|
Post by sallyg on Mar 9, 2014 6:40:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 6:59:26 GMT -5
I hope his voice is not an issue on this tour, his playing of numerous instruments is as great as it ever was.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 10, 2014 16:59:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I just got my email from Paul announcing another tour!
It would be awesome if he shook things up radically. He had threatened to play the album New in its entirety and I would applaud that even though it is not my favorite Paul album. That would still be cool!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 10, 2014 18:11:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I just got my email from Paul announcing another tour! It would be awesome if he shook things up radically. He had threatened to play the album New in its entirety and I would applaud that even though it is not my favorite Paul album. That would still be cool! Get your "Ben Franklins" out to buy your tickets. For our international readers, Ben Franklin's picture is on U.S. 100 dollar bills.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 10, 2014 20:51:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I just got my email from Paul announcing another tour! It would be awesome if he shook things up radically. He had threatened to play the album New in its entirety and I would applaud that even though it is not my favorite Paul album. That would still be cool! Get your "Ben Franklins" out to buy your tickets. For our international readers, Ben Franklin's picture is on U.S. 100 dollar bills. Thought this was interesting. www.forbes.com/pictures/fjlg45ffjj/10-paul-mccartney-out-there-tour-avg-price-241/Here's a topic for debate. Let's assume, for a moment, that it's okay for all these artists to sell tickets at the price they are actually selling them. Now, if the secondary market is selling tickets for way above mark-up, wouldn't the artist have the right, without criticism, to sell tickets in the first place at what the secondary market is selling them? Why should a ticket broker get to sell a $200 for $400, thus making $200, when the artist could make that extra $200 in the first place by selling them at $400. This is purely a theoretical and philosophical question, for I really would not want someone like Paul to sell tickets at $400. But, it does make one think about money going to the person who is actually working for it. In this case, the performer. I think the secondary market can easily be destroyed. As I reported once for a concert I went to, if they require people who buy tickets on line to show up at the door with the credit card they used to buy the tickets, scalpers could not sell their tickets because the original ticket was purchase with someone else's card. The one drawback is that one's entire party would have to meet at the venue, but that's okay. Just requires some planning.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 11, 2014 6:03:10 GMT -5
Every time Paul tours I always hear about these "high ticket prices". And yet I have seen him in 1989, 1990, 1993, 2005 and 2011 but have never paid these ticket costs. Granted, I have never sat in the front ten rows, but I have paid only somewhere between $100 - $150 every time. If you look at the gaps in years here, what, we can't save up $150 every three to 7 years?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 11, 2014 14:08:54 GMT -5
Every time Paul tours I always hear about these "high ticket prices". And yet I have seen him in 1989, 1990, 1993, 2005 and 2011 but have never paid these ticket costs. Granted, I have never sat in the front ten rows, but I have paid only somewhere between $100 - $150 every time. If you look at the gaps in years here, what, we can't save up $150 every three to 7 years? Another way to look at it is; let's say you bought two tickets for each concert. You went to 5 concerts. So you have spent about $1000-$1500 in tickets for McCartney concerts. I went to two. I spent $500 each time for two tickets, so I have dropped $1000 on his concerts. And I was also nowhere near the front ten rows either. How many songs have you heard repeated at all these concerts? How many times have you had to hear Hey Jude and Let It Be? In my two concerts, I heard practically the same set of songs both times. I love Paul, but I think I've spent enough money on him, and do not need to shell out hundreds to hear Hey Jude and Let It Be sung again, especially with his 72 year old vocal abilities. Give me a concert of new Beatles repertoire and maybe I'll consider it. But, I think will save my "Franklins" for the next two Lewisohn books yet to be released.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 11, 2014 17:29:18 GMT -5
