Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

thebeatlesrock63

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About thebeatlesrock63

  • Rank
    New Member
  1. This problem is quite old. It dates back to pretty much every group who have broken up and now perform solo. Classic example: The Beatles. Paul's Solo/Wings/Pseudonym [RAM, The Fireman] output is huge. I mean HUGE. If you take an average of 11 songs per album [That's a pretty accurate average actually since most of his albums have 10-13 tracks.] and exclude the Twin Freak [That album is an abomination.], you get 17 albums. 11*17 = 187 songs. You get the idea. This is roughly Paul's current setlist for his tours [subject to occasional change]: "Eight Days a Week" "Junior's Farm" "All My Loving" "Listen to What the Man Said" "Let Me Roll It" (with "Foxy Lady" coda) "Paperback Writer" "My Valentine" "Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Five" "The Long and Winding Road" "Maybe I'm Amazed" "Midnight Special" "We Can Work It Out" "Another Day" "And I Love Her" "Blackbird" "Here Today" "Your Mother Should Know" "Lady Madonna" "All Together Now" "Lovely Rita" "Mrs Vandebilt" "Eleanor Rigby" "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" "Something" "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" "Band on the Run" "Back in the U.S.S.R." "Let It Be" "Live and Let Die" "Hey Jude" Encore 1 "Day Tripper" "Hi, Hi, Hi" "Get Back" Encore 2 "Yesterday" "Helter Skelter" "Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End" Beatle Songs: 24 Rest: 12 Can you understand what's going on here? A talented musician whose output is so vast dedicates only 1/3 or 33% of it in his live shows. Thats it. This is upsetting me, personally, as all of his post-Beatles songs are great and some just as good as his Beatle work. Why does this happen? Well, the truth of the matter is, unfortunately, that Macca fans are least-interested in his 70s afterward work. Let alone for his RAM or Fireman. Sure, for Wings, there is quite a fanbase and thats exactly the reason why Wings songs dominate more than solo works.Everybody comes to his concert for his Beatles songs. There may be a few who enjoy his solo stuff, though not many. Its a bit sad really that for a legend of Sir Paul McCartney's stature to have 60%+ of his live setlist Beatle songs. Coming back, fans who come to Robert Plant's concerts aren't really interested in his post-Led Zeppelin work. There may be a small section of the audience who has listen to his solo stuff, but then again, how many? I'd reckon not a very large portion, honestly. More than not liking post-LZ work, the concert-goers aren't even aware of his solo works. That's not an exaggeration, I can assure you. That's that. All hail, ROBERT PLANT!
  2. I have always thought the studio version of pretty much every song sounds restrained. Compare Kashmir, Dazed and Confused, Trampled Underfoot or In My Time of Dying to their live counterparts, all sound a bit restrained and are not nearly as powerful or fantastic. This could just be me but I have always found their live performances to be better, what about you?
  3. I only have 1 or 2 bootlegs, [that too which i haven't bother to hear, yet that is] but from those alone i can realize that the duration of LZ shows of early shows and later shows were drastically different. The later year show have a length of 3+ hours [From 74'-75']. Why is this? Did LZ start improvising much more in their later shows than their earlier ones? Also, do this shows LZ at their best? They jammed quite a bit compared to their relatively young performances... So what's your preferences, old or new?
  4. MY GOOD LORD! What the heck has Jimmy done? The whole album is a mess. Not a single song in it's entirety! All a big mash.
  5. I beg to differ. I don't want a best hits collection but a pure live performance. To each to his own.
  6. For some weird reason, the songs on HTWWW has certain songs mixed from both of their show covered on the album. Why? Why can't Jimmy just put a single song in its entirety rather than give us a mix of two night? I must note however that to an average listener this isn't apparent even the slightest. Lastly, why do live albums in general mix different shows together and give us a song which was never performed? We listen to live albums to get a feel of the band perform live, not to get a new version of their song. Don't get me wrong, I love the performances on the album and would listen to them again given the time but i feel weird listening to it now knowing that the song i am listening to it in fact a mash.
  7. The performances on all songs were top notch and the remastered version gave us a vastly superior and (!) an extended Dazed and Confused. So sure, some songs lost their original duration but on the flip side we got some new songs. Who doesn't like new live premium quality songs? If the main issue was the length then there was always the original album. So, why the hate?
  8. Hello people, I am Led Zeppelin newbie. [Forgive me than if i make noobish comments.] From what i can read, does it mean that their 69-72 period was their most energy-driven and raw performance period? Also, is TSRTS not as good as BBC Session, according to you than? I have heard their 75' performances and to me they don't sound tired at all. So I am not sure what y'all are talking of?
×
×
  • Create New...