nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840 
|
Post by nine on Mar 30, 2013 4:27:30 GMT -5
I am the opposite, I love that Paul did very few Beatles songs during WOA! It goes without saying that is when he was on fire with a viable solo recording career and spit out big hits. He didn't need dinosaur Beatles songs, or not a lot of them. Now Paul can't get a #1 even by going the oldies route(that has scored #1's for others) and releasing a song called "My Valentine" as a single on Valentine's Day!  That was great, that he did so few Beatle songs. It made them even more special when he played them. That tour, by any Beatle since The Beatles, was the only one where there was a single rising to the number one chart position. Paul was touring and Silly Love Songs was heading to the Toppermost of the Poppermost. He was big then... current (in a pop sense) and on top of the world. After he showed the other Fabs that he could do it again, that he could be big again, I don't think he knew what to do after that. |
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 30, 2013 8:11:01 GMT -5
Don't forget that Got to Get You Into My Life and Helter Skelter were the A & B side of a hot "new" Beatle singe at the time of the US tour, It would have been cool for him to plug those songs at the time, as he had a horn section, and imagine what Jimmy could have done with Helter Skelter. John's songs were even open game in the 70s as John had already performed I Saw her Standing There with Elton John.
As much as most of us are now sick of Hey Jude, it would have been huge in those arenas.
Those 4 mentioned songs and Uncle Albert would have been very cool. The John song?-Come Together
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Mar 30, 2013 8:44:25 GMT -5
Don't forget that Got to Get You Into My Life and Helter Skelter were the A & B side of a hot "new" Beatle singe at the time of the US tour, It would have been cool for him to plug those songs at the time, as he had a horn section, and imagine what Jimmy could have done with Helter Skelter. John's songs were even open game in the 70s as John had already performed I Saw her Standing There with Elton John. As much as most of us are now sick of Hey Jude, it would have been huge in those arenas. Those 4 mentioned songs and Uncle Albert would have been very cool. The John song?-Come Together If John had of jumped on stage with Macca in 1976 ... I'd like to think it would have been an early Beatles song, a harmony song... It would have happened during the acoustic set. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 30, 2013 10:06:06 GMT -5
I am the opposite, I love that Paul did very few Beatles songs during WOA! It goes without saying that is when he was on fire with a viable solo recording career and spit out big hits. He didn't need dinosaur Beatles songs, or not a lot of them. Now Paul can't get a #1 even by going the oldies route(that has scored #1's for others) and releasing a song called "My Valentine" as a single on Valentine's Day! That was great, that he did so few Beatle songs. It made them even more special when he played them. That tour, by any Beatle since The Beatles, was the only one where there was a single rising to the number one chart position. Paul was touring and Silly Love Songs was heading to the Toppermost of the Poppermost. He was big then... current (in a pop sense) and on top of the world. After he showed the other Fabs that he could do it again, that he could be big again, I don't think he knew what to do after that. Great post Nine! As I was mentioning to Joe, I fully understand that for WOA Paul had to mostly stick to BOTR(released in late 1973 but not a hit until 1974), V & M(1975) and SOS(1976) because Paul in 1976 was not an oldies act, he was a hot Rock God who owned the charts! Sorry, but in 1976 "McCartney", "Ram" and WWL were already oldies! If Paul had played more than some singles from that era, the sex-craved, Top 40 starved teenagers who went to the show would think they were seeing a dinosaur like Paul Anka instead of Paul McCartney! The price of being a chart topper is you must stick to your current hits. Paul did sprinkle some early stuff in like "Maybe I'm Amazed," "My Love" and "Hi Hi Hi!" Sadly, The JSD Postulate was not well known because Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet! Hey, I was only 13 in 1976 during WOA and I couldn't publish my work!  Mike has another great point, The Beatles were red hot that Spring/Summer of 1976 and Paul enjoyed a double-sided Macca Beatles single with GTGYIML nearly going to #1! Question (and pay close attention RTP): Were The Beatles due for a 1976 resurgence on the strength of John, Paul, George and Ringo or must Paul be solely credited with the resurgence in 1976 of the Fabs solely because of Macca's hard work with Wings culminating in WOA!? Is 1976 a case where Macca should get all of the credit for singlehandidly reviving The Beatles?? By 1976, John is the real "nowhere man" allegedly making bread and honey but sounding like to many a mentally ill recluse totally out of the scene. John was contributing zero to 1976's Beatlemania. George was worse, his Dark Hoarse tour and increasingly bad albums destroyed his Rock creds not to be rehabilitated until Fall 1976's 33 1/3 but that was just the start of rehabilitation and it would not fully come until 1987's Cloud Nine with George stumbling on SIE and GT. Ringo was still riding high in Spring/Summer 1976 with Blast From Your Past a great comp but we know by the Fall of 1976 Ringo flushes his career down the toilet pretty much for good except with Beatle Message Board fans like us, the only people that buy his albums now. Paul was red hot by Spring/Summer 1976. I would argue that he was the face of The Beatles as such at that very moment. Capitol Records thought so as they altered the famous Richard Avedon photograph to make Paul more prominant on 1977's Love Songs. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 30, 2013 20:17:30 GMT -5
I think Paul being so huge as a solo artist certainly helped. His success was surely getting some younger people to check out the Beatles.
