Is Paul McCartney an oldies act

Dang, Dave. That's a little harsh isn't it? His audiences are made up of every age imaginable. He's been making music for almost 50 years so yeah, the majority of it is older.

Could be that some of his audience goes to hear the tunes, weather they are Beatles, Wings, or solo, regardless of a... ahem, 'reunion'.

I agree that he could retire some of the staples that he ALWAYS sings (Let It Be, Hey Jude, etc.). But how sad would that be if he vowed to NEVER sing them again?

I sure don't think of him as an oldies act, regardless of how long he's been around.

 

Not to mention totally screw any new fan that happens to be younger.

 

EXACTLY.

How many times have we all seen people performing covers of Beatles songs? How many more times will we witness that? Beyond our deaths that's for certain.

So, which sounds the better deal to you?

A bunch of teens playing a set of Beatles covers or...
A genuine living Beatle who wrote or co/wrote, recorded and performed those songs playing Beatles songs?

A McCartney gig is a celebration of the man's life and work. He is where he is because of The Beatles and Wings. To ignore those remarkable legacies would alienate and upset his audiences. He's always been a crowd pleaser aiming to please people of all ages.

Sir Paul himself has said recently that when he sees an act live, then he expects to hear the hits. He delivers and sends many thousands of people home happy.

 

Great post guys, my complaint is why play the same exact songs when you have a career filled with fantastic music. He has other hits and notice I said hits, that he could and should be performing. It doesn't just have to be Beatles, Beatles, Beatles all the time.

Wings were the biggest group of the 70s with a huge following, people absolutely love those songs, of course the Beatle material is going to get the crowd reaction if that's all you present to them!

Abolutely no one was dissappointed when he played Too Many People and it's not even one of his hits.

So as I posted earlier, he could go a long way in changing this perspective by performing much more of his Wings and more current music.

 

I remember when my sister's kids told me that they thought he was sooooo uncool. They called him McBarfney. Those kids are around thirty now and they still don't like him. I would guess most of Paul's fans are oldsters.

 

This is actually a valid and interesting point. For most of the 80's, Macca was NOT "cool". There were some seriously embarrassing singles beginning with "Wonderful Christmastime"... along came "Pipes Of Peace", "Ebony and Ivory", "Say Say Say", "We All Stand Together", "Spies Like Us", not forgetting of course the "Broad Street" movie. I was in my early teens at that time and found it a bit toecurling as did most my age, so there is a generation that grew up thinking McCartney was "naff".

I do think many of that generation has since grown up a little and maybe not all of them like or ever will like McCartney but many my own age love him and a great many much younger who are in their teens or twenties absolutely love him too, so no, McCartney's fans are not mostly oldsters. He reaches out and appeals to all ages.

 

I agree.

 

So Springsteen and Prince are oldies acts, with U2 on the verge?

 

It's Paul McCartney.
He's given so much and been through a hell of a lot.
Calling him an 'oldies act' has a negative connotation.
He still writes great music and tries damn hard to connect to young people and always has a positive attitude in an often dark world.
So for me NO!
Paul will always be in higher realm than all the cynics, gossips & trash-talkers.

 

Long term relevant artists - who've shaped and/or affected music over a good span of years - should not qualify as an 'oldies act.' Oldies acts are generally nostalgia sets.

Applying the term broadly enough - almost anyone who's had a dip in popularity for a a couple years would be an oldies act upon their return.

Was David Bowie an oldies act in the 80's when he played his early 1970's material alongside his then-current '80's stuff? Hardly

 

Sir, you have done this many times in the past. We get it! You like Wings more than the Beatles. That's perfectly fine, but Paul WILL NEVER do a Wings-type tour again. His partner Linda is no longer with us. In some ways it's too difficult for him to do these songs without her being there. Ever notice the wan look he gives Wix when he plays "Linda's mini moog" part for Jet? It's not easy. And now whenever he sings My Love he gets choked up. He'll always do a few of them, but to go "deep catalogue" not a chance.

Bulletin... Paul's Beatles material is timeless and remembered and cherished by millions. There's not many people clamouring for Big Barn Bed or Some People Never Know... there just isn't. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to hear Oh Darling or What You're Doing or Tug Of War and No More Lonely Nights, but it's just not practical considering time constraints and all. He definitely does NOT do the same songs every tour. But he will always do Hey Jude, Let It Be, Long and Winding Road and Yesterday. ALWAYS! It would be like Sinatra not doing My Way or New York New York or Lady Is A Tramp... there's certain songs all artists do for their fans. And I bet the vast majority of these fans are going for the first or second time. Not to mention, he only does big tours every 3 years or so. Approaching 66, it's doubtful he'll change his methods now. Afterall, his tours have been amongst the most successful of all time.

