Quote
Wilt
I'm noticing that Paul McCartney routinely does 30+ songs in a concert. Does he do full versions of each song? I'd be in heaven with a 30+ song Stones concert...

Yes, all are full versions with some songs longer than on record.

Knowing that they'll never play longer shows than they do now, my main suggestion is stop turning every song into 5-7 minute showcases. Knock some time off those and you've got time for the variety that many fans would like, and the Stones can still leave the stage after 2 hrs and change. Actually, I'd go for some medleys ala IYCRM/GOOMC if it meant a taste of some rarer material.

I saw Macca last year. Most of the 30 songs he plays, he quickly rifles through and they only last about 2-3 minutes. Much shorter than your average live Stones song that goes about 5-6 minutes. There are some exceptions such as Hey Jude, were he may go into an extended jam and sing along. Paul spends a lot of time talking and telling stories. I would say if the concert was over 2 hours, you are probably only getting about 90 minutes of actual music.

Is there any right or wrong regarding length of shows?

Its like movies, some are as short as 80 minutes and some are close to 3 hours.

It depends what they accomplish in that period of time.

I just don´t get Bruce or McC playing 30+ songs in more than 3 hours

I have never walked away from a show saying the act I came to see played too long. I've said it about individual songs (like the time I saw Led Zeppelin do a 45+ minute version of Dazed and Confused) but not a concert as a whole. I've seen Bruce shows and Pearl Jam shows clock in at about 3 hours where I wished they played even longer.....but that's just me....

I agree, I've never seen a show that I thought went too long. Paul does talk a bit between songs but you get a lot of music in 3 hours.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-14 20:44 by likecats.

Specific to Paul, last year his show ran approximately 2 hours & 15 minutes and the setlist didn't really change (maybe 1 song) from night to night. He bascially approaches it similar to the Stones.... yes there are more songs but many of them are extremely short.

The one time I caught Bruce for a full concert, the show did last almost 3 hours but the final 45 minutes were basically him and the band doing extend jams on a few songs with him saying "goodbye" nearly 100 times. Basically it was a lot of filler and the actual show with meaningful music content was only about 2 hours and 15 minutes. It really got to the point where I was tired of hearing him say/sing "goodbye". Now I know he does mix things up and the lengthy and content of his shows differs greatly.

The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

Quote
Blueranger
The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

First, it is a complete myth that McCartney is out playing 3 hour shows. He isn't, unless you count the video with Beatles tunes that plays before he comes on stage. His current show, where he is performing live, last 2 hours & 15 minutes. And while Paul is in great shape, he isn't in as fit as Mick... nor is doing half the activities that Mick does at any given show. He is charming, he basically moves a little bit and talks much more between songs. The big moment in the show is when he stands on a riser that elevates him some 40 feet above the main stage. He also has a very young band backing him up. They are great musicians but no well known names. A comparable would be if Mick ditched the entire band and went out with session musicians. Now we all know Paul has little option to tour otherwise with the exception of going out with Ringo.

As for the Stones, their shows can still last 2 and half hours. That was still the case when they were playing North American last year. I saw both McCartney & the Stones last June (2014) and the two Stones shows in Philadelphia were both longer than Sir Paul's show. Remember the 14 on Fire Tour saw a reduction in the number of songs played with only 19 being played on any given night.

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
Blueranger
The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

First, it is a complete myth that McCartney is out playing 3 hour shows. He isn't, unless you count the video with Beatles tunes that plays before he comes on stage. His current show, where he is performing live, last 2 hours & 15 minutes. And while Paul is in great shape, he isn't in as fit as Mick... nor is doing half the activities that Mick does at any given show. He is charming, he basically moves a little bit and talks much more between songs. The big moment in the show is when he stands on a riser that elevates him some 40 feet above the main stage. He also has a very young band backing him up. They are great musicians but no well known names. A comparable would be if Mick ditched the entire band and went out with session musicians. Now we all know Paul has little option to tour otherwise with the exception of going out with Ringo.

