41 songs performed over 3 hours. And for me personally i had never seen 21 of them. And my ticket was less than a third of the price of my Stones ticket in the same block 3 years ago. What's not to like?

Any sons of the Beatles attending?

Not sure about that.

a great show for sure, but vocally PM's gotten a little shaky, particularly on some of the more challenging toons.

Macca is doin 'Something' on the ukelele he got as a gift from George...that's powerful..just a voice and ukelele on a big stadium...

2 1 2 0

I saw Macca once, and it was amazing. He's a fantastic showman, and he gives you what you pay for. Wish the Stones would use him as a touring role model!

I was there, with my parents! my mum's 2 DAYS younger than Macca & my dad 9 months older. We were in £91.50 GBP seats and I thought Macca's voice was fine, although the Helter Skelter went a bit out of control at the start.

My 1st ever Macca show and now I want to see him on Wednesday night in Birmingham in a top price seat. For me, 41 songs represents outstanding value for money.

Did anyone else notice that last night The Stones, The Who and the Beatles all performed the same night ? In 2015, who'd have thought it.

We need to enjoy all these legends before we lose them forever because sadly there's a dearth of younger successor-legends around. 1 direction anyone ?

<<Wish the Stones would use him as a touring role model!>>

They do. Since 2012 they have been doing short but regular tours each year without taking the long breaks that they used to.

Do senior citizens get a discount at Macca's shows?

Quote
Stoneage
Do senior citizens get a discount at Macca's shows?

No, are senior citizens getting in cheap on the Zip Code tour?

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Stoneage
Do senior citizens get a discount at Macca's shows?

No, are senior citizens getting in cheap on the Zip Code tour?

Strangely, no. I suspect they charge them even more...

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
I saw Macca once, and it was amazing. He's a fantastic showman, and he gives you what you pay for. Wish the Stones would use him as a touring role model!

I guess the insinuation is that the stones don't give you value for their shows, but comparison.

Having been to both, and paid roughly 1/2 for the Paul show, for fantastic floor seats 12 rows on the right, I can unequivocally say as much as I'd see Paul again in a heart beat, it was that good, I'd rather pay double and see the stones from the same vantage point, they are that good.

The two are pretty comparable aside from price, in which case Paul is a BIT better (they are both still extremely overpriced, and sorry but I think they could both charge $25-$50 for every seat in a stadium or baseball park and still make a killing).

The Stones shows are shorter, but its also the Stones. Paul does Beatles and Wings and solo. So the extra 30-45 minutes is pretty much his solo/Wings, which equates both sets being about equal in terms of their "classic" material. Paul plays more songs, but they are also usually much shorter. He does a lot of 2 minuters which the Stones just don't. Also Paul is essentially a song and dance man. To me, even with the Vegas factor, Paul's shows are most nostalgic than the Stones. Granted, maybe the greatest nostalgic act ever (I've seen 2 Paul shows and they were both some of the best shows I've ever seen), but he's still just kind of there singing the songs to you. Regardless of how you feel about their shows, the Stones are still rock (makes sense, Stones were always more straight ahead than Beatles) and I like that aspect which I think Paul doesn't have. With the Stones, you're still seeing a "rock band".

So I think there are pros and cons to each, but I think largely both shows are excellent and I wouldn't rank one over the other. Each has stuff the other doesn't have and that I may prefer. They are two legends that 100% every single music fan should see at least once in their lives. And I think its false to say either act is better than the other.

And for the record, the first time I saw each of them, I paid $150 for arguably the exact same seats (side lowers, football stadium). The second time I saw Paul, I got free tickets from a friend and they were behind home plate in a baseball stadium. Compared to the second time I saw the Stones for $90, in an arena, upper deck. Again, pretty comparable when you look at the pros and cons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-25 21:49 by RollingFreak.

Quote
RollingFreak
The two are pretty comparable aside from price, in which case Paul is a BIT better (they are both still extremely overpriced, and sorry but I think they could both charge $25-$50 for every seat in a stadium or baseball park and still make a killing).

