I saw Paul McCartney last night. I had great seats like I usually get for the Stones. Full disclosure: I was excited to see McCartney, but I'm a huge Stones fan (why else would I post here?). McCartney did a very good show, but through the eyes of a Stones fan, here are some things I saw. (If you're doing the Desert Trip, there are a couple of setlist spoilers here.)

Like the Stones, his production team is absolutely first class. Sound, lighting, and all other effects really enhanced the show.

Like Jagger, McCartney is a marvel. His voice is not quite as silky as it was back in the day, but like Jagger, his vocal ability is incredible for a guy his age.

Though it's clearly Paul's show, what you see is an outstanding band onstage. Like the Stones, they appear to have a great time with each other when they're out there. This group hasn't been together as long as the current Stones, but they've been together for decades. No weak links.

McCartney played some bona fide rockers (Back in the USSR, Birthday), but no one would ever call this "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World." McCartney does a great show of some of the greatest songs and pop music ever written, but the Stones have been, are, and will always be a rock and roll band.

Jagger prowls the stage for most of the show (except when he has a guitar). McCartney stands in front of his mic (or sits at the piano) the whole show. Even with Paul plays his rockers, it just isn't the same. Paul is very engaging and he tells great stories. Jagger is a showman.

As for show openers, for me, nothing can ever equal the Stones kicking off with JJF. McCartney opened with Hard Day's Night. Very strong, just not like seeing Keith walk out and hit those first two chords.

Show pacing. This is where it gets interesting. McCartney does 39 songs in a little over 2.5 hours. This includes about 10 minutes where he does his very sweet thing of bringing fans up on stage. The Stones do two hours, but are typically down to 18 songs. But what this means is that the Stones dig in and open up some of the songs (ie. Rambler, SFTD, Miss You). McCartney plays his songs pretty much as they are on the record. Everyone loves Beatles songs, but he never turns his outstanding band loose. It sure would have been great to hear just a little bit of improvisation. Paul never had to turn to his drummer, like Keith does, to give him a cue to come out of the jam and back into the song.

Setlist. Paul played lots of familiar stuff and like a Stones show, it was a big singalong. But boy would I have loved to heard "I Saw Her Standing There, Sgt Peppers LHCB, Got to Get You Into My Life"... Instead, there were seven old and new songs that I had never heard. Wait! Did I just say, "Play the Warhorses!"??? Yes I did. The last time I saw McCartney was over 20 years ago and I wanted to hear all my favorites. We all bitch about the Stones loading the set list with warhorses. There's another name for those: "Hits." Oh, incidentally, I checked and Paul plays almost the exact same set list every show this tour. The Stones don't mix it up a lot, but they do at least give a nod to their diehard fans with a handful of changes show by show.

If you're doing the Desert Trip, have a great time! I think you'll see what I saw.

Hey, I was there last night too, but we left early. I wrote a little about it in the Paul McCartney thread.
I agree with what you wrote.
I felt like Paul was saying goodbye, and that made me sad. Sad to lose the history we are about to start really losing.
I've never felt that w/ the RS, periscoping every tid bit live I can get since I saw Zipcode opener RS 2015. The RS don't do sentiment on stage.
I also felt in a RS crowd, I am with my people, my tribe.
Last night I felt out of touch completely with the crowd,
full disclosure tho I am an introvert and don't like crowds.
I thought the show would have been much better as an afternoon matinee.
I don't think anyone's ever said that about a RS show.
Paul is the Mecca Macca truly a genius of an icon, intelligent, beyond creative,
a marvel.

What about the performance made you feel he was saying goodbye?

Quote
vibrolux
This includes about 10 minutes where he does his very sweet thing of bringing fans up on stage.

Oy vey! Unless he's bringing up Courteney Cox ca. 1984, I think I'd rather suffer through a 10-minute version of "Miss You."

Quote
vibrolux
I saw Paul McCartney last night. I had great seats like I usually get for the Stones. Full disclosure: I was excited to see McCartney, but I'm a huge Stones fan (why else would I post here?). McCartney did a very good show, but through the eyes of a Stones fan, here are some things I saw. (If you're doing the Desert Trip, there are a couple of setlist spoilers here.)