At that point I know I still figured John would be coming back with something soon. There were always rumors.
George did get a bit of a comeback with 33 1/3, but for me personally his comeback was GEORGE HARRISON. That's an album I bought pretty much on the day it came out and I loved it. Like you I was very disappointed by subsequent releases until CLOUD NINE.
As for Ringo I think you said it all.
And of course a reunion of some kind was still a possibility.
1976/77 was a good time to be a Beatles fan!
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 30, 2013 22:47:21 GMT -5
I think Paul being so huge as a solo artist certainly helped. His success was surely getting some younger people to check out the Beatles. At that point I know I still figured John would be coming back with something soon. There were always rumors. George did get a bit of a comeback with 33 1/3, but for me personally his comeback was GEORGE HARRISON. That's an album I bought pretty much on the day it came out and I loved it. Like you I was very disappointed by subsequent releases until CLOUD NINE. As for Ringo I think you said it all. And of course a reunion of some kind was still a possibility. 1976/77 was a good time to be a Beatles fan! I agree that GH was another huge step in the right direction for George and I like it more than 33 1/3. The problem was, other than "Blow Away" which was a moderate hit single, the album GH went under everyone's radar but ours! Still, 33 1/3 and GH were two big steps forward by Hari but yeah, he didn't get his full mojo back until Cloud Nine. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 31, 2013 5:02:07 GMT -5
Back in 76, not only was McCartney riding high as a solo artist, but the Beatles were still regarded as a living act - OK, so they had broken up, but they were all still active, and the reunion question was a constant one. The singles weren't reissued in 76, they were repromoted because they had never been deleted (and still haven't! What other group still has all its original releases in current issue 50 years later?).
So the WOW tour was actually feeding off two markets - those who had become McCartney fans in the post-Beatles era, who weren't too interested in his Beatles past (and who fed nicely off the 3 successive hit albums which made up the majority of the WOW set), and people like me who wanted to see a Beatle, and Paul fit that bill very nicely, thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 31, 2013 7:04:30 GMT -5
and people like me who wanted to see a Beatle, and Paul fit that bill very nicely, thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure it was wonderful. I'm completely sympathetic to the times and the novelty of it all. Don't forget that 1976 was the main year I was becoming an avid BEATLES COLLECTOR!  I have beautiful memories of riding in the car to go to the beach with my family on sunny summer days, and SILLY LOVE SONGS and LET 'EM IN were the biggest hits of that day! I recall hearing the newly-promoted GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE and thinking it was a new WIngs song! But vectis, I don't understand something. You are always very vocal about how you don't care for the SOLO Beatles as much as THE BEATLES. So I cannot understand your thinking the SET LIST was more appealing for you in 1976? Once again -- forget about the fact that Paul was hugely popular in 1976 on his own with Wings.... forget about the fact that he was young and in better shape .... I am simply enquiring about the SET LISTS. Did you really like seeing Paul doing SOILY and BEWARE MY LOVE over him doing ALL MY LOVING and GETTING BETTER? Did you prefer hearing other vocalists singing RICHARD COREY, GO NOW, and MEDICINE JAR, over HERE TODAY, A DAY IN THE LIFE, or ANOTHER DAY? If we list the actual song lists for 1976 and then any of the 1989 - 2012 concerts, the material is obviously more versatile and Beatle-friendly. And I stress this, ironically, as a SOLO BEATLES fan myself, who would love Paul to go ALL-SOLO RARITIES in his next show!  And I do like BEWARE MY LOVE and MEDICINE JAR.... I'm just making a point as to the actual songs. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 31, 2013 7:08:22 GMT -5
