Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
The Sicilian
Just saw Paul McCartney close his "Out There" tour in Buffalo tonight.

Though his voice was a little raspy probably from playing Detroit the night before, he still managed to play 40 songs. And still screamed the parts in various songs that were screamed in the originals. He also played a couple pianos, a ukulele, and a myriad of guitars including bass, acoustic, lead and rhythm.

Contrast that with the Stones tour I saw this July and they played only 19 songs.

really? Did Paul play any songs that were 14 min long (Rambler) or any songs over 3 minutes?

Who cares how long the songs were, actually I stand corrected, he played 41 songs. Those 41 for the most part were upbeat sing a long songs. McCartney's setlist ran over an hour longer than the Stones, had way more content, and lots of banter with the fans. That is what mattered.

Songs that made it to the show like this little gem, Another Girl:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Yeah but did he put you to sleep

I scored some decent, moderately priced tickets for McCartney yesterday. He's doing 4 shows next month in the northwest (Seattle, Portland, 2 in Vancouver). I haven't seen him play in over 10 years & Keyarena in Seattle will be the smallest venue I've seen him in. Looking forward to it although I would rather be talking about the Stones playing in my part of the world. Although I saw 50 & Counting in Las Vegas, the Stones haven't played anywhere close to me since ABB. I think if they played Centurylink Field in Seattle, they would draw from Portland & Vancouver. C'mon boys, I'm going through Stones withdrawls!

I got tickets for the first Vancouver show on April 19. $330 per ticket plus $30 for underground parking at Rogers Arena. When I saw McCartney in Vancouver at BC Place in late 2012 I thought it was a once in a lifetime show! It was his first show here since the Beatles played here in 64. Now 3 1/2 years later he's back.
Stones could play Centurylink and BC Place! One thing about BC Place is they can come whenever and just close the roof so weather's not a factor. You would have fans from all across Western Canada fly in.

Got a decent ticket on pre-sale day. Third row in the section next to the center (best) block in front of the stage. Not as scandalous or difficult as my favorite band, hint hint

Got a pit ticket for Waldbuhne. It will be my second visit to this great venue after I saw The Sones there 2 years ago.

I paid $240 for a pair. ADA seats, first row of the upper deck. They will be fine. 'Tis the season of the expensive old guy shows. Bruce, Paul, Iggy & the Who. All north of $100 a ticket, although not a lot for the seats I got. Not to mention what I paid a broker for the Cure in Vegas. Passed on Sting/Gabriel, Dylan, Paul Simon & Billy Joel. There's others. I don't live beyond my means. I'd ante up more for some, including the Stones though. I pretty much have to go for tickets where I'm not required to stand for the whole show. There's no way I would be able to stand through a whole Bruce show or the last Neil Young tour. McCartney does long shows, too. The up side of that is those tickets aren't usually in the upper tier of the pricing. It's going to be a rockin' spring starting a week from Thursday with Springsteen followed by Iggy Pop a few days later. It's going to be a test with a lot of the shows being on work nights. This getting old thing isn't for the meek!

Quote
Stones50

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
The Sicilian
Just saw Paul McCartney close his "Out There" tour in Buffalo tonight.

Though his voice was a little raspy probably from playing Detroit the night before, he still managed to play 40 songs. And still screamed the parts in various songs that were screamed in the originals. He also played a couple pianos, a ukulele, and a myriad of guitars including bass, acoustic, lead and rhythm.

Contrast that with the Stones tour I saw this July and they played only 19 songs.

really? Did Paul play any songs that were 14 min long (Rambler) or any songs over 3 minutes?

Who cares how long the songs were, actually I stand corrected, he played 41 songs. Those 41 for the most part were upbeat sing a long songs. McCartney's setlist ran over an hour longer than the Stones, had way more content, and lots of banter with the fans. That is what mattered.

Songs that made it to the show like this little gem, Another Girl:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Yeah but did he put you to sleep

Exactly. I am falling asleep just thinking of him. What a bore

Quote
Stones50

Quote
Stones50

Yeah but did he put you to sleep

Exactly. I am falling asleep just thinking of him. What a bore

Great that you agree at least with yourself. Congratulations!

Paris show announced on May 30th in Paris (Bercy arena).

Rusty also quoted as saying that they're about to record tracks for a new album...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

merci pour l'info.
Thanks for the news about Paris

HE just added a date in Minneapolis. Target Center.

zzzz

Quote
Happy24
Got a pit ticket for Waldbuhne. It will be my second visit to this great venue after I saw The Sones there 2 years ago.

Same here!

Quote
Stones50
zzzz

Grow up will you.

I hate to say it but a Paul McCartney show makes the Stones look like a well oiled lounge act. The Stones show has become so stale that a horrible periscope feed is a bargain rather than paying $50 ticket to a scalper to hear them go through the motions.

It is cringing to hear people actually try to talk about how good the same songs sound show after show. It is absolutely ridiculous that they cannot play anything different from their vast catalog of great early songs all the way to some really good stuff from the later albums. They have turned into an 18 song band that can only play rehashed glory hits. They have shown no creativity, spontaneity, or ability to change one thing in their setlist. The show has turned into a total embarrassment of showmanship. As a long time Stones fan, I am pissed at the show they are giving their fans. The fans deserve a much better show than this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-03-17 06:46 by The Sicilian.