Like the Stones, his production team is absolutely first class. Sound, lighting, and all other effects really enhanced the show.

Like Jagger, McCartney is a marvel. His voice is not quite as silky as it was back in the day, but like Jagger, his vocal ability is incredible for a guy his age.

Though it's clearly Paul's show, what you see is an outstanding band onstage. Like the Stones, they appear to have a great time with each other when they're out there. This group hasn't been together as long as the current Stones, but they've been together for decades. No weak links.

McCartney played some bona fide rockers (Back in the USSR, Birthday), but no one would ever call this "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World." McCartney does a great show of some of the greatest songs and pop music ever written, but the Stones have been, are, and will always be a rock and roll band.

Jagger prowls the stage for most of the show (except when he has a guitar). McCartney stands in front of his mic (or sits at the piano) the whole show. Even with Paul plays his rockers, it just isn't the same. Paul is very engaging and he tells great stories. Jagger is a showman.

As for show openers, for me, nothing can ever equal the Stones kicking off with JJF. McCartney opened with Hard Day's Night. Very strong, just not like seeing Keith walk out and hit those first two chords.

Show pacing. This is where it gets interesting. McCartney does 39 songs in a little over 2.5 hours. This includes about 10 minutes where he does his very sweet thing of bringing fans up on stage. The Stones do two hours, but are typically down to 18 songs. But what this means is that the Stones dig in and open up some of the songs (ie. Rambler, SFTD, Miss You). McCartney plays his songs pretty much as they are on the record. Everyone loves Beatles songs, but he never turns his outstanding band loose. It sure would have been great to hear just a little bit of improvisation. Paul never had to turn to his drummer, like Keith does, to give him a cue to come out of the jam and back into the song.

Setlist. Paul played lots of familiar stuff and like a Stones show, it was a big singalong. But boy would I have loved to heard "I Saw Her Standing There, Sgt Peppers LHCB, Got to Get You Into My Life"... Instead, there were seven old and new songs that I had never heard. Wait! Did I just say, "Play the Warhorses!"??? Yes I did. The last time I saw McCartney was over 20 years ago and I wanted to hear all my favorites. We all bitch about the Stones loading the set list with warhorses. There's another name for those: "Hits." Oh, incidentally, I checked and Paul plays almost the exact same set list every show this tour. The Stones don't mix it up a lot, but they do at least give a nod to their diehard fans with a handful of changes show by show.

If you're doing the Desert Trip, have a great time! I think you'll see what I saw.

I am a fan of both, having seen the Stones 21 times and Macca 6, all of the latter in the last 18 months!

What you have written is, Imho an excellent and objective comparison between the 2. There's no doubt in my mind thst the Stones generate a lot more excitement thsn Macca at their concerts. Macca has more big hits to play, but although I love his shows, they're always clinically organised with nowhere near the same scope for improvising within songs as the Stones. Macca plays 40 odd songs, all fairly short and close to the original record. Mick may have nowhere near Macca's musicianship, but he's a far better and more animated frontman and his voice is stronger. The Stones also still exist as a group while Macca is merely one member of his, though in fairness to him, he usually plays about 25 Beatles songs out of 40 every night.

But most of all what I love about the comparison between the Stones and Macca is that we've got them both to enjoy

Quote
duke richardson
What about the performance made you feel he was saying goodbye?

I hesitate to answer as my perspective may be influenced by my personal life/ and frankly, being a female, and I don't want to 'down' anyone seeing him on Desert Trip.
Again, it was my first time seeing Paul, and I am familiar w/ much of his music.
I'll admit, a sappy Wings fan. But Wings was some happy fun ditties growing up in the 70's.
The tributes to George Martin, John Lennon (make sure you say what you want b4 it's too late, says Paul. Yeah, I know, but I got enough guilt IRL and don't want advice. I'm not harsh, I respect Paul, trying to give examples)
'Foxy Lady' was probably my fav, but then we're reminded Jimi died and how old we all are (Paul) w/ his stories, which were articulate and interesting for sure,
but I'd rather hear them over drinks and dinner. Or, a matinee show!
Also, I thought I saw him wince pretty good a few times (like pain) quickly masked by his upmost top notch professionalism,
so then I kept wondering if he was really okay/ worried kind of.
The 8 or so 25 year old extremely attractive blondes that came to the 1st row center right before start who danced like rehearsed- I wondered about them too-
does Paul like them there to glance down at once in awhile to get a little mojo?
Are they for real?
IDK, maybe it's me. Very well could be. I'm not a well off boomer, or a boomer age group, btw. Everyone had adorable pics of baby grandkids screensavers on their phones, I'm still slogging it out raising my own.

