True, but it STILL pales in comparison to the stuff his old band
recorded.

And don't forget, the Beatles last live performance (save one) was just
short of 40 years ago.  (EEK!)  Some of these songs haven't been
performed live by a Beatle since then -- the rest never have.  The
Beatles inclusion in Paul's repertoire is a relatively recent phenomenon
(at least beyond Hey Jude and Let It Be).  If he was really going for
'cheap and sleazy', he would have been doing it from the start.  Doesn't
he owe the world a taste of what could have been had the Fabs continued
to play out?

I'm not attending this time 'round, but, if I did, I would be smiling
giddily through the whole thing . . .

g

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:00:13 -0400 audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <garymaher@juno.com>
> > Compared to the Beatles, whose solo career isn't woefully 
> > inadequate?
> 
> That's not really the point.  As I pointed out here some years ago 
> (the last time McCartney debuted a "new" set list of songs written 
> and 
> recorded before I was born), Paul McCartney could do a two-hour set 
> of 
> nothing but solo and Wings material that would shred most artists' 
> greatest hits selections, and would involve considerably less 
> nostalgia-massaging among the baby boomers.  The problem is that he 
> hasn't got the balls to do it, so he sticks to the cheap and sleazy 
> "Gee, remember how great the Beatles were" jive, which as Jaimie 
> points out now involves doing songs he didn't write or sing.
> 
> It's lame.