Another way to look at it is; let's say you bought two tickets for each concert. You went to 5 concerts. So you have spent about $1000-$1500 in tickets for McCartney concerts. I went to two. I spent $500 each time for two tickets, so I have dropped $1000 on his concerts. And I was also nowhere near the front ten rows either. How many songs have you heard repeated at all these concerts? How many times have you had to hear Hey Jude and Let It Be? In my two concerts, I heard practically the same set of songs both times. I love Paul, but I think I've spent enough money on him, and do not need to shell out hundreds to hear Hey Jude and Let It Be sung again, especially with his 72 year old vocal abilities. Give me a concert of new Beatles repertoire and maybe I'll consider it. But, I think will save my "Franklins" for the next two Lewisohn books yet to be released. I understand how you feel, I really do. But I thought you were basically complaining about the "high price" of Paul's show in general, and not just expressing that you feel you've had enough of Paul Live. (I was responding that there are cheaply priced tickets too)... I am not a rich man by any means (hell, and I just spent a fortune at Beatlefest that I didn't really have!)... but I guess we're all different when it comes to how we spend, or what we deem is worthy to spend more on, etc. Hell, recently my girl and I went out to a romantic dinner and it cost a whopping $168 (!!??!!!). I had a nice time and all, but jeez -- I could have bought tons of Beatles vinyl for that same price, I thought -- and I'd have it forever! Each time I've seen Paul there has been something special for me. Whether it was the joy of seeing him with a different friend of mine each time (in 2011 the thrill was going with my nephew for his first time)... and in 2014 (if I go) it will be with Lisa, my girlfriend. I could live without 'Hey Jude' or "Let It Be" again (and many others!)... but the thing is, it's now been 3 years since I last saw/heard Paul doing these songs live with me at the same venue with him... and of course there are always other "first timer new songs" to hear as well. It's almost like going through 'The Long & Winding Road' and 'Yesterday' for the 10th time is an obligation I sit through in order to enjoy the other new songs. But I guess in the end my feelings (for me I mean) are that there are far worse ways to spend an evening than seeing and hearing a Beatle in the same room or stadium with me, spaced out once every 3 or more years apart. I just don't feel that paying, say, $100 - $250 per ticket for such an infrequent night out is so bad. People spend tons more monthly on cigarettes, booze, or even going out to dinner.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 12, 2014 22:09:34 GMT -5
Another way to look at it is; let's say you bought two tickets for each concert. You went to 5 concerts. So you have spent about $1000-$1500 in tickets for McCartney concerts. I went to two. I spent $500 each time for two tickets, so I have dropped $1000 on his concerts. And I was also nowhere near the front ten rows either. How many songs have you heard repeated at all these concerts? How many times have you had to hear Hey Jude and Let It Be? In my two concerts, I heard practically the same set of songs both times. I love Paul, but I think I've spent enough money on him, and do not need to shell out hundreds to hear Hey Jude and Let It Be sung again, especially with his 72 year old vocal abilities. Give me a concert of new Beatles repertoire and maybe I'll consider it. But, I think will save my "Franklins" for the next two Lewisohn books yet to be released. I understand how you feel, I really do. But I thought you were basically complaining about the "high price" of Paul's show in general, and not just expressing that you feel you've had enough of Paul Live. (I was responding that there are cheaply priced tickets too)... I am not a rich man by any means (hell, and I just spent a fortune at Beatlefest that I didn't really have!)... but I guess we're all different when it comes to how we spend, or what we deem is worthy to spend more on, etc. Hell, recently my girl and I went out to a romantic dinner and it cost a whopping $168 (!!??!!!). I had a nice time and all, but jeez -- I could have bought tons of Beatles vinyl for that same price, I thought -- and I'd have it forever! Each time I've seen Paul there has been something special for me. Whether it was the joy of seeing him with a different friend of mine each time (in 2011 the thrill was going with my nephew for his first time)... and in 2014 (if I go) it will be with Lisa, my girlfriend. I could live without 'Hey Jude' or "Let It Be" again (and many others!)... but the thing is, it's now been 3 years since I last saw/heard Paul doing these songs live with me at the same venue with him... and of course there are always other "first timer new songs" to hear as well. It's almost like going through 'The Long & Winding Road' and 'Yesterday' for the 10th time is an obligation I sit through in order to enjoy the other new songs. But I guess in the end my feelings (for me I mean) are that there are far worse ways to spend an evening than seeing and hearing a Beatle in the same room or stadium with me, spaced out once every 3 or more years apart. I just don't feel that paying, say, $100 - $250 per ticket for such an infrequent night out is so bad. People spend tons more monthly on cigarettes, booze, or even going out to dinner. I am complaining about the high prices in combination with the fact that the song repertoire tends to have too many repeats, and there is the inevitable signs of aging clearly showing up in Paul's vocalism, and at his age, those will only increase going forward. I completely understand your desire to hear Paul as often as possible. Hope you can snag some good seats when he comes to NY area. But at the prices he asks now, I find it harder to justify spending considerable amounts for what is given in return. We have so many DVD's of earlier concerts by Paul not to mention footage of The Beatles in concert or in any form of video, that I find that more appealing now to watch than listening to Paul in his current vocal condition for the amount of money I must surrender. Here's hoping he has the stamina and vocal strength to get through one more year of touring! And hopefully some fresh material!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 12, 2014 22:36:24 GMT -5