The Stones shows are shorter, but its also the Stones. Paul does Beatles and Wings and solo. So the extra 30-45 minutes is pretty much his solo/Wings, which equates both sets being about equal in terms of their "classic" material. Paul plays more songs, but they are also usually much shorter. He does a lot of 2 minuters which the Stones just don't. Also Paul is essentially a song and dance man. To me, even with the Vegas factor, Paul's shows are most nostalgic than the Stones. Granted, maybe the greatest nostalgic act ever (I've seen 2 Paul shows and they were both some of the best shows I've ever seen), but he's still just kind of there singing the songs to you. Regardless of how you feel about their shows, the Stones are still rock (makes sense, Stones were always more straight ahead than Beatles) and I like that aspect which I think Paul doesn't have. With the Stones, you're still seeing a "rock band".

So I think there are pros and cons to each, but I think largely both shows are excellent and I wouldn't rank one over the other. Each has stuff the other doesn't have and that I may prefer. They are two legends that 100% every single music fan should see at least once in their lives. And I think its false to say either act is better than the other.

And for the record, the first time I saw each of them, I paid $150 for arguably the exact same seats (side lowers, football stadium). The second time I saw Paul, I got free tickets from a friend and they were behind home plate in a baseball stadium. Compared to the second time I saw the Stones for $90, in an arena, upper deck. Again, pretty comparable when you look at the pros and cons.

RollingFreak,

What an excellent, objective and well balanced review. Well done you. I strongly agree with every single word of that. The Beatles and Stones are definitely not an either/or - many are a fan of both. And the Who too

Quote
grzegorz67

Quote
RollingFreak
The two are pretty comparable aside from price, in which case Paul is a BIT better (they are both still extremely overpriced, and sorry but I think they could both charge $25-$50 for every seat in a stadium or baseball park and still make a killing).

The Stones shows are shorter, but its also the Stones. Paul does Beatles and Wings and solo. So the extra 30-45 minutes is pretty much his solo/Wings, which equates both sets being about equal in terms of their "classic" material. Paul plays more songs, but they are also usually much shorter. He does a lot of 2 minuters which the Stones just don't. Also Paul is essentially a song and dance man. To me, even with the Vegas factor, Paul's shows are most nostalgic than the Stones. Granted, maybe the greatest nostalgic act ever (I've seen 2 Paul shows and they were both some of the best shows I've ever seen), but he's still just kind of there singing the songs to you. Regardless of how you feel about their shows, the Stones are still rock (makes sense, Stones were always more straight ahead than Beatles) and I like that aspect which I think Paul doesn't have. With the Stones, you're still seeing a "rock band".

So I think there are pros and cons to each, but I think largely both shows are excellent and I wouldn't rank one over the other. Each has stuff the other doesn't have and that I may prefer. They are two legends that 100% every single music fan should see at least once in their lives. And I think its false to say either act is better than the other.

And for the record, the first time I saw each of them, I paid $150 for arguably the exact same seats (side lowers, football stadium). The second time I saw Paul, I got free tickets from a friend and they were behind home plate in a baseball stadium. Compared to the second time I saw the Stones for $90, in an arena, upper deck. Again, pretty comparable when you look at the pros and cons.

RollingFreak,

What an excellent, objective and well balanced review. Well done you. I strongly agree with every single word of that. The Beatles and Stones are definitely not an either/or - many are a fan of both. And the Who too

Hurrah - some common sense in this one party state.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
Stoneage
Do senior citizens get a discount at Macca's shows?

No, are senior citizens getting in cheap on the Zip Code tour?

Strangely, no. I suspect they charge them even more...

that is so untrue.

it's simply that they won't allow seniors to buy tickets anywhere within the first ten rows.

Very sleepy right now

Quote
potus43
Very sleepy right now

open a window right away!

do you have a carbon monoxide detector?!

Hmm you tend to stalk people. That is sad

Quote
potus43
Hmm you tend to stalk people. That is sad

'
do I, tend to? sorry, my teachers told me that in school, "MR. FINGERS', you have a tendency to stalk people, you have to stay after class and clean erasers!"

I'll watch it in the future, promise!

Quote
Stoneage
Any sons of the Beatles attending?

Saw one of them at The Who concerts !

