Was as exciting as anything I can remember, particularly TD, which I adored BUT I suspect that if I listened to the tapes of that evening it would not be particularly impressive.

I would like Mick to concentrate on more singing, less movement, more on performance and interpretation, and less on "pleasing" the audience, not an easy thing to do.

Charlie is more than fine, especially having seen him play 3 times with the Boogie Woogie band, in fact if anything I'd love the Stones to incorporate his jazz influence more.

Keith should stop drinking, or do whatever it takes to be in the peak(est) physical condition that is possible, he looked wonderful recently at that Awards ceremony with Johnny Depp, and do an awful lot of practice.

Ronnie, same as Keith; I do feel, with a sense of betrayal, that if they HAD to have a new guitarist temporarily, it might give the entity known as The Rolling Stones, which we all love, a shot in the arm, and a possible inspiration, and I love the idea of Jack White, or even a rotation of guitarists for a set number of gigs each.

I think the band should play for about 1 hour 40 mins, with an additional encore, and that they should look very seriously at changing the setlists with a greater regularity, they should deliver newer and unperformed songs with a much more focussed sense of purpose.

They should largely eschew stadium gigs, except for a real handful, and concentrate on arenas and clubs. TICKET PRICES SHOULD BE IN THE U2 bracket or at least a lot lower than we have been used to.

Quote
guyrachel
I think the band should play for about 1 hour 40 mins, with an additional encore, and that they should look very seriously at changing the setlists with a greater regularity, they should deliver newer and unperformed songs with a much more focussed sense of purpose.

They should largely eschew stadium gigs, except for a real handful, and concentrate on arenas and clubs.

Agree with the arenas & clubs, but I would go further and say small arenas and theatres, as well as clubs.

No reason why they can't vary the setlist more.
They don't need to play all 100-plus songs (or whatever) they usually rehearse before a big tour, but I think they can do better than the usual 20-30.

I really do think they do need to keep the show at an absolute minimum of two hours, preferably more.
With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age.

One has to be very optimistic to expect a future tour with impressive music, a tour which would be about more than about nostalgia, yet one has right to dream. If the ticketprices will be as high as in 2007 they will have big problems to sell enough tickets, even for arenas.

"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

Quote
dcba
You really want them to die mid-tour, do you?

Of course not.

We can only speculate about band members' individual level of fitness.
None of us really know just how good (or otherwise) their physical shape is.

I'm assuming that with smaller venues, there is less physical space to cover onstage and less stress involved than putting on a huge stage production.
That, coupled with proper pacing and rest time can allow longer shows.

There are many artists out there, close to the Stones' age, who have been on the road for years sometimes playing more than one show per night.
I don't see why it should be assumed that the Stones can't do this.

Quote
dcba
"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

He may 'only' do 17 songs, but his shows are as long as a Stones 19 song show is. Usually a few minutes shy of two hours. And taking into account Keith's 2-song set. he's probably onstage for more of the show than Jagger is.

Quote
dcba
"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

When they were 22 - back in 1965 - the shows were rarely more than 20-25 minutes long. Nobody could hear anything at the shows, sinde the PA was a "small joke", and still nobody complained about the set lists or the ticket prices.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
dcba
You really want them to die mid-tour, do you?

Of course not.

We can only speculate about band members' individual level of fitness.
None of us really know just how good (or otherwise) their physical shape is.

I'm assuming that with smaller venues, there is less physical space to cover onstage and less stress involved than putting on a huge stage production.
That, coupled with proper pacing and rest time can allow longer shows.

There are many artists out there, close to the Stones' age, who have been on the road for years sometimes playing more than one show per night.
I don't see why it should be assumed that the Stones can't do this.

With respect, it seems to me ridiculous to expect Mick at his age to subject his vocal chords to two hours plus on a regular basis. The size of the venue has no impact at all on the battering that aging vocal chords take with his kind of performance, however excellent his general health (and it appears to be miraculous for an OAP). Add to that, the indisputable fact that upper body strength and endurance decreases markedly with age, however generally fit the individual, which will increasingly make Charlie's task as a drummer, notwithstanding his famously economical style hard to sustain for lengthy periods. And these are the two 'healthy' Stones! Far better to achieve quality rather than quantity - I would add, few younger bands put in the sort of hours some on this board are expecting.

