Set List critique
-
veggieburgher:
oobu24:
RMartinez:
oobu24:
RMartinez:
Ringo Starr is also a keeper of the Beatles' legacy. It is NOT just Paul's legacy.
But Paul promotes it way more. Ringo rarely likes to talk about the Beatles. He'd rather talk, at times, about Rory Storm.
So? What if Paul talked more about Wings? Ringo was every bit as much a part of the Beatles legacy.
Who the heck said he wan't? Of course Ringo was part of it.
Then he should perform Octopus' Garden more often.
Yellow Sub will do just fine.
-
oobu24:
RMartinez:
oobu24:
RMartinez:
oobu24:
RMartinez:
Ringo Starr is also a keeper of the Beatles' legacy. It is NOT just Paul's legacy.
But Paul promotes it way more. Ringo rarely likes to talk about the Beatles. He'd rather talk, at times, about Rory Storm.
So? What if Paul talked more about Wings? Ringo was every bit as much a part of the Beatles legacy.
Who the heck said he wan't? Of course Ringo was part of it.
You did. It doesn't matter what Ringo talks about, he is also a keeper of the Beatle legacy. He tours and plays their songs. My point is he is also doing it, though Paul is more blatant. Which is ironic, since he could carry on as a solo artist with greater ease.
I did not! Another person may have but I DID NOT. I said Paul promotes the Beatles more & Ringo almost hates talking about them. I never said he wasn't a part of the Beatles. PLEASE do not put words in my mouth. Anyway....Ringo did get decapitated in England after he said he doesn't miss anything about Liverpool. LOL! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/Ringo0804_468x297.jpg
Ringo faces the same dilemma as Paul, maybe even more. If Ringo played only solo songs, would he still get the same crowds? The answer is no. People also go see Ringo to see a Beatle. Therefore, Ringo is also a keeper of the Beatles legacy. Paul is more so only because he can do more.
-
oobu24:
RMartinez:
oobu24:
RMartinez:
oobu24:
RMartinez:
Ringo Starr is also a keeper of the Beatles' legacy. It is NOT just Paul's legacy.
But Paul promotes it way more. Ringo rarely likes to talk about the Beatles. He'd rather talk, at times, about Rory Storm.
So? What if Paul talked more about Wings? Ringo was every bit as much a part of the Beatles legacy.
Who the heck said he wan't? Of course Ringo was part of it.
You did. It doesn't matter what Ringo talks about, he is also a keeper of the Beatle legacy. He tours and plays their songs. My point is he is also doing it, though Paul is more blatant. Which is ironic, since he could carry on as a solo artist with greater ease.
I did not! Another person may have but I DID NOT. I said Paul promotes the Beatles more & Ringo almost hates talking about them. I never said he wasn't a part of the Beatles. PLEASE do not put words in my mouth. Anyway....Ringo did get decapitated in England after he said he doesn't miss anything about Liverpool. LOL! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/Ringo0804_468x297.jpg
You are correct. Someone else said it.
-
WingsOfMacca:
SkLeigh:
I think that's a pretty good distribution. I mean, there are a lot of solo (and Wings!) songs I'd like to hear, but it's hard to quibble with the Beatles. And for every song he plays where I'm like, that's not really my favorite, there are 15,000 people in the arena screaming and crying. Especially for the Beatles songs. And then I'm the one going crazy for Hi, Hi, Hi! (Thanks Paul!)
Yep, is a good distribution, specially if you consider that Paul is the only keeper of Beatles's legacy. Paul has different publics (Beatles fans, Wings fans, McCartney fans)... people like you and me have heard every single album and every song he made and we would love to hear more of his solo work. Anyway, I had the privilege of hear those wonderful Beatles's songs and is a memory that I will never forget. That is more valuable than hear songs like 'My Brave Face' or 'The World Tonight'
Paul is the only keeper of The Beatles legacy? No. No. No. In one sentence you have made your entire analysis/argument entirely invalid.
-
Speaking from my point of view, all I can say is that it is possible to be a super-fan of Paul McCartney and be bored with his concerts.