As for the Stones, their shows can still last 2 and half hours. That was still the case when they were playing North American last year. I saw both McCartney & the Stones last June (2014) and the two Stones shows in Philadelphia were both longer than Sir Paul's show. Remember the 14 on Fire Tour saw a reduction in the number of songs played with only 19 being played on any given night.

McCartney doesn't play concerts that last 3 hours but he comes very close They are far longer than 2 hours 15 minutes and usually are about 2 hours 45 minutes from when he first walks on stage to when he exits the stage after the encores I don't know what show you saw that only lasted 2 hours 15 minutes that was a regular tour show. His shows usued to be shorter, but in the past 5-6 years have grown longer I have seen a bunch of these shows since 2009: Coachella Festival in 2009, L.A. 2 times and San Francisco in 2010, Las Vegas in 2011, Vancouver in 2012 and Seattle in 2013 and these shows have all been well past 2 and a half hours and in some cases around 2 hours 50-55 minutes.

Quote
Halup

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
Blueranger
The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

First, it is a complete myth that McCartney is out playing 3 hour shows. He isn't, unless you count the video with Beatles tunes that plays before he comes on stage. His current show, where he is performing live, last 2 hours & 15 minutes. And while Paul is in great shape, he isn't in as fit as Mick... nor is doing half the activities that Mick does at any given show. He is charming, he basically moves a little bit and talks much more between songs. The big moment in the show is when he stands on a riser that elevates him some 40 feet above the main stage. He also has a very young band backing him up. They are great musicians but no well known names. A comparable would be if Mick ditched the entire band and went out with session musicians. Now we all know Paul has little option to tour otherwise with the exception of going out with Ringo.

As for the Stones, their shows can still last 2 and half hours. That was still the case when they were playing North American last year. I saw both McCartney & the Stones last June (2014) and the two Stones shows in Philadelphia were both longer than Sir Paul's show. Remember the 14 on Fire Tour saw a reduction in the number of songs played with only 19 being played on any given night.

McCartney doesn't play concerts that last 3 hours but he comes very close They are far longer than 2 hours 15 minutes and usually are about 2 hours 45 minutes from when he first walks on stage to when he exits the stage after the encores I don't know what show you saw that only lasted 2 hours 15 minutes that was a regular tour show. His shows usued to be shorter, but in the past 5-6 years have grown longer I have seen a bunch of these shows since 2009: Coachella Festival in 2009, L.A. 2 times and San Francisco in 2010, Las Vegas in 2011, Vancouver in 2012 and Seattle in 2013 and these shows have all been well past 2 and a half hours and in some cases around 2 hours 50-55 minutes.

I saw Paul's show in Vancouver and then the Stones in Toronto last year. Paul was definitely longer, maybe 30 minutes.

With that said, didn't feel at all let down by the length of the Stones show...if anything a bit surprised by how long the Paul show was.

Great to have seen them within 8 months of one another!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Halup

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
Blueranger
The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

First, it is a complete myth that McCartney is out playing 3 hour shows. He isn't, unless you count the video with Beatles tunes that plays before he comes on stage. His current show, where he is performing live, last 2 hours & 15 minutes. And while Paul is in great shape, he isn't in as fit as Mick... nor is doing half the activities that Mick does at any given show. He is charming, he basically moves a little bit and talks much more between songs. The big moment in the show is when he stands on a riser that elevates him some 40 feet above the main stage. He also has a very young band backing him up. They are great musicians but no well known names. A comparable would be if Mick ditched the entire band and went out with session musicians. Now we all know Paul has little option to tour otherwise with the exception of going out with Ringo.

As for the Stones, their shows can still last 2 and half hours. That was still the case when they were playing North American last year. I saw both McCartney & the Stones last June (2014) and the two Stones shows in Philadelphia were both longer than Sir Paul's show. Remember the 14 on Fire Tour saw a reduction in the number of songs played with only 19 being played on any given night.

