Brothers and Sisters in Stonesland…I am happy the Stones have decided to change things up a bit. But going back to Boston for a 5th time in 12 months they couldn’t present the same old show, could they? I simply want to express my frustration at the fact that the Stones – if they insist on staging upward of 80% of their set with music made over 30 years ago - have willfully become an Oldies act. That is the very definition of an Oldies act. One can agree. One can disagree.

I posted a thread recently stating that the Stones could have shaken things up for this new U.S. tour in a fresher, more contemporary way relevant to their new album and era. 80% of their opening night set is comprised of pre-1974 material...and only 2 songs were post-1981! And these 2 songs from A Bigger Bang had already been played on this tour. There were no previously unplayed songs from ABB featured. I am really happy that they decided to turn things a bit around, but I am disappointed at the lack of commitment to the new material.

Beast of burgk wrote, “This is just the best (payed) oldies act. We gotta live with this fact.”

Well, I do not accept your premise, Beast. I DO NOT consider the Rolling Stones an ‘Oldies act’. They could still be culturally relevant in 2006 – a la Dylan. I consider the Stones a “working band” and I am grateful for their perseverance and vitality. They are amazing. The Who and Dylan, two contemporaries of the Stones, are touring behind strong new material – and showcasing it nightly. They also play a lot of old favorites. Excellent. But they feature a lot of fresh material too. It keeps everything vital and interesting. The Stones could do the same.

Jumpin'JackFrash wrote, “I think we can all agree that the Boston gig was the most unique set-list of the whole damn tour.”

Agreed. Definitely.

Letitloose wrote, “The old songs are the best Turd - get over it”.

Their ‘newer’ music [i.e post 1981] may not be the strongest in their great catalogue, but there is still lively and essential material there that could be featured.

Highanddry wrote, “…ABB was a steaming pile of crap a year ago, and the only difference between now and then is that the steam has cooled off. Now ABB is a dried up turd..”

Well, believe me…I know turds, being one myself…and A Bigger Bang is no turd. It is a strong album. Not a perfect one…but a strong, confident rock and roll album. When one includes the ‘hidden tracks’ on the Bonus DVD, as I have, it becomes even stronger. They should proudly tour on it…and still play many of the great old songs…but keep everything fresh with newer stuff. That is what a ‘working band’ does.

If you are one of those people that considers anything they have done in the last 25 years musically irrelevant…well, I strongly and respectfully disagree.

MicknSteven wrote, “What do you want to hear exactly?”.

Christ, man, I’m not one of those people with a set wish list bitching and moaning when I don’t get the songs I want. I’m happy that they decided to juggle things up a bit at the start of this new leg of the ABB tour…I am simply – as a long time fan and loyal paying customer – expressing a general desire that the Stones update their Mojo a bit and simply refrain from falling into the Nostalgia Trap.

And when they decide to play 4 songs from a 37 year old album and only 2 [already oft played] songs off their new album…well, I think they could have rebalanced that equation in a more dynamic and forward-looking way…don’t you? This isn’t Licks Tour Part 5 is it? I saw that gig…and that was fine then. But this is now.

You want to know what I would like to hear…exactly? Anything fresh! But hey...What about Dangerous Beauty? In light of the geopolitical dynamic today that would be an appropriate and pertinent song. And how about Laugh, I Nearly Died? And This Place Is Empty? And Under the Radar? They could burn the house down with any of those [and of course other more recent] songs. Whatever…I’m happy with something fresh and relevant to who the Stones are TODAY…not what they were in 1972.

You think this is unreasonable or foolish? You think the new material is crap and they couldn’t sustain excitement in this large setting? Well then you don’t know what you are talking about, friend. Because I witnessed something that negates what all of you naysayers are claiming, and I saw it with my own eyes many times during their European 2006 Tour. Namely, they played what I consider one of the weakest songs on their new album,Streets Of Love…AND MADE IT A CONCERT HIGHLIGHT! If they can do that…imagine what Mick and Co. could do with Laugh I nearly Died…or whatever other songs they choose to highlight. With their commitment to the music they could make a lot of their new[er] material come ALIVE. I’ve seen it. So have you. So let’s cut the crap.

They can play whatever they feel like from the old material…just balance it out with songs that avoid pegging them as a tired nostalgia act…because they ‘aint that for me. I’m not living in denial…I’m just stating the evident. There’s no need to continue touring as the International Nostalgia Jukebox. You’re the Stones for chrissakes.

