Set List critique
-
audi:
Does anybody remember Clapton's Nothin' But The Blues tour? I saw it in '94. No "Layla." No "Cocaine." No "Wonderful Tonight." No "Tears In Heaven." It was a rousing success. Food for thought.
Oh god forbid - that's Taking a risk, not playing stadiums, not entering the Top 10 of top grossing tours. Our man doesn't like that. Instead night after night he bores himself with the same old setlist, the same stories, the same everything...because? Because he's not touring to have " a little bit of fun" he's touring for some imagined History Book of pop music.
-
RMartinez:
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
audi:
For the record: I give Paul points for performing "On My Way To Work" last night.
At the sound check, right? I kind of wish fans could buy a ticket JUST for the sound check at a reasonable price. It is like the concert for hard core fans the main show should be!! Maybe that is what he should do. Make the sound check a 15 song concert of deep cuts and charge $300 to $500 a ticket, and top it off at 1,000 people per sound check.
A sound check is a sound check. It isn't the concert and it isn't meant to be. What would be the point of that! :
You are correct. A sound check is a sound check, and is not for public consumption. But when you charge people to come in and watch, guess what? It's a show. : : :
It's still just a soundcheck.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
audi:
For the record: I give Paul points for performing "On My Way To Work" last night.
At the sound check, right? I kind of wish fans could buy a ticket JUST for the sound check at a reasonable price. It is like the concert for hard core fans the main show should be!! Maybe that is what he should do. Make the sound check a 15 song concert of deep cuts and charge $300 to $500 a ticket, and top it off at 1,000 people per sound check.
A sound check is a sound check. It isn't the concert and it isn't meant to be. What would be the point of that! :
You are correct. A sound check is a sound check, and is not for public consumption. But when you charge people to come in and watch, guess what? It's a show. : : :
It's still just a soundcheck.
Yeah. Right. Whatever. Paul should just make his soundcheck a show for fans who want to hear obscure material or solo hits, and charge $300-$500 to just attend that show, since that is what it is anyway. A $1500 show in the afternoon.
-
yankeefan7:
audi:
Does anybody remember Clapton's Nothin' But The Blues tour? I saw it in '94. No "Layla." No "Cocaine." No "Wonderful Tonight." No "Tears In Heaven." It was a rousing success. Food for thought.
Clapton advertised what he was going to play so fans were not expecting the rock "hits". Just curious, were the ticket prices lower for this tour? Also, it is obvious that Clapton has fan base that enjoy his entire career and his musicianship which seems to be unlike most McCartney's fan's.
I'd also seen Clapton's Journeyman Tour a few years prior, and I don't recall there being a significant difference in the ticket prices -- but I did pay more for the Nothin' But The Blues concert. And it was at a 20,000-seat arena.
-
RMartinez:
beatlesfanrandy:
RMartinez:
audi:
For the record: I give Paul points for performing "On My Way To Work" last night.
At the sound check, right? I kind of wish fans could buy a ticket JUST for the sound check at a reasonable price. It is like the concert for hard core fans the main show should be!! Maybe that is what he should do. Make the sound check a 15 song concert of deep cuts and charge $300 to $500 a ticket, and top it off at 1,000 people per sound check.
A sound check is a sound check. It isn't the concert and it isn't meant to be. What would be the point of that! :
You are correct. A sound check is a sound check, and is not for public consumption. But when you charge people to come in and watch, guess what? It's a show. : : :
-
I have to agree that if Paul charges people to come and watch, then sound checks are more or less shows unto themselves,,,
-
rich n:
I have to agree that if Paul charges people to come and watch, then sound checks are more or less shows unto themselves,,,
I know Paul sometimes finds problems with the instruments but don't you think his "people" do MOST of the soundchecking?
-
oobu24:
rich n:
I have to agree that if Paul charges people to come and watch, then sound checks are more or less shows unto themselves,,,
I know Paul sometimes finds problems with the instruments but don't you think his "people" do MOST of the soundchecking?
Almost certainly
-
Frank:
audi:
Does anybody remember Clapton's Nothin' But The Blues tour? I saw it in '94. No "Layla." No "Cocaine." No "Wonderful Tonight." No "Tears In Heaven." It was a rousing success. Food for thought.
Oh god forbid - that's Taking a risk, not playing stadiums, not entering the Top 10 of top grossing tours. Our man doesn't like that. Instead night after night he bores himself with the same old setlist, the same stories, the same everything...because? Because he's not touring to have " a little bit of fun" he's touring for some imagined History Book of pop music.
And, incidentally, following that tour, he had one of the biggest hits of his career: "Change The World." Therefore, the preceding no-hits tour had absolutely no adverse effect on his career at all.