To me, an oldies act is an artist or group who no longer records and makes their living strictly by touring and playing nothing but the hits. Paul is nothing like that. He still plays 2 hour + shows without a break, includes his major hits, both as a Beatle, a Wing and solo.... and a selection of lesser known tunes as well. It's not like he ignores Wings either. Last time I looked Band On The Run, My Love and Jet were HUGE Wings hits... not to mention he usually performs C Moon and Coming Up. I suppose he does C Moon because he loves the piano part... even on tours when he doesn't perform the song he always does it in his soundchecks. Just one of those tunes I guess. But to expect him to do more Wings at the expense of Beatles songs (or solo material) is pure folly. He's blessed to have such a huge backlog of tunes, just setting up a 25-30 song setlist must be VERY difficult. But the man still rocks, plays lovely ballads, has his little acoustic section and loves diSplaying his multi-instumental abilities. What more could one want from a show?

The only chance to ever see a different side of Mccartney would be some one-off special where he took requests or something. There's no way he'll deviate from his ways on a major world tour. At least Paul has affection for his fans and plays what the majority come to hear... and plays them exceedingly well. Ron

 

No, he still rocks and his newest albums are some of his very best ever solo work!

 

A serious discussion? In what way?

The only way I see it, the man doesn't have many options (like many artists) - he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

You can pine for all the so-called missed oopportunities or enjoy the shows for what they are.

I would like to see some more experimenting with the set list (I am a little tired of what I call the "war horses" like "Jet", "Band On The Run" and even "Hey Jude", amongst others), but I'm not going to get hung up about it.

There are so many titles he could be performing, I don't even know where to begin.

If he's playing what the audience wants, I'm not sure where he's getting his information from (he certainly didn't ask me).

So, I figure he plays what he and the band like to play, what they enjoy getting a reaction from, and, what they can play in a staged setting that makes for a great show.

I don't believe in oldies act.

 

Excellently said, Ron.

 

If Paul was coming to my neck of the woods, and said he was playing the Beatles hits at Quest Field (65,000), then a Wings set at the smaller Safeco Field (45,000), followed by his best solo stuff at the even smaller Paramount Theater (5,000), lastly performing music off of the top of his head at my house (20). I guarantee you my amount of enjoyment would be in reverse order, smallest to largetest venues. What's amazing is that he could pull this all off without repeating a single song! I would go to every performace by the way!

 

I went through a phase of thiking McCartney was the farthest thing from cool. But once I got past about 20, my opinion drastically changed, and I've witnissed the same phenomenon with others my age. I think his music takes a little more sophistication or mental development than is apparent on the surface. Not the lyrics or song subjects as much as his overall sound and his voice. I'm mostly talking about his solo years, but some latter Beatles material as well. I think all teens go through that phase of being into the heavy (bloated?) epics...Zeppelin, Floyd, The Who, etc. Then comes realization that maybe its a bit trite/pompous.

Is McCartney an oldies act? Well he didn't perform Beatles songs again until 1990, so you have to throw out all of his performing before that. Then ask yourself if the Stones are an oldies act. Thats a way to be objective with yourself vs. just bashing McCartney.

 

He IS an oldies act who has chased the large paycheck gigs. Only talking about the live act. I remember seeing a concert ad for his 2002 Tacoma Dome show where the word "Beatles" was used 2-3 times, withiin the selected critic quotes.

The sad thing is that the "oldies act" moniker would disappear if he did a smaller venue tour with more challenging setlists. Neil Young, Dylan, Elton, Springsteen(acoustic) and Prince are artists rivalling Macca's stature have done smaller venue tours.

 

Oh, yeah their oldies acts.... U2 probably just entered oldie status five years ago.....

 

First of all what a venue prints up to support a show has NOTHING to do with the artist playing the show. McCartney and Bruce are the only artists you mentioned that can sell out every stadium/arena show. It's not chasing money when you give the goods either. And ask yourself when was the last time Neil, Dylan or Elton wrote orchestral albums, recorded guitar concertos (upcoming this summer), recorded ambient music (Firemen and Twin Freaks), as well as releasing a new studio album every few years? Paul doesn't live to tour like Dylan and Young, never has, never will. And only Springsteen plays longer shows than McCartney. And like Paul, he does his hits, some newer material and a smattering of songs from all phases of his career. An oldies act? Hardly! Ron

 

Wasn't Paul in the Beatles?

 

The difference is U2's new albums still sell extremely well for a veteran band. I think ATOMIC BOMB went triple platinum in the US alone. A lot of people in the audience are into "Beautiful Day" & "Vertigo" as much as the older stuff.

 

Any artist with as large a back catalog and as many hits will seem to be an oldies act--he plays them because he knows that a lot of fans will only get a chance to see him once or that they came to hear those hits. The fact that he does introduce new material from current albums (which is a small minority due to the large body of work he's recorded), means he isn't an oldies act.

He plays them because, again, he knows that's what the fans have come to hear. I'd consider an oldies act any act that DOESN'T record new material and aren't recording new material.

 

Yeah because everybody sees Paul every summer around the time the see the Temps/Tops show, the Mike Love of the Beach Boys Band, and the Steve Miller Greatest Hits Tour....

Is this really the same thing.............................?