McCartney Live?


I'll be going to see Paul McCartney live in FedEx Field in DC next week.

Having never attended a concert by any Beatle, I figure this is something I just need to do.

So my question is what should I expect? Does McCartney still got "it" live?
mapman

Showing 9 responses by chashmal

No disrespect to the fans, but I am always surprised when stuff we have all heard 9 million times gets people excited . Do you really need to hear "Drive my car" again? Hey, I like the Beatles. Sir Paul was a great force in music. But there is actual creativity happening and it is fresh, vital, and alive. Sir Paul, all due respect, is milking it.

Plus...'The Firemen' stink, IMO. No one is going for that anyway. It is a nostalgia gig, pure and simple.
You know, you guys are right. If you enjoy it, that's fantastic. However my personal criticism is that Sir Paul stopped growing as a musician in 1970. Although I love the Beatles, I see him as a has-been and a hack. It is a little sickening hear the hits one more friggin' time with NO improvisation or creative interpretation after all this time. That said, I LOVE the original versions! So, don't think I am a hater. I am just sick of the regurgitation of the product that had been over-digested 35 years ago. We are not talking about the Mass in B Minor here, it's still pop music (albeit arguably the best pop ever created). But hey, you guys enjoy it. I salute you.
Yes Mapman he will be remembered, but for the things he wrote before 1970. That is my point. He has not grown, and seems not interested in growth. Since 1970 he has been a business-showman, like (god forbid) ole king Elvis (who I will NEVER understand). Before 1970...great. After 1970...hack. Wings? Please....
My point is that it is possible to keep growing and innovating indefinitely for the mind of a musical genius.

Yes, it is true I am not a huge rock fan. But it is possible to keep growing. Hey, just look at Neil Young or Bob Dylan for example. They are agruably just as musically vital now as they ever were (whether you like the new stuff or not), and they seem just as engaged and full of insight as musical thinkers. Sir Paul became a one man corporate industry, and dropped being a creative thinker a year or so after the Beatles broke up, IMO.
In his prime he wrote some of the most evocative and poignant melodies one can imagine. His harmonic accompaniments as a bass player were UNREAL. I am a fan, don't get me wrong. I am saying this more out of frustration. After 70 I just wish he had become more than he became. And I wonder why he didn't.

Ever hear the 'Liverpool Oratorio'???!!!??? (P.U. as they used to say)
If I didn't know better I would think 'Liverpool Oratorio' was a Korean war era punishment for P.O.W.'s invented by the Chinese.
Remember guys, I also called him a genius!
It is simple: a genius turns his back on innovation and the creative process
and thus becomes a buisness interest
a hack
a has been
could it have been different?
of course!
Sir Paul chose fame and money over his art
too bad
but we still have his great realy recordings
Yay!
"Isn't that enough? What else could anybody ask of the man?"

Well, it certainly is enough if one resigns themself to maintainance of their buisness and media interests. That's fine, let him enjoy it.

But that is not what an artist is. When it happens to a hugely successful creative person those who love and honor the creative process just have to sigh, and say 'there goes another one'.

If you look at pop stars today it seems they are much more interested in fashion line and marketing perfume than music. Sir Paul is closer to that camp than say, Bob Dylan is, IMO.

And yes, I thought with Lennon the synergy made it work and without it it vanished. At least he made those works and we have them.