Is Paul McCartney an oldies act

Guys, someone on McCartneys official website has asked a serious question. As far as live performance, has Paul McCartney become an oldies act?

His show last night was a celebration of Liverpool so it's understandable that he would drag out the same old Beatle songs yet again.

His upcoming tour I think will go a long way in determining if he should be considered just an old nostalgia act or not. It's way past time that he changed his setlist, he's much more than just a Beatle.

Please share your honest thoughts.

 

He's essentially been an oldies act since 1989, but certainly more so in the last 10 years.

Problem is...it is the audience's fault: they'd rather hear "Hey Jude" or "Band On The Run" for the trillionth time rather than "My Brave Face" in '89 or "Dance Tonight" in 2007.

 

I'd say he's been an oldies act since the mid seventies...JD

 

What sucks is when you pluck down major bucks to see him and the set list is 80% of what he played the last time you plucked down major bucks....

 

Nah, in the mid-70's he was doing mostly Wings songs with just a handful of Beatles songs thrown in (Yesterday, I've Just Seen a Face, Blackbird, etc...)

 

Would he be an oldies act if he didn't tour at all? I don't think so. I think he's like other veteran artists, even though he's more veteran than most. He has to play hit old songs because that's what most of the people come out to hear. I wish he'd play "I Lie Around" or something, but that's not going to happen.

I don't consider him an "oldies" act though because he makes new music. This is the difference between say, the Beach Boys after 1992 (being generous) and McCartney. The Beach Boys stopped making new music. Thus, they were, at best, a nostalgia act.

 

I'm not really sure why this question is being asked. Yes, he plays mainly oldies in concert. Yes, he continues to record and release new music.

Now what?

 

The question is strictly in regards to his live performances.

 

How would focusing on his 70s/80s hits, rather than his 60s hits make him NOT be an "oldies" act???

 

Ok then, I consider him an oldies act in concert. For that matter, most bands that have been around for 20+ years or so perform mainly old material.
I guess the moral of the story is....if your career lasts long enough, you will become an oldies act in live performance. Glad that's settled.

 

yes, next question: does he still matter? NO!

 

Strictly speaking about his concerts:

He's an old guy playing old songs with an audience made up of old people all grasping for that last little crumb of hope of some kind of Beatles reunion. So I say yes.

 

Live-pretty much. He'll play his Beatles tunes & mostly 30+ year solo standards, with the occassional dip past 1980. He usually plugs the new album too with a few tracks. I think a lot of the crowd takes a break at that point. The audience (for the most part) wants the hits IMO, and Paul delivers. He's a showman who rarely challenges, and wants to be liked by the masses.

Studio-not at all....and it kind of amazes me. It's almost like 2 different artists. He references old ideas & melodies occasionally, but it's pretty rare. The fact that the guy has been writing music for 50 years, is extremely prolific, rarely repeats himself, and still can come up with great tunes, and at times, great albums...still, is a colossal acheivement IMO. I consider him more of an artist in the studio. (Can you name a better one man band?)

 

I don't consider him a nostalgia act because-

1) As Chief pointed out he is still making new music. IMHO more than acceptable music.

2)He has a great young fresh band that makes his older music still exciting. Not some old geezers.

3)The fact is whether you like them or not-the Beatles early Macca stuff is CLASSIC to say the least. There is a whole new genertation of people to enjoy the music. The songs hold up well and don't sound like a bad PBS oldies special.

I think it is refreshing that he understands that the people DO want to hear the Beatles stuff and is not all grumpy and bitter about people not necessarily wanting to hear the new stuff.

I do understand the issue of course if you attend concerts on multiple tour's. The material isn't going to be that dramatically differnent

 

But he does rock. Can't forget that.

 

Agreed 100%, was just going to write what amounted to the same thing, but you did it much more eloquently - thanks!

 

I didn't ask the question guys, there's a very serious debate about it going on at his official site and I thought it would be interesting for this site. Especially with all the knowledgeble people that post here.

I think he could seriously help his own cause by performing much more music that people haven't heard a hundred times already.

 

Thanks!

 

He'll never please everyone no what set list he chooses. C'mon, he plays what the majority wants to hear which is clearly evident by the applause at his shows. I don't hear anyone booing him when he plays "Hey Jude"

 

I'd have no complaints if he retired "Hey Jude", "Yesterday" and "Let It Be" and dusted off more obscure songs from his solo career like "Dear Boy", "Some People Never Know" and "Girlfriend". I'd also like to see him perform songs he wrote for other artists, like "Come And Get It" and "World Without Love", just for a little change.

 

He's an oldeis act.

If you're over 45 years old and have been in the music business 30 or more years; you're an oldies act.

 

I think I counted in one of the recent tours three post-1973 songs (not counting the current album being promoted). So yeah, that's an oldies act.

Paul can easily ditch the hits. Just advertise the tour - clearly - as a b-sides tour. Or whatever. People who dig that will go. People who want the hits won't.

 

What cause is that?

For all we know, McCartney may well LIKE those songs he always plays at every concert BETTER than the obscurities that the die hard fans like us wish he would play. You always have the option of not buying a ticket and going to see him live if the set list is bound to disappoint you.

 

Of course he is.

Nonetheless I'm glad I saw HIM once singing the Beatles songs I know and love. Wow, McCartney, Christ! But that was it. The studied jokes and stuff was embarrising and I'm a big Beatles fan and I really admire Paul as a musician and a composer!

The man is 65. He can do his oldies routine every night, and I'd still admire him, but I just wouldn't be there.

 

Can you imagine the uproar if 50,000 people went to a McCartney concert and he played only new stuff?

He's a 65 year old playing a smattering of everything, weighted to his most prolific eras for some strange reason, with an audience drawn from all ages, weighted to people closer in age to him for some strange reason.


If Paul McCartney shouldn't play old McCartney and Lennon/McCartney songs, who in the world should?