Hi fellows

Just a statistic note:

During the tour of 1981/82 the Stones played 33 different songs. During, SW/UJ tour 37 different songs. Now, including Moncton they have played already 29 different songs. Just on the 6th show, before they start playing arenas. So, do you think that the nagging is rightful?

right on, tell them.

all others: face the facts, stop moaning

the strict setlists are over

First, they played longer sets on the earlier tours you cited. In '81, they played material off two new records. Both factors skew the percentages...

Second, the practice of varying the set became truly commonplace in '97 to shake up a show structure that was even then formulaic. The practice intensified with the "No Security" leg and then reached an apex with the subsequent "Licks" tour. That increased diversity--not the earlier tours--is the standard by which the shows are being judged.

And most immediately: To date, the variations on the current tour aren't really variations at all. They come from the same pool of monster hits that have been performed on recent tours--if not all on every tour. (And, in fairness, there are new songs being performed on this tour.)

Hey, the songs are great, the performances are great and yes, the Stones can do whatever the hell they want. The question is whether or not to pay $450.00 per/ to see them run through a bunch of songs that they have been trotting out for as many as forty years.

For my own part, I would respect the Stones a whole lot more if there were any evidence that they saw the shows as anything besides an obligatory payoff of the laziest expectations of the audience. At Fenway, the place went nuts for a fifty year-old R&B cover. Maybe, just maybe, even stadium audiences want a little bit of creativity...

ill take what they play and dig it i paid 160 for great seats

It's more my concern if it's already down to 20 songs in Moncton what does Europe get??? 17.....

Moncton was a special show with many other bands, kind of a festival. They changed their set and played many great, old tunes. I think 21 songs will be the standard for the US leg, and guess 10 or something will be standard in Europe. They always play more songs in US for some reason.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi fellows
>
> Just a statistic note:
>
> During the tour of 1981/82 the Stones played 33
> different songs. During, SW/UJ tour 37 different
> songs. Now, including Moncton they have played
> already 29 different songs. Just on the 6th show,
> before they start playing arenas. So, do you think
> that the nagging is rightful?


yes because its not 1981

I don't guess they will play 10 or something in Europe... Sorry, of course I meant 20 or something..

I think they played something like 81 songs during the 1994-1995 VDL tour.

I just think that they should play a lot more new material from ABB:

There are so many new songs that for sure would work great live, and, would get an great response from the audience:

Let Me Down Slow
It Won´t Take Long
Rain Fall Down
Biggest Mistake
Laugh...

They have a much better album than U2 with Vertigo, and U2 play 6-7 songs of their new album each night.

Do you think that after the release worlwide od ABB, they will start playing more new songs???

BOBM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they played something like 81 songs during
> the 1994-1995 VDL tour.


It was actually about 60, the most varied tour by far up to that point. BTB/NS had 76 and Licks 78

Rev. Robert W. wrote "To date, the variations on the current tour aren't really variations at all. They come from the same pool of monster hits that have been performed on recent tours--if not all on every tour. (And, in fairness, there are new songs being performed on this tour.)"

Yes, 4 new songs + 2 new covers + some songs played less than 10 or 5 times on recent tours. The "monster hits" are 10-12 and now they perform only 7-8. I see good balance between the decades and variety too. Sorry, i don't want a concert without JJF or HTW! And don't forget, the Stones are performing for the big audiences...

Rockingfan say : "It's more my concern if it's already down to 20 songs in Moncton what does Europe get??? 17....."


Rockingfan, you're right. The only element that worries me. I hope no less than 19, like Licks Tour...

Gazza: "yes, because its not 1981". So what Gazza? OK, let me mention recent tours. Voodoo Lounge Tour 60 different songs played. B2B Tour 76 and Licks Tour 78 different songs played. If the Stones will tour in 2012 do you think they must play 135 different songs because "it's not 2005 anymore"??

Nagging is always rightful. Righting is always nagful, for that matter.

"Nagging is always rightful". Sounds like a dogma, T&A...

look what the dogma dragged in, eh?

stickydion Wrote:
>
> Gazza: "yes, because its not 1981". So what Gazza?
> OK, let me mention recent tours. Voodoo Lounge
> Tour 60 different songs played. B2B Tour 76 and
> Licks Tour 78 different songs played. If the
> Stones will tour in 2012 do you think they must
> play 135 different songs because "it's not 2005
> anymore"??
>

sure, why not

Pointless comparing it to a different era. The band are aware that people go to many concerts now and not just one..thats one of the reasons why they DO mix it up

If you want to live in 1981 or 1973, fine - go ahead. I think the band deserve credit for showing themselves capable of more variety in recent years, so now theyve raised the bar why not continue to try and improve themselves (whether they DO improve isnt important - trying to do so IS).

Obviously you'd be happy to wallow in the same 20 greatest hits night after night for a year with no variety, but some of us are a bit less sycophantic and think that the greatest rock n roll band in the world are capable of being a bit more ambitious than that

and to the argument I've heard made that goes something like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" my retort would be:

What would you rather hear - another magnificent version of Satisfaction or a clumsy version of Let it Loose?

Mark me down for the latter.....

missionary position every night is great too I suppose

I have to agree here with Reverend Robert W. I like the stones as much as the next guy but lets face it this setlist is an "oldies" or "greatest hits" package. This set list is pretty static. I read these posts about how "this is the most amazing show I have ever seen" and all I can think is that its a case of emperor's new clothes. Its very sad. No act is worth $450.00 lets face it. I think people convince themselves of what they want to believe. I am sure the new album will come and go with little fan fare just like the rest of the half-assed records from the last 25 years. One word, two syllables - "doo doo"

"my heavy throbber is itching just to lay a solid rhythm down."

