I am not a Macca or a Beatles fan but who could not have enjoyed Hey Jude at halftime last night? I thought his show was pretty good. I loved how the organizers back to rim of the stage with "fans". Most them didn't even know who he was. It was funny to see rap fans with all their bling haning off their necks in the crowd. They had no clue who Macca was.

he sounded great. I watched on TV like most everyone else, and enjoyed him and that band he's got. don't know if I'd go to a McCartney concert, but I respect him for sounding great, and taking care of himself.

Paul freaking rocked. Good rock and roll, played great. Paul still has a great voice, and the song selection was great. Nice back up band, too, although I didnt recognize any of them.

JR

His backup band was the same band he had with him on his last tour, 3 younger guys and "Wix" on the keyboards, who has been with him for many years. They sounded great last night!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-07 18:40 by DaveG.

Great show! Thumbs up to Macca! And his drummer is amazing!

His drummer is the best drummer in the world. I told this here two years ago and got nearly killed for that. Of course I love Charlie and he is the best possible drummer for the Stones, but Abe Laboriel Jr. is just amazing! With Paul live he rocks 3 hours like hell.
Get the "Back In The US" live DVD of Maccas last american tour and you will see. His drumming on "Maybe I´m Amazed" is just unbelievable.

I'll get blasted for this, but the main difference between McCartney's last tour and the Stones last tour was the quality of sound. McCartney had the best sound system I had ever heard. The Licks tour was booming and a bit dissappointing.

Good to see the kudos for Macca here (although I'm sure the Macca bashers are waiting in line for their chance). I agree Macca sounded/looked wonderful. Also, I hope the Stones were taking notes on the stage design - ultra-cool with the videos pointing upward and the in-the-round setup.

I liked the video floor. I am a Macca basher but I liked him last night, even if his vocals were pre-recorded. I put him right up there with the other two of what my wife an I call the "Has-Been Trio"---- Billy Joel and Elton John. Sting will soon round it out to make them the "Has-Been Quartet".

I saw McCartney live and I have to agree that the sound was amazing.
Saw the Stones on the Licks tour in the same venue and their sound was muddy with solos either far too loud or quiet.

Anybody else think Mcartney's vocals were pre-recorded last night at the Superbowl?

I thought that at times he was singing over a backing track at other times miming.
I`ve a copy I DVDd so I`ll have another look.
Certainly the sound and mix was very good from a setup that only took minutes.

looked to me like the whole thing was live.

during Hey Jude when he does the scream, it seemed to me as if there was a delay. I was watching closely because it was obviosu tha Alycia Keyes was lip synching at the beginning of her song and then sang it live towards the end. I agree that Macca's drummer was good but one of the greats? Not sure?

no way the vocals were pre-recorded. a totally ludicrous allegation. macca has way too much integrity (and talent) to do that.

Singers from the 60's and 70's ARE singers they don't use pre-recorded vocals or lip synch.

If it were some of today's so called vocalists like Brittany, Jessica, Ashley I'd wgaer the farm they were not performing LIVE.

At the risk of upsetting folk is it not the case that Bernard Fowler covers for Jagger at times?
....not a criticism
...just an observation.

yes, that's true - but there's a big difference between a backup singer occasionally "covering" the lead singer and the lead singer pre-taping his vocals.

Paul was awesome and I'm sure it was LIVE! I saw him 2 years ago and it was a fabulous show, one of the best concerts you'll ever see! And his drummer is incredible! Ole Abe rocks like few drummers live! Just because I loved seeing Paul doing so well takes nothing away from my love of the Stones! I would bet the Stones enjoy Paul's music; maybe not ALL of his tunes, but alot of it. It is happy music! His concerts take you to a really magical place. Not as wonderful as the Stones piece of Heaven, but great none the less!

definitely a live performance...and absolutely awesome! He's touring the states this fall I hear. And I definitely gotta go.

I'm not a huge Macca-fan, but Live And Let Die was absolutely stunning! Hey Jude doesn't get me that excited...

I saw him live during three of his last four major tours ('89, '93, '02). It's all live, and his voice cracks occasionally, but he sings lead on 33 songs each set. As far as the superbowl songs, they were all performed extensively during his latest tours. During one part of the show he sings four songs completely alone on stage, including We Can Work it Out, which is tough to sing.

At the superbowl, Hey Jude was shortened considerably, including leaving out a full verse and a much shorter ending. Drive my Car was the opening song in the tours of '93 and the '03 Euro tour. Get Back was performed in '89 and '03. Live and Let Die (including pyrotechnics, and lasers) and Hey Jude were performed at nearly every stop from '89 - '03.

I saw both McCartney and the Stones in Hartford in '02 just a few days apart. Both sound systems were incredibly good, but Paul blew them away with the graphics and screen layouts.

Wow this is incerible. An entire thread (so far) with no macca bashing! Are they asleep, in a different timezone..???!!!

I am a HUGE fan of both the Stones and McCartney, and I don't mind admitting it. They are my two favourite acts. One thing I would like to say (at the risk of a lot of abuse) is that recently since Maccas latest re-birth at the start of the 2002 US tour he seems to really push himself and take risks on stage - 36 song sets, 2 1/2 hour shows singing lead on every song, a lot of just him and an acoustic guitar/piano, leaving himself very open and vulnerable if his voice gives. However Maccas lucky cos he has a young and fit backing band. Whereas the Stones take less chances and play it too safe i think. Dont get me wrong, the Stones live is an amazing thing, but there are more risks and variables - ronnies guitar playing (or lack of it) keiths fingers, charlies arms obviously take some punishment. And mick running and dancing and putting on an amazing physical performance. Now unfortunately these problems do affect how long and what material the stones play, and I think it takes away from the stones performance purely from a musical point of view? Anyone understand what im saying/agree??