That was great, that he did so few Beatle songs. It made them even more special when he played them. That tour, by any Beatle since The Beatles, was the only one where there was a single rising to the number one chart position. Paul was touring and Silly Love Songs was heading to the Toppermost of the Poppermost. He was big then... current (in a pop sense) and on top of the world. Again, I understand this "popularity" thing at the time. I was 14 and I remember how huge Wings was... and sure, I would have loved to see Paul in Concert. I am talking about which set lists were more awesome. I am a big, big fan of SILLY LOVE SONGS. It's a big song from a very important period in my young teenage years with great memories! In many ways, that one song alone sums up those early teen period for me, sunny beaches with AM radios and the freedom of youth! Funny now, though, hearing it being brought up in a positive light when I distinctly recall defending that song in a thread where most fans here were dethroning it! |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 31, 2013 7:18:18 GMT -5
Mike has another great point, The Beatles were red hot that Spring/Summer of 1976 and Paul enjoyed a double-sided Macca Beatles single with GTGYIML nearly going to #1! Yeah. But Paul did not play GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE and HELTER SKELTER in 1976... No. -- He played them in recent years. You can't tell me that the fans wouldn't have freaked out even more in 1976, had Macca done those songs (or many more Beatles songs). What we've got here is a Sacred Cow situation, I'm afraid. It's more of a mental thing (like people not letting go of Shea Stadium or The Ed Sullivan Show). Paul may have been on top of the world at his solo peak in 1976, but his song choices were nowhere near as delicious as they were 1989-2012. Nowadays he does pretty much all the same important songs he did in 1976 -- but also a ton more. Oh, come on! Do you really believe this? In 1976 the Beatles had only been broken up for 6 years. How about you and I, JSD? We were just really starting to discover the Beatles in 1976 when we were both 14! Do you honestly think there were ANY young teenage girls in 1976 who had never heard of The Beatles, and who would have thrown up if Paul had sang more Beatles hits? Do you really think these teenagers wouldn't have tolerated some songs off RAM (released only 5 years prior)? Don't you think more people would have welcomed TOO MANY PEOPLE in 1976 than in 2005? OF course the Beatles were even MORE known and popular in 1976! And I think it's great that he did, and I'm not faulting him for this. However, TODAY he does those same hits of 1976 -- AND MUCH MORE! (He does not do SILLY LOVE SONGS though, and I'm thinking it's because Linda is gone). And now he also does MAYBE I'M AMAZED and MY LOVE -- and a ton MORE! |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 31, 2013 7:58:39 GMT -5
But vectis, I don't understand something. You are always very vocal about how you don't care for the SOLO Beatles as much as THE BEATLES. So I cannot understand your thinking the SET LIST was more appealing for you in 1976? Once again -- forget about the fact that Paul was hugely popular in 1976 on his own with Wings.... forget about the fact that he was young and in better shape .... I am simply enquiring about the SET LISTS. Did you really like seeing Paul doing SOILY and BEWARE MY LOVE over him doing ALL MY LOVING and GETTING BETTER? Did you prefer hearing other vocalists singing RICHARD COREY, GO NOW, and MEDICINE JAR, over HERE TODAY, A DAY IN THE LIFE, or ANOTHER DAY? It's a fair question. I think the big part of the answer is that although, like I said, the reactivation of The Beatles was a constant in those years, the fact was that there in front of me was McCartney as a solo artist. And he had reinvented himself - all that JSD Postulate stuff is so much tosh: he'd tried it, and it didn't work. It wasn't until he started putting out Beatley albums - half-heartedly with RRS, whole heartedly with BOTR and (to some extent) the follow ups - that a) he got his mojo back and b) he acquired a secondary fan base. So yes, he was a Beatle, but he'd also made it very plain by '76 that he wasn't a beatles any more, and he had enough solid solo catalogue to sustain a bloody good 2+hour show. I had played BOTR until I worse the grooves out, I'd played V&M a lot, I'd played SOS a fair amont (I even bought an import copy because there was a delay releasing it over here). I liked all 3 albums and was more than happy to see a show based on them. And I loved Go Now too. Soily was a new one on me, but it was a fantastically dramatic encore. The only song I wasn't keen on was Call Me Back Again. But when those five Beatles songs came on, that was something else entirely. I never would have envisaged at that time a concert like Tripping The Live Fantastic, New World etc. And, yes, I would have greatly preferred that! |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Mar 31, 2013 15:30:37 GMT -5