-
audi:
Speaking from my point of view, all I can say is that it is possible to a super-fan of Paul McCartney and be bored with his concerts.
Yup.
-
audi:
Speaking from my point of view, all I can say is that it is possible to a super-fan of Paul McCartney and be bored with his concerts.
Really!
The link below contains a discussion on the Tug Of War and Pipes Of Peace reissues, but later on in the conversation Ken Michaels talks about his disappointment in Paul not plugging the Archive Collections enough in his shows. Ken came up with a suggestion in that Paul could play the whole of TOW and then could do the hits in the second half of the show, nice idea, but never gonna happen. Most on this forum realise how much more interesting his gigs could be with a bit more artistic bravery, but it's a pipe (Of Peace) dream. http://www.beatlesexaminer.podbean.com/ -
moptops:
WingsOfMacca:
SkLeigh:
I think that's a pretty good distribution. I mean, there are a lot of solo (and Wings!) songs I'd like to hear, but it's hard to quibble with the Beatles. And for every song he plays where I'm like, that's not really my favorite, there are 15,000 people in the arena screaming and crying. Especially for the Beatles songs. And then I'm the one going crazy for Hi, Hi, Hi! (Thanks Paul!)
Yep, is a good distribution, specially if you consider that Paul is the only keeper of Beatles's legacy. Paul has different publics (Beatles fans, Wings fans, McCartney fans)... people like you and me have heard every single album and every song he made and we would love to hear more of his solo work. Anyway, I had the privilege of hear those wonderful Beatles's songs and is a memory that I will never forget. That is more valuable than hear songs like 'My Brave Face' or 'The World Tonight'
Paul is the only keeper of The Beatles legacy? No. No. No. In one sentence you have made your entire analysis/argument entirely invalid.
I can see how one would draw that erroneous conclusion, though: Paul McCartney has taken the lead on representing himself, George and John -- which is understandable. He had genuine relationships with them and wants to include their impact on his life in the show. But when is enough going to become too much? I don't think even Linda gets as much time in the show.
-
BOYCIE:
audi:
Speaking from my point of view, all I can say is that it is possible to a super-fan of Paul McCartney and be bored with his concerts.
Really!
The link below contains a discussion on the Tug Of War and Pipes Of Peace reissues, but later on in the conversation Ken Michaels talks about his disappointment in Paul not plugging the Archive Collections enough in his shows. Ken came up with a suggestion in that Paul could play the whole of TOW and then could do the hits in the second half of the show, nice idea, but never gonna happen. Most on this forum realise how much more interesting his gigs could be with a bit more artistic bravery, but it's a pipe (Of Peace) dream. http://www.beatlesexaminer.podbean.com/Wow!
-
audi:
moptops:
WingsOfMacca:
SkLeigh:
I think that's a pretty good distribution. I mean, there are a lot of solo (and Wings!) songs I'd like to hear, but it's hard to quibble with the Beatles. And for every song he plays where I'm like, that's not really my favorite, there are 15,000 people in the arena screaming and crying. Especially for the Beatles songs. And then I'm the one going crazy for Hi, Hi, Hi! (Thanks Paul!)
Yep, is a good distribution, specially if you consider that Paul is the only keeper of Beatles's legacy. Paul has different publics (Beatles fans, Wings fans, McCartney fans)... people like you and me have heard every single album and every song he made and we would love to hear more of his solo work. Anyway, I had the privilege of hear those wonderful Beatles's songs and is a memory that I will never forget. That is more valuable than hear songs like 'My Brave Face' or 'The World Tonight'
Paul is the only keeper of The Beatles legacy? No. No. No. In one sentence you have made your entire analysis/argument entirely invalid.
I can see how one would draw that erroneous conclusion, though: Paul McCartney has taken the lead on representing himself, George and John -- which is understandable. He had genuine relationships with them and wants to include their impact on his life in the show. But when is enough going to become too much? I don't think even Linda gets as much time in the show.
