Set List critique
-
Paul is a pleaser - he appeals to the masses. There are plenty of bands I have seen who play a setlist of the most obscure songs in their portfolio just to stick it to the "wannabes" I guess - they want to see who the real fans are not just the people who listen to their singles on the radio. While I respect that approach on some levels, I also disagree with it. I think these big name artists have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
-
I can see if McCartney did a 20 song set list, doing mostly Beatles hits for first timers. But he does 38 songs! Why not have 8 of those songs be: Fine Line Flaming Pie Hope Of Deliverance My Brave Face This One No More Lonely Nights Take It Away Ebony and Ivory How could a first timer feel ripped off if he played those songs, and still did 20-25 Beatle songs?
-
I think LiveForever is correct. The people on this board probably don't well represent the demographics of those who attend the concerts. Most of the people in the audience would probably be quite disappointed if he played a lot of solo material that they have probably never heard before. My guess is that most people are going to the show to hear the bigger hits that they know from the radio.
-
I think Paul should do a tour where he literally has to promote that he is going to be doing a fair share of songs throughout his entire career and perform at small venues like theaters (Orpheum, Apollo, Highline Ballroom, etc.). By promoting that this time around it's going to be in smaller places could be pulled off in the marketing too. If they just market in smaller theaters this could be something he hasn't done either. This could be cool too if marketing did it right. Sort of similar to 2007's promo shows, but instead, making it a tour. It could be something that Paul does for the first time and try's it, and see if something like this would work. The tour name could be even called "Our Intimate Night Tour" and he plays songs like Beautiful Night, No More Lonely Nights, and pretty much any of the solo songs we want to hear. Even though I still think he can play "No More Lonely Nights" at big stadium tours right now, he probably would play it at a smaller venue. I think Paul wouldn't do this though cause if he went to do this small tour (like how Ringo's tour), then I think he would think people assume that he is losing fans and has to resort to this. But this is what I'm saying, if management promoted it right, then it could be done. They would have to pretty much say, "After we do these small tours, we will continue to go back to our big stadium venues, blah, blah, blah" haha
-
Erik in NJ:
I think LiveForever is correct. The people on this board probably don't well represent the demographics of those who attend the concerts. Most of the people in the audience would probably be quite disappointed if he played a lot of solo material that they have probably never heard before. My guess is that most people are going to the show to hear the bigger hits that they know from the radio.
Fair enough. But do casual fans at these shows really want to hear All Together Now and Benefit of Mr. Kite? Or even Lovely Rita? Why not replace those three tunes with My Brave Face, Hope Of Deliverance, and Take It Away? Surely those three songs would not empty out an arena or stadium. He still plays My Valentine, which no one in the audience knows.
-
RMartinez:
I can see if McCartney did a 20 song set list, doing mostly Beatles hits for first timers. But he does 38 songs! Why not have 8 of those songs be: Fine Line Flaming Pie Hope Of Deliverance My Brave Face This One No More Lonely Nights Take It Away Ebony and Ivory How could a first timer feel ripped off if he played those songs, and still did 20-25 Beatle songs?
That's the way it should be. I've just learned to accept this current setlist. Now if he tours in 2015 I would like to see him implement those songs into the set. I just think for this tour I don't expect to see many changes that will blow us away. One song he could do and maybe have a successful response is "Beautiful Night" and he could introduce it by saying that it was recorded with Ringo and that'll maybe get some applause. Don't quite know.. I'd love to see this happen though
-
I think Erik nails it. The people on this board make up a very small percentage of concert goers - when he plays a 20,000 seat venue, 19,500 of the fans there are there for the Beatles - and paul knows it. And quite frankly I don't think it's anything for him to be ashamed of or feel bad about. He was a driving force of the greatest band of all time. And as much as I love Ringo, he is the last of what people remember or associate with of the Beatles greatness. (I mean no offense but there is a reason why Paul is playing Dodgers stadium this summer and Ringo 1,500 seat amphitheaters - incidentally I will be attending one such show in October but I digress). I think Paul tried to escape that during his tours of the 70s and 80s and then he got to a point where he could once again feel great about playing his Beatles work again without it hurting his ego or having to substantiate his solo career.
-
Just a FYI...this was in the Chicago thread in case some of you missed it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-paul-mccartney-concert-review-20140709,0,7206684.column " Given the numerous worthy albums and songs he released over that 30-year stretch, it?s a shame he doesn?t make the case for any of this material in concert the way that, say, former collaborator Elvis Costello revisits different phases of his career when playing live. This gets to the crux of a central tension with McCartney: the desire to please vs. the desire to get creative. "His albums are almost always weirder than advertised; ?New? is all over the map stylistically and mostly successful, and his 2008 The Fireman collaboration with producer Youth (?Electric Arguments?) is truly out there. Yet you get the feeling he?s thinking that the people paying hundreds of dollars to see him aren?t expecting a deep catalog exploration, and that's too bad, because McCartney?s catalog is as deep as anyone's, so there are even a lot of hits he never plays."