McCartney doesn't play concerts that last 3 hours but he comes very close They are far longer than 2 hours 15 minutes and usually are about 2 hours 45 minutes from when he first walks on stage to when he exits the stage after the encores I don't know what show you saw that only lasted 2 hours 15 minutes that was a regular tour show. His shows usued to be shorter, but in the past 5-6 years have grown longer I have seen a bunch of these shows since 2009: Coachella Festival in 2009, L.A. 2 times and San Francisco in 2010, Las Vegas in 2011, Vancouver in 2012 and Seattle in 2013 and these shows have all been well past 2 and a half hours and in some cases around 2 hours 50-55 minutes.

I saw Paul's show in Vancouver and then the Stones in Toronto last year. Paul was definitely longer, maybe 30 minutes.

With that said, didn't feel at all let down by the length of the Stones show...if anything a bit surprised by how long the Paul show was.

Great to have seen them within 8 months of one another!

I can't comment on how long Sir Paul's shows use to last 5 years ago. What I can tell you is that his show in Brooklyn last year last 2 hours and 15 minutes. I know this because I was there and it was almost exactly 6 months to the day from when the Stones played the same venue. It was also a Saturday night for both shows.

As for how long he played in other cities, I can't comment because I wasn't there. But I can point you to a site that provides the set lists:

[www.setlist.fm]

And a very simple review shows you that his setlist doesn't change that much at any given point in his tour. It would seem it takes longer to play the same 30 songs if he is in Canada? Or perhaps he just like to talk more to our friends to the north?

Paul has been playing closer to 40 songs than 30 His past few shows have had 39 songs per show, a couple before that had 40 and in the past few years they generally have all had in the 35-40 range. The shows in Brooklyn last year had 38 songs. The last full concert I saw him do was in Seattle last July and it had 39 songs. I know for a fact it lasted at least 2 hours 45 minutes, so I believe you are underestimating the length of the show you saw in Brooklyn.

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
Blueranger
The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

First, it is a complete myth that McCartney is out playing 3 hour shows. He isn't, unless you count the video with Beatles tunes that plays before he comes on stage. His current show, where he is performing live, last 2 hours & 15 minutes. And while Paul is in great shape, he isn't in as fit as Mick... nor is doing half the activities that Mick does at any given show. He is charming, he basically moves a little bit and talks much more between songs. The big moment in the show is when he stands on a riser that elevates him some 40 feet above the main stage. He also has a very young band backing him up. They are great musicians but no well known names. A comparable would be if Mick ditched the entire band and went out with session musicians. Now we all know Paul has little option to tour otherwise with the exception of going out with Ringo.

As for the Stones, their shows can still last 2 and half hours. That was still the case when they were playing North American last year. I saw both McCartney & the Stones last June (2014) and the two Stones shows in Philadelphia were both longer than Sir Paul's show. Remember the 14 on Fire Tour saw a reduction in the number of songs played with only 19 being played on any given night.

Wrong. It's a complete myth that he has a very young band. Guitarist Brian Ray is 59, keyboardist Paul 'Wix' Wickens is 58, and guitarist Rusty Anderson is 55. Only drummer Abe Laboriel would be considered "young" at age 43. They've all been with Paul for more than a dozen years.

Sure, they're all younger than Paul, but it can hardly be considered a "very young" band.

Quote
LoveYouLive
He also has a very young band backing him up.

McCartney's band - the same incarnation he's been touring with since 2002:
Brian Ray - 59
Rusty Anderson - 55
Paul "Wix" Wickens - 58
Abe Laboriel Jr. - 43

Wickens, btw, has been playing with McCartney since his return to touring in 1989.

Oh, and that Brooklyn show in 2013? 38 songs.

[www.setlist.fm]

And perhaps you overestimated the lenght of the show you saw?

I definitely had the song count wrong when I stated 30 but I definitely recall looking at my watch when he took the stage just around 9:15 that night and then when he left the stage at 11:30pm. Now I am not counting the lenghty video that started playing around 8:45pm leading into his performance. If you counted that, you would have 2 hours and 45 minutes. And how is it possible to play nearly 40 songs in just over 2 hours.... easy when a good many of them are only 2 minutes long. And I am not making that up. A good many of the tunes on the setlist are played in under 3 minutes.

