The opening acts will soon be playing longer. With all the off days in the schedule and the ticket prices, you'd think a 2.5 hour show (23-25 songs) would not be asking too much.

Man....I'm so sick of all this whinin' on this board. Moan, moan, moan....

yeah really, dont go then

I loved the shows this week but, honestly, they were about 10 minutes too short. You can feel it, the long song missing...Midnight Rambler or Out of Control...even a sit-down song like Love In Vain would help....

shut up Send it to me and go see Celine Dion instaed

Well, what would be sufficiently and appropriately upbeat? Just how enthusiastic does one have to be in order to have a place on the board?

Seriously--what is a legitimate viewpoint?

Here's what I don't get...

All this talk about "400 dollar shows"...

I'm goin' to two great gigs on this tour and EACH cost me $95 plus taxes, etc.

Exactly same I paid for B2B, for 40 Licks...

IF you have to sit on the 10th row, then go ahead and pay 400 bucks...

Thats what you could spend for a great meal with major wine course, tax & tip at Charlie Trotter, also an indulgence.

But you don't have to buy the "indulgence" ticket... you can get a good seat with a good sightline and great sound for a whole lot less...

95 good seats everywhere and if you bump that to the 160 seats then it's that much better.

if you notice for setlists i o r r is not listing start and finish times any more are the shows getting shorter?

Yes, last night was under 2 hours and it seemed like they could have easily added one more song. A long one like MR or OOC would have pushed them over 2 hours easily. Not sure why they split early and did only 1 encore. House lights stayed down quite awhile after they finished Satisfaction. Still a good show and I'm glad I went.

Wait a second, Creedence:

Congratualtions on getting a (relative) deal. That's your personal victory and I'm glad you found a way to make this work for you.

The fact is, the Stones are charging $450.00 plus for many, many of the tickets in many of the venues. At MSG, the percentage of the arena designated in this price range is absolutely embarrassing. That's $1000.00 and more for a date--mostly in only so-so spots, including 200 levels with "partial views."

Now, I happen to think that the Stones are worth more than anyone else on the road. But let's be clear: their prices are dramatically--not incrementally, dramatically--higher than anyone else's. That is the business plan they signed for and it creates some kind of responsibilty.

Two hours at the bare minimum is called for...

The cheaper seats are sometimes nowhere to be found in the ticketing system and sometimes not even an option the moment the event goes on sale. I was told the top price for On Stage seating was $250, when I logged in and got in, all that was there were $275 tickets + Fees avail,$28 in service charges, for one ticket.

Knowing what I know now about shorter sets, etc, I think I made a mistake.

it's a perfectly valid point - if the Stones are looking at this board (and I hope they are) - they should take note. We're noticing you are falling far short of expectations so far on this tour. it ain't whining. i've spent many thousands of dollars on these guys and I've earned the right to whine/gripe/complain as I see fit. If they are going on on the road at these prices, they have an obligation to deliver. period....

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's a perfectly valid point - if the Stones are
> looking at this board (and I hope they are) - they
> should take note. We're noticing you are falling
> far short of expectations so far on this tour. it
> ain't whining. i've spent many thousands of
> dollars on these guys and I've earned the right to
> whine/gripe/complain as I see fit. If they are
> going on on the road at these prices, they have an
> obligation to deliver. period....


StonesTod,

I totally agree Its not whining we pay good money for thse shows and we should get a bare minimun of 25 songs. Im sure somebody will give us the argument quality vs quantity thats bullshit they can give us both at these prices. Some one mentioned MSG I pulled up a $450.00 ticket in section 220, that's 4 levels up counting the floor and it actully said obstructed view. Someone else said you can buy $103.00 or $163.00 (thats what I get)and get some good site lines yes you can but you can also get shitty ones. This person also neglected to mention alot of us have big travel expenses also.

Boston in January I saw $163.00 tickets sideview in Balcony 15th row that's the last row in the balcony. 100% of the floor is $450 and 80% of the lodge and 70% of club seats above lodge. I am not a big Paul Mcartney fan but his shows top price is $250.00 and he averaged 35 songs per show. HE"S OLDER THAN THE STONES. Alls I have ever heard from his hard core fans and casual fans is he put on a great show He can do the stones can do it.

I bleed Stones and saturday I am seeing My 4th show this tour. I am sorry to say if I don't see some quick changes in Variety and length I will be cancelling three other road trips I have in the works. For the money on tickets and travel it is not worth it. So IMHO I say FUCKem they owe us more.

By the way, no harmonica from Mick in St. Paul or Milwaukee...

inopeng Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, no harmonica from Mick in St. Paul or
> Milwaukee...


interesting. hadn't figured that out. that's very unusual - it must mean something, I would think. he ALWAYS plays harp - since the 89 tour, anyway.....

those 2 and a half hour steel wheels shows are far gone arent they

To me, his harp playing defines him as a musician...not a singer, not a song-writer, not a performer, but as a musician. I know some think he is no more than an average player, but he has a style all his own and very recognizable which, to me, means he has mastered the thing!