Lastly, why do some people –insist on being rude and disrespectful?

J.J.Flash, ”No matter what they play, there will be some whining baby making a post like this…”. Stoned_in_dc, “set-list whiner”…

And some posters directly insulting each other. What is this?

I come on this board to respectfully discuss specific subjects with other, dedicated fans. If you don’t agree with what I write, cool. Write a dissenting opinion and let’s get on with the debate as adults. Don’t throw petty trash at me, or others – names like ‘whiner’ - behind the protection of internet-anonymity. These are disrespectful comments. I have every right to my opinions…if they do not jive with yours don’t throw your ‘whiner’ shite on me. I am not a whiner. I am simply not a sycophant. I have high expectations. Respect my views and I will respect yours. Respect each other. Otherwise…stay off my posts. Infantile snottiness and disrespect have no place here.

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brothers and Sisters in Stonesland…I am happy the
> Stones have decided to change things up a bit.
> But going back to Boston for a 5th time in 12
> months they couldn’t present the same old show,
> could they? I simply want to express my
> frustration at the fact that the Stones – if they
> insist on staging upward of 80% of their set with
> music made over 30 years ago - have willfully
> become an Oldies act. That is the very
> definition of an Oldies act. One can agree. One
> can disagree.
>
> I posted a thread recently stating that the Stones
> could have shaken things up for this new U.S. tour
> in a fresher, more contemporary way relevant to
> their new album and era. 80% of their opening
> night set is comprised of pre-1974 material...and
> only 2 songs were post-1981! And these 2 songs
> from A Bigger Bang had already been played on this
> tour. There were no previously unplayed songs
> from ABB featured. I am really happy that they
> decided to turn things a bit around, but I am
> disappointed at the lack of commitment to the new
> material.
>
> Beast of burgk wrote, “This is just the best
> (payed) oldies act. We gotta live with this
> fact.”
>
> Well, I do not accept your premise, Beast. I DO
> NOT consider the Rolling Stones an ‘Oldies act’.
> They could still be culturally relevant in 2006 –
> a la Dylan. I consider the Stones a “working
> band” and I am grateful for their perseverance and
> vitality. They are amazing. The Who and Dylan,
> two contemporaries of the Stones, are touring
> behind strong new material – and showcasing it
> nightly. They also play a lot of old favorites.
> Excellent. But they feature a lot of fresh
> material too. It keeps everything vital and
> interesting. The Stones could do the same.
>
> Jumpin'JackFrash wrote, “I think we can all agree
> that the Boston gig was the most unique set-list
> of the whole damn tour.”
>
> Agreed. Definitely.
>
> Letitloose wrote, “The old songs are the best Turd
> - get over it”.
>
> Their ‘newer’ music may not be the strongest in
> their great catalogue, but there is still lively
> and essential material there that could be
> featured.
>
> Highanddry wrote, “…ABB was a steaming pile of
> crap a year ago, and the only difference between
> now and then is that the steam has cooled off. Now
> ABB is a dried up turd..”
>
> Well, believe me…I know turds, being one
> myself…and A Bigger Bang is no turd. It is a
> strong album. Not a perfect one…but a strong,
> confident rock and roll album. When one includes
> the ‘hidden tracks’ on the Bonus DVD, as I have,
> it becomes even stronger. They should proudly
> tour on it…and still play many of the great old
> songs…but keep everything fresh with newer stuff.
> That is what a ‘working band’ does.
>
> If you are one of those people that considers
> anything they have done in the last 25 years
> musically irrelevant…well, I strongly and
> respectfully disagree.
>
> MicknSteven wrote, “What do you want to hear
> exactly?”.
>
> Christ, man, I’m not one of those people with a
> set wish list bitching and moaning when I don’t
> get the songs I want. I’m happy that they decided
> to juggle things up a bit at the start of this new
> leg of the ABB tour…I am simply – as a long time
> fan and loyal paying customer – expressing a
> general desire that the Stones update their Mojo a
> bit and simply refrain from falling into the
> Nostalgia Trap.
>
> And when they decide to play 4 songs from a 37
> year old album and only 2 songs off their new
> album…well, I think they could have rebalanced
> that equation in a more dynamic and
> forward-looking way…don’t you? This isn’t Licks
> Tour Part 5 is it? I saw that gig…and that was
> fine then. But this is now.
>
> You want to know what I would like to
> hear…exactly? Anything fresh! But hey...What about
> Dangerous Beauty? In light of the geopolitical
> dynamic today that would be an appropriate and
> pertinent song. And how about Laugh, I Nearly
> Died? And This Place Is Empty? And Under the
> Radar? They could burn the house down with any of
> those songs. Whatever…I’m happy with something
> fresh and relevant to who the Stones are TODAY…not
> what they were in 1972.
>
> You think this is unreasonable or foolish? You
> think the new material is crap and they couldn’t
> sustain excitement in this large setting? Well
> then you don’t know what you are talking about,
> friend. Because I witnessed something that
> negates what all of you naysayers are claiming,
> and I saw it with my own eyes many times during
> their European 2006 Tour. Namely, they played
> what I consider one of the weakest songs on their
> new album,Streets Of Love…AND MADE IT A CONCERT
> HIGHLIGHT! If they can do that…imagine what Mick
> and Co. could do with Laugh I nearly Died…or
> whatever other songs they choose to highlight.
> With their commitment to the music they could make
> a lot of their new material come ALIVE. I’ve seen
> it. So have you. So let’s cut the crap.
>
> They can play whatever they feel like from the old
> material…just balance it out with songs that avoid
> pegging them as a tired nostalgia act…because they
> ‘aint that for me. I’m not living in denial…I’m
> just stating the evident. There’s no need to
> continue touring as the International Nostalgia
> Jukebox. You’re the Stones for chrissakes.
>
> Lastly, why do some people –insist on being rude
> and disrespectful?
>
> J.J.Flash, ”No matter what they play, there will
> be some whining baby making a post like this…”.
> Stoned_in_dc, “set-list whiner”…
>
> And some posters directly insulting each other.
> What is this?
>
> I come on this board to respectfully discuss
> specific subjects with other, dedicated fans. If
> you don’t agree with what I write, cool. Write a
> dissenting opinion and let’s get on with the
> debate as adults. Don’t throw petty trash at me,
> or others – names like ‘whiner’ - behind the
> protection of internet-anonymity. These are
> disrespectful comments. I have every right to my
> opinions…if they do not jive with yours don’t
> throw your ‘whiner’ shite on me. I am not a
> whiner. I am simply not a sycophant. I have high
> expectations. Respect my views and I will respect
> yours. Respect each other. Otherwise…stay off my
> posts. Infantile snottiness and disrespect have
> no place here.

