didnt rs.com ask for suggestions as far as set lists
concern??
They really pulling our leg.
stones are not u2. they have been on the road for 40 years.
beside cities the didnt show up ever or for a while
everybody have seen them at least once.
at least if they could change the version of theses songs:
smu htw bs iorr ygm ;;;;
its get to a point than you can listen to ymr live witout being able to say
if it is from vl 94/95 bb98 ns 99 lt 2005/2003
ridiculous.
cheers everyone

Ever think that maybe the suggestions are being taken into account? Perhaps the feedback was that most people want to hear the warhorses.

We who want them to play obscurities are in the minority.

Fully agree .Till 1989/90 I could date all the versions .Since then I find it almost impossible.

warhorses suck :-)

Maybe rs.com asked for our wishlist so that we became a $100 paying member...
A nice trigger...
show me the money....

u2 setlist is worst than the stones IMO

if they took the suggestions the same way the did with the web vote during
bb makes sense.

I Still think they could change the versions a bit like they were doing
from 82 and older tour.

Miss You
Satisfaction
Honky Tonk Women Sympathy For The Devil
Jumping Jack Flash
Brown Sugar
You Can't Always Get What You Want It's Only
Start Me Up
You Got Me Rocking
etc...
i dont say NOT TO play them at all but they could give us a break.
and i am sure we are not a small minority.
Cheers

If it's mostly the likes of us who are rs.com members, I don't think the majority of us would be asking for warhorses, which we know they are going to play anyway. On that assumption, I've also thought that they can't have paid much attention to the suggestions.

intv7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever think that maybe the suggestions are being
> taken into account? Perhaps the feedback was that
> most people want to hear the warhorses.
>
> We who want them to play obscurities are in the
> minority.


do you seriously believe that?

In terms of the general public, of course we're a minority, but this isnt a public poll...

The sort of people who are going to pay $100 for a membership are hardly going to be seeing their first Stones show, lets face it and will already be aware that certain songs are a sure bet to be played. Give people some credit for originality, I doubt theyre mostly 'voting' for the likes of Satisfaction and the usual 10-12 other suspects

The whole 'requests' thing is quite obviously a gimmick. I cant imagine theyd pay much if any attention to it.

olympia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fully agree .Till 1989/90 I could date all the
> versions .Since then I find it almost impossible.

Yep, it's the main problem I have with the Stones nowadays. Jesus, Tumbling Dice has began with the same Keith's riff-Backing vocals "Wooo-Wooo-Woooo" since fifteen years ago...

I have no problem with warhorses, I only have problem with warhorses played with the same arrangements since 1990. And I have problem with warhorses arranged closer to the studio version than the live versions. And BTW, I'm @#$%& tired of listening to Darryl's bass on Jumpin' Jack Flash sounding boom-boom-boom-boom through the whole song, instead of playing the riff: yep, I miss Bill...

Anyway, I must admit I'm looking forward to see them next year again, when they hit Europe...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

I have never seen a Stones show. So I have not seen them play Start me Up, Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, Jumping Jack Flash, Sympathy for the Devil, etc.

I just don't know why you guys are complaining. They just played close to 80 different songs on the Licks tour, including many songs so obscure they'd never been attempted live before. Tours in the past have never been full of obscurities and the set lists didn't drastically change every night.

THE STONES HAVE SPOILED YOU -- now you're complaining like a bunch of babies. You should be thankful there's a Stones show to see at all, they're in their 60's, Charlie has had a serious health scare, and Keith's hands look like they were mangled in a factory accident. The fact that they can get up there and do "Honky Tonk Women" for the millionth time and sound as incredible as they do is a miracle. Every Stones tour after 1981 has been a bonus, and a blessing.

It won't be long before it's all over for good and you're wishing you could see them do "Start Me Up" one more time.

I think we have every right to complain. With ticket prices what they are, plus the fan club prices. THen they lead us to beleive they will be doing some undone numbers and digging through the catelog a bit. They even ask us what we want to hear. Is this all so we go to more shows to hear the same songs.

Yes I am thankful we can still go see them but it was hard for me not to be dissappointed with the song selection. I had to say to myself just sit back and enjoy what you get. There are so many big hits they can mix it up. AND You Got Me Rocking is a hit, I am begining to things its crap.

intv7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> It won't be long before it's all over for good and
> you're wishing you could see them do "Start Me Up"
> one more time.


Wanna bet?

I dont think its a case of being "spoiled"....I'd prefer to call it a case of the band having 'raised the bar' on the last tour by a) playing a wide variety of songs and b) doing it pretty well. If anything, its a compliment to their ability and creativity that people expect some variety for the amount of money theyre paying.

By keeping the show pretty much the same, theyre coasting compared to recent years and they havent done that for some time on their last few tours. The band's age and past medical history have nothing to do with it. Theyve rehearsed a lot of songs so obviously they can play them.