And the lenghty of time really doesn't matter, because the Stones still deliver a superior live experience. I couldn't believe the contrast of the two shows held in the same venue on the same night of the week just 6 months apart? I know crowds can be different (even with the same band playing) but it was like night and day. But please forgive me if I show favor to the Stones on a Stones message board. If we are merely counting songs, Sir Paul will win all the time. Excitement is a different matter.

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Halup

Quote
LoveYouLive
The thing simply is, that Macca are in better shape than The Stones.
Sure enough, Jagger can perform every bit as much as McCartney, but Mick are dependent of the other Stones, where for example Keith, can't do it for more than two hours. Paul are in great shape and can hire the backing musicians he needs.

Remember The Stones in 1994/95, played almost 2 and a half hours.

First, it is a complete myth that McCartney is out playing 3 hour shows. He isn't, unless you count the video with Beatles tunes that plays before he

Quote
Blueranger
comes on stage. His current show, where he is performing live, last 2 hours & 15 minutes. And while Paul is in great shape, he isn't in as fit as Mick... nor is doing half the activities that Mick does at any given show. He is charming, he basically moves a little bit and talks much more between songs. The big moment in the show is when he stands on a riser that elevates him some 40 feet above the main stage. He also has a very young band backing him up. They are great musicians but no well known names. A comparable would be if Mick ditched the entire band and went out with session musicians. Now we all know Paul has little option to tour otherwise with the exception of going out with Ringo.

As for the Stones, their shows can still last 2 and half hours. That was still the case when they were playing North American last year. I saw both McCartney & the Stones last June (2014) and the two Stones shows in Philadelphia were both longer than Sir Paul's show. Remember the 14 on Fire Tour saw a reduction in the number of songs played with only 19 being played on any given night.

McCartney doesn't play concerts that last 3 hours but he comes very close They are far longer than 2 hours 15 minutes and usually are about 2 hours 45 minutes from when he first walks on stage to when he exits the stage after the encores I don't know what show you saw that only lasted 2 hours 15 minutes that was a regular tour show. His shows usued to be shorter, but in the past 5-6 years have grown longer I have seen a bunch of these shows since 2009: Coachella Festival in 2009, L.A. 2 times and San Francisco in 2010, Las Vegas in 2011, Vancouver in 2012 and Seattle in 2013 and these shows have all been well past 2 and a half hours and in some cases around 2 hours 50-55 minutes.

I saw Paul's show in Vancouver and then the Stones in Toronto last year. Paul was definitely longer, maybe 30 minutes.

With that said, didn't feel at all let down by the length of the Stones show...if anything a bit surprised by how long the Paul show was.

Great to have seen them within 8 months of one another!

I can't comment on how long Sir Paul's shows use to last 5 years ago. What I can tell you is that his show in Brooklyn last year last 2 hours and 15 minutes. I know this because I was there and it was almost exactly 6 months to the day from when the Stones played the same venue. It was also a Saturday night for both shows.

As for how long he played in other cities, I can't comment because I wasn't there. But I can point you to a site that provides the set lists:

[www.setlist.fm]

And a very simple review shows you that his setlist doesn't change that much at any given point in his tour. It would seem it takes longer to play the same 30 songs if he is in Canada? Or perhaps he just like to talk more to our friends to the north?

Not sure...I can tell you it was close to 3 hours...2 hours 45 or 50 minutes.

very entertaining at that.

The show I saw Paul play last week was 2 hrs 45 mins.

Looking forward to 40 tunes (apprx. 3 hours) at Dodger Stadium in August.

There's no doubt about it that the Stones are great live, and I've seen them enough times to know that.
But only 19 songs live now? Hmmm....

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

Well I saw him in Chicago last week and the show clocked in at around 2:50 minutes. He doesn't talk all that much between songs. He does give a story about Hendrix after Let Me Roll It, and before Something. But they were not that long.
Yes, Paul doesn't run and dance around, and I wish Mick would do less of that! What he does do is sing, play acoustic guitar, electric guitar, piano, ukelele, and bass. Quite stunning.