Here's Paul in his prime at an Unplugged Concert in London in 1991;
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 13, 2014 5:56:05 GMT -5
[But at the prices he asks now, I find it harder to justify spending considerable amounts for what is given in return. Again -- I don't know what you're referring to in terms of "high prices". I mean, if you're talking specifically of rows in the front, then yes - you need to be pretty wealthy to afford those. But just to get into the arena, you can get a seat for $100 - $150 . Maybe even under $100 .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 13, 2014 10:07:31 GMT -5
I always complain about Paul doing "Hey Jude" live but when in concert and he does the, "And now just the boys" I am right there leading the men in a hearty sing-along and I usually embrace the strangers to my left and right in massive group chains as we have our arms around each other(and the tears of pure joy flowing). When Paul does the, "You were great and you were great and you were great" I go out of my way to be seen by Paul and singled out as he did to me in Columbus, Ohio 2005 when he pointed right at me and said, "You were great!" I kind of wish he would bring back the 1993 cherry picker where he and Linda went out over the crowd during "Hey Jude's" sing-along as he swooped right over Sly Rose and I in Milwaukee that year. And when the song is over we all "high five" each other though in 2002 in Chicago Sly Rose was a wiseguy and did the old, original "low five." In 2011 at Wrigley Field, the beautiful woman to my left, a stranger, even gave me a spontaneous kiss after "Hey Jude" to my wife's chagrin! I sure hope he does "Hey Jude" again this tour!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 13, 2014 13:43:16 GMT -5
[But at the prices he asks now, I find it harder to justify spending considerable amounts for what is given in return. Again -- I don't know what you're referring to in terms of "high prices". I mean, if you're talking specifically of rows in the front, then yes - you need to be pretty wealthy to afford those. But just to get into the arena, you can get a seat for $100 - $150 . Maybe even under $100 . That's $200 for two tickets. That's a lot of money. And the seats; you'll just see objects up on the stage from that distance unless you have binoculars. For less than $200 last year ($120 - two tickets) I sat in the front row of the balcony in a small Broadway theatre and saw The Rascals Reunion Show and was only about 30 feet from the stage. To see Paul without binoculars, you are forking up about $400-$500 for two tickets. That's asking a lot, especially for mostly repertoire I heard at the last two concerts. I am a Beatles fan, but I've seen Paul twice now and can't justify spending what is asked in order to see him (literally) again. To just see figures jumping up and down from 400 feet or more back in a stadium or arena isn't seeing Paul in my book. But I am in the minority I am sure. There are fans who will always pay whatever it costs to see him whenever he performs, no matter how old he gets. And that is fine. I'll settle for the old videos and recordings now of him in his prime. I'd love to see him in an accoustic situation in a small nightclub somewhere, where the stress on his voice is not so great and he can do more varied repertoire, especially more of his Beatle ballads.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Mar 13, 2014 14:40:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 14, 2014 5:58:45 GMT -5
That's $200 for two tickets. That's a lot of money. I have to disagree. It's the year 2014, and $100 per ticket is not unusual. Even Ringo's recent tix cost me $99 each. I could see Paul pretty well each time I saw him from a farther distance (then again, my sight for distance has always been pretty sharp). Even if I couldn't, these days they have huge video screens. But for me, I became spoiled when I won tickets in 1992...I was standing against the stage for Paul's MTV UP CLOSE performance in 1992, and nothing can match that, not even a front row seat! That sounds good, but it's a rare exception today. And Paul doesn't play small theaters and if he did it would be near impossible to get any seat. Remember that when those older performances were new, people then considered Paul "not in his prime"! Anyway -- to each his own. Like I said, I don't see the problem with spending $200 (or more even) to see Paul McCartney once every 3 to 6 years. Anyone can afford that if they save a few dollars per month for 36 or 72 months. It's not like there is a boring and familiar Paul concert every single night, and it's a night out in the presence of a Beatle. Sure beats another night on the couch.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 14, 2014 9:25:03 GMT -5