Turd on the run, your entry is very irritating. You agree me and on the other hand you don't.

Why not call a band an "oldies act" - as I did - that refuses to play most songs of their best album since 1981?! A year after release they play now two or three (out of 18!) new songs in a show. That's really a shame. You critized this as well. Not enough, they also ignore their other work from 1975 onwards more or less totally.

70-80% of the current setlists are songs that are at least 30 years old, released before my birth ;-) Ca. 60% are played to death-greatest hits on every show and always the same (what about the "forgotten big hits" such as The Last Time; everyone in the crowd knows this seldom played classic?).

I think Boston Sept. 20 had really an absolutely surprising, nice and powerfull setlist, despite the lack of new songs. But it would have been a gas if they had thrown out TD and SFTD and played Let Me Down Slow and It Won't Take Long (which was rehearsed before the show) instead. Okay, at least Miss You was thrown out, but I fear it'll soon reappear in a seldom visited city such as Regina.

They absolutely live in the past, mainly in the 70s (pre-Let It Bleed-songs are very rare too, apart from some Hot Rocks) so that's an oldie act, what else?! Apart from that, musically, it is a great tour to me. Not to be misunderstood. And this week's Boston setlist was much better than those of Europe 06. Let's hope they'll reinvent ABB next year (but I don't think so).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-22 17:17 by beast of burgk.

There's something else that contributes to the set list issues and the lack of enough different/new material being played for some tastes.

It's related to the Stones' [Keith's in particular] own concept of themselves.
Keith has this idea that the Stones are sort of like a Jazz band... and that it doesn't matter how old or what the material is...because they'll re-invent it and give a it fresh twist with each new version.
I think this perception, whilst having some truth in it, sort of clouds the issue for the band and prevents them from getting it in perspective.
Does any of this make sense to you fellas ?

