Is Paul McCartney an oldies act

I think a lot of the complaints from fans would be eliminated if Paul
left ONE open slot in the set list of approximately 30 songs for ONE
song to be determined at the last minute.

No matter what the choice, ONE song would never drag the
entire concert down.

And he could still pretty much have his "greatest hits" show -
and keep the hardcore types amused.

Excuses about "production" and "lighting" are not reasonable
if it's just ONE song.


I've actually seen Paul say on stage "Well - this next choice
is going to confuse the lighting guys... BUT... we're doing
it anyway..." as his intro to "Midnight Special" - which has
now become a regular song when he plays Houston.


I think the reality is Paul doesn't want to play unrehearsed songs
because he doesn't want to be stuck thinking 30 minutes later
in middle of some other song "Well - should I have done that?
Were we polished enough? Did the crowd like it? etc."


The only nice thing I can say about a rigid set list is
it makes it easier to not feel bad about not going multiple
nights. And thankfully the collector in me doesn't
have to hunt down a lot of different recordings. I'm
content to buy the official live album/dvd and be done
with it.

 

You mean something like this???

 

Great insight and opinions everyone. After reading all these different thoughts and suggestions, I'm even more convinced that McCartney needs to change his setlist.

The quantity and quality of music that he hasn't performed is amazing. I still say people would love to hear those Wings and solo hits, after all it was the people that made them hits.

How many people have fond memories of...

Silly Love Songs
Listen To What The Man Said
Getting Closer
Juniors Farm
Take It Away
No More Lonely Nights
I've got all kind of memories just listing them here. Someone mentioned Run Devil Run, oh God how many great songs could he be rocking the crowds with from that excellent album.

I'm sorry there's just no justification for McCartney to be dragging out the same old tired songs tour after tour!

Guys I can only speak for me, and as many of you know by many of my previous post on other threads, I am one of the biggest Paul McCartney fans on the planet.

When it come to his setlist though, it is tired, predictable, repetitive, common, and for me very boring. If it remains this way I have absolutely no problem missing his show because really there's nothing to miss.

I can buy the DVD for the three or four songs he might add.

 

I think Paul probably doesn't perform "Listen to What the Man Said" and "Silly Love Songs," in spite of the fact they were huge hits, because for years he's heard rockers pillory these songs as the kind of pop fluff he shouldn't be doing. (Actually, didn't he do "Silly" on the Flowers tour?)

Plus, he wouldn't want to do "Silly" without Linda anyway.

 

I guess unless he comes out with a new hot hit album that everyone loves and buys, he's now an oldies act.

 

Squealy, I just don't buy the he misses Linda theory, if that was the case he would of never performed any Wings and solo material?

When he was promoting Run Devil Run he performed the song What It Is (which would be absolutely killer performed live right now) strictly because Linda liked it, so I don't agree that he doesn't perform Wings because of Linda.

Also he hasn't performed Silly Love Songs since 76.

Guys as I shared in the beginning, this discussion is going on over on McCartneys official website, here's a post that I think sums it up beautifully.

lyceum '89

If you play any song long enough, it gets tiring. Just like on the radio, a number 1 hit doesn't stay number 1 forever no matter how good it is because people inevitably start liking something else after a while. On a different time scale, a song's repeated live performance also starts to lose part of its shine. Either it must be somehow reinvented or perhaps given a rest for a tour or two to become fresh again in the future.

Personally, I think it would be a shame if new or old fans were never given the opportunity to hear and see many of McCartney's compositions live because he chose to play pretty much the same set-list for the rest of his touring days.

And given McCartney's vast, extremely popular catalog, I don't see how anyone can argue that foregoing his current overplayed repertoire automatically relegates him to playing obscure b-sides or only new songs The man has SO MANY classics, he could perform numerous completely different set-lists without ever repeating a song from tour to tour and still make everyone happy.

It's ironic that McCartney is one of the few, maybe the only person still active in music today that is in such an enviable position. He's the most prolific pop musician ever, I hope his future live sets reflect this diversity.

 

Yes, but "Silly Love Songs" features a prominent vocal part for Linda that he wouldn't have someone else do.

 

Haven't we already established that he's not actually playing the same setlist? The key line above is that for YOU, it's very boring. He IS changing the setlist (2005 tour: 44% previously unplayed on US tours), you just don't like his choices!

 

Interesting responses to this question. One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that McCartney plays basically the same setlist every night on each tour with occasional exceptions like Mull of Kintyre in Toronto.

Bruce Springsteen is an example of someone who changes things around every night. On his current tour he has so far played around 105 different songs. Also, Wilco recently played every song they have ever recorded over 4 or 5 nights in Chicago.

If Macca were to vary his setlist even a little each night it would make each show unique and increase the desirability of seeing more than one show on each tour. It would also allow him to spring a few more surprises than he currently manages.

 

Do you feel that going to a classical music performance by your local symphony is an oldies act?

 

Excellent point! Reminds me of something Frank Zappa wrote in his book where he asks if there's any credible difference in an orchestra playing Beethoven etc or a band playing covers like "Louie Louie"!

 

I would imagine that had you gone to a performance of Mozart's music when he was still alive and in attendance, it would have been a new work.

 

And it's mainly 'oldies' who go to see him, so it is an 'oldie' show for all involved.

 

But in that case Frank was slamming the classical establishment for just pissing up a rope over and over....trotting out the same pieces in their sleep.

 

Mrjinks, I've shared from the beginning that just switching up Beatle songs doesn't cut it for me, especially when the switch isn't better material! I've seen enough of his Beatle heavy shows, so yes you are right, I don't like his choices!