As for the macca superbowl show, he was singing live, but their were pre-recorded count-ins (1-2-3-4) that maybe made people think it was all taped.
I think this was done to keep to the 12 minute limit he had, otherwise he would break out into his usual clowning and thanking everyone in the world etc etc that he always does!! But it was a great show, LOVED the stage setup, i really think with a little adjustment it could work well for his tour later this year.
By the way BOBM, Drive my car was the opener for the 93 tour, but the 04 tour (not 2003) opener was Jet! - he did a short 2004 euro stadium tour as a warm up to the glastonbury gig last June. 2003 was the bigger euro/japan tour with the same setlist pretty much as the 2002 shows. 2004 setlist was very much changed.

So anyway, two great acts, but with different merits. If you want emotional 60's nostalgia and incredible almost perfect musicianship, but with a dose of cheesyness and an identical setlist each night, go see macca. If you want larger than life rock'n'roll with some amusing @#$%&-ups every now and again but with some setlist changes and with the worlds greatest frontman, go see the stones. I do both and it keeps me pretty happy.

I'm sure Macca's shows are great, but that's not a wonder, really.
He buys the best muscicians around, plays a little bit bass and sings, adds lots of effects, etc. - there you go -> the best Beatles songs played by the best musicians.

It's probably the same with The Who now. They have Zak Starkey (excellent drummer, much better than his dad ;-)), I think Pino Palladino on bass - that's a very tight rythm section. And Pete still plays his ass off, Roger is still very capable of delivering a good performance too.

You can hardly compare that to the Stones. It's (basically) still Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie - they are still a band! Not only hired musicians and Mick singing. That's why I love them and why I think that you can't compare them to Macca.
But I have to confess that it would be at least interesting to see how the songs would sound with Mick on vocals and Macca's band...(of course I would prefer if Ronnie simply starts playing again, that would improve a lot!)

plays a little bass...lol...

Last time I saw him live he played (a little) bass (just try to play the Penny Lane bass line and sing to it), then electric guitar (including amazing solos - cover Foxy Lady), then acoustic guitar (great picking - listen to Blackbird) and finally piano (Lady Madonna and others).

I do like the Beatles, not nearly as much as the Stones, but I don't like anything Paul has done since he left the Beatles. I don't even like one song he has done. Is it true also that he switched his name to be first on the some of the song's writing credits that him and Lennon did. Also I heard people say that Paul lip synced certain parts of his performance, I did not watch but was curious if there is any truth to this.

"You can hardly compare that to the Stones. It's (basically) still Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie - they are still a band! Not only hired musicians and Mick singing."

Well, I am not so sure about that... Whose there on the core.. Mick, Charlie, the bearded guy behind the keyboards, black guy on bass, lots of guys on back vox and horns.. and oh yeah, two mimic guitarists clowning in the front...

- Doxa

Rorty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You can hardly compare that to the Stones. It's
> (basically) still Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie
> - they are still a band! Not only hired musicians
> and Mick singing."
>
> Well, I am not so sure about that... Whose there
> on the core.. Mick, Charlie, the bearded guy
> behind the keyboards, black guy on bass, lots of
> guys on back vox and horns.. and oh yeah, two
> mimic guitarists clowning in the front...
>
> - Doxa

It's not fair if we blame Keith. He really tries hard most of the time to deliver a good performance. Ronnie's playing could be better of course. But I watched Four Flicks again this weekend, and it's still the Stones that make the music and not the hired musicians.
This said, I still would prefer Ronnie&Keith doing back up vocals and only Bobby Keys on sax and a keyboardist. Get rid of the others...

@ Hound Dog: There it is again. That story about bad Paul switching names. Poor John! Paul has not commented on this crap story. Maybe he should have because every paper cooked it up in the last years.

The truth:
1. In 1962 Paul and John agreed on McCartney/Lennon. Take a look a the album Please Please Me. Every self written song is credited as McCartney/Lennon.
2. In 1963 they switched to Lennon/McCartney with John and Paul agreeing to let it open to switch to McCartney/Lennon again for future releases. Well, once Northern Songs was founded, Lennon/McCartney became standard.
3. When the Beatles split up John could of course remember his agreement. So when Paul released his live album "Wings Over America" in 1976 with some Beatles songs it was McCartney/Lennon again. Noone protested, surely not John. (The Beatles have nearly always written seperate. John knew he had nothing do to with Pauls songs.)

4. When Paul released another live album in 2002 (Back in the US) with his songs from the Beatles period credited as McCartney/Lennon Yoko suddenly protested. She´s mad. She doesn´t know anything about Beatle history and the special John/Paul relationship. She is so crazy that in 1985 she claimed Lennons copyright for a Bee Gees outtake (they were drunk and tried to sound like the Beatles) that mistakenly appeared on a Beatles bootleg.

The truth actually is that Paul is dead.

Look closely at the Abbey Road cover. He's out of step with the other three...