LYL....looks like your watch stopped during the show. Everyone else's Paul show was close to 3 hours, so I'm pretty sure yours would have to have been, if he played 38 or 39 songs, which is standard for PM on this ongoing tour.

Quote
LoveYouLive
And perhaps you overestimated the lenght of the show you saw?

I definitely had the song count wrong when I stated 30 but I definitely recall looking at my watch when he took the stage just around 9:15 that night and then when he left the stage at 11:30pm. Now I am not counting the lenghty video that started playing around 8:45pm leading into his performance. If you counted that, you would have 2 hours and 45 minutes. And how is it possible to play nearly 40 songs in just over 2 hours.... easy when a good many of them are only 2 minutes long. And I am not making that up. A good many of the tunes on the setlist are played in under 3 minutes.

And the lenghty of time really doesn't matter, because the Stones still deliver a superior live experience. I couldn't believe the contrast of the two shows held in the same venue on the same night of the week just 6 months apart? I know crowds can be different (even with the same band playing) but it was like night and day. But please forgive me if I show favor to the Stones on a Stones message board. If we are merely counting songs, Sir Paul will win all the time. Excitement is a different matter.

You are just not accurate with your times. First of all, most of McCartney's songs are pop songs, or radio friendly hits. By design they're anywhere from 2:30 to 4:30 long. I've seen many of his shows, including this last round, and he's doing full versions of each. When people say there are three hour shows, no one is ever talking about timed music, but instead the first song kicked off at 8:00 p.m. and the last chord was played at 11:00 p.m. Moreover, McCartney never leaves the stage. He sings each and every song AND is playing an instrument for each one. and for whatever reason, he even rarely drinks water. A certain lead singer of another group leaves the stage for two songs of the 19 or so that are played and gets to take a break.


But these are different types of shows. McCartney's not running around, but he's still putting quite a lot of energy into performance. Stones music is more blues oriented, some extended jams, that give the singer a break from his running around. I've seen both acts plenty of times and would not want to denigrate either, but if you've seen a Stones show from 1998-2003 then you've seen the 2014 version. McCartney varies his set list every tour.

[www.usatoday.com] Big news in US today...

Quote
Long John Stoner

Quote
LoveYouLive
And perhaps you overestimated the lenght of the show you saw?

I definitely had the song count wrong when I stated 30 but I definitely recall looking at my watch when he took the stage just around 9:15 that night and then when he left the stage at 11:30pm. Now I am not counting the lenghty video that started playing around 8:45pm leading into his performance. If you counted that, you would have 2 hours and 45 minutes. And how is it possible to play nearly 40 songs in just over 2 hours.... easy when a good many of them are only 2 minutes long. And I am not making that up. A good many of the tunes on the setlist are played in under 3 minutes.

And the lenghty of time really doesn't matter, because the Stones still deliver a superior live experience. I couldn't believe the contrast of the two shows held in the same venue on the same night of the week just 6 months apart? I know crowds can be different (even with the same band playing) but it was like night and day. But please forgive me if I show favor to the Stones on a Stones message board. If we are merely counting songs, Sir Paul will win all the time. Excitement is a different matter.

You are just not accurate with your times. First of all, most of McCartney's songs are pop songs, or radio friendly hits. By design they're anywhere from 2:30 to 4:30 long. I've seen many of his shows, including this last round, and he's doing full versions of each. When people say there are three hour shows, no one is ever talking about timed music, but instead the first song kicked off at 8:00 p.m. and the last chord was played at 11:00 p.m. Moreover, McCartney never leaves the stage. He sings each and every song AND is playing an instrument for each one. and for whatever reason, he even rarely drinks water. A certain lead singer of another group leaves the stage for two songs of the 19 or so that are played and gets to take a break.


But these are different types of shows. McCartney's not running around, but he's still putting quite a lot of energy into performance. Stones music is more blues oriented, some extended jams, that give the singer a break from his running around. I've seen both acts plenty of times and would not want to denigrate either, but if you've seen a Stones show from 1998-2003 then you've seen the 2014 version. McCartney varies his set list every tour.

