Set List critique
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
favoritething:
I think our best chance for Paul doing deep cuts is one of those intimate things like "Unplugged" or "Chaos and Creation at Abbey Road." But still, you've got to realize that he isn't just gonna pull these old songs out of the back of his head and just play them. First, he's got to have the idea to do it (which occasionally has come from his band), then the feeling that HE would enjoy doing it, then decide if there are enough people in the audience that would WANT him to do it, then RE-learn how to play it, then come up with an arrangement that this band can play (like, would Rusty re-create David Gilmour's guitar solo in "No More Lonely Nights"? Would Wix's keyboards sound convincing enough for the horns in "Take It Away"?). Paul would want it to sound pretty darn awesome and blow everyone away; I don't think he'd be satisfied with a few hearty cheers from one little corner of the arena. Having said all that, it's definitely the acoustic guitar set where he seems to have the most leverage just kind of busking, because the focus on him becomes so intense that anything he does carries that much more weight (so to speak!), and only HE has to learn the song, not the band. I remember his obvious surprise at the roars of approval for "I Will," for one thing. But still: Beatles song, not solo. He's very cautious.
Why not try "Little Willow" for the acoustic set?
_________________________________________________________ Just want to comment on Paul's RS quote on "changing up" the Setlist. His answer about when he was a kid and going to concerts and wanting to hear the "hits" was a convenient answer but in my opinion, not anything close to the "real" answer. I believe the answer is a combination of things. Favorite Thing above hit on part of it. I blieve the real answer is a combination of: *his age *his love of being the Beatles ambassador *his perfectionism *the amount of work it would take. Favorite Thing is right. It would take a lot of work to do a significant setlist overall...with him and the Band. At his age, I don't think Paul wants to do it (And I don't necessarily blame him). This is why I have said in other posts that Paul should have been doing this in small doses as soon as he came back touring in the Driving Rain tour. I recently listened to Paul and the Band's Driving Rain live songs and Paul's voice was very strong at that point. To my ears, the Driving Rain songs (4 of them I believe) all sounded better on that tour than the studio versions. Go to U-tube and listen to his live redention of "Your Loving Flame". At that tour Paul should have taken a few Beatles/Wings songs out and included 3-4 songs (i.e. Flaming Pie, Flowers in the Dirt etc.)Each tour after Driving Rain, he could have added another 3-4 solo songs (on top of the current album he was promoting. This would have given the overall Setlist the kind of balance we are all talking about. I get it that the majority of songs have to be Beatles but I think it has hurt Paul that he hasn't given his Solo Career the kind of value that it deserves. At 72, I think he is too old to start. As I mentioned above, Paul is a perfectionist and loves the adoration. He can now do most of the Beatle songs in his sleep. No work involved and he puts on an amazing show for 1st or 2nd timers. At the kind of prices that major concerts cost today, he is giving the Beatle Paul fans (the overwhelming majority of the crowd) what they wanted and that is Paul's goal. I think this is another reason that they are doing more of the secondary markets on this tour. In those places, almost all the people are first timers. I thought that since Paul had about 10 days off from Kansas City to tomorrow's show at Target Field that we might get changes in the Setlist (plenty of time for rehearsals) but I don't believe we are going to get any changes. Again, this would take work but I see that Paul was doing a whole variety of things during the time off. I'm not knocking Paul here but it is just his personality. I think it is great that Paul has continuously toured in his 60's and now early 70's. People in so many places around the world have had the opportunity to see an actual Beatle. Yoko should kiss the ground where Paul walks. He and Ringo have been true ambassadors to the greatest musical force of the last 50 years. Unfortunately, Paul's very underrated Solo career has not benefitted from all these tours.
Excellent post. IMO - his band seems to go through the motions on most of the Beatle and Wings songs. Look at youtube clips when they do "New" songs and they definitely seem more "into" it.
-
I suppose that apart from rehearsing new songs, he would have to change the videos on the big screens, the lightning and other stuff onstage for each new one. Maybe he would rather wait for a new tour and then do it to half a dozen new songs at once? It would seem more practical for him and his crew, as he always mentions them when playing a new song without warning those folks first. It shows he's a pro who cares about his staff and wishes to present a new song to his audience in the best possible manner.
-
Oh, dear, sweet, naive "5th-beatle." I fondly remember when I was still a pollyanna McCartney apologist, too.