Really switch up everything and balance it out and I will break my neck to see that show!

 

I said it promoted RDR, not premiered it. As for it not being a secret gig, I bow to your memory. But the Parkinson appearance wasn't done to promote that gig either, as the poster I was replying to said. Ron

 

Welcome to the forum. Paul is from a different era. The Beatles played a SET LIST from the beginning of the career. Even in Hamburg they played the same songs over and over again. Sure, they'd add songs, but they had a written setlist they stuck to night after night. Once they started to tour properly in 1963 the setlist almost always stayed the same. It was just the way they went about doing things. This continued during Wings initial tours in 1971 and 1972 as well. Night after the night, the same songs, with the occasional addition of a song here and there. On his World Tour of 1975/6 same thing. That tour and subsequent long tours have seen songs added and removed, but basically they played the same songs, in the same order at every show. It's the way he has always gone about his business and is highly unlikely to change now. The good news is that on each tour he adds 15 or so songs he's never played live before. Ron

 

But we've already established he has never done this, ever, in his 45 year career. Why would he do so now? Because YOU like Wings material better than Beatles? It's a pointless exercise really. Opinion on what one may like to hear at future shows is fine, but expecting it, or slamming him, or boycotting the shows because his song selection is "boring" is just too much. And for the record, Paul played What It Is, but one time, at the Cavern gig. And he himself said playing certain Wings tunes was just too traumatic for him since Linda's passing. Whether you choose to believe the man yourself is your choice. Ron

 

I can't speak for Wings but in the case of The Beatles, the between song patter rarely ever varied either, with that strange "Sophie Tucker" gag, and the "clap your hands" bit which enabled John to do his cripple impressions. So, little surprise then that Macca's onstage patter is pretty much the same at his gigs if what I have read here is anything to go by.

Like it or not, Paul McCartney is not going to change a style he has used virtually his entire performing life.

 

So true. As I said, they were from a different era really. Bowing after a song, the little between-song chatter,thanking the audience for coming, asking them to clap along and stamp their feet.... as if they weren't already. That's how they did it then, and Paul has retained that sense of showmanship...corny or not. If people expect Paul to change his ways now they are living in fantasy land. Ron

 

Brainwashed, I find it very interesting that McCartney says certain Wings songs are too traumatic for him and then he turns around and performs the song that is associated with Linda the most, the one he specifically wrote directly for and to her, My Love?? If he can do that one, the others should be a piece of cake!

Guys please, please, please understand, I know, I know, I know, that McCartney may never ever do the type show I'm talking about, does that mean I shouldn't express my desire for the show? Does that mean don't even talk about it? For the life of me I don't see what's wrong with expecting it?

I'm not a blind follower, I certainly do expect someone as brilliant as Paul McCartney to present the best show possible, and performing for the most part the same old songs year after year, tour after tour is not presenting the best possible show!

There are people on all kinds of music websites expressing the exact samething I am, are you saying that they shouldn't just because it may never happen?

No one is asking McCartney to change his style of performing, but he could certainly change his setlist from one tour to the next!

My God if it's not continually expressed how on earth would McCartney ever know??

 

You admitted earlier that he IS changing the songs, you just don't like his choices. Stop saying he doesn't change his setlist - he DOES.

Start saying "I want him to do my type of setlist of mostly different songs, instead of his type of setlist of different songs" and I won't have anything to debate with you...

 

It would be fascinating to time travel back to the Hamburg days when the
Beatles were playing 6 to 8 hour sets fueled by prellies. I bet those shows
were spontaneous and different every night. Sadly, once the Beatles hit it big, all the spontaniety left their act and they did become stale. John would try to inject some humor with his song intros, love his bits on the Hollywood
bowl set, but it was mostly repetitive. I agree Paul will never change, he will probably only mount one or two more major tours so it is what it is. He really does need to cut the Beatles content back to 50% or less though. I think the fact that 90% of his setlist is older than 35 years does make him an oldies act.
Mike

 

Mrjinks, I thought that's what I have been saying? McCartneys type of change to his setlist for the last twenty plus years is to load it with Beatles, Beatles, Beatles. I'v expressed from the beginning that I don't want to see anymore of his Beatle heavy shows? Also notice I said for the most part.

Also I want to make sure it's understood this isn't an argument, hopefully we are just sharing our different opinions. It's one of the reasons I like sharing these topics with you guys, because you're very knowledgeble and you will honestly share your opinions.

 

I think he is aware of your argument... if not directly, he gets it
indirectly...


I think the part that's tough to argue is fairly simple.

His formula still seems to work.

For every one person that says "I've had enough - I'm not going..."
there are 10 people in line who are quite happy to see what he
does.

Like I said earlier... if the show doesn't seem fresh to *YOU* ,
buy an extra ticket and take someone with you that has never
seen him.

Watch how *they* react - and be glad the guy is alive and
still on the road.


I've taken children to see Paul (each of my three boys - one
at a time - just dad and son), I've taken my mom to see Paul,
I've taken my sister, people from work, my college room-mate,
etc.

Everytime I go with a neophyte, I get the exact same comment.

"WOW!!! I see why you like him! Best concert I've ever
seen !"

The fact that I've gotten that "best concert" remark spread
across four different tours and 16 years is not something
that's normal.


The only negative comment I ever got was when I gave a
ticket to a famous Beatle fan from NJ who prints a fanzine.
He was bored and made a remark "Why am I not enjoying
this?"