Quote
The Sicilian
I hate to say it but a Paul McCartney show makes the Stones look like a well oiled lounge act. The Stones show has become so stale that a horrible periscope feed is a bargain rather than paying $50 ticket to a scalper to hear them go through the motions.

It is cringing to hear people actually try to talk about how good the same songs sound show after show. It is absolutely ridiculous that they cannot play anything different from their vast catalog of great early songs all the way to some really good stuff from the later albums. They have turned into an 18 song band that can only play rehashed glory hits. They have shown no creativity, spontaneity, or ability to change one thing in their setlist. The show has turned into a total embarrassment of showmanship. As a long time Stones fan, I am pissed at the show they are giving their fans. The fans deserve a much better show than this.

I think that some new material would lively up the Stones some. It has been a real long time since ABB. Whilst not a classic it did have some good stuff. The Who are in the same boat. McCartney on the other hand has continued to put out new music. Not all of it is good but he is at least trying new things (single with Kanye & Rihanna, Cut Me Some Slack). It appears that Paul genuinely likes going out & playing live. I missed Paul 3 years ago due to health & haven't seen him in over 10 years but have heard some tapes. He definitely changes things up. I'm going this time & looking forward to it. I've travelled for the Stones in the past but I think those days are over. If they come to my area, I'll go with the knowledge that most likely I've heard it before. If its more than that it will be a pleasant surprise. I'm a little puzzled by the shrinking set list by the Stones. When I saw 50 & Counting it was 21 or 22 songs & almost 2.5 hours. Seems reasonable for the money being charged. 18 songs @ 2 hours or under is not good. As someone who suffers arthritis, I can have some sympathy for Keith. I had to give up guitar because my fingers don't work well. Maybe its time to go a different direction for him. I don't want my last memories of the Stones to be a caricture.

Quote
nightskyman
That Memories Almost Full album got some good reviews, but imo I lost interest in any of his remaining solo material/releases since Pipes of Peace. So even with Giles Martin helping out, I'm not expecting much.

However, I hope he tours (in America) again to promote te new album. I missed him the last time at the Barclay in Brooklyn.

Yeah, Tug of War was the last one I thought was really good.

Quote
kovach

Quote
nightskyman
That Memories Almost Full album got some good reviews, but imo I lost interest in any of his remaining solo material/releases since Pipes of Peace. So even with Giles Martin helping out, I'm not expecting much.

However, I hope he tours (in America) again to promote te new album. I missed him the last time at the Barclay in Brooklyn.

Yeah, Tug of War was the last one I thought was really good.

Tune in then. Gee the the last stones album was Aftermath

His new albums suck. They usually have like 1 or 2 good songs on them, but for the most part its amazing the decline his songwriting took after the 70s.

Quote
RollingFreak
His new albums suck. They usually have like 1 or 2 good songs on them, but for the most part its amazing the decline his songwriting took after the 70s.

Are you talking about McCartney or the Stones as the above statement can be applied to both (although with the Stones the decline happened after 1981).
And it should be said, at least McCartney releases new albums whereas with the Stones it's been a long 11 years and counting...grrrr...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
RollingFreak
His new albums suck. They usually have like 1 or 2 good songs on them, but for the most part its amazing the decline his songwriting took after the 70s.

Are you talking about McCartney or the Stones as the above statement can be applied to both (although with the Stones the decline happened after 1981).
And it should be said, at least McCartney releases new albums whereas with the Stones it's been a long 11 years and counting...grrrr...

Both. But my point being if they both suck, stop releasing so many albums. Really, do we need ANOTHER album from the Stones thats like a 3 or 4 out of 10? I understand the idea of it, but its not like it changes anything. Their tours are still the same songs, PLUS new ones they feel obligated to play. So it changes nothing, except kinda sorta makes them feel relevant, which is hysterical because they are in their 70s.

I'm not saying bands should stop making albums. But McCartney is proof that it does absolutely nothing if you do. Are his shows any better because he has new music? I doubt it. They're good cause he puts on a good show. It always reminds me of Elton John and Billy Joel. Billy Joel stopped putting out records in 1992. Whether that was a good idea or not, I'm not sure, but he steadfastly claims he said what he had to say and didn't want to start making bad albums. Elton John has said to him "why don't you make more albums?!!" And Billy Joel says "why don't you make less!" Which regardless of what you think of Billy Joel is a valid concern of Elton John. He puts out album after album, every now and then one is good, but most are completely forgettable, and its not like they ever stay in a setlist.

You can call Billy lazy, but he makes an interesting point that what is the use in putting out music you will not promote, have any faith in, barely remember anyway. At least someone like David Bowie said "I'm going to bury my old catalogue" and did that to a good extent. Then you have people like the Stones, McCartney, Elton who literally just make albums to make albums. They don't actually care about them (I'll take that back if we get a 20th anniversary edition with memories about recording Bridges To Babylon), its literally done as part of the grind of touring, and its completely unneeded, as is evidenced by the Stones touring since 2007.