First, I am not talking about the time he is playing music, I am talking about the time he went on stage and left. And I was at the Brooklyn show last year and he didn't go on stage at 8pm like you are claiming. He went on stage after 9pm, more like 9:15 and was off at 11:30pm. His lead in video didn't even start until 8:45pm. It may have been over 2 hours and 15 miutes total but it wasn't anymore than 2 hours and 25 minutes.

And thank you for enlightening me about what a Stones live show is all about.... I guess I wouldn't know as I've only seen them 40 times going back to the 1981 tour. Shame on Mick Jagger for running around and entertaining us all. I guess it would be better if he slowed down and focused on the songs more? And I don't agree with your general comment that these recent show are the same stuff we saw back in the 90's. First the shows I saw on the 50 and Counting Tour were between 21-23 songs and last close to 2 and 1/2 hours. I was at the Philly 2 show last year less than 2 weeks after seeing Paul in Brooklyn, with the same friends.... we remember it being a slightly longer show than Sir Paul's. And far superior! I also don't remember Mick Taylor playing with the Stones every night back in the 90's or all the other guest that I saw and personally loved. Seeing Aaron Neville "ruin" Under The Boardwalk was one of my favorites. I also had to suffer through Tom Wait's on Little Red Rooster and a sub-par version of Respectible with John Mayer. (sarcasm) And hearing Mick Taylor on CYHMK was also special and something I never experienced before.

And just like Sir Paul, the Stones change up their setlist a bit on every tour. There are plenty of songs they were performing that weren't played back in the 90's like Emotional Rescue & GOOMC (played some on No Security). I also didn't know that Doom & Gloom and One More Shot were ever played live before 2012? Yes they have their warhorses that make a large part of their set (too much) but they also pepper in less songs like Live With Me, Dead Flowers, All Down the Line & When the Whip Comes Down. I got all of this along with the other songs I've mentioned earlier.

And yes I saw shows in Europe this summer. They were wonderful shows but they weren't as good as the 50 and Counting Tour. It seems enough people complained and the special guest slot was removed... so Mick does seem to pay attention to some here. And most of the songs that were voted selections recently were either standard offerings or simply high in the rotation during 50 and Counting Tour. But Europe did get some changes as You Got Me Rocking & Out of Control were added to give the setlist a healthy dose of 90's offerings. Great (newer) songs but it would have been better if One More Shot wasn't drop. Hey you generally paid less... so you got less! Kind of how things work in life?

Would I see McCartney again... absolutely. But I would limit my attendance to only one show per tour. Especially since he cost the same to see here in the United States. He puts on a great show, but it isn't a Stones show. For me it isn't about the overall length.... it is about 2+ hours of quality live music. And some times less is more.

LoveYouLive are you sure about Paul's concert length? I know there's a fairly long video intro (shaved down considerably since 2004) but I'm pretty sure the concert is 2:45 of music. But I do agree with you on the fact Mick is more physical, and basically The Stones concert is more exciting. Paul comes in a close second for me, that's saying a lot for just one Beatle compared to four Stones, not including the other people onstage. I too usually go to one Macca gig every tour while going to five or more Stones gigs, again because it's more exciting. But that's going to change as it appears The Stones are going to stick to a routine setlist, of course this could change and hopefully it does.

As I said above. I just saw Macca's show in Chicago last Wed. It clocked in at 2 hours and 50 minutes. NOT counting the video. He told three short stories. One about Hendrix after Let Me Roll it/Foxy Lady, one about Blackbird and the civil rights movement, and one about Something. And his band, while younger than Paul are all in their fifties, and have been playing with Paul longer than The Beatles and The Wings!

No one can dispute that it's an immense show and lasts plenty of time. In the world of entertainment Paul is not a problem.

Quote
whitem8
As I said above. I just saw Macca's show in Chicago last Wed. It clocked in at 2 hours and 50 minutes. NOT counting the video. He told three short stories. One about Hendrix after Let Me Roll it/Foxy Lady, one about Blackbird and the civil rights movement, and one about Something. And his band, while younger than Paul are all in their fifties, and have been playing with Paul longer than The Beatles and The Wings!