Paul's concerts were so much more vital when he did a Wing-s based set over a Beatles tribute set. I'd go to see Paul againn, if he played current songs and even Wings songs, but I've no interest in him coming out as an oldies act, one Beatle doing hits of the Beatles, with a band that doesn't make it as the Beatles. Does this make sense? They can do them competently, but there's no life to the songs, you might as well go out to see a wig band. Paul doing Paul's solo songs...why not? Wasn't WOA great? doesn't he have 3 or 4 set lists of post-WOA songs that would make amazing concerts? We're being cheated out of the opportunity to see the solo songs of McCartney in a concert because the man himself feels beholden to make his tours (in the last 25 years) 2/3 weak Beatles impressions. Whether he does this for the fans or to promote his role in the Beatles, I don't know, but how cool would it be if he played 5 songs from his last album, 4 from the one before it etc. like he did on WOA?
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 31, 2013 17:10:09 GMT -5
The big difference is that the last 3 albums were all big hits when he was playing in 76, a large part of the audience were current fans, and he was playing from strength. But that was already changing when he played in 79. And now, with his last 3/4/5/6 albums selling meh, his shows would fall flat on their face if he followed that strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 31, 2013 18:42:52 GMT -5
Paul's concerts were so much more vital when he did a Wing-s based set over a Beatles tribute set. I'd go to see Paul againn, if he played current songs and even Wings songs, but I've no interest in him coming out as an oldies act, one Beatle doing hits of the Beatles, with a band that doesn't make it as the Beatles. Does this make sense? They can do them competently, but there's no life to the songs, you might as well go out to see a wig band. Paul doing Paul's solo songs...why not? Wasn't WOA great? doesn't he have 3 or 4 set lists of post-WOA songs that would make amazing concerts? We're being cheated out of the opportunity to see the solo songs of McCartney in a concert because the man himself feels beholden to make his tours (in the last 25 years) 2/3 weak Beatles impressions. Whether he does this for the fans or to promote his role in the Beatles, I don't know, but how cool would it be if he played 5 songs from his last album, 4 from the one before it etc. like he did on WOA? I agree 100%. I really get bummed now when Paul does "I've Got A Feeling." Don't get me wrong, it starts off awesome and Paul puts gusto into it but when we get to the John part that second-rate moron Rusty guy sings and it sucks, any wigged tribute band would be better and I don't mean trying to sound like John but just haviong some charisma in the vocals which Rusty has zero! When Rusty starts singing all the air goes out of the balloon! Paul's WOA was vital, good word anyone. Paul's current concerts might as well be that stage show Beatlemania, a tribute show where Paul pays tribute to himself every night.  "It is sure great to finally meet you JoeK especially at a Paul concert but too bad we have to wear these biohazard suits because of the moldy setlist!" |
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Mar 31, 2013 20:16:41 GMT -5
Paul's concerts were so much more vital when he did a Wing-s based set over a Beatles tribute set. I'd go to see Paul againn, if he played current songs and even Wings songs, but I've no interest in him coming out as an oldies act, one Beatle doing hits of the Beatles, with a band that doesn't make it as the Beatles. Does this make sense? They can do them competently, but there's no life to the songs, you might as well go out to see a wig band. Paul doing Paul's solo songs...why not? Wasn't WOA great? doesn't he have 3 or 4 set lists of post-WOA songs that would make amazing concerts? We're being cheated out of the opportunity to see the solo songs of McCartney in a concert because the man himself feels beholden to make his tours (in the last 25 years) 2/3 weak Beatles impressions. Whether he does this for the fans or to promote his role in the Beatles, I don't know, but how cool would it be if he played 5 songs from his last album, 4 from the one before it etc. like he did on WOA? I agree 100%. I really get bummed now when Paul does "I've Got A Feeling." Don't get me wrong, it starts off awesome and Paul puts gusto into it but when we get to the John part that second-rate moron Rusty guy sings and it sucks, any wigged tribute band would be better and I don't mean trying to sound like John but just haviong some charisma in the vocals which Rusty has zero! When Rusty starts singing all the air goes out of the balloon! "It is sure great to finally meet you JoeK especially at a Paul concert but too bad we have to wear these biohazard suits because of the moldy setlist!" I disagree. Granted, Rusty is no Lennon, but I like when he rubs his (bald) head on the line, "Everybody let their hair down".