RollingFreak, I mostly with your logic. But also I think should they stop when they believe they've topped out? That's a double edged sword, because if any these bands did that we'd be calling them nostalgic and living off their laurels. If it's a question of preserving a legacy I don't think making bum albums is going to have any impact. The Stones will always be at the top because of the 1960s and 70s. After that there is plenty of stuff I like very much. Some of it even better than their heyday. Sure there's a small chance new music by them won't stack up, but it will at least be enjoyable I think. And what if... it's actually a master piece!

Good to see so many Stones fans are Beatles/McCartney fans too

I scored a ticket for Paris (GA) on May 30th this morning for a very reasonable 73EUR.

Also going to Rock Werchter in Belgium on June 30th. No curfew there so anything could happen. Last year at Roskilde, he came on stage very late indeed and played nearly his usual full set , 37 songs instead of his usual 40/41.

Hopefully the Stones will do Knebworth on the 40th anniversary of their 1976 show in August. I can't see them doing anything in early Summer with Ronnie's twins due then.

Quote
Bastion

Quote
Stones50
zzzz

Grow up will you.

He doesn't get IT

Quote
The Sicilian
I hate to say it but a Paul McCartney show makes the Stones look like a well oiled lounge act. The Stones show has become so stale that a horrible periscope feed is a bargain rather than paying $50 ticket to a scalper to hear them go through the motions.

It is cringing to hear people actually try to talk about how good the same songs sound show after show. It is absolutely ridiculous that they cannot play anything different from their vast catalog of great early songs all the way to some really good stuff from the later albums. They have turned into an 18 song band that can only play rehashed glory hits. They have shown no creativity, spontaneity, or ability to change one thing in their setlist. The show has turned into a total embarrassment of showmanship. As a long time Stones fan, I am pissed at the show they are giving their fans. The fans deserve a much better show than this.

A bit OT here but your points put words on a mounting feeling I've been having lately. They've really stopped trying haven't they, the 2012 50th setlists feel plentiful and adventurous! Not to mention pulling out Taylor of darkness to bring some kind of challenge/tension (as well as satisfy the insurance companies...maybe). Now the 18 songs format has been "carved in stone" it seems...notice how they do it gradually, almost to see how people will react, first it was "maybe it was because of the heat", then "because of the rain", now it's just 18 songs, end of story. And you still have people raving about how it's the "best show ever", etc...Can't blame a fan in Lima who's never seen them before, but for people who've seen them 10+ times ?

Back to Macca, one thing that can be said is that he doesn't play it safe, by the standards of a mega act, leaves everything on the table when he belts out "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "Helter Skelter", sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (voice takes several songs to recover). Very few concessions made to time, arguably his shows are on par with what they were in 1976 when he was at the top of his game. Amazing when you stop and think of it!

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

And I totally disagree about his recent albums not being good. I just think that is crazy. The guy has released some of his strongest solo albums late in his career. Electric Arguments is a classic and up there among his best. Memory Almost Full, fantastic, Driving Rain- great, New- also great, and Flaming Pie, and Run Devil Run, a very strong string of releases!

Paul has always had a knack for song writing. Making it easy for him to compose music as often as he does. Plus I believe he really enjoys it and the continuing love he gets from the fans. Beatlemania still exists through him, and sort of Ringo but I don't think he's into it as much as Paul. I like most of his recent stuff but there are a few clunkers in there too, in my opinion. Overall I'm glad he has not stopped releasing new songs and looking forward to more.

Quote
whitem8
And I totally disagree about his recent albums not being good. I just think that is crazy. The guy has released some of his strongest solo albums late in his career. Electric Arguments is a classic and up there among his best. Memory Almost Full, fantastic, Driving Rain- great, New- also great, and Flaming Pie, and Run Devil Run, a very strong string of releases!

I agree. Most of the stuff since and including Flowers In The Dirt has been good to very good.

Yes, Elmo, I agree. Actually I would say good to great! Excellent! Especially, Electric Arguments, which I think is up there with Ram and Band on the Run. Very well done, eclectic, and interesting.

You can't hide in the technology world anymore. Everybody knows everything that happens as it is happening. The Stones still think they have this mystique but really don't realize that it left the park after 1989. The people of wealth and taste still think they can read and interpret the fan DNA on the ground with infallible results.

Bands have learned to change and adapt to the current zeitgeist of the music scene. The Stones still want to crash a craft beer tasting carrying Jack Daniels and Gin. It doesn't work anymore. Fans are educated, more demanding, pay an excessive amount of money on concerts, and bore way more easier. McCartney, Springsteen, U2, The Dead & Company, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, etc...all these groups saw the trends coming and embraced them. Longer shows, open setlists, sound enhancing, theatrics, creative staging, album plays, B-sides, etc... What are the Stones offering? Rigged song votes that were used in past tours years ago? It is too scripted and exposed. It has tarnished their legacy with people who casually observe and those who really care.