Quote
[email protected]

Quote
Stoneage
Any sons of the Beatles attending?

Saw one of them at The Who concerts !

I saw McCartney's show 4 weeks before in Tokyo and Seoul.
And saw Stones yesterday in SD.
Then I am going to fly to east coast and will be in NYC on 30th.

After I read your post, start thinking to go Forest Hills concert.

Beatles, Stones and Who in one month !

I saw him last month at the Tokyo Dome and the Budokan. He was amazing. You can't really compare a Stones show though. The McCartney show has a warm, nostalgic feel to it that Paul milks for all it is worth, with his dedications to John and George, the opening montage, the references to guitars he used back in the day, etc. Lots of people cry. The Stones come on stage and play a rock show, most of which they've been playing fairly constantly since 1972. No stories, no crying. Neither is a better "value" as you can't really compare the two.

I will say that I wish Paul would drop some of his deep cuts and go back to warhorses. I'm thinking I can do without Obladi Oblada and All Together Now.

"1, 2, 3, 4, can I have a little more, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, TEN, I love you."

Quote
Stoneage
Any sons of the Beatles attending?

At least one daughter of a Beatle attended. Stella was there with a herd of Macca grandkids. They were escorted out from backstage, walked in front of my section (111), up the stairs and into Row H, three rows behind me. No big deal, no obvious security. Macca mentioned during the show that the grandkids were there. Love that they got the chance to watch a sold out show in London, with the crowd on their feet for 3 hours. My first time back at the O2 since August 2007, the wondrous Stones Week!

Also worth noting (given the general complaints around here about lack of new Stones material) that McCartney played five songs recorded/released within the last three years. This was not a simple nostalgia act.

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
Also worth noting (given the general complaints around here about lack of new Stones material) that McCartney played five songs recorded/released within the last three years. This was not a simple nostalgia act.

That's correct. The show itself has (by design) a nostalgic feel to it, a it should as it pays tribute to fallen band members and constantly references the past. That's a deliberate choice and doesn't make him a "nostalgia act" which has a definite negative ring to it. He has been amazingly active in the past 15 years or so. Chaos & Creation, Electric Arguments and New are up there with the best of his solo work. It is unfortunate that so few are interested.

I love this one from New - Queenie Eye. A proper old fashioned toe tapper.

[m.youtube.com]

Last night I bought a top price ticket for tomorrow night's show in Birmingham. 5th row on the side and very close to the stage. At the O2 I was in Level 4 and no I didn't get a senior citizen discount for my 73yo parents! I can't wait. This time tomorrow I'll be making the 90 mile drive up there from my home near Swindon.

I agree with others that he does milk the nostalgia factor a bit, especially with the on-screen graphics but don't be blinded by the fact that Macca is still regularly making new music and performing it live. And some very creditable stuff too.

So glad you and your parents enjoyed the show.
He is still on my wishlist to see, as I would have gone to show at O2, but not back from Spain till June 23rd and looking forward to ZZ Top 24th and of course The Who on 26th.

See you there Gregor. ><

Not sure I agree with the notion he's milking nostalgia. Most people going to his concerts are Beatles fans and expect it. Furthermore, he doesn't shun his past but actually promotes it, plus he makes new music and promotes that as well. His latest single is in the set list now and a few from his recent LP. Don't want to say he's relevant but he's tapped into something special that a lot of people seem to love. I also agree a Stones show is a different vibe, definitely more rocking. Sometimes I try to figure which I prefer but to be honest it's nice to have both.

Quote
frankotero
Not sure I agree with the notion he's milking nostalgia. Most people going to his concerts are Beatles fans and expect it. Furthermore, he doesn't shun his past but actually promotes it, plus he makes new music and promotes that as well. His latest single is in the set list now and a few from his recent LP. Don't want to say he's relevant but he's tapped into something special that a lot of people seem to love. I also agree a Stones show is a different vibe, definitely more rocking. Sometimes I try to figure which I prefer but to be honest it's nice to have both.

I've no complaints about the nostalgia factor at all. I loved the show very much from start to end and that's why I decided the very next day to go to his next, tomorrow night. I live equidistant from London & Birmingham so easily possible at short notice