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 31, 2013 21:52:24 GMT -5
. Granted, Rusty is no Lennon, but I like when he rubs his (bald) head on the line, "Everybody let their hair down". Rusty is bald?  |
|
|
|
Post by RockoRoll on Apr 1, 2013 8:19:44 GMT -5
Oh Boy, I've got lots of reading in this thread, I've been on this Message Board for nearly 10 years, and its about (no don't say Stella's favourite word...lol).... time, *Wings* gets some recognition.....Thx Gents.....
As a kid growing up in the 60's, I loved The Beatles, Elvis, The Monkees, Cliff & The Shadows, Bee Gees, and The Seekers.....But by the early 70's I got obsessed with The Beatles, then slowly got into solo Beatle's, but it wasn't until 1974 I got even more obsessed with Paul and his new band *Wings*...Especially with the lineup with Jimmy McCulloch & Joe English.....I got that obsessed that I grew my hair, took up guitar lessons (for 2 yrs), got into bands.....We would stay up late at night, with our guitars at the front of our house (with neighbours walking passed), sharing and trying figure out how to play the guitar riffs to Letting Go, Let Me Roll It, and Medicine Jar......Never forget one friend of mind, running and shouting to my house, telling how he figured out the chords to Silly Love Songs, and by gee, simple but they were correct... They were unbelievable during the period i.e 1974-1978, they had at least 6? #1's (not forgetting there were a few that made the top 10...eg...Jet #2)...Plus all there albums, and their triple live album (WOA) making #1, and also not forgetting going to the movies to see the awesome *RockShow* in 1980 (by gee that bass was loud, in that cinema..*laugh*)......Paul was at his peak (mojo..lol) or best, during this period, new band, the sound......I love how he cranked up the volume on his bass during that time, got rid of his Beatle Bass, and replaced it with his *Rickenbacker*, love also the como- outfit (whatever you call it) he wore...! They were so popular here when they came in 1975, that tickets were sold out (before I even walked out the door) instantly......Eventually they filmed it for TV for those who missed out, and the film was also shown in Japan, because McCartney wasn't allowed to tour there due to his drug conviction in the early 70's (we won't mention what happened to him in 1980, he says he was an idiot, in what he'd done....lol) Anyway, On this day in 1978, London Town is released. It is the last album by Wings that includes Jimmy as he left midway through the sessions to join the reformed Small Faces.
Here is one of the best from that album.... |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 1, 2013 9:02:30 GMT -5
And he had reinvented himself - all that JSD Postulate stuff is so much tosh: he'd tried it, and it didn't work. It wasn't until he started putting out Beatley albums - half-heartedly with RRS, whole heartedly with BOTR and (to some extent) the follow ups - that a) he got his mojo back and b) he acquired a secondary fan base. Wow! And there is the admission from an old Beatles fan that he wants Paul to be Beatle Paul forever and make "Beatley" albums which also means co-opting images of the Fabs, the other three who had nothing to do with BOTR but find their images in the official promo video! Paul's first four albums sound fresh and stack up to today's adult album oriented Rock/Folk groups. BOTR and V & M (and all subsequent 1970's releases) are so dated with the heavy-handed use of synths and over-produced to take all human element out of them. McCartney and Ram have aged extremely well and are among Paul's most beloved solo albums. WWL and RRS will get there too once people here the re-mastered versions. No album can survive the unfair trashing that WWL took without it taking decades for people to come around to! I am not thrilled with Paul's musical direction on BOTR, V&M and SOS but I was thrilled that he was mostly doing his recent catalog for WOA because he was at least a vital, contemporary recording artist then. Now he is a museum piece whose concerts are "The Land Where Time Stood Still." That is not a good thing for an artist. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 1, 2013 18:20:23 GMT -5
Those first 4 solo albums (with the exception of Ram) were and are a disappointment to me. BOTR showed he still had it.
