Maccaroni1974's posts



Can you give us a clue Bob,like you've done in the past??  Im asking for a...friend.

Thread: 2018 Tours?

At this point how many people at the shows have NOT seen him before.  Especially in the US.  He tours pratically every year, for the last several years.

What is the % of the crowd who hasn't seen him at this point.  I've seen him 16-17 times since '93.  I know that isn't a lot compared to some of you, but most people who are sitting me around have seen him in the past based on conversations I've had over the years.

I don't think "Here Today" is necessary anymore (or any other tributes)since he's been doing it since 2002.  What I'd like to see on the new tour.

1.  New album song

2. I Saw Her Standing There

3.Penny Lane

4. Mrs. Vanderbilt

5.New Song

6.Hi Hi HI

7. Silly Love Songs

8.Drive My Car

9.Let Em In

10.New Song

11.Cant Buy Me Love

12.And I Love Her

13.Put It There

14.PS. I Love You

15.Martha My Dear

16.You Never Give Me Your Money

17.Band On The Run

18.Get Back

19.New Song

20.Getting Better


22.Mother Natures Son.

23. Back In the USSR

24.Sgt Pepper/Reprise

25.Live and Let Die

25.Let It Be

26.Hey Jude

27. Yesterday


29.Too many People

30.Golden Slumbers

31.Carry That Weight

32. The End


I dont see how anybody could be disappointed with these selections.  Still tons of hits, plus a few nuggets.  It doesn't have to be in that exact order obviously. 



It  is a nice tune off of an underrated album. Not sure why this record gets slammed so much by people.


Decent tunes.


Agreed with Bruces' assesment 100%.




Thread: 2018 Tours?

Nancy R wrote:

wingsoverkc wrote:

The Plastic Ono Band is in no way on this planet a better album than Band On The Run.  And to prove I'm not a complete McCartney fan, I do agree that All Things Must Pass is a brilliant lp and deserves #1.

Totally agree with you! 

Completely disagree.  POB is the best Beatles related work by any of them. In many ways it's better than any Beatles album.  Raw,gritty,unapologetic,honest,un-commercial,un-censored,and 100% un-"poppy".


rhinehart@sky.com wrote:

Once again we find that tickets for the shows sell out in seconds (often before the published launch time) pre-sale on various websites (here and Amex) are nowhere to be seen, and suddenly they turn up at inflated prices on external sites.

Surely a company such as MPC can put together the muscle to make sure that the fans are not overlooked (perhaps they could have emailed fans who were near venues (100 miles or so and offered them first shout),. Perhaps it could have been organised through this site and not ticketmaster. Somebody with a brain far bigger than mine should have the answer. 

I'm lucky that I got a ticket (also saw him in London last time) but what a struggle for the real fans. 

There was no ripoff.  People need to cool out, and learn how to use a computer properly, and read instructions properly.  I got through no problem for Canada, and Liverpool.


Yankeefan2 wrote:

WixRocks wrote:
Yankeefan2 wrote:
WixRocks wrote:

This is all easily traceable back to the greed some of us were attempting to discuss in another thread. Paul simply doesn't care. He walks out with his cool million and a guarantee of a packed house no matter what...and he isn't the only one. It will never change. These big rock legends have about another decade MAX of this level of activity and popularity so they're going to soak it up for the rest of their lives.

Too bad these rock legends don't do what JK Rowlings has done to try and prevent scalpers from getting tickets to Harry Potter show in London. My family will be going to London and see it in December and you don't even get a ticket. You go to the box office the day/evening of the show to get ticket and need to show proof of purchase and photo id of the person who bought the tickets. I will also mention this show is reasonably priced especially when you compare it to seeing "Hamilton" in NYC.

Another excellent option! They simply don't care.

