Gazza has spoken. I am blessed. Now of to bed big boy......

Ok just because. But here is a very realistic,yet unfortunately undoable setlist from the Stones.

1.Tumbling Dice
2.Little T @ A
3.You Can't Always Get What You Want
4.Time Is On My Side
5.Shattered
6.Let's Spend The Night Together
7.Under My Thumb
8.You Gotta Move
9.Bitch
10.Dead Flowers
11.You Got The Silver B Stage
12.Happy B Stage
13.Honkey Tonk Woman B Stage
14.Just My Imagination B Stage
15.Route 66 B Stage
16.Sympathy For The Devil
17.Jumping Jack Flash
18.Brown Sugar
Encore
19.Sweet Virginia
20.Live With Me
21.Midnight Rambler



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-08 06:45 by sweetcharmedlife.

Quote
bv

Quote
kees
One of my questions was ' do the listen / communicate with their hard core fans'?

According to what they release and play during the tours, I feel 0 But BV denies that and he mentions 'we' don't want any outtakes/rehearsals.

But BV, you don't want any of their 78 and 75 period?

I have each and every studio outtake and live recording. I have more than thousand bootlegs. This is not about me. I am a superfan. A manic collector who need to hear and see everything they do. I do not need public releases, and they do not want to publish something that is not made for the public. And I have tapes, minidiscs and CD's of almost every show. I have hundreds of versions of many songs. Why should I demand all of this released for the public? The public would not appreciate it, they would misunderstand, and people would accuse the Stones for caching in on their name. Whatever they do someone would pick on them. For me I take what they choose to release in the public, the rest I get wherever it is available. There is a big difference in the open market and what superfans need and do get.

Why in your opinion wouldn't the Stones offer fans something like this for example .......... ?

[www.themusic.com]

Audio and/or pro shot video of individual shows. I think it's absolutely fantastic that the Who do things like this. It's one of the reasons that they're considered more fan friendly than the Stones I suspect. Or are tapes, CDs and minidiscs of - as you put it - almost every show, the exclusive preserve of "superfans" such as yourself, with whatever connection it is you have to the band ?

not just the who - but just about all the major acts have been making their shows available thru instant live-type channels. three shows i'm going to in coming days/weeks will all be available for purchase immediately afterwards - dead, allmans, phish....they make money, sure...but it's a nod to their fans, too.

Quote
guitarbastard

Quote
bv

The latest tour A Bigger Bang was voted most popular tour ever

well, some basic rules about statistics are, that you also have to list how many an even more important WHO voted...(in other words: if you only have 10 voting persons and they all have only seen ABB - the reason for the result is quite clear)

it's just not possible that music loving stones fans (who had seen them at their prime) would vote for such a crap-tour....

obvious there are more fans of vegas stones than rolling stones these days lol

Ohhh please not THAT one again.....

Man so many drama queens! They're a rock band, get a grip!

Quote
whitem8
Man so many drama queens! They're a rock band, get a grip!

Right on. I hope they name their next album "Back To Las Vegas".

JumpingKentFlash

.....ABB tour was already Back to Vegas.....anyone that thinks differently...well then denial ain't just a river in Egypt.........with all its criticisms aside Licks was there last great tour....ABB was just a cash cow.....as a fan I can only hope that they will get off their asses and perhaps be motivated by Dylan, by Springsteen by the competitiveness they feel from/towards U2 to get going again one last time.....otherwise aren't they really just a nostalgia act already?!

Creatively and muscially the Stones are way behind Springsteen, Dylan and U2 these days. I would not call them a real band anymore in this way.
Lots of fans on this board seem to feel disappointed too by this viewing the replies I received to my question/statement
Others will defend their heroes till the end and rave about the Saitama and Twickenham gigs 2007 gigs . I saw both on DVD and can't believe how music lovers can like performances like this.
Anyway, preparing for Black Crows, Springsteen, U2, Lucinda, ZZ Top, Buckcherry, Salmon Burke and Neil young this summer. Dylan was wonderful in A'dam last month and so are the recordings from these 3 shows.

The Stones are past I realize. Until 1982 they gave me a lot and I am very grateful for that.

"ABB tour was already Back to Vegas"
"The Stones are past I realize"

Please , enough already.

"Man so many drama queens! They're a rock band, get a grip!"

Perfic!

Quote
kees
Creatively and muscially the Stones are way behind Springsteen, Dylan and U2 these days. I would not call them a real band anymore in this way.

Springsteen and U2 are boring, really boring,and their respective scams of 'blue collar hero'(haha) and Bongo the savior ( nonstop ever growing ego crisis) are beyond absurd. It kills the music that is already so boring to begin with, and all their hypocrisy renders the songs empty. Marketing triumphs for both of them.

and Dylan, does he get a free pass for all the plagiarizing he has done, and we can say he is creative for that??

IORR.....but the Stones are it.

Hasn't anyone noticed??

it's not about the Stones not being able to have a fresh set list...it's the matter of them keeping the rare songs past the first week of the new tour.

Hasn't anyone noticed that the first 10 shows are the MOST interesting? They try their best to put in all those hidden gems that they've worked on during rehearsals in the show. Then about the 2 month mark...all those songs fall off the rotation and they slip in songs like "Rocks Off" or "Live With Me" which at this point are not rare songs anymore. Soon, all those rare songs they first started the tour with is gone by the end of the tour and then we're back to an all warhorses show..........