Quote
dcba
"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

Well Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartneyt are doing 3hr shows.Reports of their demise have proven false.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
dcba
"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

Well Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartneyt are doing 3hr shows.Reports of their demise have proven false.

Come on down to the N.O. show, SCL, (when it happens) I'll buy you a beer.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
dcba
"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

Well Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney are doing 3hr shows.Reports of their demise have proven false.

Come on down to the N.O. show, SCL, (when it happens) I'll buy you a beer.

You got a deal EG. Been wanting to go to Nawleans for a long time. The boys show up down there. Nuttin gonna stop me from being there.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Bruce Springsteen has a teenage drummer and Paul McCartney... well I thought the use of coprophilic insults was banned here



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 23:56 by dcba.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
dcba
"With smaller venues and proper rest time between shows, I don't think 2-3 hours is unreasonable even at their age."

You really want them to die mid-tour, do you? 1h40 shows are the most they should do imo... Dylan currently does 17 songs.

He may 'only' do 17 songs, but his shows are as long as a Stones 19 song show is. Usually a few minutes shy of two hours. And taking into account Keith's 2-song set. he's probably onstage for more of the show than Jagger is.

but Dylan does not use anywhere near the physical energy that Jagger does, I'm not knocking him for it but I don't think you can compare the two even if they are around the same age.

This thread makes me feel like I'm at a meeting of teachers discussing their students.

I don't think anyone expects The Stones to put on a show as good or as long as Springsteen, but for the money they charge and the amount of great songs they have,they should do a minimum of 25 songs per night. With setlist changes every night.

THEY NEED TO FOCUS ON PLAYING:

any pre'68 material (Besides Satisfaction, Under My Thumb, Let's Spend The Night Together, Get Off Of My Cloud, and Ruby Tuesday)

any material from '73 - '76 (Besides It's Only Rock "n" Roll)

any material from '80 onwards (Besides Start Me Up, You Got Me Rocking, and Slipping Away)



I think Exile will be focused on at least early on in the tour.

I'm not saying drop all those songs, but as Chuck says in Four Flicks, "They have about 400 songs," delve into the other 385 more often. As with your remasters, people get sick of the same thing over and over again.

Continue playing songs from the album before, ex: Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, Lowdown, Flip The Switch, and You Don't Have to mean it should have been played on a somewhat regular basis during the A Bigger Bang tour.




Play some of the longer jam songs live like Slave, Continental Drift, Going Home, I Just Want To See His Face, and Too Much Blood [Which will never be played].




If you are going to have musical guests please have someone we actually give a fu&@ about. Ex: instead of Amy Winehouse or Dave Matthews, bring on David Gilmour, Graham Nash, Paul McCartney, or Marianne Faithful [Just to see how she and Mick would act].



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-03 06:36 by chenry9195.

Quote
birdie
they should do a minimum of 25 songs per night. With setlist changes every night.

agreed, they can easily do this but for some ridiculous reason they choose not to



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-03 07:14 by melillo.

Jagger has showed us that he's able to run like a maniac on stage in the past. He's been there, he's done that.
If only he could spend that excessive energy on performing songs in a proper way, digging deep into the
back catalogue and start playing all them gems, like 2000 man, Let It Loose, Too Tight and Ventilator Blues.

YEAH come on Mick ...back to the James Brown shuffle and give us some blues....



ROCKMAN

They should retire.

Quote
melillo

Quote
birdie
they should do a minimum of 25 songs per night. With setlist changes every night.

agreed, they can easily do this but for some ridiculous reason they choose not to

It's called playing to the masses by featuring only songs that receive the most radio airplay.

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
They should retire.

screw that!!! They should go on as long as they can, if for nothing else just to piss off the slaggers.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
melillo

Quote
birdie
they should do a minimum of 25 songs per night. With setlist changes every night.

agreed, they can easily do this but for some ridiculous reason they choose not to

It's called playing to the masses by featuring only songs that receive the most radio airplay.

You can still play to the masses and also play great older songs not often heard.
And also switch the set list up, while keeping a fair amount of war-horses in the set.