|
Post by enockss on Jun 4, 2009 15:08:03 GMT -5
Okay, the new stadium is called CITI Field but it will always be Shea to me. Anyway, does anyone know what ticket prices will be (and do I have to take out a 2nd mortgage on my house to get them?)
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 4, 2009 18:42:03 GMT -5
Last time he played MSG, it ran me $500 for two tickets. And they were face value prices. Wanna bet he plays alomost the same set list at Citi? When The Beatles played the new Shea in 1965, tickets were $4.50/seat. Maybe he should charge the same this time around for nostalgic purposes......Fat Chance..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 5, 2009 11:55:27 GMT -5
He'll claim inflation but to be sentimental charge "only" $450.00 a seat.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 5, 2009 14:54:46 GMT -5
Okay, the new stadium is called CITI Field but it will always be Shea to me. Anyway, does anyone know what ticket prices will be (and do I have to take out a 2nd mortgage on my house to get them?) I find that to afford Macca in concert, selling vital organs is a better way to go than remortgaging one's home. You don't have to pay anything back.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Jun 8, 2009 6:23:19 GMT -5
Any particular "vital organs" in mind, John? Remember, you don't have to pay back your mortgage anymore. That's what your fellow US taxpayers are for.
Stadiums are terrible concert venues. And Paul said that he'll come up with his Citi set list by asking himself "what he would want to see me play." Which pretty much screams same old, same old. C-Moon, anyone? At this point, he's phoning it in.
So if you want to sell a kidney to literally sit out in left field and sing along with Jude--again--go fer it. I think I'll hold on to all my vitals.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 8, 2009 12:23:40 GMT -5
......Remember, you don't have to pay back your mortgage anymore. That's what your fellow US taxpayers are for..... Oh that's right! LOL! And if I do get foreclosed upon, I might be before a judge with "empathy" because she has a huge debt-load and likes to gamble. Oh wait a minute, my mortgage foreclosure won't get all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 12, 2009 10:41:41 GMT -5
Well, there you have it. Tickets priced from $49.50 (Low) up to $275.00 (high) for a baseball stadium concert. For $100, you can buy two tickets (before parking, tolls, dinner), sit in the nosebleed seats and watch ants (Paul & his band) scurry around on a stage a quarter mile away. Or drop $550.00 for two seats only 100 feet away, where the ants are a little bigger..... And hope it doesn't rain... And listen to the same stuff you heard on Macca's last two tours thru NYC. Give me a break..... Aug. 1965, The Beatles (yea, all four of them) in concert at the new Shea - Cost of two tickets - $9.00 Memories- Priceless
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 13, 2009 14:29:18 GMT -5
Well, there you have it. Tickets priced from $49.50 (Low) up to $275.00 (high) for a baseball stadium concert. For $100, you can buy two tickets (before parking, tolls, dinner), sit in the nosebleed seats and watch ants (Paul & his band) scurry around on a stage a quarter mile away. Or drop $550.00 for two seats only 100 feet away, where the ants are a little bigger..... That's why I kept telling y'all that the $99 I spent to see Paul at Coachella along with 20some other bands was a steal, regardless of the set list. Yes, "memories."
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Jun 15, 2009 6:23:36 GMT -5
I paid roughly $70 USD to see Paul perform in Liverpool in 2003, while watching the sunlight fade upon the Royal Liver Building and the River Mersey. Plus got to spend time--with a dozen other terrific Beatles fans--in both his and John's childhood homes. Best. Memories. Ever. I've been nothing but disappointed with Paul's performances since then, and have no desire to splash out good money to see him again.
Festivals aren't for everyone, and it wouldn't matter to me if I got to see 200 other bands for the relatively modest price of a ticket. But $275--plus "fees," I presume--to sit in a baseball stadium? For another repeat of the same basic set list? It was worth it to travel housands of miles to the Liverpool concert, but I never considered the train ride to Radio City for the Lynch benefit, and wouldn't drive one hour to Citi Field, either. Paul is stuck in a rut, and both his voice and his energy level are on the decline.
I see that Bruuuuuce killed at Bonnaroo. Now here is an example of NOT phoning it in.
AP, MANCHESTER, Tenn. — Bruce Springsteen astonished the Bonnaroo crowd with a passionate three-hour performance, offering sweat and rock 'n' roll to inspire, he said, in "hard times."