-
Yeah, but how many concert-reviews has the Tribune done for McCartney over the years? Shouldn't we be more concerned with first-time reviewers?
-
That's a great post and a very astute observation - but again, Paul is aiming to please the masses. And it is too bad. It's a damn shame really. But it is what it is. He was a Beatle first and foremost and there's no escaping it.
-
yep he's got a "show" & he's gonna do it. Why work any harder than you have to. Hey...if I win the lotto...I'm not working at all.
-
LiveForever:
I think Erik nails it. The people on this board make up a very small percentage of concert goers - when he plays a 20,000 seat venue, 19,500 of the fans there are there for the Beatles - and paul knows it. And quite frankly I don't think it's anything for him to be ashamed of or feel bad about. He was a driving force of the greatest band of all time. And as much as I love Ringo, he is the last of what people remember or associate with of the Beatles greatness. (I mean no offense but there is a reason why Paul is playing Dodgers stadium this summer and Ringo 1,500 seat amphitheaters - incidentally I will be attending one such show in October but I digress). I think Paul tried to escape that during his tours of the 70s and 80s and then he got to a point where he could once again feel great about playing his Beatles work again without it hurting his ego or having to substantiate his solo career.
I think you are wrong to say people don't associate Ringo with Beatles greatness. What other drummer in the world can tour like Ringo and play to sold out venues seating thousands? BTW, he played to 4,000 in Albuquerque. I understand what you are saying, but major force or not, Paul was NOT the Beatles, and he is touring as if he was. And I think the perception is there, and it is not an accident. Paul McCartney has every right to play songs he wrote in the Beatles, or even co-wrote. But why on earth play Mr. Kite when he actually wrote When I'm 64 or Oh Darling?? Play THOSE songs, not Lennon songs like Kite or Please Please Me or Day Tripper. That he plays Something and it gets the same response as Hey Jude speaks volumes. A Paul McCartney concert implies, by it's name and name brand, that you are seeing a McCartney solo show. It is not unrealistic to expect a solo show. But this model of touring, established in 1989, is what the public has come to expect. IF the Beatles were touring now, THIS is what it would sound and look like. If McCartney toured as a SOLO artist, which is what he is, he would be playing 4,000 to 10,000 seat venues, like Tom Petty or Elton John. But he sells out 50,000 seat stadiums touring as a BEATLE. Which is ok, I guess. But don't knock Ringo for touring with a real band that gets to play their songs too. Ringo certainly doesn't have the catalogue Paul does. But he gives it his all, and is also entertaining a lot of people out there.
-
RMartinez:
LiveForever:
I think Erik nails it. The people on this board make up a very small percentage of concert goers - when he plays a 20,000 seat venue, 19,500 of the fans there are there for the Beatles - and paul knows it. And quite frankly I don't think it's anything for him to be ashamed of or feel bad about. He was a driving force of the greatest band of all time. And as much as I love Ringo, he is the last of what people remember or associate with of the Beatles greatness. (I mean no offense but there is a reason why Paul is playing Dodgers stadium this summer and Ringo 1,500 seat amphitheaters - incidentally I will be attending one such show in October but I digress). I think Paul tried to escape that during his tours of the 70s and 80s and then he got to a point where he could once again feel great about playing his Beatles work again without it hurting his ego or having to substantiate his solo career.
...major force or not, Paul was NOT the Beatles, and he is touring as if he was.... A Paul McCartney concert implies, by it's name and name brand, that you are seeing a McCartney solo show. It is not unrealistic to expect a solo show...
Boom!
-
It's obviously impossible to know even roughly the percentage of first timers at a McCartney show but at this stage of the game my suspicion is the majority of audiences at each show have seen him before. Even if my guess is way out ( and it could well be) that's still no reason to base a show around what he thinks the majority want to hear. A career spanning show with selections from all stages of his career would surely be more satisfying for him & the band than endless recycling the same songs and stories. Even if such an approach did lead to declining ticket sales and require lower prices & smaller venues it would hardly damage his fame or reputation. I'd say it would do the exact opposite-he'd be lauded for being prepared to take risks and to challenge both himself and his audience. Other thing is it's not as if anyone expects him to play a set list of obscure songs-he has dozens of big hits that are surely familiar to casual fans. Play some of them, keep a handful of must play Beatles tunes ( Hey Jude, Yesterday, Let It Be etc, rotate a few other Beatles tunes from show to show alongside a few deep cuts from the back catalogue. If anyone can do it he can! Unless Paul is aware that the days of 3 hour stadium shows are drawing to a close-the man is a marvel but at some point will have to alter his touring life. I don't for a minute expect he'll retire but perhaps his plan would be to play smaller venues with a shorter set and that would be the opportunity to play more career spanning sets.
-
RMartinez:
I can see if McCartney did a 20 song set list, doing mostly Beatles hits for first timers. But he does 38 songs! Why not have 8 of those songs be: Fine Line Flaming Pie Hope Of Deliverance My Brave Face This One No More Lonely Nights Take It Away Ebony and Ivory How could a first timer feel ripped off if he played those songs, and still did 20-25 Beatle songs?