That's $200 for two tickets. That's a lot of money. I have to disagree. It's the year 2014, and $100 per ticket is not unusual. Even Ringo's recent tix cost me $99 each. I could see Paul pretty well each time I saw him from a farther distance (then again, my sight for distance has always been pretty sharp). Even if I couldn't, these days they have huge video screens. But for me, I became spoiled when I won tickets in 1992...I was standing against the stage for Paul's MTV UP CLOSE performance in 1992, and nothing can match that, not even a front row seat! That sounds good, but it's a rare exception today. And Paul doesn't play small theaters and if he did it would be near impossible to get any seat. Remember that when those older performances were new, people then considered Paul "not in his prime"! Anyway -- to each his own. Like I said, I don't see the problem with spending $200 (or more even) to see Paul McCartney once every 3 to 6 years. Anyone can afford that if they save a few dollars per month for 36 or 72 months. It's not like there is a boring and familiar Paul concert every single night, and it's a night out in the presence of a Beatle. Sure beats another night on the couch. $200 IS a lot of money, especially to see pin sized performers or sit in the arena and look at the video screen all night. Maybe some people have different values, but after shelling out a small fortune for my family to see McCartney at CitiField in 2009 and getting obstructed seats, I will no longer go to a McCartney show. At least the good people at CitiField gave me free Mets tickets. Never got a response from the Macca organzation. I also have been spoiled watching shows at theaters with great seats and acoustics for under $100. I saw the Monkees and Beach Boys close up in theatres for less than $100, and it was the reunion Beach Boys, not the Mike Love jokeboys. Okay, it's NOT Paul, but still elements of bands I personally enjoy almost as much as the Beatles. And Mike Nesmith solo from the second row was priceless.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 14, 2014 13:49:35 GMT -5
That's $200 for two tickets. That's a lot of money. I have to disagree. It's the year 2014, and $100 per ticket is not unusual. Even Ringo's recent tix cost me $99 each. I could see Paul pretty well each time I saw him from a farther distance (then again, my sight for distance has always been pretty sharp). Even if I couldn't, these days they have huge video screens. But for me, I became spoiled when I won tickets in 1992...I was standing against the stage for Paul's MTV UP CLOSE performance in 1992, and nothing can match that, not even a front row seat! That sounds good, but it's a rare exception today. And Paul doesn't play small theaters and if he did it would be near impossible to get any seat. Remember that when those older performances were new, people then considered Paul "not in his prime"! Anyway -- to each his own. Like I said, I don't see the problem with spending $200 (or more even) to see Paul McCartney once every 3 to 6 years. Anyone can afford that if they save a few dollars per month for 36 or 72 months. It's not like there is a boring and familiar Paul concert every single night, and it's a night out in the presence of a Beatle. Sure beats another night on the couch. And all the more reason that you should definitely go to his next concert for the statements you make. As to Paul's "prime", I would say Paul hit his prime sometime in 1963 vocally (which is young (21 years old in his case) and musically in 1964 (songs for the HDN album really began his prolific higher quality period) and on through till about 2007 or so when he was around 65 years old and his vocal abilities began showing obvious signs of compromise due to age. His musical prime is more open to discussion; 1) Was his Beatle period truely his prime?, 2) Is the Beatle and Wings period combined really his prime? 3) Or is he still writing as well as he ever did? That is a much more subjective question. My opinion would be 1964-Flaming Pie album (1997) as his musical "Prime". That's 33 years which is a helluva run for such high quality musical output.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 14, 2014 16:10:08 GMT -5
$200 IS a lot of money, especially to see pin sized performers or sit in the arena and look at the video screen all night. Maybe some people have different values, but after shelling out a small fortune for my family to see McCartney at CitiField in 2009 and getting obstructed seats, I will no longer go to a McCartney show. At least the good people at CitiField gave me free Mets tickets. Never got a response from the Macca organzation. I think it's kind of silly to swear off seeing anymore shows because you got obstructed view once. Hell, when I saw Ringo at Jones Beach for my first time in 1989, he was out of my view any time he sat on the drums and was not up front. I'm glad I didn't forever swear off Ringo shows because of that, though; I went on to see Ringo many more times any had a good time -- including twice more at Jones Beach where the views were not obstructed those other two times. I saw Paul for free in 1992 close-up at the stage and about 6 feet from him (when I won radio tickets). I definitely got spoiled by that experience, let me tell you. But I still went to more shows at Stadiums and MSG. Speaking of spoiled, I think some fans have become spoiled at getting so many chances to see Paul over the past 25 years. I just don't agree that $100 per ticket these days is a lot of money to see Paul. It's chump change in today's world when you consider how high everything's priced. And I say this as someone who earns a very modest living and rents an apartment. I'm not a doctor or lawyer. We're all different though -- you couldn't pay ME to see The Beach Boys in recent years!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 14, 2014 21:04:34 GMT -5