Springsteen was the Saturday night headliner at the Tennessee music festival.... It was a rare festival performance for Springsteen, who said it was only the second for him and the E Street Band.
His inexperience didn't show.... Springsteen was running into the crowd --no easy feat on Bonnaroo's massive main stage--before the first song, "Badlands," was through. Throughout the evening, Springsteen would frequently leap into the crowd, whom he asked: "Is there anybody alive at Bonnaroo?"
With his full band backing him--including both Max Weinberg and his 18-year-old son, Jay, switching off on drums--Springsteen launched into a performance that he pledged would show "the power of music."
It's sad to say, but I'm not sure Paul is all that interested in the "power of music" anymore. I think he continues to perform mainly for the money and the adulation--and because he is less than happy in his personal life. Look at how many shows/tours did he do over the decades he was married to Linda comparied to how many has he done in the ten years since she died. Yeah, he says he "loves what he does." Too bad he can't show some love for his fans with lower ticket prices.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 15, 2009 8:52:04 GMT -5
I have seen Paul on every U.S. tour starting with 1989/1990(I was only 13 during WOA but missing his Chicago stop still pains me) but I will think very carefully about going again should Paul be on the verge of another tour.
A Paul McCartney concert was many things and not the least a chance just to be in the same space with a legend. They were also rather rare adding to the allure.
However, the biggest selling point was just knowing that Paul would give a world-class performance. Sure, all artists hit some bum notes live and I have read that even in 1976 when Paul was still a young man he had rough spots but overall during a show, the man could slay us with that range in his voice. Paul's voice was the most important instrument out there.
I am not so sure anymore. He's had some decent recent concerts in his current mode of playing one-off concerts here and there but he's had some really rough ones too like his show in Paris which did pick up some steam but early on things like "Blackbird" were a disaster.
It is not good enough for me just to be in the same room with Paul, albeit a very large room, as I still want to know at those high prices that I am going to get a world-class performance. I am not that confident in this anymore. I don't begrudge Paul getting old and not being able to sing like he once did as we are all aging and thus slowing down.
I do begrudge that no acknowledgement is made of that fact in Paul's ticket prices as they keep rising as if Paul's abilities are improving. I realize that it is supply and demand but it tells me that lots of folks just want to be in the same room with Paul regardless of quality.
Maybe Paul will surprise us as he did in 2002 where I thought that his voice was amazing. But even that was now seven years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2009 14:47:40 GMT -5
I paid roughly $70 USD to see Paul perform in Liverpool in 2003, while watching the sunlight fade upon the Royal Liver Building and the River Mersey. Plus got to spend time--with a dozen other terrific Beatles fans--in both his and John's childhood homes. Best. Memories. Ever. There's something surreal here about hearing you saying anything even remotely complimentary toward Paul. Don't forget that Bruce is still only 60. Just about the same age as Paul was when you enjoyed his Liverpool show. Let's see where Bruce is at 7 years from now, if he's still doing shows.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 15, 2009 21:55:57 GMT -5
Well, there you have it. Tickets priced from $49.50 (Low) up to $275.00 (high) for a baseball stadium concert. For $100, you can buy two tickets (before parking, tolls, dinner), sit in the nosebleed seats and watch ants (Paul & his band) scurry around on a stage a quarter mile away. Or drop $550.00 for two seats only 100 feet away, where the ants are a little bigger..... That's why I kept telling y'all that the $99 I spent to see Paul at Coachella along with 20some other bands was a steal, regardless of the set list. Yes, "memories." Sayne, I thought you'd disproved this stale set list theory several weeks ago. Maybe we should all take another look.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 15, 2009 21:57:31 GMT -5
I paid roughly $70 USD to see Paul perform in Liverpool in 2003, while watching the sunlight fade upon the Royal Liver Building and the River Mersey. Plus got to spend time--with a dozen other terrific Beatles fans--in both his and John's childhood homes. Best. Memories. Ever. There's something surreal here about hearing you saying anything even remotely complimentary toward Paul. Don't forget that Bruce is still only 60. Just about the same age as Paul was when you enjoyed his Liverpool show. Let's see where Bruce is at 7 years from now, if he's still doing shows. And Bruce's set list looked a lot like what I'd expect. Great show, apparently, and wish I could have seen it.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Jun 18, 2009 7:00:03 GMT -5
Springsteen does a very physical show, sweats bucketsful, and at 60 is in far better shape than Paul was at that age. Have you ever seen Paul slide across the stage on his knees? And Bruce does REQUESTS. Can you imagine Paul taking requests? Never, never, never--he likes to play it safe. All very proscribed. To prepare himself for anything out-of-the-box would be too much like WORK. When he plays Citi, let's see him resurrect "Baby's in Black" from Shea. He couldn't hit those notes on a bet.
