesn't really care about as well. So, you could say 22-33% of the show is directed at fans of solo Paul. Is that enough? My first instinct is to say no, but then I looked at it this way What if Paul changed all 12 of those songs and replaced them with songs like these I Can Bet, Appreciate, Early Days, Fine Line, The World Tonight, Take It Away, etc? Would that satisfy most fans?
-
To play Silly Love Songs, With A Little Luck, My Brave Face, Hope Of Deliverance, Take It Away is not "playing less hits." Those WERE hit songs.
-
Macca84:
Let's look at the songs that do NOT appeal to the so called "Beatles/Seeing a Legend" crowd. Current set list: Save Us Temporary Secretary My Valentine 1985 Here Today Queenie Eye New FourFiveSeconds If you could the Golden Slumbers Melody as one song, then that makes 8/36 (22%) songs geared towards Solo Macca fans. I would even argue that songs like "Letting Go, Let Me Roll It, Hi Hi Hi, and In Spite of All the Danger" are also songs that the "Beatle/seeing A Legend" audience doesn't really care about as well. So, you could say 22-33% of the show is directed at fans of solo Paul. Is that enough? My first instinct is to say no, but then I looked at it this way: What if Paul changed all 12 of those songs and replaced them with songs like these: I Can Bet, Appreciate, Early Days, Fine Line, The World Tonight, Take It Away, etc? Would that satisfy most fans?
It's more an attitude thing as well. All these songs you mention are sandwiched in between huge Beatles songs in the early set. 'Save Us', 'Queenie Eye' and 'New' are there only because it's his "gotta force myself to play something of the latest release"-believes. 'My Valentine', while I love it, is there because he can sing it for his wife. 'Here Today' is only there because of the Lennon-connection. It's all part of the earlier mentioned structure of his current tours. Now, 'Temporary Secretary' counts, but he introduces it as some black sheep he's sorry for playing ("it might get a little bit dark"). 'FourFiveSeconds' was one of the biggest songs of 2015 and is hardly throwing the fans a bone. The only "bold" thing in his current set is 'Temporary Secretary', regardless of the place in the set and the introduction, and 'Hi Hi Hi' in the encore. That would've been impossible before 2010. And it's a blessing that 'Nineteen Hundred And Eighty-Five' stuck around for 6 full years now, that's an absolute blessing. So that are 3 songs in an almost 3 hour long set. I must have posted this 50 times in the past years, but really... We all know his shows are targeted at the general Beatles audience. I never ever heard anyone from that target audience complain about 'Mrs. Vandebilt' ("Kiev"), or him telling about why he's playing that, or about 'Letting Go'. Or about 'Nineteen Hundred And Eighty-Five', or about 'New', and so on. His crowd doesn't need to be spoon-fed, ffs. For the same reason that I also never heard anyone from that crowd complain he didn't play 'Get Back'/'I Saw Her Standing There', 'Penny Lane', and so on. We aren't saying he should have a 45-minute 'Rushes'-block. He could easily tell a similar story - if you have to "sell" the songs like he tries to - about a deeper cut from 'Ram'. Some people in the crowd will like it, some people won't. And onto the next song. It's a gig. He could have the general audience just as happy as now, and his fans ecstatic that way. edit: "Kiev" belongs to 'Vandebilt', not 'Letting Go', of course.
-
nobodytoldme:
Macca84:
Let's look at the songs that do NOT appeal to the so called "Beatles/Seeing a Legend" crowd. Current set list: Save Us Temporary Secretary My Valentine 1985 Here Today Queenie Eye New FourFiveSeconds If you could the Golden Slumbers Melody as one song, then that makes 8/36 (22%) songs geared towards Solo Macca fans. I would even argue that songs like "Letting Go, Let Me Roll It, Hi Hi Hi, and In Spite of All the Danger" are also songs that the "Beatle/seeing A Legend" audience doesn't really care about as well. So, you could say 22-33% of the show is directed at fans of solo Paul. Is that enough? My first instinct is to say no, but then I looked at it this way: What if Paul changed all 12 of those songs and replaced them with songs like these: I Can Bet, Appreciate, Early Days, Fine Line, The World Tonight, Take It Away, etc? Would that satisfy most fans?
It's more an attitude thing as well. All these songs you mention are sandwiched in between huge Beatles songs in the early set. 'Save Us', 'Queenie Eye' and 'New' are there only because it's his "gotta force myself to play something of the latest release"-believes. 'My Valentine', while I love it, is there because he can sing it for his wife. 'Here Today' is only there because of the Lennon-connection. It's all part of the earlier mentioned structure of his current tours. Now, 'Temporary Secretary' counts, but he introduces it as some black sheep he's sorry for playing ("it might get a little bit dark"). 'FourFiveSeconds' was one of the biggest songs of 2015 and is hardly throwing the fans a bone. The only "bold" thing in his current set is 'Temporary Secretary', regardless of the place in the set and the introduction, and 'Hi Hi Hi' in the encore. That would've been impossible before 2010. And it's a blessing that 'Nineteen Hundred And Eighty-Five' stuck around for 6 full years now, that's an absolute blessing. So that are 3 songs in an almost 3 hour long set. I must have posted this 50 times in the past years, but really... We all know his shows are targeted at the general Beatles audience. I never ever heard anyone from that target audience complain about 'Mrs. Vandebilt', or him telling about why he's playing that, or about 'Letting Go' ('Kiev'). Or about 'Nineteen Hundred And Eighty-Five', or about 'New', and so on. His crowd doesn't need to be spoon-fed, ffs. For the same reason that I also never heard anyone from that crowd complain he didn't play 'Get Back'/'I Saw Her Standing There', 'Penny Lane', and so on. We aren't saying he should have a 45-minute 'Rushes'-block. He could easily tell a similar story - if you have to "sell" the songs like he tries to - about a deeper cut from 'Ram'. Some people in the crowd will like it, some people won't. And onto the next song. It's a gig. He could have the general audience just as happy as now, and his fans ecstatic that way.
Good points.
-
Surprised to see "Jet" in the encore for Night #2 in Argentina.
-
Macca84:
Let's look at the songs that do NOT appeal to the so called "Beatles/Seeing a Legend" crowd. Current set list: Save Us Temporary Secretary My Valentine 1985 Here Today Queenie Eye New FourFiveSeconds If you could the Golden Slumbers Melody as one song, then that makes 8/36 (22%) songs geared towards Solo Macca fans. I would even argue that songs like "Letting Go, Let Me Roll It, Hi Hi Hi, and In Spite of All the Danger" are also songs that the "Beatle/seeing A Legend" audience doesn't really care about as well. So, you could say 22-33% of the show is directed at fans of solo Paul. Is that enough? My first instinct is to say no, but then I looked at it this way: What if Paul changed all 12 of those songs and replaced them with songs like these: I Can Bet, Appreciate, Early Days, Fine Line, The World Tonight, Take It Away, etc? Would that satisfy most fans?
You've touched on a key point. Instead of replacing expendable songs with previously used expendable songs, he should put more songs like "Take It Away," "I Can Bet," "About You," "Beautiful Night" and "That Was Me" in those slots. We really didn't need a revival of "In Spite Of All The Danger."