Re: The Stones are not an Oldies act!They could make a lot of their new[er] material come ALIVE.
Posted by:
beast of burgk
()
Date: September 22, 2006 17:13
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.