-
RMartinez:
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!
Disagree with My Valentine. Out of all of his new material, that has the best chance of having some legs and being remembered 20 years from now.
-
RMartinez:
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??
Who would know what would have happened? What if John had lived and Paul died? Would John be doing the tributes and playing Paul songs? There are too many variables to give a definitive answer. I'm guessing if John was still living we wouldn't be hearing Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.
-
yankeefan7:
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.
I agree, how hard would it be for a rock legend and his band who have played together for a dozen years to "learn" some new songs.
_____________________________________________________________ The more I thought about it, I think Audi and Yankeefan are correct when it comes to adding more Solo songs for better balance of Macca's entire career. It's not that it would be so hard as much as a commitment from the leader. If Paul wanted to do it he would have the Band learn the songs a few months before any tour began. As we have all said, to only do two songs (Here Today for "tribute" purposes and My Valentine for his wife) from the last 34-35 years is such a disservice to his career in my opinion. I'm not including the latest album songs which is always a given. It goes right along with those critics who have said that McCartney's Post Beatle career was lame to mediocre at best. As we all thought, Paul's concert in St. Paul last night had the exact same Setlist. The 2 reviews I read used words like energy and nostalgia to describe what the show was like. Definitely for the masses that grew up with the Beatles. And as we know, not for the full, hardcore Macca fan. One reviewer talked about the setlist being pretty unimpeachable with "thankfully" no Silly Love Songs or Ebony & Ivory. Unfortunately, Paul's Post Beatles career has often been maligned using these 2 songs as examples. In my opinion, neither song is a bad song per say. They're good songs but were just so overplayed on the radio that many people got sick of them Even the greatest songs get tiresome if they are constantly heard. But the main reason that Paul's Solo career get so maligned by many is ignorance. People just don't know his deep Solo repertoire. And this is where Paul went in a wrong direction in my opinion. By not playing more of his powerful Solo songs ever (or just one tour), has hurt his "total" career in my opinion. To never have played songs like Tug of War (the song), Little Willow or Somedays is crazy. To never have played Mull of Kinytre in the US is equally crazy. We could go on and on. The majority of songs in the Setlist should be Beatles (I get that) but give us 2 songs from the 80's, 2 songs from the 90's, 2 songs from the 2000's etc. Giving us great songs from those decades will just show people that you were more than a Beatle. It also justifies that you were one of the greatest artists of all time for 50 years (not just 10 years).
-
Maccafan82:
RMartinez:
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!
Disagree with My Valentine. Out of all of his new material, that has the best chance of having some legs and being remembered 20 years from now.
I can't even remember it now.
-
Maccafan82:
RMartinez:
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??
Who would know what would have happened? What if John had lived and Paul died? Would John be doing the tributes and playing Paul songs? There are too many variables to give a definitive answer. I'm guessing if John was still living we wouldn't be hearing Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.
I'd rather hear John do it. I'd rather hear Paul do Oh Darling!
-
I ain't namin' names, but some of y'all need to quit dissin' "My Valentine." Solid song.
-
audi:
I ain't namin' names, but some of y'all need to quit dissin' "My Valentine." Solid song.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
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.
I agree, how hard would it be for a rock legend and his band who have played together for a dozen years to "learn" some new songs.
_____________________________________________________________ The more I thought about it, I think Audi and Yankeefan are correct when it comes to adding more Solo songs for better balance of Macca's entire career. It's not that it would be so hard as much as a commitment from the leader. If Paul wanted to do it he would have the Band learn the songs a few months before any tour began. As we have all said, to only do two songs (Here Today for "tribute" purposes and My Valentine for his wife) from the last 34-35 years is such a disservice to his career in my opinion. I'm not including the latest album songs which is always a given. It goes right along with those critics who have said that McCartney's Post Beatle career was lame to mediocre at best. As we all thought, Paul's concert in St. Paul last night had the exact same Setlist. The 2 reviews I read used words like energy and nostalgia to describe what the show was like. Definitely for the masses that grew up with the Beatles. And as we know, not for the full, hardcore Macca fan. One reviewer talked about the setlist being pretty unimpeachable with "thankfully" no Silly Love Songs or Ebony & Ivory. Unfortunately, Paul's Post Beatles career has often been maligned using these 2 songs as examples. In my opinion, neither song is a bad song per say. They're good songs but were just so overplayed on the radio that many people got sick of them Even the greatest songs get tiresome if they are constantly heard. But the main reason that Paul's Solo career get so maligned by many is ignorance. People just don't know his deep Solo repertoire. And this is where Paul went in a wrong direction in my opinion. By not playing more of his powerful Solo songs ever (or just one tour), has hurt his "total" career in my opinion. To never have played songs like Tug of War (the song), Little Willow or Somedays is crazy. To never have played Mull of Kinytre in the US is equally crazy. We could go on and on. The majority of songs in the Setlist should be Beatles (I get that) but give us 2 songs from the 80's, 2 songs from the 90's, 2 songs from the 2000's etc. Giving us great songs from those decades will just show people that you were more than a Beatle. It also justifies that you were one of the greatest artists of all time for 50 years (not just 10 years).