Oops, have I said something untoward about Paulie again? What a worthless POS I am, for expressing an opinion and all. Feel better, Joe? Back to Bruce. From USAT, more about Bonnaroo. A Triumph for Springsteen: Playing Saturday night for a crowd that mostly had never seen him live before, Bruce Springsteen looked like a master showman with something to prove. For nearly three hours, he played a set heavy on familiar songs like "Born to Run," "Rosalita" and "Glory Days," but also gathered signs requesting songs. One was a giant poster of Santa Claus: "It's too (expletive) hot for Santa!" he said, but still launched into "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town." During "Waiting on a Sunny Day" and "Tenth Avenue Freezeout," he sang with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, who had parked himself near one of the barriers.
Once again, I'll point out that Paul is a boomer icon. Meaning that, out of nothing but pure nostalgia, the boomers would max out their credit cards just to see him walk on stage and trim his toenails (can you imagine what would they pay to see him sing with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?). Paul has done more tours and one-off performances in the years since Linda died than he did in the entire time he was married to her. He always talked with enthusiasm about the two of them growing old together, as if that is what would make him truly happy in the closing years of his life. It's not his fault Linda died, and I feel sorry for him that his plans for "retirement" didn't work out. So now, as self-appointed Only Member Left Who Matters of the greatest musical group ever, he keeps himself busy and distracted from the sad fact that Shevell has no "grow old with" potential (she'd rather spend time with Jennifer Aniston than Paul's grandchildren) by being an oldies act. Paul is in the unusual position of having two--check that, three--distinct phases of his career to mine for material, yet he virtually ignores phases two and three, except for a handful of the same old chestnuts (BOTR, Jet, LILD) and a sampling of whatever CD he's currently promoting. It's frustrating and disappointing that he doesn't reward his most loyal fans who have dutifully bought his every album and DVD, but instead caters to the lowest-common-denominator "fan" who owns "Beatles 1" and little else. Every dedicated McCartney fan I know has a favorite well of songs from the solo years that he or she would love to see performed live, but let's face it, it ain't gonna happen. Here ya go, sucker, pay 300 bucks to hear Drive My Car, LILD (with "surprise" pyrotechnics, of course) and Hey Jude (with audience singalong, of course) again. And again. And again. As long as the fans and critics slobber over the oldies shows, Paul will continue to fatten his wallet and his ego for as long as he can. But it's an unremarkable way to close out his career and won't put much luster on the old legacy. As I've said before, my affection and respect for him have been on a steady decline since Linda died. In my mind--in everybody's minds, actually, reportedly including Paul's--he chose Heather for the sex. And now he's chosen Nancy for the money. So he'd have to put on one helluva entertaining show for me to go to the effort and expense of seeing another one of his concerts (especially in a baseball stadium--an intimate venue like Highline or the Beacon might be worth it.) If you have never seen Paul perform live, sell a vital organ and go for it. You'll likely have a wonderful time. But for those fans who have already been to multiple concerts, as I have, what's the point of notching up another? I think Paul still has some worthy music in him, but his live shows have become predictable and boring.
OT--or maybe not--I see that Billy Joel and his much-younger missus have parted ways. She wasn't due to start growing old for, oh, another 30-40 years. Why don't these egotistical old farts realize they'd have a far better shot at happiness with a woman their own age? Paul, take note. Give me a reason to love ya again. And a way to get back in Joe's good graces. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 18, 2009 9:07:54 GMT -5
I never wanted to see a Beatle slide across the stage -- that's just not what they were about. The boys were much more cerebral than that. Of course, they did "mach shau" in Hamburg but that was another time.
As for the set lists, again, I think Springsteen's is predictable -- and exactly what I would have expected to see if I went to his show. Sure, I would have substituted, say, "Mrs. McGrath," "Atlantic City," "Open All Night," "Devils & Dust," and "Bring Em Home" for "Rosalita," "No Surrender," "Glory Days," "Santa Claus" and "10th Ave. Freeze Out," but then the casual fan, of whom there are a lot more in the audience, would have left disappointed at not hearing something like "Glory Days" and enjoying the singalongs with the others as well. If I could see the Rolling Stones, my dream set list would NOT include "Satisfaction," "Start Me Up," etc. -- I'd rather have "Dance Pt. 2," "Rocks Off," "Before They Make Me Run," etc. -- but that's not going to happen, probably.