Of course it is good for an artist to stretch themselves in other directions. Sadly, I have,t enjoyed most of Paul's stretching, and he has never chosen the direction which I always thought I might be pleased with, and which his talents might suit, namely musical theatre.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Apr 1, 2013 21:39:15 GMT -5
Those first 4 solo albums (with the exception of Ram) were and are a disappointment to me. BOTR showed he still had it. Of course it is good for an artist to stretch themselves in other directions. Sadly, I have,t enjoyed most of Paul's stretching, and he has never chosen the direction which I always thought I might be pleased with, and which his talents might suit, namely musical theatre. Musical theatre? As in Lloyd Webber, Rogers and Hammerstein??? Paul can't collaborate 50/50 with anyone (bar Lennon). He'd have to collaborate if he was writing for theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 2, 2013 5:11:28 GMT -5
I always thought that it was an obvious avenue for him - he even mentioned in one of the early interviews it as one of the things he expected to be doing with John, and it was clear from the show tunes on PPL/WTB that it was an area of musical interest to him.
Yes, collaboration would have been a problem, but when a collaboration worked with McCartney it tended to produce some strong material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 2, 2013 5:37:12 GMT -5
I'm with John S. Damm. I much prefer Paul's three 1970-1971 records to the more popular 1974-1976 era.
I just don't hear Band On The Run as any sort of improvement over McCartney or Ram. For me, it's a noticeably weaker album. And I'm just not interested in any of the Wings albums that came after it.
Live, however, Paul was on good form in 1975-1979.
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Apr 2, 2013 8:54:07 GMT -5
Taste is always such a personal thing. I had enjoyed Abbey Road so much (Let It Be being something of an understated quasi-mistake) that McCartney was a big disappointment. Ram was nearer the mark, but my disappointment at Wild Life was such that you could have bottled it. RRS was something of a recovery, but still a bit manky when judged by the standards he had set himself.
I'm not saying that I want production over quality, but (to me) there wasn't a huge amount of either in those early records.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 2, 2013 9:58:53 GMT -5
I call upon Sir Paul McCartney to become vital again live just as he has been on a roll with his recent studio releases by dropping all Beatle songs from his concerts and dig deep into his solo catalog and promote more heavily his newer material or new Pop album once it is released. True Paul McCartney fans should not care and for those newbies: PAUL McCARTNEY IS NOT THE BEATLES! Other than the fans who saw them live from 1960 through 1966, we have all missed that chance. The Beatles broke up in 1970. The nails were forever hammered down with force on December 8, 1980. If you want Beatles, go to the best source which is the Beatles! Do not accept "I've Got A Feeling" with Rusty or Abe doing John's vocals because that ain't Beatles! Any Beatle song Paul does live without George Harrison playing lead guitar or Ringo drumming ain't the Beatles! Unlike when we were kids in the 1970's, today's brats can go on YouTube and have access to more Beatles performances than the rest of us ever had in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and all Beatlefests put together! Remember how we thought the Beatlefest "Video Room" was the coolest place in the world as we watched rare grainy videos played on VCR's over multiple TV's! Well YouTube has a billion more things in HD than stupid "Video Room" ever had. I am tired of going to McCartney concerts and having to sit next to "subway McCartney" fans, the ones who only know a few solo songs and want only the most overplayed Beatles songs ! I thought I was at a Paul McCartney concert, not a faux Beatles tribute show with just one original member. Sir Paul, the majority of us Message Board fans love your solo catalog and would love to hear you go deep into it AND promote heavily your newest material because that is where you are today! I want to know what is going on in your head today, not "Yesterday." I basically asked this of Paul in his stupid question of the week but he answered what he would do if he had a time machine. Well of course, go back in time! Paul, the eternal "Backwards Traveler."  Live for the now Paul, prove you are still vital, that you still have something to say and stop whoring the memory of great Beatles songs, "Hey Jude" coming to mind as one of the most inspirational songs of the 1960's now a Las Vegas cabaret song!  |
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 2, 2013 10:29:26 GMT -5
I dunno, John. I agree with what you're suggesting in principle, but more so for artists who aren't senior citizens. Paul is, lest we forget, an old Grandpa. If it was still the 90s, I'd be totally with you, but now... let the guy do what he wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 2, 2013 11:00:49 GMT -5