Stevie Wonder played Ebony at a concert I saw in mid July. Right after Living for the city. So there was a context and it really went down well. And he played a Fantastic reinterpretation of Day Tripper alongside lots of little known album cuts of his...and in the next concert he replaced some of them with other gems from his classic albums. True, Stevie stops in 1985 , like Paul pretty much in the mid 70s but each concert he changes the setlist, makes it unppredictable for the audiences and interesting for himself and his band. People were on their feet FROM Song 1 and no one had Time to think about all the big hits he didn't play.
-
audi:
I ain't namin' names, but some of y'all need to quit dissin' "My Valentine." Solid song.
It's OK. Warm and Beautiful is better. So is Beautiful Night. As far as McCartney songs go. The man is talented enough to work in different genres. That doesn't mean he excels at them. I prefer McCartney songs, like the ones I mentioned.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
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.
I agree, how hard would it be for a rock legend and his band who have played together for a dozen years to "learn" some new songs.
_____________________________________________________________ The more I thought about it, I think Audi and Yankeefan are correct when it comes to adding more Solo songs for better balance of Macca's entire career. It's not that it would be so hard as much as a commitment from the leader. If Paul wanted to do it he would have the Band learn the songs a few months before any tour began. As we have all said, to only do two songs (Here Today for "tribute" purposes and My Valentine for his wife) from the last 34-35 years is such a disservice to his career in my opinion. I'm not including the latest album songs which is always a given. It goes right along with those critics who have said that McCartney's Post Beatle career was lame to mediocre at best. As we all thought, Paul's concert in St. Paul last night had the exact same Setlist. The 2 reviews I read used words like energy and nostalgia to describe what the show was like. Definitely for the masses that grew up with the Beatles. And as we know, not for the full, hardcore Macca fan. One reviewer talked about the setlist being pretty unimpeachable with "thankfully" no Silly Love Songs or Ebony & Ivory. Unfortunately, Paul's Post Beatles career has often been maligned using these 2 songs as examples. In my opinion, neither song is a bad song per say. They're good songs but were just so overplayed on the radio that many people got sick of them Even the greatest songs get tiresome if they are constantly heard. But the main reason that Paul's Solo career get so maligned by many is ignorance. People just don't know his deep Solo repertoire. And this is where Paul went in a wrong direction in my opinion. By not playing more of his powerful Solo songs ever (or just one tour), has hurt his "total" career in my opinion. To never have played songs like Tug of War (the song), Little Willow or Somedays is crazy. To never have played Mull of Kinytre in the US is equally crazy. We could go on and on. The majority of songs in the Setlist should be Beatles (I get that) but give us 2 songs from the 80's, 2 songs from the 90's, 2 songs from the 2000's etc. Giving us great songs from those decades will just show people that you were more than a Beatle. It also justifies that you were one of the greatest artists of all time for 50 years (not just 10 years).
Excellent post as always and I agree totally. I find it funny that the reviewer says that about "Silly Love Songs and "Ebony and "Ivory" which were two of Mr. McCartney's biggest commercial hits. Think about it, people think those two songs were over played but any Beatle song has not been overplayed - Really. "Ebony and Ivory" was exactly what it was intended to be, a hit single with two musical icons. I like your 2 song a decade idea if it is songs he has never played before and it still allows him to satisfy those first timers Mr. McCartney is so worried about in concert. Let me add one other thing. Read album reviews from RS from 1989 - current day. The magazine that supposedly hated McCartney has basically given pretty darn good reviews to every record. In other words, his solo career has not been lame or mediocre the last 25 years. I know some people don't think that much of the Grammy's but Mr. McCartney has had his albums (FP and CHAOS) nominated for record of the year, pretty good for a "lame" career- lol
-
I was thinking about No More Lonely Nights and the challenge it presents vocally. Up until the chorus, Paul 2014 could still sing that melody. On the words "No More Lonely Nights" why not have Abe do the high part and Paul do the lower harmony, which he sings on the record anyway. Paul has sung John's lower melody on some songs already and had other band member's sing his original higher part. Nothing wrong with that!