Here's hoping for Our of Control and Rambler Saturday night!

Interesting to note that the show at the Xcel Center in St. Paul was in fact not a sellout. There were plenty of tickets available for sale and at these outrageous prices it's easy to see why! Jagger being the London School of Economics graduate that he is, is making sure they take it to the bank on what will probably be their last tour.

It was a great show though but I wish they would have played longer. Much shorter concert than any of the other Stones tours I've seen.

Here's a link to another thread about people getting good reasonable prices for great seats at Soldier Field...

I'm just saying that I'm not the only person finding good seats at fair prices, you just have to dig around for them...

[iorr.org]

It seems that there would be people who would defend them if they played nine songs and then left.A twenty song set list would not be the end of the world if we knew it would stay at 20 but,it always gets shorter in the second year of the tour.I think an 18 or 19 song set list like we got in '03 is unacceptable.24 seems reasonable and they almost need to play around that many songs or large periods of their career will remain unrepresented.

Here's an idea: JUST GO TO ONE BLEEDING SHOW.You obviously have the money for multiple shows, you ain't hurting financially (I suspect) so it is in fact WHINING. Jesuz.

I was at the Milwaukee show, and I gotta say...while it was good, it wasn't GREAT, and, yeah, it did feel like the encore could have used "Midnight Rambler" prior to "Satisfaction" just to push 'em over that two-hour mark. Even with only that one more song, the show would have felt more complete.

Some things people aren't mentioning....the shows on the 1978 'Some Girls' tour were actually only about 95-100 minutes tops, with an average of eighteen songs per night. However, ticket prices were roughly about $12. And it was the 1975 'Tour of the Americas' (not the 'Steel Wheels' tour in '89) that had the Stones' longest shows ever...normally 26-27 songs, two-and-a-half hours.

I've thought this before and I'll say it now...

THIS TOUR CAME TOO DAMN EARLY AFTER THE 'LICKS' TOUR !!!!

Think about it. The 'Licks' tour ended in 2003. Barely two years later, the guys are back on the road again due to increasing age and most likely a desire to make one last whalloping at the bank before packing it in. I do believe that's the reason for the shorter, more indifferent shows this time around. Granted, they have a fine new album...but they sure aren't playing much of it, and it almost seems as an afterthought when they mention it on stage.

It's certainly possible that all of this could change as the tour progresses. But, as of right now, I don't think there's anything wrong with Stones fans complaining about what's being delivered to them with the shows up to this point.

yeah i know 75 was a long show , i compared steel wheels cause it wasnt that long ago they were going 2 and a half hours also,so why not now

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah i know 75 was a long show , i compared steel
> wheels cause it wasnt that long ago they were
> going 2 and a half hours also,so why not now


big difference in the energy one has at 46 vs. 62, I imagine. but, like I said if you don't have the energy to put out at 62 for these prices, don't bother.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> if you don't have the
> energy to put out at 62 for these prices, don't
> bother.


EXCELLENT POINT

From now on, I'll only say positive things. The Stones can play six songs and leave - yippee. Otherwise, people on this board will just tell you to shut the hell up, it seems. Nice. Sorry for having a f*&king opinion.

In '75 they did not do 26 or 27 songs.They did between 21 - 24 depending on if you count the Preston 2 song set.In August of '76 they did the long concert with around 28 songs but,that was one time only.Most of the recent tours,including all that have promoted a new studio album,have featured shows with 23-26 song set lists,at least in the beginning.The set always shrinks a little bit in the second year.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The set always shrinks a little
> bit in the second year.

true - but now it's shrinking in the second week. by the second year, the show may be in the negative numbers!

Also - you're right about the '75 shows (and, personally I do count the Billy songs - the rest of the band was there) - but the length of those shows was 2.5 hours - not the 1:45 we're getting now.

I agree.This is definitely not a good sign.To be honest,I'm not thrilled that the set is at 20 songs right now but,if it drops further,I'll be very disappointed.

It is self evident that we are calling for the highest number of songs possible, because there is no such thing as a "Sorry-here´s-your-fifty-bucks-back-cause-we-played-only-19-tonite-refund".

Viewing at the tour schedule, Milwaukieans please apologize, it is quite understandable that the Stones were not running full throttle in your town.They will have to perform for approx. 150.000 people within the next five days. Well, and its Chikago and a similar small town, where this will happen. Be assured, Mick is just taking breath, and especially he should be allowed to do so sometimes.

Do the girls still scream, when you perform on stage? KR: Not on stage, but when I perform, yeah.