I dunno, John. I agree with what you're suggesting in principle, but more so for artists who aren't senior citizens. Paul is, lest we forget, an old Grandpa. If it was still the 90s, I'd be totally with you, but now... let the guy do what he wants. Well that's the rub, maybe Paul has got nothing to say anymore but I remember his fiery RS cover interview last year where he said he said he was basically as vital as any band. If Paul is over the hill, then maybe he should stick to his oldies routine but he shouldn't go in RS and say he is still as "f-ing" vital as anyone. Paul was vital live in 1975/1976. Now he is a big old geezer dinosaur for all the sheep who want to hear "Hey Jude" completely slutted out and hear his voice crack a million times through "Blackbird" and "Yesterday." Paul actually sounded great at 12/12/12 doing that song with Nirvana survivors and I was very impressed with him live in 2011 doing "Sing The Changes" but both song were originally recorded with Paul's current vocal abilities so it sounds fine live. Paul sings them live just as he sings them on the recording and that is cool, that is where he needs to go live. That's my beef, Paul doesn't want to admit that on the stage he is an old Grandpa, he still thinks he is the hottest live artist alive! My post above is a suggestion how he can prove that point! When Paul's new album comes out of all new original rock/pop songs, play the majority of that album in concert, play more than one song from the great EA, play more than one song from the majestic Chaos and play more than "Dance Tonight" from MAF! Give us lots of deep cuts from "McCartney" on forward realizing they all won't sound like they did on record but Paul can still sing many like "That Would Be Something," etc. I think Paul is still up to greatness live but he has no faith in his solo material and relies on nostalgia. We fans, the people who have really followed Paul and continue to buy his albums all of these years, are smarter than Paul gives us credit for. Paul is pandering to the subway fan who probably won't be fans tomorrow or scream just as loud at other oldies concerts as they do at Paul's. Well, I'll get off my soapbox but I have stated my mind! |
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 2, 2013 11:59:25 GMT -5
I call upon Sir Paul McCartney to become vital again live just as he has been on a roll with his recent studio releases by dropping all Beatle songs from his concerts and dig deep into his solo catalog and promote more heavily his newer material or new Pop album once it is released. True Paul McCartney fans should not care and for those newbies: PAUL McCARTNEY IS NOT THE BEATLES! Other than the fans who saw them live from 1960 through 1966, we have all missed that chance. The Beatles broke up in 1970. The nails were forever hammered down with force on December 8, 1980. If you want Beatles, go to the best source which is the Beatles! Do not accept "I've Got A Feeling" with Rusty or Abe doing John's vocals because that ain't Beatles! Any Beatle song Paul does live without George Harrison playing lead guitar or Ringo drumming ain't the Beatles! Unlike when we were kids in the 1970's, today's brats can go on YouTube and have access to more Beatles performances than the rest of us ever had in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and all Beatlefests put together! Remember how we thought the Beatlefest "Video Room" was the coolest place in the world as we watched rare grainy videos played on VCR's over multiple TV's! Well YouTube has a billion more things in HD than stupid "Video Room" ever had. I am tired of going to McCartney concerts and having to sit next to "subway McCartney" fans, the ones who only know a few solo songs and want only the most overplayed Beatles songs ! I thought I was at a Paul McCartney concert, not a faux Beatles tribute show with just one original member. Sir Paul, the majority of us Message Board fans love your solo catalog and would love to hear you go deep into it AND promote heavily your newest material because that is where you are today! I want to know what is going on in your head today, not "Yesterday." I basically asked this of Paul in his stupid question of the week but he answered what he would do if he had a time machine. Well of course, go back in time! Paul, the eternal "Backwards Traveler." Live for the now Paul, prove you are still vital, that you still have something to say and stop whoring the memory of great Beatles songs, "Hey Jude" coming to mind as one of the most inspirational songs of the 1960's now a Las Vegas cabaret song! BAH HAMBURG!!! Truth is that Paul lives off the cheers of yesteryear and gets downright angry and dejected as the masses flock to the refreshment stands during his later solo ventures. But you are right- that is what a relevant new artist would do. As one who is completely sick of mainstream stuff- I'd still like to see him pull off obscure WA and Pepper tunes (Lovely Rita, Rocky Racoon), early stuff (Hold Me Tight) early solo (Uncle Albert, Big Barn Bed, Dear Friend), and later solo, esp. Flaming Pie, Chaos and MAF, but there is always a crowd who never saw Hey Jude played live (well in person...because there are 1323 live recorded versions floating around). What a great point on the available videos. I can't keep up with all of the complete concerts now available on You Tube. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 2, 2013 13:20:12 GMT -5
Mike, through the years you and others here have turned us on to great YouTube videos of the Beatles or the individual members! I never cease to be amazed what you folks find!