Amen, Gazza.

Not quite sure why having hopes for the Stones to stretch a little and think a little about making a different statement with the shows is so threatening to people.

I was lucky enough to have an advance copy of "Bridges" and to see a range of shows over the course of the tour--both before the album's release and well after. I'll never forget the way crowds reacted to "Out of Control." You could feel the place--whether a theatre or a stadium--ripple with excitement.

That success was very encouraging because it suggested to me that if the Stones really believed in their work and they kicked ass with it, the audience was there to listen and applaud it. That's different from a mob showing up to be told what it already knows...

At a time when every tour is effectively a reunion/farewell and the format/band has been in place for fifteen (!) years, it's up to the Stones fight for their new work (that includes 1980's and 90's) and for their right (obligation?) to deviate from stadium oldies conventions--at least a little. It's a good thing when they put themselves in the position of having to actually put a song over, rather than depending on reserves of affection and familiarity.

I remember standing in the dark at Soldier Field with 60,000 buffoons (I include myself) as a cold wind came in off Lake Michigan. Keith walks up to the microphone and lurches into "All About You." Now, love it or hate it, singing that tune was as defiantly unconventional at that moment as anything he could have done. I don't know if sucking down vodka and Sunkist and Marlboros qualifies as badass anymore, but I'm pretty sure that was his greatest outlaw moment of the 1990's. He didn't care one bit what the meatheads in the crowd who possibly knew "Happy" thought of it.

My point? Diverse setlists show that the Stones respect their own work and the attention of their audience. I hope everyone gets what they need...

"Post of the Month" Reverand!

I really have to agree with the Reverend here again. Seeing them do "All About You" ??? Now that's something to talk about! How cool and how rare, but "Tumbling Dice" and or "Honkey Tonk Women" for the millionth time? That's pathetic. I would rather sit around and smell my own farts than pay $450.00 for that insult.

Hail to the Reverend.

"My heavy throbber is itching just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Having not had the privilege of smelling fuzzbingz' farts - I must defer to his better judgment....

Amen Rev.
The same 4 new songs every night so far though is a bit of a drag. Considering the extremely positive reception to ABB you would have thought they would want to showcase some more of the album, preferably 6 or 7 tracks (they did this with Some Girls in '78) but if it must be 4 at least rotate them a bit.

Many thanks fellas, I'm cracking some bad writers' block and really appreciate feedback.

But my intention wasn't to dismiss, say, "Dice" or "Jack Flash"--they need to and should do some of those tunes.

Just not so many and in such a formulaic way. At Fenway, as high-powered as the performance was, it didn't really have any ebb and flow. Certainly after Keith's set, it was just balls-to-the-wall hits/rockers, making it seem like some kind of giant medley. Now, slotting "Out of Control" in after the B-stage was a significant step in the right direction and even doing the "Can't Always Get..."/"IORR" encore was a nice deviation from the "JJF"/"BS"/"Satisfaction" cluster that typically forms a final run-up. But, otherwise, everything seemed obvious and jumped along at the same pace.

I remember seeing a "Rambler/Sympathy" encore on opening night in '99--a good example of how even familiar tunes can be slotted in a fresh way. The Dead used to do a pause late in their second sets, where they would do a ballad--imagine if the Stones threw in "Time Is On My Side?" "Ruby Tuesday?" before the final run-up?

Or "Let It Bleed" in the middle of the warhorses at the end--a great, debauched sing-along. Or "Around and Around" or "Not Fade Away?" There are so many crowd pleasers that aren't so deadly obvious. How about "Wild Horses" as a second encore, to send the audience home gently?

If you don't have pauses and twists and turns, then when you hit the audience with, say, "Honky Tonk" (which is given a perfunctory reading these days) its impact is diminished. No drama.

I'm not trying to get to a "more obscure than thou" place; there are so many ways to shake up the format--and it did the Stones such good in 2002...

let's phase it you're spoiled. we are all spoiled. i could agree that the 450 bucks are exaggerating and looking to Milwaukee you can get tons of tickets at ticketmaster. so this might a a cheap way to obtain good seats for little.
I have hoped for more variation of the set list, but be honest it's 90% of the people or even more than do this as a one time event. There are worldwide still only a very few that are repeaters. For those we had the licks tour and now it's another tour. I agree it would be fun to hear more different songs. But I assume there will have a different set in the arena shows and might do some songs they did in theatres last time.
I will see what the west coast concerts will show me and if they are really much different than in Europe.
There is also another point which I realize, a lot of people go into the concert and don't even really know the importance of the band playing than rather chatting on the mobile and sending SMS. Sorry, but what can you expect from spectators which are just not crossing the fanline and go with the music. I remember especially in Ahoy people around me which talked only on they mobiles and seemed not even to notice a single song. Besides that you cannot really clap your hand sing and shout if you are concentrating on other things. And don't tell me you can concentrate on two things in a concert. No chance.

Hey Rev. Robert W. there is no need to backpeddle. It is perfectly ok to dismiss "Dice" and the others that the people here in this forumt are calling "warhorses" I believe. "warhorses" is a nice euphamism for "tired greatest hits we could care less about", Lets be honest. When "Dice" or "Honkey Tonk" get played most real fans go urinate. Hell, For 450 dollars it would be nice to hear something like Jigsaw Puzzle or Worried Bout You etc. I think you made a very good point which is this latest jaunt is somce B.S. and we all know it.

"My heave throbber is just itching to lay a solid rhythm down"