You are right, they are getting their money and that is all that matters. They know there is a market out there that will let them charge anything they want and will sell out.  Does anybody really think the McCartney team cares about the fans on this board getting to see him in concert? I truly understand an artist wanting to make money but in his case he is a billonaire and can afford to make the prices more reasonable and still make a nice profit.  In addition, think of the money he makes in merchandising when you are selling a t-shirt for $35-$50. Also, it seems to me he makes a bit of money (lol) on his sound check package and people are not even very close to the stage.

Once again, I will give major credit to JK Rowlings. She took real control of her show and has a system where real fans are going and at affordable price for theater.  I believe she knows with the prices she charges she will still make quite a bit of money and that is not even including the amount of merchandise that is sold for the shows. She has proven it can be done, I wish others would follow her lead.

The man is pushing 80 years old.  I highly doubt he stays up at night worrying about how tickets are sold.  He has a fee, and promoters charge a price they need to, to cover his fee and make money.   Paul gets his $$$ regardless of 1 ticket being sold, or all tickets sold.

This ridiculous whining is so over the top and ridiculous by the "adults" here.  Tickets were readily available for all to purchase, so as long as you can use a computer properly, and read basic instructions.   Embarrassing to compare ticket sales to his show to Harry Potter LOL.


Bob Gannon wrote:

WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:

It would be lengthy, but I thoroughly approve of the ID'ing process. At least one member of the concert-going party could have a receipt in addition to their ticket(s) that verifies which tickets were purchased by that person and that they are in fact together as a party, with matching ID to suit. It's a shame it has come to this. The folks that actually pay these outlandish prices, officially and un-officially are ultimately the ones to blame though.

It's like that everywhere in the entertainment/ sports industry. They charge their prices because the market supports it. Doesn't matter what fan bought it, it would be sold as long as people wanted to sit closer to Paul. And there is a never ending number of them. So while I understand people's disappointment, for many years of seeing Paul I could only afford or get crappy seats and at the times was happy to get them at all. But now at 53 years old when I can finally afford to treat myself and buy VIP tickets for better seats, I will certainly not apologize for that. I paid my dues! And even in the lean years many times if you wanted closer tickets you had to pay exhorbinant prices to scalpers and then later eBay and StubHub , etc......

nothing has changed except now the artist is getting the money. 

Exactly. It's fan-fueled and the artists crave the cash. There's no turning back.

Newsflash, Artists always craved the cash and now with music sales scuttling, touring is where they make the bulk of their money. I doubt you've ever gone into to work and told your boss not  to pay you or pay you less

It's disappointing to see that as a the main concern for too many in the final stage of their life. An example of someone swimming against the curve, is Roger Hodgson. I'll be seeing him at the Maryland Hall in Annapolis tomorrow night. His venues hold probably about 10% of Paul's yet with ticket prices typically ranging from $50-$100 as a flat rate (usually not tiered pricing). He often carries a band with him, or sometimes goes solo. He has minimal merchandise and the pricing is not inflated. The Supertramp CD's are the same price as what you would pay in a record store etc. This will be the third time I have seen him. The first time I saw him, I contacted his manager with requests of a meet and greet which she happily obliged to at no additional cost. Roger took his own time after his own show to talk to me for about ten to fifteen minutes about MY musical goals and attributes. I was amazed by his interest in my life. He kindly signed and personalized my program including "Let your heart guide your song -Roger Hodgson". 

Some would call this bad business. I consider it humility and compassion to the highest degree. If Roger Hodgson can afford to make decisions such as those described above, and still live and exceptionally wealthy lifestyle, I think Paul McCartney can advocate for his fans in the ticket-buying process. Paul McCartney could never perform another concert for the rest of his days and make more money sitting absolutely still than I can after working my ass off for a year.