Sorry so long, and
Dean that's hysterical I agree.

Quote
35love

Quote
duke richardson
What about the performance made you feel he was saying goodbye?

I hesitate to answer as my perspective may be influenced by my personal life/ and frankly, being a female, and I don't want to 'down' anyone seeing him on Desert Trip.
Again, it was my first time seeing Paul, and I am familiar w/ much of his music.
I'll admit, a sappy Wings fan. But Wings was some happy fun ditties growing up in the 70's.
The tributes to George Martin, John Lennon (make sure you say what you want b4 it's too late, says Paul. Yeah, I know, but I got enough guilt IRL and don't want advice. I'm not harsh, I respect Paul, trying to give examples)
'Foxy Lady' was probably my fav, but then we're reminded Jimi died and how old we all are (Paul) w/ his stories, which were articulate and interesting for sure,
but I'd rather hear them over drinks and dinner. Or, a matinee show!
Also, I thought I saw him wince pretty good a few times (like pain) quickly masked by his upmost top notch professionalism,
so then I kept wondering if he was really okay/ worried kind of.
The 8 or so 25 year old extremely attractive blondes that came to the 1st row center right before start who danced like rehearsed- I wondered about them too-
does Paul like them there to glance down at once in awhile to get a little mojo?
Are they for real?
IDK, maybe it's me. Very well could be. I'm not a well off boomer, or a boomer age group, btw. Everyone had adorable pics of baby grandkids screensavers on their phones, I'm still slogging it out raising my own.

Sorry so long, and
Dean that's hysterical I agree.

I'm glad to read what you wrote, 35love..thanks for your response.

Having seen Paul for the 3rd time again recently at Boston's Fenway Park, I agree pretty much with all your thoughts. Both Paul and the Stones are the premier, most polished, professional, top of the toppest acts there are. But I agree the Stones just 'seem' looser. And as much as I truly enjoy Paul's excellent (long!) shows, for me, the Stones are still in a different league in terms of their star power, and the way they just rock out.
In the age old DEbate of "Beatles or Stones' I always think the Stones get the short end. And for a couple reasons - the biggie being when it comes to live performances. The Beatles sadly never had the chance to become a great live band (DEspite what the recent Ron Howard film might suggest). The Stones on the other hand DEfined a great live rock and roll show. And still do. Then I say, the Beatles wrote better songs, the Stones wrote better 'riffs.' With the caveat that IMHO, even the Beatles never wrote a song as great as Moonlight Mile.
Anyway - thanks for your well thought out post. 'A splendid time is guaranteed for all' (I hope and expect) going to DEsert Trip. As for me - bring on Vegas baby, Oct. 19!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 22:31 by DEmerson.

I've seen her multiple times since 93, always been impressed and satisfied with his/band performance...

Quote
vibrolux
This includes about 10 minutes where he does his very sweet thing of bringing fans up on stage.

I hope they give out barf bags before he does that. I can't stand that part of McCartney. Even if you look at his official live videos on youtube they are infested with fans in the crowd crying. Its disgusting. I don't give a crap about the other fans there.


McCartney trying to play rock songs live is like Pat Boone singing Little Richard. It just ain't right. Great song writer though.

Wish we were comparing the (current) Beatles show to the Stones. Paul rocks very hard, by the way, and although he has a great band, they're not The Stones.

You know the saying, you're only as good as your last setlist.

Right now I have Paul McCartney 38 Stones 18. It looks like a rout to me. You can dissect it, tear it apart, break it down anyway you want and it still equals McCartney giving the better show.

