One where all the old crowd pleasers are systematically churned out by wrote in almost predictable order.

including more than 2-3 of the following.......

BS, SMU , HTW, TD, JJF, YCAGWYW, SFTD, SFM, Miss U, YGMR, Satisfaction, PIB (sorry it was a nice surprise in 89/90 - but......)

If it's predictable it's not R&R.

Yes, their set lists changed very little in 72-3, 75-76. BUT not many fans went to multiple shows or had access to internet set-lists. And besides, the songs were mainly fresh nad young - not torn, frayed and shattered.

If you are going to charge top whack - keep it live. Play as if you care - and play as if you believe in the new material. Dognabit, dognabit.

(BUT please Spare us Infamy or This Room is Empty!)

Some of us like Infamy.

Fair enough. Some of us like watching water going down the plughole, I suppose.
(As long as that is thrown in as an accompanying video).

Every third or fourth show then?

Yes - it would be good to change up the routine so we don't know exactly what to expect.

Very well put, Four Stone.

I like what you wrote about "young and fresh" songs in the 1970's. Quite different from leaning on the same batch of songs thirty years later!

But why not take out the question of dollars spent? (Not least because lots of people seem to think that questions of artistic integrity don't apply if they themselves manage to score tickets for less money).

Why not just worry about the World's Greatest Rock'n'Roll Band having their agenda dictated to them, rather than the other way around? Just think of Jagger and Keith ignoring all the tunes that they love to do what they profess to hate--be an oldies band?

I wish the Stones would lead and surprise us. Not simply follow...

Simple solution - dont go to more than one show. Don't follow the setlists on the internet. Then everything will be a surprise.

Oh - I have been to over 500 concerts and NO show has ever been worth anywhere near $450. At least not to me. Gawd bless anyone who ever spent that much AND felt they got their money's worth.

What a bullshit post!!!

"mick's my wife, and we can't get divorced"

"Alright keith, gimmie some of them women"

"And now, dressed as mick jagga........mick jagga"

AIM- ohnonotyouagainn

DAN
It was worth the money for me. Perhaps the Stones or at least the management think different today. As long as people travel stayin hotels spend for drinks (and they do a lot) they can spend some more bucks on tickets. Very easy. And as long as there are people who would like to see them the last... time at least it will be that way.
I neve thought theat they will do a tour after 40 licks anyway. I agree that the prices in Germany increased dramatically and they will and always have a problem to sell all this tickets. Most of the promoters had financial problems after the Stones tour.

Rockingfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DAN
> I agree that the prices in Germany
> increased dramatically and they will and always
> have a problem to sell all this tickets. Most of
> the promoters had financial problems after the
> Stones tour.

The german promoter of the Voodoo Lounge tour in 1995 even went bankrupt after the tour...

How about the prices of cigarettes that didn't stop me from smoking or gas for the carthat didn't chase me into public transportation.

Stop this whining. If you don't want to pay then don't go.

I had NO regrets paying $450 for MSG, but that was my choice. I'd rather spend it on that than on other things, that's all. I don't have to justify it to anyone and no one has to justify why they don't want to spend it that way. If anyone doesn't want to spend it that way and that's a lot of people, that's fine. They probably spend it instead on things I wouldn't but it's none of my business. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Simple.

If they made a web choice thingy agin (Like in 97/98) and the audience could decide the entire setlist before the concert, you would hear just as many warhorses as you do now. Why should the Stones care if a hardcore fan likes it or not? Yes we put lots of money in their pockets. More than the average fan. On the other hand we also buy bootlegs and download stuff from the net (Not that I have ANY problem with that). So we're cheating them of money in a way. The high ticket prices (Sorry) sort of levels that. That's why I can't get mad over these prices (Although I must say that the prices should be evened out over the globe so Americans and Englishmen doesn't pay for us Europeans).

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they made a web choice thingy agin (Like in
> 97/98) and the audience could decide the entire
> setlist before the concert, you would hear just as
> many warhorses as you do now. Why should the
> Stones care if a hardcore fan likes it or not? Yes
> we put lots of money in their pockets. More than
> the average fan. On the other hand we also buy
> bootlegs and download stuff from the net (Not that
> I have ANY problem with that). So we're cheating
> them of money in a way. The high ticket prices
> (Sorry) sort of levels that. That's why I can't
> get mad over these prices (Although I must say
> that the prices should be evened out over the
> globe so Americans and Englishmen doesn't pay for
> us Europeans).
>
>
> JUNE 8TH 2006 IN DENMARK BABY!!!!!!!! COUNT ME
> IN!!!!!!!!


OK...one more time.

The complaint about how tired the show is doesn't have anything to do with which specific songs they play. It's NOT about hearing "Winter" over, say, "Honky Tonk." Each individual has their own ideas about what would go into a "good" setlist...

It's about the simple principle that the Stones should be shaking up the routine in some way. And that only fits with their oft-stated desire not to fall into the rut of doing an oldies act.

This show is such an obvious, stale presentation that even casual fans are noticing it. I talked to a friend in NYC who loves the Stones from a "Hot Rocks/Forty Licks" vantage point and she said she "had seen it"--that MSG in January wouldn't have anything else to offer her.

Whatever the undeniable pleasures of "Brown Sugar" and "Satisfaction," that sense of "good old dependable Rolling Stones" has been hanging all over the tour. Some people (hardcore and casual) are OK with that, some not. But in my mind, it is a major moment of decline for the Stones to seem so straightforward and predictable.