I would call it neither, I would call it a performer nowhere near the reputation and a much lower tier performer. He plays small venues because he can no longer fill large ones. His ticket prices are where they are so that he can continually perform for decent sized crowds. If he charged much more even those small venues would be empty. I like Roger Hodgson but to compare him to Paul at this stage of his career is laughable. To try to turn a declining performer who even at the very top of his game not in the same level as McCartney  into a hero for not charging high prices when in fact not many would pay much more to see them, a very foolish argument. Why not use the local bar band that has a $2 cover charge? Had you used somebody like Bruce Springsteen, you would have made somewhat of an argument but not with Hodgson. It's actually quite funny

I appreciate your input on this forum and you've been a great help to me in the past, so I'd like to make it clear I'm not attempting to argue here, merely clarify. That being said, I was comparing character not popularity. If you measure someone's musical "game" by how many seats they can fill, then we have different defitinions of musicality. I'm also not sure what these "levels" are that you refer to. Musicians are people...not sports teams that we compare stats to. If we were to consider musicality for a moment, Roger Hodgson's voice hasn't aged. He truly sounds just like the record. He's also a far more accomplished keyboardist than McCartney. They're about equals on guitar and of course, Hodgson wouldn't have an ounce of his songwriting skills if not for Lennon and McCartney. This is also keeping in mind that Sir Paul has eight years on Roger. But ultimately, I find it quite rude to consider him a "declining performer" when he sounds more authentic to his albums on stage than Paul does at this point. It's almost like the blind allegiance that Sinatra attained into the '90's when the ship had clearly sailed. The power of a performer's delivery is not defined by the size of their venue. I would only place Hodgson behind Billy Joel and Elton John (and of course McCartney) if I were considering the performances that have had the greatest emotional impacts on me through the display of their catalog and skills in performing it on stage

I'm looking to argue either but I guess the same way you take issue with some of my wording, I do to yours as well. You make it sound that because Roger Hodgson charges less money that he is somewhat morally superior or being of better character. When I say " Declining Performer" , it means a performer that is no longer maintaining mainstream popularity and relegated to smaller venue shows. If Roger could sell out stadiums, he would be doing it. For me, that term does not mean that his musical skill or singing voice is inferior. In fact, everytime I've seen Roger, I've been very happy with his performance. But whether you like it or not, the underlying factor of them going out on tour is to earn a living and make money. Their professional status and the amount of people that he can draw to those events dictate the size of venue that they play and the price of the tickets that they can charge.  I think his playing and singing are still excellent.

and when I mention "levels" it is meant as level s of popularity which translates in the amount of people he can draw to any given concert. While with Supertramp, the reached very impressive, short term popularity. Many people that I know would not know him just by his name, but say Supertramp and then many would. Even at the height of Supertramp's popularity, they never achieved the heights of Paul, Elton , Billy And many others and definitely not their sustained desire by their fans in masses to see them live 

And while popularity does not define the level of musicality or talent, neither is what's I am measuring. If there is no audience interest, then Roger or any other performer would not be doing concerts .  And I definitely respect the fact that his shows have personally touched you. I get that, one of the best shows I've been to was Joe Brown who in his 80's is now relegated to even smaller venues than Roger. But it was one of the most charming and entertaining performances I've seen. Of course others may disagree because music I see a personal thing.

i agree with you that size of venue or even current popularity have anything to do with talent, musicality or the power of their particular performance. But those things have everything to do with what's size vEnue that they can book and the ticket prices that they can charge. There is no moral superiority because the charge less, this is not their noble cause. It is no omage to the fans. If their promoter thought they could charge the money Paul does and play to large venues where lots of people will pay those fees, they would. That's the plain and simple truth.

Every year tours or shows are cancelled due to lack of sales. Early 2000's , ELO had to cancel a US tour sales went totally flat. I know, I had tickets.

if you had used Bruce Springsteen as your example, it would have been a better measuring stick as his popularity, catalog and length duration is somewhat close. While his Broadway tickets are very expensive, most tours, even the last one, most tickets are under $150.....they used to be $75 for most seats. While he could have garnered much more, he did make an effort to stay affordable on purpose. Difference is though, Bruce is still doing massive world tours during the course of the year while Paul is no longer engaged in that. Paul has many more moving parts while Bruce prefers a very stripped down show.