Giving Macca the benefit of the doubt is now a proven act of futility, my friend.
-
audi:
Oh, dear, sweet, naive "5th-beatle." I fondly remember when I was still a pollyanna McCartney apologist, too.
Giving Macca the benefit of the doubt is now a proven act of futility, my friend.
-
audi:
Look how effortlessly Paul and his band play the NEW songs. I honestly don't think it would be hard work at all. However, I do think you're right about the ambassador thing, though.
Exactly. And we do know there are songs he's rehearsed and/or played in sound checks tht many of us would LOVE to hear in the show, but never made it to the set list. He's playing the show he wants to and/or feels he needs to. If he really wanted to swap out "Friends to Go" for "Paperback Writer" or replace "Let Me Roll It" with "Run Devil Run," he'd do it. (and I'd faint, but that's a separate issue)
-
Just reading some of the tweets from Minne tonight..stuff like "just heard Blackbird I can die now" and so many people seeing him for the first time, he is awesome, a legend, etc.etc. they are there to see Beatle Paul and he is giving them what they want.
-
thenightfish:
Just reading some of the tweets from Minne tonight..stuff like "just heard Blackbird I can die now" and so many people seeing him for the first time, he is awesome, a legend, etc.etc. they are there to see Beatle Paul and he is giving them what they want.
You`re absolutely right : he`s giving the first- or second timers what they want. Strangely by doing so he`s rubbishing his claim to be a contemporary artist. Remember how often he turned down lifetime achievment awards (e.g. NME) on the grounds that he`s "still in the game". Well I`m truly sorry that he thinks (roughly) that his post - 76 output is s***, that there`s not a single song written in the 30 year period between `82 and 2012 that`s worth playing in a 37 song set or that he can`t be bothered to at least rotate a couple of classics from his pre - s*** period. On the other hand I´m not sorry at all to have spent money on his s***-music like London Town, BTTE, Flaming Pie, Driving Rain, Chaos etc. Because I can now save money by skipping his concerts : jeez have you seen those pyros that come with Live and let die...or the men and the girls in the Hey Jude singalong or have you had that feeling yet that "we`re gonna have a bit of fun tonight"...oh and Jimi Hendrix played Sgt. Pepper ON THE DAY of its release. And Paul plays Yesterday EVER SINCE its release. George Harrison (I think in 93) summed it up nicely : When asked whether there was a chance of the remaining Beatles ever playing live again he merely stated "Why? Paul`s touring and doing all that"
-
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
-
Actually, George did some bold re-workings of those Beatle songs, and his set list was not NEARLY as Beatle heavy as Paul's.
-
IMO, My Valentine should be replaced with My Love. It's a better song. Another Day should be replaced with Too Many People. In a perfect world, All Together Now would be replaced with Hope Of Deliverance and Mr. Kite with My Brave Face!
-
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
-
I believe the best chances to see something different in the setlist are the shows in San Francisco, San Antonio and Lubbock.
-
5th-beatle:
I believe the best chances to see something different in the setlist are the shows in San Francisco, San Antonio and Lubbock.
Good point. San Francisco will certainly get SOMETHING different. Something played at the last Beatles concert, or San Francisco Bay. San Antonio, probably since it is a benefit, though who knows what it will be. Lubbock, a Buddy Holly song.
-
RMartinez:
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
To sum it up : George played live as George Harrison, Paul plays live as Beatle Paul. Though to be fair : Paul has a few more Beatles songs people might want to hear. And yet : no reason for the Beatles to make up 2/3 of his setlist and the remaining 4 decades squeezed into 1/3 (...ok 3 decades missing completely)
-
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
I saw Mr. Harrison on his "Dark Horse" tour and it was not Beatle heavy. Matter of fact, he even changed the words of the song "Something". If my memory is correct, Mr.Harrison actually opened the concert with a instrumental song. BTW - Mr. McCartney went to one of these shows and advised Mr. Harrison to play more "hits".