Quote
MKjan

Quote
kees
Creatively and muscially the Stones are way behind Springsteen, Dylan and U2 these days. I would not call them a real band anymore in this way.

Springsteen and U2 are boring, really boring,and their respective scams of 'blue collar hero'(haha) and Bongo the savior ( nonstop ever growing ego crisis) are beyond absurd. It kills the music that is already so boring to begin with, and all their hypocrisy renders the songs empty. Marketing triumphs for both of them.

F**kin' hell. What year is it in your world? 1984?

Quote
Gazza

Quote
MKjan

Quote
kees
Creatively and muscially the Stones are way behind Springsteen, Dylan and U2 these days. I would not call them a real band anymore in this way.

Springsteen and U2 are boring, really boring,and their respective scams of 'blue collar hero'(haha) and Bongo the savior ( nonstop ever growing ego crisis) are beyond absurd. It kills the music that is already so boring to begin with, and all their hypocrisy renders the songs empty. Marketing triumphs for both of them.

F**kin' hell. What year is it in your world? 1984?

Here on Earth it is 2009.

Its refreshing to know that on some people's version of Planet Earth in 2009 that despite the apparent phoniness of others, they still seem to reckon that there's nothing that defines the realness of rock 'n' roll as stuff like private gigs for bankers, the obsession with marketing anything to death that one can put a tongue on and the good old $800 'hot seat'.

It's only rock 'n' roll, indeed.

not so much 'rock and roll' with the Stones these days:
- back ground vocalists who are a pale shadow of how it used to be with Keith and Ron on the mics
- Chuck with his dominating organ Not what I really condider 'rock'
- two guitarists who are among the worst in any professional rock band these days.

You call that 'rock' MKjan? Or are you so easy to please?

Kees, I too prefer the band with less (input from) back-up musicians. But I'm afraid that is just not realistic anymore. The level of musicianship from both Keith and Ronnie makes it very necissary to have them on board. The same argument goes for very much changing the setlists every night: Its simply too difficult to deliver in these days.
That's why you hear a lot of You Got Me Rockin', Live With Me, and so on.
If they are touring with a new album however, that I expect them to play at least 5 songs from that one. That was dissapointing in the last tour.

I very much agree with you that the Stones don't treat their fanbase at all with releases. Since I more or less gave up my hopes of seeing a excellent performance in the future tours (the guitarists), I'm more looking forward to interesting new releases (new album, archive releases). And if they don't come with this, I enjoy (like many of us) the good underground releases.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-11 11:57 by barbabang.

I completely agree with Kees. However they still appeal to some fans, their choice. Why they can't release L&G on CD/DVD for example however shouldn't be too difficult?

We still can order some Rolling Stones Wine on their website. Anybody tasted it?

Quote
Amsterdamned
We still can order some Rolling Stones Wine on their website. Anybody tasted it?

you mean those expensive winos?

Quote
kees
not so much 'rock and roll' with the Stones these days:
- back ground vocalists who are a pale shadow of how it used to be with Keith and Ron on the mics
- Chuck with his dominating organ Not what I really condider 'rock'
- two guitarists who are among the worst in any professional rock band these days.

You call that 'rock' MKjan? Or are you so easy to please?

kees, if I was so easy to please, I would be a u2 or a Bruce fan. I can also bitch about the Stones and as I wrote somewhere I have my own wish list of thing they should do, but it ain't gonna happen.They can piss me off, but I love 'em. That reality along with my willingness to express loyalty to such a great catalog over all these years will easily let me enjoy them in concert. All the things that got them this far, I would have a good time to see them again.

Bitching about eclecticizing the set list began with the internet. The Stones always played the same set list every night from '69 to '82, and that's why they were sh*t hot onstage.

yeah but back then they were a real rock n roll band thats the difference, they are just a parody these days,shite onstage from 69-82? are you sure you dont want to delete that comment brother



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-12 02:20 by melillo.

Quote
melillo
yeah but back then they were a real rock n roll band thats the difference, they are just a parody these days,shite onstage from 69-82? are you sure you dont want to delete that comment brother

pulleeze!!!! ablett cannot take any more of this!

Quote
melillo
yeah but back then they were a real rock n roll band thats the difference, they are just a parody these days,shite onstage from 69-82? are you sure you dont want to delete that comment brother

uh, sh*t hot is a compliment where i come from, brother.

sorry dude i didnt see hot at first, my mistake

Are you physic?

How strange.....

But yes, 7 pages of doom and flamin gloom!

To be honest I don't give a hoot!

Its all your own opinion and there's a big wide world out there.

with a little more effort, i'm certain we can push this to 8 or even 9 pages for your reading pleasure. c'mon, folks - ablett needs another fix....

What I - a fan - would LOVE to hear - a bunch of obscure LP tracks, some B-sides and just a few of the really good warhorses (Street Fighting Man for one, Brown Sugar is the only other one really).

Reality is, of course, different. Warhorses galore. Tepid performances of Jumpin' Jack Flash, SFTD, Gimme Shelter and a few others that are just snoozing now...

They obviously having fun at those two shows that became SAL with Some Girls and Faraway Eyes. They are own themselves with JJF and SFTD...but they're just cruising through those.

So that's opinion, based on observation. Call it Stones Science. I love The Rolling Stones. I think the biggest issue is, now, which one? I don't think it's the current one - it just seems like The Beach Boys. It's all imitation now. That's why everyone is so shit geeked about those 1970s and 1981 live boots. I think that's part of the point. Everyone changes. I think it's just that some people don't like bad change.