Honestly, I expect the Stones to give the same old show which puts them at the bottom of the must see list behind five other bands. I cannot stomach that setlist rehashed over and over again. And when they start whacking the f*uckin cowbell...I think that's why they are slotted for Friday.

And will roger waters be Giving something new then ?

Quote
The Sicilian
I cannot stomach that setlist rehashed over and over again. And when they start whacking the f*uckin cowbell...I think that's why they are slotted for Friday.

What does what night they play have to do with anything?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-06 17:43 by stanlove.

Quote
vibrolux
Show pacing. This is where it gets interesting. McCartney does 39 songs in a little over 2.5 hours. This includes about 10 minutes where he does his very sweet thing of bringing fans up on stage. The Stones do two hours, but are typically down to 18 songs. But what this means is that the Stones dig in and open up some of the songs (ie. Rambler, SFTD, Miss You).

With exception to Midnight Rambler, their disembowelment of SFTD and Miss You the last, oh, since 1994 (they were fresh in 1989), have become the 'get a beer' and 'go piss' songs, which is what I did in 1994 and would do if I were to see them again.

The 1989 arrangement of SFTD was cool... in 1989. Somehow it's still 1989.

Miss You... it's too bad they don't play it more like the LP version so they could do better songs and other hits in place of the 7 minutes of navel gazing instrumental messing that goes on. They played it forever in 1978 and 1981/82. Hell, they shortened Satisfaction in 1994 and 19977, which was wonderful.

Could probably add Jumpin' Jack Flash to the "play for way too long" list.

I'd rather they did more songs and different songs instead of those songs (and a couple of other ones) unless they were a lot shorter or not at all (SFTD could not be played and no one would notice).

Beatles and Stones




Thanks, Deltics!

Perhaps the reason the Stones seem looser than McCartney and his doing them like the record is McCartney has 3 legacies to play, all lesser in importance in order but 3 nonetheless, where as the Stones have one (or two if you want to consider the post-Wyman era as a part of the legacy).

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Beatles and Stones




Thanks, Deltics!

Very diplomatic!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Deltics

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Beatles and Stones

Thanks, Deltics!

Very diplomatic!

><

Quote
GasLightStreet
Perhaps the reason the Stones seem looser than McCartney and his doing them like the record is McCartney has 3 legacies to play, all lesser in importance in order but 3 nonetheless, where as the Stones have one (or two if you want to consider the post-Wyman era as a part of the legacy).

Why would that have anything to do at all with being lose of not?

First off, to address the comments about McCartney's voice not being what it once was:

Mick is a singer, whereas Paul tends to be a shouter.

Mick Jagger technically and properly sings, one of only a handful of rock vocalists who ever have, which is why his voice remains ageless. McCartney on the other hand, because he is only sing-talking, and in other cases merely sing-shouting (read Maybe I'm Amazed), he is merely abusing his vocal chords and that is the reason he sounds often quite hoarse, both in performance and when speaking in interviews.

An extreme case of a non-singer overusing and abusing his voice is Bob Dylan, whose latter day croaky growl sounds like a rat's anus turned inside out.

Now for the Macca/Stones concert comparisons:

McCartney plays original songs recorded between 1958 and 2015, the latest of which was a top 5 hit. The Stones play original songs recorded between 1965 and 1997, though most people only know what they wrote and recorded between 1965 and 1981.

Besides the obvious differences between what constitutes "pop" and "rock", perhaps the biggest comparison can be made between those who attend the shows.

Here's what I noticed when I saw both acts in Boston in 2013 in the space of just 3 weeks.

The Macca crowd obviously came from the suburbs, strictly middle class family types who would commute to the same venue (Fenway Park) to attend a baseball game. In high school these were the kids who never wasted their time out back smoking, but instead were always well dressed, well behaved, and went on to college and so on. A very "straight" crowd, with the lone exception being that one shaggy-long-haired type with the vacant look in his eyes, the loner with no friends who spends far too much time barricaded in his bedroom listening to Beatle records and thinking far too often of John Lennon. But apart from this, a generally middle of the road crowd, with no pot smoke wafting in the air -- because it's Sunday, and they have to get to the office in the morning.