That's just it: for Springsteen, McCartney and many others -- there are many more casual fans than super fans like us. Those people must be placated, and maybe Paul actually enjoys playing his standards more than some of us like hearing them. We also get picky: I could do without hearing "Drive My Car" again for many years -- live or not; it's just not one of my favorites. However, I do want "Hey Jude," "The Long and Winding Road," etc. at any Paul show I'd see. I've seen them before, but that's part of what I want from him.
My dream Paul set list might include "Junior's Farm," "So Glad to See You Here," "One of These Days," "Ever Present Past," "Too Much Rain," "Figure of Eight," and "The Pound is Sinking," but most of that would send the audience out for beer and/or the bathrooms. If could go, I'll take what I can get, and over the years, as Sayne has pointed out, Paul has dipped into the deep catalogue: "Too Many People," "Mrs. Vanderbilt," "Here Today," just not deep enough or often enough for all of us.
Predictable? Like most performers, sure. Boring? Reports from the festival and Coachella really say otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 18, 2009 16:00:06 GMT -5
If I had the time and means, I'd travel and see every Paul and Bruce concert that those guys did on their respective tours. Both men put on good shows.
I think however that night in night out I would have more fun and more emotional moments at a Springsteen concert because he does change the setlist much more on a nightly basis and if Paul's voice is shot, it is going to be one long night because Paul's amazing voice is the most important instrument out there. Bruce can be hoarse and the concert is still going to be great because he relies on great lyrics and dynamic stage presence. He does not rely on the technical aspects of his voice as much as Paul does.
A hoarse Boss doing "Badlands" is still fist-pumping stirring while a hoarse Paul trying to do "Blackbird" is going to be cringeworthy, fingernails across the chalkboard kind!
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 18, 2009 19:49:31 GMT -5
If I had the time and means, I'd travel and see every Paul and Bruce concert that those guys did on their respective tours. Both men put on good shows. I think however that night in night out I would have more fun and more emotional moments at a Springsteen concert because he does change the setlist much more on a nightly basis and if Paul's voice is shot, it is going to be one long night because Paul's amazing voice is the most important instrument out there. Bruce can be hoarse and the concert is still going to be great because he relies on great lyrics and dynamic stage presence. He does not rely on the technical aspects of his voice as much as Paul does. A hoarse Boss doing "Badlands" is still fist-pumping stirring while a hoarse Paul trying to do "Blackbird" is going to be cringeworthy, fingernails across the chalkboard kind! But John, where is the evidence that Bruce changes the set list that much? Sure, I agree that he varies it somewhat more than Paul, but don't you agree there's at least half to three-fourths of the set that's core? (Now Dylan, he mixes things up! For example, I didn't get Mississippi and Blind Willie McTell in St. Louis where people in Indy or Chicago did just a few nights later or before.) Also, Paul's voice is shot? This has taken on a life of its own. I just don't hear the evidence, nor do I find concert reviews repeatedly saying that. Why is it repeated here so much?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 18, 2009 20:59:41 GMT -5
If I had the time and means, I'd travel and see every Paul and Bruce concert that those guys did on their respective tours. Both men put on good shows. I think however that night in night out I would have more fun and more emotional moments at a Springsteen concert because he does change the setlist much more on a nightly basis and if Paul's voice is shot, it is going to be one long night because Paul's amazing voice is the most important instrument out there. Bruce can be hoarse and the concert is still going to be great because he relies on great lyrics and dynamic stage presence. He does not rely on the technical aspects of his voice as much as Paul does. A hoarse Boss doing "Badlands" is still fist-pumping stirring while a hoarse Paul trying to do "Blackbird" is going to be cringeworthy, fingernails across the chalkboard kind! But John, where is the evidence that Bruce changes the set list that much? Sure, I agree that he varies it somewhat more than Paul, but don't you agree there's at least half to three-fourths of the set that's core? (Now Dylan, he mixes things up! For example, I didn't get Mississippi and Blind Willie McTell in St. Louis where people in Indy or Chicago did just a few nights later or before.) Also, Paul's voice is shot? This has taken on a life of its own. I just don't hear the evidence, nor do I find concert reviews repeatedly saying that. Why is it repeated here so much? Reading my post I wasn't clear: I meant on a night when Paul's voice is shot, not that it is completely and always shot. Paris is a bad show voice-wise; the Ellen TV appearance was awful in 2005; that more recent British Music awards show was a disaster vocally. Paul has also had good nights in the recent past too and those would be shows I would thoroughly enjoy. Each night Springsteen alters his set by about 5 songs and those changes are always breathtaking because of the material he can draw from. I was bummed because in March 2008, I didn't get to hear "Rosalita" which I have only seen live once, in January 1981. The night after our show Bruce pulls out "Out In The Street" one of my all-time faves from The River which, again, I hadn't heard live since that Jan. 1981 concert at Notre Dame(Bruce dedicated "Jungleland" that night to John Lennon who had been dead for just over a month, damn that was a long time ago!) . On the otherhand, Bruce pulled out a bunch of songs from Born To Run in Indy which I had never seen live like "Night" and the classic "Backstreets." Paul is a walking jukebox, just think if he changed five songs every night from an otherwise fixed setlist and pulled them from every aspect of his career. That would be so cool to guess what we'd hear. I guess he is very democratic in that we all get to hear the same songs and no one can say, "Damn, I wish he did that one at our show!".