Paul has a bigger catalogue, a bigger ego and was one of the lead singers in The Beatles, so by default he has the higher profile. Ringo is as much a keeper of The Beatles flame as Paul. Some folks are so Paul enveloped you'd think Ringo was Denny Laine! Everyone knows Paul and Ringo were/are Beatles but Ringo doesn't mention The Beatles in his concerts as opposed to Paul who practically shoves The Beatles down our throats at every given opportunity. I go to Ringo Starr concerts for the same reason I go to Paul McCartney concerts.
-
moptops:
audi:
moptops:
WingsOfMacca:
SkLeigh:
I think that's a pretty good distribution. I mean, there are a lot of solo (and Wings!) songs I'd like to hear, but it's hard to quibble with the Beatles. And for every song he plays where I'm like, that's not really my favorite, there are 15,000 people in the arena screaming and crying. Especially for the Beatles songs. And then I'm the one going crazy for Hi, Hi, Hi! (Thanks Paul!)
Yep, is a good distribution, specially if you consider that Paul is the only keeper of Beatles's legacy. Paul has different publics (Beatles fans, Wings fans, McCartney fans)... people like you and me have heard every single album and every song he made and we would love to hear more of his solo work. Anyway, I had the privilege of hear those wonderful Beatles's songs and is a memory that I will never forget. That is more valuable than hear songs like 'My Brave Face' or 'The World Tonight'
Paul is the only keeper of The Beatles legacy? No. No. No. In one sentence you have made your entire analysis/argument entirely invalid.
I can see how one would draw that erroneous conclusion, though: Paul McCartney has taken the lead on representing himself, George and John -- which is understandable. He had genuine relationships with them and wants to include their impact on his life in the show. But when is enough going to become too much? I don't think even Linda gets as much time in the show.
...Ringo is as much a keeper of The Beatles flame as Paul. Some folks are so Paul enveloped you'd think Ringo was Denny Laine!...
"ZING!"
-
audi:
moptops:
WingsOfMacca:
SkLeigh:
I think that's a pretty good distribution. I mean, there are a lot of solo (and Wings!) songs I'd like to hear, but it's hard to quibble with the Beatles. And for every song he plays where I'm like, that's not really my favorite, there are 15,000 people in the arena screaming and crying. Especially for the Beatles songs. And then I'm the one going crazy for Hi, Hi, Hi! (Thanks Paul!)
Yep, is a good distribution, specially if you consider that Paul is the only keeper of Beatles's legacy. Paul has different publics (Beatles fans, Wings fans, McCartney fans)... people like you and me have heard every single album and every song he made and we would love to hear more of his solo work. Anyway, I had the privilege of hear those wonderful Beatles's songs and is a memory that I will never forget. That is more valuable than hear songs like 'My Brave Face' or 'The World Tonight'
Paul is the only keeper of The Beatles legacy? No. No. No. In one sentence you have made your entire analysis/argument entirely invalid.
I can see how one would draw that erroneous conclusion, though: Paul McCartney has taken the lead on representing himself, George and John -- which is understandable. He had genuine relationships with them and wants to include their impact on his life in the show. But when is enough going to become too much? I don't think even Linda gets as much time in the show.
Paul has a bigger catalogue, a bigger ego and was one of the lead singers in The Beatles, so he has the higher profile. Ringo is as much a keeper of The Beatles flame as Paul. Some folks are so Paul enveloped you'd think Ringo was Denny Laine! Everyone knows Paul and Ringo were/are Beatles but Ringo doesn't mention The Beatles in his concerts as opposed to Paul who practically shoves The Beatles down our throats at every given opportunity. Ringo only started touring in 1989, thereby keeping The Beatles "alive." I go to Ringo Starr concerts for the same reason I go to Paul McCartney concerts: because they are both EQUALLY keepers of the flame.