The Stones crowd, on the other hand, were mostly drunk, having been loading up at the bars across the street from the venue (TD Garden) beforehand, already in the bag by 8 pm. These were the kids in high school who smoked out back, filled out the shop classes, the ones voted most likely to smoke weed, and who went on to fill whatever working class positions after graduating from, or dropping out of, high school that the general lack of encouragement from family, peers, guidance counselors, and society in general would afford them. It's rock and roll, so let's go there drunk, smoke weed during the show, and dance clumsily so that we don't even care if we step on the feet of the stranger beside us.

But, of course, this was only Boston. The mileage in your town may vary.

Looking ahead to Desert Trip, these comparisons will diminish. Because this is a generational vanguard event, perhaps the last chance, last stop, last picture show of an era in music that is soon to fade into black. Note how the posters promoting "Oldchella" very tellingly feature the image of a setting sun. Once this festival is past, we are likely never to see such a gathering of icons again, at least from the long-gone 1960s.

That's why differences between Stones and McCartney will not matter. Unlike Glastonbury 2013, the Stones cannot steal the show, they can only be part of it.

Part of something that will soon enough be only history.

Paul's prettier but I'm still goin' STONES ....



ROCKMAN

I wonder what ever came of Paul and Keith's song collaboration they wrote on the beachfront at Keith's house a few years ago.
Hope it was recorded and eventually sees the light of day...

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

Quote
Hairball
I wonder what ever came of Paul and Keith's song collaboration they wrote on the beachfront at Keith's house a few years ago.
Hope it was recorded and eventually sees the light of day...

Up in a puff of smoke, Hairball.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
GasLightStreet
Perhaps the reason the Stones seem looser than McCartney and his doing them like the record is McCartney has 3 legacies to play, all lesser in importance in order but 3 nonetheless, where as the Stones have one (or two if you want to consider the post-Wyman era as a part of the legacy).

Why would that have anything to do at all with being lose of not?

Quote
DEmerson
Having seen Paul for the 3rd time again recently at Boston's Fenway Park, I agree pretty much with all your thoughts. Both Paul and the Stones are the premier, most polished, professional, top of the toppest acts there are. But I agree the Stones just 'seem' looser.

I suppose that because McCartney is following the original versions and the Stones have drifted away from that, that is why or how the Stones are looser.

Quote
stone66
First off, to address the comments about McCartney's voice not being what it once was:

Mick is a singer, whereas Paul tends to be a shouter.

Mick Jagger technically and properly sings, one of only a handful of rock vocalists who ever have, which is why his voice remains ageless. McCartney on the other hand, because he is only sing-talking, and in other cases merely sing-shouting (read Maybe I'm Amazed), he is merely abusing his vocal chords and that is the reason he sounds often quite hoarse, both in performance and when speaking in interviews.

Have you ever heard LOVE YOU LIVE, LA FRIDAY or STILL LIFE?

Quote
duke richardson
What about the performance made you feel he was saying goodbye?

he sang hello goodbye

Quote
reg thorpe

Quote
duke richardson
What about the performance made you feel he was saying goodbye?

he sang hello goodbye

He opened with Hello Goodbye 13-14 years ago. I wouldn't read anything into that at all.

Comparing them is apples and oranges. None of the Beatles ever ran around the stage or was the one true frontman, while the Stones have one of those. McCartney's stage persona is a carryover from the Beatles.

While the Beatles and later McCartney certainly could/can rock when called upon, it's fair to say the Beatles were more pop and the Stones more rock. Although, Abbey Road side 2 rocks like no other.

As for McCartney's singing, I would classify him and Jagger the opposite of what someone else did. Paul sings much more while all Jagger ever does is shout anymore. McCartney's voice, especially in the last 18 months, has finaly gave way to his age (now 74). He still sounded reasonably like the old days up to his late 60's, when the deterioration began. Jagger's voice, with its different timbre, will never quite the the age Paul's does.

All in all, one is an A, the other A-1.

Paul McCartney kissed me chastely on the cheek,
I got laid with The Rolling Stones.

Helter Skelter is an exceptional rockin' song. Back In The USSR is rockin'. Birthday. Yer Blues.

They had some rockers.