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jun 18, 2009 22:48:10 GMT -5
I see what you mean, John.
I think Paul is consistent (like most, really?) as to his set lists. But I wonder if Bruce's wild card approach to the five songs from night to night has something to do with his confidence his band. They know these tunes because they were the players, mostly, from the beginning. The E Street Band is truly a band. Now Paul's group, for example, there's no way they could compete with the E Street boys -- they will never be as tight.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 19, 2009 11:13:34 GMT -5
I see what you mean, John. I think Paul is consistent (like most, really?) as to his set lists. But I wonder if Bruce's wild card approach to the five songs from night to night has something to do with his confidence his band. They know these tunes because they were the players, mostly, from the beginning. The E Street Band is truly a band. Now Paul's group, for example, there's no way they could compete with the E Street boys -- they will never be as tight. Great point, Jim. The E-Street players were all there from the birth of the songs up to now. They are so tight! I just thought of this but Springsteen has a couple of albums where he does almost all of the playing like Paul famously has(Macca, Macca II and most of Chaos for just three examples) and I am thinking of Nebraska and most of Tunnel Of Love which is credited as a solo album with very little E-Street member participation, Bruce himself utilizing drum machines and synthesizers. Paul has stuck with his current touring band for seven years now(Rusty and Abe, but not Brian, were part of the 2001 Driving Rain sessions) starting with the 2002 Tour. I liked these then young musicians a hell of a lot in 2002 as they helped Paul bring a rocking sense of urgency to the Wings' material that even Wings never brought, that and Linda's 1998 death which had to have stroked the fires of passion in Paul even in 2002 when he hit the road. Things like BOTR, Jet and Let Me Roll It for instance were so sizzling hot on that tour that I couldn't believe what I was hearing! What do the posters here think about Paul's touring band today? Is it time for a change or are they still "sizzling hot" as I thought that they were in 2002 and still just right for Paul? Or are there posters here who have never liked this band?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 19, 2009 11:48:06 GMT -5
This is not a note-for-note band. Paul gives them some license to rock-out. Because of this- they come across more lively than the bland early 90s "studio musician" versions.
For example: I Saw Her Standing There-now has a modern hard rocking guitar riff- not the rockabilly pickin' George licks.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 19, 2009 13:04:30 GMT -5
This is not a note-for-note band. Paul gives them some license to rock-out. Because of this- they come across more lively than the bland early 90s "studio musician" versions. For example: I Saw Her Standing There-now has a modern hard rocking guitar riff- not the rockabilly pickin' George licks. That is a very good point. These current guys have a crunching rock sound. I really liked Paul's band in 89/90 but by 93 they did seem long in the tooth!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 19, 2009 14:12:22 GMT -5
At the time they were great (89/90 & similar 93 bands)-playing Wings and Beatles note for note.
Wings didn't even play Wings note for note.