And if anybody cares to look back at my first post on this thread, one will see that Paul is at the bottom of the top 10 most expensive tickets on the resale market.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 14, 2014 22:24:19 GMT -5
And if anybody cares to look back at my first post on this thread, one will see that Paul is at the bottom of the top 10 most expensive tickets on the resale market. That article bummed me out! Our boy Paul is getting his ass whooped in ticket demand by nine other people, many of whom suck big time! The blurb there for Paul at #10 said: "The highest priced ticket of the tour was the July 14 show at Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, with that show commanding an average ticket price of $443." Guess who was at that show!? In your face suckers! Indiana rules for Macca! If Paul's total average resale was $443, he wouldn't be no chump-change #10!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 22, 2014 2:39:28 GMT -5
For our international readers, Ben Franklin's picture is on U.S. 100 dollar bills. So, the US isn't "international" but everywhere else is?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 22, 2014 12:05:16 GMT -5
For our international readers, Ben Franklin's picture is on U.S. 100 dollar bills. So, the US isn't "international" but everywhere else is? No smart-ass, this board originates from the U.S. so I was referring to readers from countries other than the U.S. that follow it. It was not derogatory or implying anything other than clarifying for readers who may not be familiar with U.S. Currency because of a reference I made on this subject that might not have made sense to readers from outside the U.S. Pardon me if I offended you. I'll try and be a little more "mature" in my future postings.... But I am not telling you anything you didn't already know. You are clearly the smartest cock-sure member of our board who often finds pleasure in putting down others for their postings when it behooves you. In your eyes, I am sure this was just another of my "juvenile" posts I make from time to time, since you have referenced me with that term in past comments you have made about my postings. Did you enjoy posting this one? How's this; For readers on this board who reside outside the United States, my reference to "Franklins" was a term referring to the gentleman who appears on the face of The U.S. $100 dollar bill. Since we were talking about purchasing tickets for McCartney Concerts in the United States, this is the reason I used that term. I just wanted to clarify that for our readers who may not be familiar with US Currency. Did I get it right this time?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 22, 2014 12:28:34 GMT -5
I think panther's more used to the loonie.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Mar 27, 2014 11:27:39 GMT -5
In addition to dates in Uruguay and Ecuador, Paul will have two shows in Japan which he announced yesterday. www.paulmccartney.com/
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 27, 2014 12:23:58 GMT -5
In addition to dates in Uruguay and Ecuador, Paul will have two shows in Japan which he announced yesterday. www.paulmccartney.com/Didn't he stop dope-smoking for good thanks to Heather Mills? He must still get nervous about Japan.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Mar 27, 2014 17:22:52 GMT -5
In addition to dates in Uruguay and Ecuador, Paul will have two shows in Japan which he announced yesterday. www.paulmccartney.com/Didn't he stop dope-smoking for good thanks to Heather Mills? He must still get nervous about Japan. I heard he quit smoking pot for Beatrice. The thing that concerns me about him visiting Japan is that I hope he doesn't get radiation contamination from Fukishima.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 27, 2014 19:20:36 GMT -5
There are three shows, FYI.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Mar 28, 2014 2:57:24 GMT -5
There are three shows, FYI. Thanks. I now see that. I misread the announcement. He's doing two shows on a Saturday and Sunday on one weekend and one Saturday show the following weekend.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 31, 2014 23:32:26 GMT -5
Rusty Anderson is reporting that Paul is considering playing in full the Beatles in Japan 1966 set, which would include never before performed live songs (at least since 1966) of Rock and Roll Music, Baby's in Black, I Feel Fine and Nowhere Man.
He has in more recent years played Day Tripper, Paperback Writer,Yesterday, I'm Down, and She's a Woman and George performed If I Needed Someone in his 1990 Japan concerts. Paul is considering playing along with footage of George performing the song from 1990, since it has a modern mix and feel, if he can get the Harrison estate to agree. Paul also said he covered I Wanna Be Your Man in the early 90s.
Rusty said it is unlikely that he'll perform these songs until the group hits Japan.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Apr 1, 2014 12:06:24 GMT -5
April fool!
|
|