Quote
LoveYouLive

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.

Quote
LoveYouLive

Quote
Long John Stoner

Quote
LoveYouLive


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

Here's from a review of the first of the 2 Brooklyn shows from June 2013:

McCartney and his four completely adequate younger bandmates (drummer Abe Laboriel, Jr. deserves a special shout out for handling the toughest harmonies while keeping time) played a 38-song set (including 26 Beatles songs!) over 2 & 1/2 generous hours to the delight of boogying moms and hollering dads.

[gothamist.com]

Now that may not have been the night you went, but both shows featured the same 38 songs. It's extremely hard to believe that the second night would ave been cut in length to 2 hours 15 minutes while featuring the exact same songs

Quote
bleedingman
At least one of the Brooklyn shows is on dime if anyone wants to download it and verify the show's length.

Quote
mickschix
Sorry, LOVEYOULIVE, but you are totally wrong! I times the show I saw on July 5 in Albany..Paul came on at exactly 8:16PM and left the stage at 11:22PM..no intermission, sure some talking but he played 41 songs...NOT SNIPPETS, not hurrying through the numbers...full songs! And he doesn't just stand like a stature. He paces the set in a very smart way....4 piano tunes or maybe 3 this time, in a row...and he does play a few rare tracks like " Lovely Rita", Hi Hi Hi, Let Me Roll It, etc. and AGAIN, it's not a competition. I LOVE the Stones better than any band or performer on Earth but I can enjoy other shows and I DID enjoy Paul a lot! He is tremendous.

Quote
stonehearted
These last couple of pages are quite amusing. One guy forgets to wind his watch and everyone feels compelled to leap to Macca's defense and confirm press reports about the show's length.

For my part, I can confirm the show length of just over 2 hours 45 minutes--I was sitting right in the middle of Fenway Park, in shallow center field, and had my eye on the right field clock at the start of the show and at the end. Then there were the people in the row behind me, one of them remarking as we began filing out after the last number, "Wow, almost 3 hours!"

Also, my legs were aching from standing for so long, quite a bit more so than at the end of the Stones show--which ran a half hour less for $200 more.

However, Macca is a solo act, and I'm sure that if all 4 Beatles were alive and touring as a unit they would be commanding an even higher ticket price than the Stones.

Quote
Stoneage
When they really played good - did he admit it then?

Quote
treaclefingers
He's even kinder if you read the whole quote:

Paul, 72, admitted he was once told by a manager he should retire when he was 50, but he quickly dismissed the idea - and has now claimed The Rolling Stones prove why he can keep going.

He added: ''I thought about it for a second and thought, 'Nah'. When will you give up? When will it give out? Who knows? But the margin has been stretched these days.

''The Stones go out now, and I go to their show and I think, 'It doesn't matter that they're old gits. They can play great'. And I talk to young kids who say exactly the same thing: 'They play good.' ''

Quote
beachbreak
I watched "Ladies and Gentlemen The Rolling Stones" concert movie last night.

It was on Palladia TV.

I prefer the current live versions of JJF to the one they did then.

The same with some other tunes as well.

They still play great.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers
He's even kinder if you read the whole quote:

Paul, 72, admitted he was once told by a manager he should retire when he was 50, but he quickly dismissed the idea - and has now claimed The Rolling Stones prove why he can keep going.

He added: ''I thought about it for a second and thought, 'Nah'. When will you give up? When will it give out? Who knows? But the margin has been stretched these days.

''The Stones go out now, and I go to their show and I think, 'It doesn't matter that they're old gits. They can play great'. And I talk to young kids who say exactly the same thing: 'They play good.' ''

They CAN play great. They play GOOD. These are couched terms. Even the general consensus is becoming that THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD. Feigned praise indeed.

Quote
71Tele
Yes they do. So does Paul.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
71Tele
Yes they do. So does Paul.

...and you know this, how?

Quote
beachbreak
I watched "Ladies and Gentlemen The Rolling Stones" concert movie last night.

It was on Palladia TV.

I prefer the current live versions of JJF to the one they did then.

The same with some other tunes as well.

They still play great.

Quote
24FPS
good luck to you.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers
He's even kinder if you read the whole quote:

Paul, 72, admitted he was once told by a manager he should retire when he was 50, but he quickly dismissed the idea - and has now claimed The Rolling Stones prove why he can keep going.

He added: ''I thought about it for a second and thought, 'Nah'. When will you give up? When will it give out? Who knows? But the margin has been stretched these days.

''The Stones go out now, and I go to their show and I think, 'It doesn't matter that they're old gits. They can play great'. And I talk to young kids who say exactly the same thing: 'They play good.' ''

They CAN play great. They play GOOD. These are couched terms. Even the general consensus is becoming that THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD. Feigned praise indeed.

24, perhaps you are projecting your own opinion onto Macca's comments about the Stones. There's nothing feigned about what he said, he could have just as easily used great instead of good and he would have meant the same thing. Believe what ever you want to believe about the Stones now, it's a free forum. But it's a stretch to take Macca's remarks to mean that he thinks the band is just okay.