Beast, I respect your opinion, but to be honest I can not grasp your point. I don't understand what you are trying to say. What is good and what is bad in your opinion? And I also don't understand where Turd is challenging you?
Don't take this as an affront; I must be a little foggy this morning.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

>>>>>Keith has this idea that the Stones are sort of like a Jazz band

Hey yeah Spud if Keith's coppin' the Hot Five and Hot Seven it's about right...
And chuck 'em in with Bertha "Chippy" Hills - Pratt City Blues....



ROCKMAN

Good played music nowadays, partly interesting arrangements, but only minor changes, many 06 concert visitors were not even alive at the time most of the songs in the set were published (!), too many - and on every tour mainly the same - big hits, almost no new songs, some of the best new ones remain totally unplayed.

Too many forgiven chances, too bad. I don't know what is hard to understand with my opinion?! I think most hardcore fans will agree more or less.

That Keithian statement is just a little too easy and comfortable. It's just a little too...well Keithian. I mean, the Stones are not a Jazzband. These changes that Keithg talks about might feel monumental to him, maybe, MAYBE even the rest of the band, but not to the masses they attract.They are playing to stadiums of 60.000 people. You can't have it both ways. When playting to these kind of audiences you must think big and exagerrated. The way Jagger acts and poses. Song choices and changes should follow the same reasoning. If you're trying to please a stadium full of screaming fans, then a subtle riff thrown in after the bridge means nothing. If that is enough for Keith to feel that he is performing with integrity, that is good, but it don't mean nothing to a horde. I get the impression that Keith wants the output on a small, intimate level, but the return of a Colosseum.
That is where I thought Spud's post was leading at first. there is another person who could/should be a lot more involved in the song selection, in the setlists, in the overall presentation of the Stones as a Liveact in general. And that would be Keith, who to be honest might not have the mojo and energy to do this anymore.
Thanks Beast for clarification. So it would be better if they played tunes from times when more of us had been born?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Good post Turd. I agree with you. However at this point I am happy they at least changed it up a little and finally got rid of Miss you and IORR. If they do that with a few more songs they play every gig than we will have an even better set list. Start Me Up or TD should be next. There are many albums the Stones have where you almost know they will not play any songs from. And usually when they pull out a treat like say Worried About You a few years ago the crowd loves it. They can do this with many other songs from post 80s albums. I think they are on the right track with mixing it up but still have some ways to go which will hopefully happen.

I'm sure, most "obscure" numbers from Boston will be off soon - and MY, IORR back instead.

Great responses gentlemen, thank you. Beast...try to understand...I agree with you...I just wish I didn't...if you know what I mean.

beast of burgk writes, "Why not call a band an "oldies act" - as I did - that refuses to play most songs of their best album since 1981?! They absolutely live in the past, mainly in the 70s (pre-Let It Bleed-songs are very rare too, apart from some Hot Rocks) so that's an oldie act, what else?! Apart from that, musically, it is a great tour to me. Not to be misunderstood. And this week's Boston set-list was much better than those of Europe 06."

And from what you wrote it seems you are a younger fan..and you would like to hear some of the stuff you grew up with [post-1981] and is relevant to you. I hear you. I'm older than you yet I feel the same. We're on the same page. I just REFUSE to give into the reality that they have become an Oldies act. DAMMIT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE...but you are damn well right...I hate to admit it...they are on the verge of becoming a bona fide Oldies act...shite!

Which leads to Spud's excellent point about Keef's conception of the Stones as a Jazz band that can play classic material forever...good analysis.

Followed by ChelseaDrugstore's incisive retort, and his summing up "...the Stones are not a Jazzband. If you're trying to please a stadium full of screaming fans, then a subtle riff thrown in after the bridge means nothing. If that is enough for Keith to feel that he is performing with integrity, that is good, but it don't mean nothing to a horde. I get the impression that Keith wants the output on a small, intimate level, but the return of a Colosseum." Bingo.

The new tour has just begun. I will not give into negativity. I'm happy that the Stones are thinking anew...and I hope that they will have the courage to revisit some newer and fresher material...who knows, maybe they'll even play some never-before-performed songs from ABB...and by the time they hit full stride in New York or Chicago they might be surprising the hell out of all of us!

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.