My God back in the 1970's and 1980's we would have gone nuts to see just one fifth of the stuff now on YouTube for the Fabs and solo!
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 2, 2013 13:36:31 GMT -5
Hey gang, I got email today at 12:45 p.m. from paulmccartney.com telling me I could order "pre-sale tickets" for Macca's July 9th Boston show today at 9:00 a.m. Get your shit together Macca! I am still sore in my behind from not even getting a full year's worth of my paid "premier membership" on Paulie's website!  What a joke, that is cruel! |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 2, 2013 19:02:00 GMT -5
JSD -- look, you know that I can criticize "our guys" and I am not just a sycophant. All the same though, I really don't know where you're coming from half the time with your outrageous and over-the-top insults comments. We are damn lucky to have Paul McCartney still around, and doing rockers like CUT ME SOME SLACK -- and currently working on an apparent rockin' album with Grohl. I think you're extremely SPOILED from Paul over the past 25 years.
I also think you're being rather silly getting uptight about I'VE GOT A FEELING and Abe doing John's part. Isn't it enough to have Paul right in front of you singing the song and playing guitar? I don't sit there thinking to myself "Oh, what a gyp -- this is not The Beatles!!". Who says Paul is trying to be The Beatles? He's just performing some songs that he sang as a Beatle. I'm sure you wouldn't mind him doing the whole WILD LIFE album even though the same LP musicians would not be playing 'live'.
That's right, Paul is old now. I have picked on him myself occasionally at times when his voice was weak, but he has made a believer out of me. When I saw him do SLACK and that 12/12/12 show, he's right -- he DID seem vital to me. If he's going to do a rock album with Grohl, that's pretty damn good for a 72 year old. Pity that John and George can't do the same anymore.
I also take issue with your "Moldy Oldies" remark. What do you think WILD LIFE would be? It too would be Oldies.
Have you watched the LIVE KISSES DVD yet? There's Paul doing his "new album" for you -- even if the tunes themselves are standards. You don't want him doing KISSES ON THE BOTTOM, and you consider him "too grandpa-ish" to do rock. What the heck do you want? It seems you just like to be contrary about everything, just to blow people's minds. You're not going to approve of anything the man does, and you wouldn't like it if he had retired and done nothing in 1990, either.
It's also rather annoying when you don't bother to respond to points made. You made that silly comment about teenage girls in 1976 not wanting to hear "old beatles songs", and I replied to that. So how about your response to it?
|
|
I have beautiful memories of riding in the car to go to the beach with my family on sunny summer days, and SILLY LOVE SONGS and LET 'EM IN were the biggest hits of that day! I recall hearing the newly-promoted GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE and thinking it was a new WIngs song! 
And I do like BEWARE MY LOVE and MEDICINE JAR.... I'm just making a point as to the actual songs.
Live for the now Paul, prove you are still vital, that you still have something to say and stop whoring the memory of great Beatles songs, "Hey Jude" coming to mind as one of the most inspirational songs of the 1960's now a Las Vegas cabaret song! 
What a joke, that is cruel!