-
audi:
moptops:
audi:
moptops:
WingsOfMacca:
SkLeigh:
I think that's a pretty good distribution. I mean, there are a lot of solo (and Wings!) songs I'd like to hear, but it's hard to quibble with the Beatles. And for every song he plays where I'm like, that's not really my favorite, there are 15,000 people in the arena screaming and crying. Especially for the Beatles songs. And then I'm the one going crazy for Hi, Hi, Hi! (Thanks Paul!)
Yep, is a good distribution, specially if you consider that Paul is the only keeper of Beatles's legacy. Paul has different publics (Beatles fans, Wings fans, McCartney fans)... people like you and me have heard every single album and every song he made and we would love to hear more of his solo work. Anyway, I had the privilege of hear those wonderful Beatles's songs and is a memory that I will never forget. That is more valuable than hear songs like 'My Brave Face' or 'The World Tonight'
Paul is the only keeper of The Beatles legacy? No. No. No. In one sentence you have made your entire analysis/argument entirely invalid.
I can see how one would draw that erroneous conclusion, though: Paul McCartney has taken the lead on representing himself, George and John -- which is understandable. He had genuine relationships with them and wants to include their impact on his life in the show. But when is enough going to become too much? I don't think even Linda gets as much time in the show.
...Ringo is as much a keeper of The Beatles flame as Paul. Some folks are so Paul enveloped you'd think Ringo was Denny Laine!...
"ZING!"
...but true Audi, yes?
-
No argument from me on that one.
-
We're also over looking the fact that Ringo consistently tours with anywhere from about 4-7 other classic rock hit-makers as well, thus making his shows much more attractive to the 1,000-3,000 seat venues Ringo fills these days. If Ringo Starr did solo tours with just two hours of Ringo, he'd probably play to dinner theatres with a few hundred in attendance. But, I could never see Ringo consistently doing that and giving up the all-starrs. He's absolutely in love with the concept, even after all these years. However, I certainly wouldn't mind a shake-up to the current lineup. ANYWAY! Keeping this relevant and wrapping it back to the setlist, Ringo keeps a pretty fair balance between Beatles/Solo songs!
Currently, there are 7 Beatles songs and 6 solo songs! -
WixRocks!:
We're also over looking the fact that Ringo consistently tours with anywhere from about 4-7 other classic rock hit-makers as well, thus making his shows much more attractive to the 1,000-3,000 seat venues Ringo fills these days. If Ringo Starr did solo tours with just two hours of Ringo, he'd probably play to dinner theatres with a few hundred in attendance. But, I could never see Ringo consistently doing that and giving up the all-starrs. He's absolutely in love with the concept, even after all these years. However, I certainly wouldn't mind a shake-up to the current lineup. ANYWAY! Keeping this relevant and wrapping it back to the setlist, Ringo keeps a pretty fair balance between Beatles/Solo songs!
Currently, there are 7 Beatles songs and 6 solo songs! I can't think of ANY drummer, who, on their own, can do a show on their own. Ringo does well and has more to offer for a solo show than any popular drummer out there.
-
RMartinez:
WixRocks!:
We're also over looking the fact that Ringo consistently tours with anywhere from about 4-7 other classic rock hit-makers as well, thus making his shows much more attractive to the 1,000-3,000 seat venues Ringo fills these days. If Ringo Starr did solo tours with just two hours of Ringo, he'd probably play to dinner theatres with a few hundred in attendance. But, I could never see Ringo consistently doing that and giving up the all-starrs. He's absolutely in love with the concept, even after all these years. However, I certainly wouldn't mind a shake-up to the current lineup. ANYWAY! Keeping this relevant and wrapping it back to the setlist, Ringo keeps a pretty fair balance between Beatles/Solo songs!
Currently, there are 7 Beatles songs and 6 solo songs! I can't think of ANY drummer, who, on their own, can do a show on their own. Ringo does well and has more to offer for a solo show than any popular drummer out there.
I'd argue Dave Grohl but I don't know much about his history. From what I've seen, I have no doubt he could do a pretty kick-ass solo concert as a "drummer".
-
Phil Collins
-
Grohl......Collins. Oh FFS.
-
Buddy Rich, Fluke Holland and Irv Kottler. These are drummers. But....