He told all those stories at my show last year. And while it wasn't music, it definitely was an important part of the show Unfortunately I was thinking that his stories and talking were a bit unique to any given show. It seems much of it isn't unique but he definitely did speak directly to the NY audience about some things. But it seems just like some of the songs are standard in the setlist so are the stories.

As for the timing (others keep questioning me), I know how long the show in Brooklyn lasted. I was definitely paying attention as I don't generally like to sit that long. And the crowd around me was sitting the entire show (other then the start and very end) and they were asking people to sit down if they did try and stand or dance. Paul must have been operating at a rapid pace that night because it wasn't 2 hours and 45 minutes onstage. You may have gotten longer at other shows but I didn't.

LYL, I wouldn't focus so much on the quantity of time but rather the quality, did you enjoy it?

By your own admission you don't like to sit that long, so I guess you 'lucked out'.

For some reason in Brooklyn, although he played the same number of songs, and told the same number of stories, you got roughly 30 minutes less of concert than the rest of the tour.

Well, either that or just possibly you are mistaken. No, I'm sure it couldn't be that....likelier Paul just sped up the songs.

Quote
treaclefingers
LYL, I wouldn't focus so much on the quantity of time but rather the quality, did you enjoy it?

By your own admission you don't like to sit that long, so I guess you 'lucked out'.

For some reason in Brooklyn, although he played the same number of songs, and told the same number of stories, you got roughly 30 minutes less of concert than the rest of the tour.

Well, either that or just possibly you are mistaken. No, I'm sure it couldn't be that....likelier Paul just sped up the songs.

To directly answer your question treaclefingers.... yes I enjoyed myself. I am sorry if that wasn't clear from all I wrote. Perhaps English isn't your first language and you have some difficult with your own reading comprehension as I did communicate that I enjoyed myself more than once. But I did want to provide a clear and direct answer so I am certain you aren't "mistaken".

And your quantity verses quality statement is really better directed at others in this thread as you seem to have missed all that I've been communicating in this thread with respect to Macca live verses the Stones.

I've just looked at my watch, which I often do and believe I've spend enough time sharing on this thread for now.

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
treaclefingers
LYL, I wouldn't focus so much on the quantity of time but rather the quality, did you enjoy it?

By your own admission you don't like to sit that long, so I guess you 'lucked out'.

For some reason in Brooklyn, although he played the same number of songs, and told the same number of stories, you got roughly 30 minutes less of concert than the rest of the tour.

Well, either that or just possibly you are mistaken. No, I'm sure it couldn't be that....likelier Paul just sped up the songs.

To directly answer your question treaclefingers.... yes I enjoyed myself. I am sorry if that wasn't clear from all I wrote. Perhaps English isn't your first language and you have some difficult with your own reading comprehension as I did communicate that I enjoyed myself more than once. But I did want to provide a clear and direct answer so I am certain you aren't "mistaken".

And your quantity verses quality statement is really better directed at others in this thread as you seem to have missed all that I've been communicating in this thread with respect to Macca live verses the Stones.

I've just looked at my watch, which I often do and believe I've spend enough time sharing on this thread for now.

First of all, glad that you did in fact enjoy yourself.

I guess the mixed message I was receiving from your posts was that you started out by informing us that we were all wrong about the show being close to 3 hours....bitching (sounded like bitching anyway) that the show was only 2 hours 15 minutes and that the stones played longer.

Later you mention you like shorter shows. Does that mean the Stones show is too long for you?

You won't accept the obvious, which is that the show you saw was more than likely as long as all the others, as they are all the same songs and same stories as we've established.

Maybe you blacked out or your arm got sweaty during the show and your watch stopped because it isn't water resistant? Or maybe Paul just played those songs 20% faster to get through them more quickly for Brooklyn.

I guess there's always the outside possibility that you were wrong...I guess we shouldn't want to allow for that though.

In the end we'll never know...I'm just glad you at least enjoyed the show.