But listening to all of these live collections- the more recent ones are better by a mile-even with Paul's fading voice.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 19, 2009 16:30:27 GMT -5
Springsteen does a very physical show, sweats bucketsful, and at 60 is in far better shape than Paul was at that age. Have you ever seen Paul slide across the stage on his knees? I wouldn't want to, and don't need to. Paul doesn't need to either; this was never the Beatles' style. And what's more, I've never liked Bruce Springsteen, so he's probably not a good example. Please, don't exaggerate. If you've been around here any length of time you'll notice I'm all about expressing opinion, and also criticizing Paul now and then; I'm not one of those sycophants who is afraid to do that. But it does come across at times as if you have some kind of personal vendetta against McCartney in general, and that's the difference in your case ... you have nothing good to say about him, ever. You give the impression of someone who's out to bash the guy at any cost. If it were up to me, I'd be the first to organize a McCartney set list devoid of ANY Beatles, and which would consist of only the most obscure Macca SOLO tunes... (oh, well - maybe I'd allow Beatles songs he's never done yet, too).. but I have to look at the big picture, and that is that people like you and I are in the vast minority -- PERIOD. At least 80% of the people going to see him, I'd wager, want the usual suspects - HEY JUDE, YESTERDAY, LET IT BE, etc... and even those who are old-age original Beatles fans. Plus, with every new show I'd bet there are people who are seeing him for the first time, and they'll expect those chestnuts. In fact, I have a friend who's 46 who just told me he's going to see Macca at CitiField for his first Macca show ever. This guy is an Elvis fan, and a semi-Beatles fan - and he only likes the Beatles up to 1965. Can you imagine him going to a show consisting mainly of Paul solo material from BACK TO THE EGG or PRESS TO PLAY? Welllllll..... I'll bet while Linda was still alive you were one of those Linda bashers and had the usual nonstop criticism against anything and everything Paul did... ESPECIALLY if he forced Linda on stage with him, forced her on the fans, and all that usual stuff. Absence sure makes the heart grow fonder. Yeah, yeah.. and all I ever heard when he was with Linda was "why is Paul with a woman as plain looking as Linda?? Surely he could have done much better!" Better yet, continue to stay home and do Paul a favor. ;D Well, at least you do speak your mind. Paul's got to do what he wants, or what he feels will make him happy. He obviously made a mistake with Heather though. I don't know at this point (and at Paul's age) what more he can do to make to love him again. I'd have to think that having released three pretty good albums recently and still making the rounds at all instea dof remaining a recluse should count for something.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 19, 2009 16:35:01 GMT -5
That's just it: for Springsteen, McCartney and many others -- there are many more casual fans than super fans like us. Those people must be placated, and maybe Paul actually enjoys playing his standards more than some of us like hearing them. We also get picky: I could do without hearing "Drive My Car" again for many years -- live or not; it's just not one of my favorites. However, I do want "Hey Jude," "The Long and Winding Road," etc. at any Paul show I'd see. I've seen them before, but that's part of what I want from him. My dream Paul set list might include "Junior's Farm," "So Glad to See You Here," "One of These Days," "Ever Present Past," "Too Much Rain," "Figure of Eight," and "The Pound is Sinking," but most of that would send the audience out for beer and/or the bathrooms. If could go, I'll take what I can get, and over the years, as Sayne has pointed out, Paul has dipped into the deep catalogue: "Too Many People," "Mrs. Vanderbilt," "Here Today," just not deep enough or often enough for all of us. Predictable? Like most performers, sure. Boring? Reports from the festival and Coachella really say otherwise. I've never agreed more strongly with you before, Jim. Words of wisdom!
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Jun 20, 2009 8:56:47 GMT -5
What do you think about Paul having an opening act at Citi Field? I was surprised that he would have an opening act because he typically has not had an opening act. It would be nice to hear Paul's comment on this. Maybe he's just giving a younger act a chance to be heard by opening up for him. I wonder who will be the opening act?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 20, 2009 11:18:47 GMT -5
Perhaps the New Number Two??
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 20, 2009 20:36:47 GMT -5
Perhaps the New Number Two?? We can only hope....
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jun 21, 2009 9:16:05 GMT -5
Perhaps the New Number Two?? We can only hope.... I was thinking that too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 21, 2009 10:19:38 GMT -5
What do you think about Paul having an opening act at Citi Field? I was surprised that he would have an opening act because he typically has not had an opening act. It would be nice to hear Paul's comment on this. Maybe he's just giving a younger act a chance to be heard by opening up for him. I wonder who will be the opening act? Well, according to comments in the Examiner column, the opening act will be "The Script" (whomever they are when they're home.... ) I'll try to Google them when I'm off this site.
|
|