-
Frank:
RMartinez:
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
To sum it up : George played live as George Harrison, Paul plays live as Beatle Paul. Though to be fair : Paul has a few more Beatles songs people might want to hear. And yet : no reason for the Beatles to make up 2/3 of his setlist and the remaining 4 decades squeezed into 1/3 (...ok 3 decades missing completely)
Exactly. No one is saying Paul should not play his best Beatle songs. But why not play the BEST ones, and rotate them around? For me, these would be: Yesterday Got To Get You Into My Life Here There And Everywhere For No One Penny Lane Let It Be Hey Jude The Long And Winding Road Golden Slumbers-Carry That Weight-The End I know, I know, there are many more he wrote with the Beatles. Maybe that is the issue.
-
Frank:
RMartinez:
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
To sum it up : George played live as George Harrison, Paul plays live as Beatle Paul. Though to be fair : Paul has a few more Beatles songs people might want to hear. And yet : no reason for the Beatles to make up 2/3 of his setlist and the remaining 4 decades squeezed into 1/3 (...ok 3 decades missing completely)
IMO - If Mr. Lennon had lived longer and toured, I am quite sure that his set list would not have been Beatle heavy. Also, it would be better if he would even mix up the 1/3 more. Does anybody really think the first timers would care if he eliminated "My Valentine", "Let Me Roll It",and "Another Day". I am sure these same first timers are not thinking before the concert that they hope he plays "All Together Now" or "Benefit For Mr. Kite" - lol.
-
RMartinez:
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
If we count the 70's, then George's set lists were more Beatles heavy than Paul's, especially since Paul's usually played more songs. George's set at The Concert For Bangladesh was more Beatles heavy than Paul's shows in the same period. On the 1991 tour George's set list was pretty much 50% Beatles (he played Roll Over Beethoven because of the Beatles connection and nothing else), which is more than Paul's '89 tour and about the same as Paul's '93 tour. My point is not to defend that Paul plays so many Beatles songs, but George came off as a major hypocrite when he slagged off Paul for relying too much on his Beatles past. This is the guy who wrote and released Here Comes To Moon, This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying), When We Was Fab and All Those Years Ago, FFS. He just wasn't one to talk.
-
Ane:
RMartinez:
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
If we count the 70's, then George's set lists were more Beatles heavy than Paul's, especially since Paul's usually played more songs. George's set at The Concert For Bangladesh was more Beatles heavy than Paul's shows in the same period. On the 1991 tour George's set list was pretty much 50% Beatles (he played Roll Over Beethoven because of the Beatles connection and nothing else), which is more than Paul's '89 tour and about the same as Paul's '93 tour. My point is not to defend that Paul plays so many Beatles songs, but George came off as a major hypocrite when he slagged off Paul for relying too much on his Beatles past. This is the guy who wrote and released Here Comes To Moon, This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying), When We Was Fab and All Those Years Ago, FFS. He just wasn't one to talk.
If you say so.
:
-
yankeefan7:
Frank:
RMartinez:
Ane:
George's set lists were just as Beatles heavy as Paul's were, so kind of hypocritical and lame of him.
The 1974 set list had about 24 songs, 4 were Beatle songs, of which he wrote three, In My Life being the only Lennon and McCartney song. In 1991 his set lis was about 19 songs, 8 of which were songs he wrote while with the Beatles. He played no Lennon and McCartney songs on that tour. Concert for Bangladesh was not Beatles heavy. George never toured on the scale McCartney has as a solo artist, playing Beatles songs to the extend McCartney has since 1989. So you are wrong.
To sum it up : George played live as George Harrison, Paul plays live as Beatle Paul. Though to be fair : Paul has a few more Beatles songs people might want to hear. And yet : no reason for the Beatles to make up 2/3 of his setlist and the remaining 4 decades squeezed into 1/3 (...ok 3 decades missing completely)
IMO - If Mr. Lennon had lived longer and toured, I am quite sure that his set list would not have been Beatle heavy. Also, it would be better if he would even mix up the 1/3 more. Does anybody really think the first timers would care if he eliminated "My Valentine", "Let Me Roll It",and "Another Day". I am sure these same first timers are not thinking before the concert that they hope he plays "All Together Now" or "Benefit For Mr. Kite" - lol.
I agree on all points. Lennon would maybe revisit some of his great Beatle work, like Harrison did, ie, I Am The Walrus, Revolution, Come Together. But he would never have done a setlist that is 63% Beatles songs. It is unlikely he would have done Paul tunes either, like Paperback Writer or When I'm 64. And yes, first timers couldn't care less about Another Day or My Valentine. Too Many People is MUCH more upbeat and recognizable. Why not bring it back??