Exactly. Those of us who love his solo work know it is not going to dominate the set list but throw us a "bone" and play some of these songs you mentioned for us. I would add others like "Too Much Rain", "Promise To You Girl", "House of Wax", "Dance Til We're High" etc.
-
I meant nothing disparaging about Ringo. Like I said I am going to see him in October and couldn't be more excited. Paul probably (and one has to assume) feels this obligation to carry on the Beatles torch - especially after the deaths of John and George. It's like he feels obligated to carry on their legacy. Perhaps he feels if he stops touring with mostly Beatles music, the Beatles died with them. I don't know. But I bet deep down, Paul feels this sense of obligation. He would, I'm sure, love to play predominantly his own work at his own SOLO show, but as I said before, he feels the need to put the weight of the Beatles legacy on his shoulders and carry it onward.
-
streetlegal:
It's obviously impossible to know even roughly the percentage of first timers at a McCartney show but at this stage of the game my suspicion is the majority of audiences at each show have seen him before. Even if my guess is way out ( and it could well be) that's still no reason to base a show around what he thinks the majority want to hear. A career spanning show with selections from all stages of his career would surely be more satisfying for him & the band than endless recycling the same songs and stories. Even if such an approach did lead to declining ticket sales and require lower prices & smaller venues it would hardly damage his fame or reputation. I'd say it would do the exact opposite-he'd be lauded for being prepared to take risks and to challenge both himself and his audience. Other thing is it's not as if anyone expects him to play a set list of obscure songs-he has dozens of big hits that are surely familiar to casual fans. Play some of them, keep a handful of must play Beatles tunes ( Hey Jude, Yesterday, Let It Be etc, rotate a few other Beatles tunes from show to show alongside a few deep cuts from the back catalogue. If anyone can do it he can! Unless Paul is aware that the days of 3 hour stadium shows are drawing to a close-the man is a marvel but at some point will have to alter his touring life. I don't for a minute expect he'll retire but perhaps his plan would be to play smaller venues with a shorter set and that would be the opportunity to play more career spanning sets.
Good points. Take a city like New York, with all the times Mr. McCartney has played there does anybody really think the audience is mostly first timers. I understand it is different when he has never played in a city before or it has been awhile but in a bunch of US cities I think lots of people in the crowd have seen him. IMO - this is a Paul McCartney concert which to me implies that it will be more than a Beatle/Wings show. Like I have said before, why create new music if you are never going to play it live after one tour. There are songs like "Take It Away" that was a top 20 single that he has never played live. If Mr. McCartney can play "C Moon" why can't he do something like "Take It Away". I think media reviewers are slowly catching on to Mr. McCartney not being willing to explore his entire catalog more especially in cities like Chicago and New York.
-
LiveForever:
I meant nothing disparaging about Ringo. Like I said I am going to see him in October and couldn't be more excited. Paul probably (and one has to assume) feels this obligation to carry on the Beatles torch - especially after the deaths of John and George. It's like he feels obligated to carry on their legacy. Perhaps he feels if he stops touring with mostly Beatles music, the Beatles died with them. I don't know. But I bet deep down, Paul feels this sense of obligation. He would, I'm sure, love to play predominantly his own work at his own SOLO show, but as I said before, he feels the need to put the weight of the Beatles legacy on his shoulders and carry it onward.
You do make a point that I also agree with. There is the aspect of Paul playing John and George songs to continue their legacy, and I do think that is cool. Even Ringo does Give Peace A Chance! Certainly, Paul could even do ONE song from the last 30 years. Rotate Hope Of Deliverance with My Brave Face and Fine Line. Just to tip his hat at his more recent career.
-
I've said that numerous times here. Especially when he does 2 sgows in one city. (which he isn't this time) But bill one as a normal show & one with fewer (but yes some) Beatles songs & the majority from the last oh...say 30 years.
-
I always felt the majority of concert-goers were first timers. I always like to chat with the folks in my section a bit and find out how many times, where they're from etc. To our left was older gentlemen and his daugher or grandaughter. He seemed to hate the show, but she loved it. Neither had seen McCartney before. In front of us, we spoke to an older couple who had seen him twice before and loved every second of it. Next to them, was a group of middle aged couples who had seen him once before, they spent much of the show in and out getting drinks. Behind us, was an obnoxious younger couple that hadn't seen him and loved every second, but were pretty stupid imo and left after "Hey Jude". Finally, next to them was a single dad and his three daughters, none of whom had seen McCartney and were on their feet lovin' it the whole time. My point is, that out of those 15 people in my little section of a section, not one of them complained once about the songs. Not before the show, not during the show, not after the show. My grandmother and I did a few times, but that was #7 for me, and #5 for her. So in conclusion, yes. Paul does appeal to the masses with this approach, because I still think the masses are people that have never seen him and never will afford to again or, just see him when he hits their hometown. Those of us having this discussion are a minority. It's almost pathetic that Paul treats us this way, despite throwing a few bones here and there. I think the solution would be to do a small number of theatre shows as mentioned before. He could do a whole show and advertise it as the "No Room for #1's Tour"