And for the millionth time, no one's expecting a show both full of obscurities and devoid of 'hits'. They have a wide variety of people coming to see them, be they first timers like blskid here or folks who travel far and wide and see several shows per tour. However, devoting more than 50% of a show EVERY night to the same 10-12 songs that have been played on about 90% of their shows in the last decade or more is a backward step. By all means, play these well known songs, but rotating some of them and/or letting them develop onstage musically isnt a lot to ask.

Look, I understand your frustration -- I was at Fenway and would have loved it if they'd put in a couple more unusual numbers. But "She's So Cold" was a big treat as it hasn't been done in 23 years. They're also doing 4 new songs, so right off the bat, that's FIVE SONGS you didn't get last time out.

Whether you like it or not, 99% of the people in the stands aren't going to recognize anything but the "big songs". I've been at shows where the Stones did "Monkey Man" and "Memory Motel", and people looked lost. These songs got little reaction.

But at Fenway, when they launched into "Tumbling Dice", the place went NUTS.

You've got a right to complain, but I have a right to think you're out of line for doing so. These guys have given you all you could realistically ask for. They're out there this late in the game bringing yu the biggest stage show rock has ever seen, they sound tight, and Mick's voice is better than it's been since he was a young man.

Those club/theatre shows in 2002-2003 were for you. Maybe the stadium and arena shows where they play mostly warhorses aren't for you. Save your money, no one has a gun to your head. Stay home if it bothers you.

This is the last tour, enjoy and dont be stupid, if you dont want to hear the warhorses dont go to the show, i will go, this is my second time, and im sure this is the last time, at least here in Argentina, and i want to hear Start Me Up and JJFlash

intv7,
I think you are completely missing the point. You don't think all fans would recognize Paint it Black, Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Time Is On My Side..

They have so many songs that are instantly recognizeable but they just play the same 10 or 15 ones. We are not asking for a show of obscurities.

(I posted this on the thread about the setlists not changing, but it applies here, too)

I agree with Gazza on one comment he made before. As far as there are many "virgin audience" in any Stones concert (who only knows Satisfaction, JJF, Start Me Up and Brown Sugar), a huge portion of that audience is relatively familiar with any number from certain albums. I don't believe any track from Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, Tattoo You or Let It Bleed would be considered "obscure" to a huge portion of the audience: maybe they can't recall the title, but they somewhat know the song... So why not playing Faraway Eyes, Dead Flowers, Slave and songs like that instead a certain warhorse (and not as an obscure song)? Faraway Eyes instead Miss You, Slave instead Start Me Up, All Down The Line instead TD, things like that...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> intv7,
> I think you are completely missing the point. You
> don't think all fans would recognize Paint it
> Black, Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nervous
> Breakdown, Time Is On My Side..
>
> They have so many songs that are instantly
> recognizeable but they just play the same 10 or 15
> ones. We are not asking for a show of obscurities.

Point taken. I realize not *everyone* here simply wants to hear "Moonlight Mile" and no "Satisfaction". Realistically speaking the band should be including a couple pre-1968 tunes, and I do agree any of those would go over well.

They've done "Ruby Tuesday" at least once so far, so that's a step in the right direction. I get the impression that they dislike playing those early tunes because they may have to pay some sort of mechanical royalty to ABKCO. I'm really not sure, but you're right those songs would certainly work.

I think they're playing the show that they think will go over best with the masses. "Tumbling Dice" is a better concert song than, say, "Mother's Little Helper", it just seems better suited for the large stadiums than the earlier material, IMO.

It's a bit early to get on their case about it though, you may see some surprises yet, only time will tell. But like I said, I don't think it's worth complaining about an artist going out and "doing the hits" -- some bands NEVER change it up, and play the same 20 songs every single year with no change. Yeah, the Stones may be coasting a bit compared to the Licks tour, but there's a new album and new songs in the show, so you can't say they're not trying. Just my two cents.

OK, statistics...

They ask us for a setlist.
What do we do?

We're gonna put a list together of songs we desperately want to hear. These we put in a nice full show.

So let's say I want to hear: Sway, Too Tough, Laugh IND, One Hit, and Bee-bop-a-looba-she's-my-baby. I go to rs.com and post this (simplified in length):

"1. One Hit
2. Tumbling Dice (to get the show going like in '94)
3. Sway
4. Too Tough
5. Satisfaction (to have everybody's attention back and make the place rock)
6. Laugh, IND
7. Little T&A (Keith)
8. Bee-bop-a-looba-she's-my-baby
9. Brown Sugar
10. Jumping Jack Flash (encore, Whoohoo baby!)"

And another hardcore fan is desperate for TWFNoone, Moon Is Up, Gunface, 2000 Man, Santa Claus is coming to town, and although it's a warhorse, he thinks a show is not complete without Tumbling Dice. Off to rs.com:

"1. Jumping Jack Flash (remember YaYa's opening? Whoohoo!)
2. TWFNoone
3. Moon is up
4. Gunface
5. 2000 Man
6. A new Song
7. Santa Claus is coming to town
8. Satisfaction
9. Tumbling Dice (just can't do without it)
10. Brown Sugar (encore, hope Ronnie does the solo! Fireworks during the whoooo's)"

Well then, what songs have two votes now?
Tumbling Dice, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash.
All the others have one.

Enlarge this to dozens of setlists. All rare tunes get halve a dozen of votes, the warhorses get tons. Because we want to post a round-up show, don't want to be boring with too many rarities, and we try to make a musical balance.

So in a way the Stones do exactly what we ask.




By the way pop, the YGMR version from '94/'95 is clearly different because it has a much cleaner sound and it was started by Charlie!!






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-02 20:02 by Limbostone.

Does anybody honestly believe that if they played a stadium gig and decided to give the night off to JJF and Satisfaction in favor of Mother's Little Helper and Have You Seen Your Mother Baby (this would be the MOTHER of all shows, of course) - that ANYONE would walk away and think they'd been cheated? No effing way...

...and that's all we're asking for....nothing more or less. it's not asking that much.

(I used these songs as an example - your samples may vary).

Ok as much as I would like to here them play some of there more rarley heard songs. I saw them the other night and seeing the respons they get from the mass of people who want to here all the major hits its plain and clear why the have to play the major hits at these shows its because thats what works best for the majority. So I have no complaints when you have like 400 or more songs to chose from your always going to walk away saying I wish they would of played this or that but thats the same with any great band.

They haven't played even one arena show yet! Although I may be wrong, I believe the arena set will be drastically different.

As for the voting, you did NOT have to pay $100 to participate in the poll. I bought tix to nine different shows on this tour and was given a free fan club membership each time. I never paid a dime to join. I was asked to vote just like anyone else. So it's quite possible that huge hits were mentioned often. Having said that, I doubt they paid much attention to the outcome.

this reminds me of the 94 tour rehearsal with Dan Akroid on Stones TV,,dan was on stage while stones were practicing @ said 2 mick,, id like 2 here my fav song 2000 light yrs.from home,,,@ jagger says, we don't take requests Dan & Akroid then says ' Play what u will '

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anybody honestly believe that if they played
> a stadium gig and decided to give the night off to
> JJF and Satisfaction in favor of Mother's Little
> Helper and Have You Seen Your Mother Baby (this
> would be the MOTHER of all shows, of course) -
> that ANYONE would walk away and think they'd been
> cheated?

YES, most people there expect to at least hear "Satisfaction".

The songs that are disposable are things like "You Got Me Rocking" -- though the crowd has LOVED that song every time I've seen the Stones do it. Believe it or not, I think this song goes over far better than "Mother's Little Helper" or "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby" would go.

They could ditch the cover tunes, but honestly "Night Time" got one of the best ovations of the night in Boston.

It's a tough call. It's great that they have so many hits and well-loved songs that this is an issue....this is a "problem" a lot of bands will never have!!

Bottom line is, they'll never please everyone -- but I think they're trying to please as much of the crowd as possible.

Limbostone nailed it, I think -- the ones they're doing are the ones that the *majority* of the people want.

No matter what you people say, I'm looking forward to hearing the Stones in MSG 11 days from now. I take my chances, even if I have to come all the way from Norway to experience the excitement of a Stones show. Let's see what they come up wuth at the arenas before you go nuts about the setlist.....

not a question of what folks "expect" to hear. Obviously they "expect" to hear Satisfaction - 'cos the friggin' do it every night. My question was would they feel "cheated" if they didn't. I totally disagree with you if you say they would.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not a question of what folks "expect" to hear.
> Obviously they "expect" to hear Satisfaction -
> 'cos the friggin' do it every night. My question
> was would they feel "cheated" if they didn't. I
> totally disagree with you if you say they would.

I know this might seem hard for you to believe, but most of the people at any given show haven’t seen the Stones 50 times, and many have never seen them before in their lives. Most of them don’t have hundreds of bootlegs, and they don’t know what the Stones did or didn’t play on past tours.

The only reason they “expect” to hear “Satisfaction” is that they paid $100, $200….$400 to see the Rolling Stones, and they want to hear the songs they are best known for. Plain and simple.

Take a poll of the audience walking into any Stones show and you'd probably be shocked to find how many could actually give the name of any band member besides Mick & Keith. You'd be stunned to find out how few would be able to name more than a small handful of album titles.

The Stones need to do "Satisfaction" and "Jumpin Jack Flash" because that's what they're best known for.

This 99% reference I keep seeing is total BS. Look, they are coasting with the set list - although there we was a glimmer of hope when they did Ruby Tuesday and All Down the Line in Harftord. They can still keep ALL the war horses and 3-4 new songs and STILL mix in others. The audience never heard the new ones, and many never heard OOC, so what if they never heard an old one which is unlikely unless they've been under a rock forever or in which case they will say maybe I should listen to more of their catalog. So those who keep using the 99% argument are 100% wrong. Now for the stupidest defense I have read for a static set list was that at least we don't have to worry about sorting through bootlegs!