For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
Quote
dcba
You really want them to die mid-tour, do you?
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.
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.
Quote
Edith GroveQuote
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.
Well Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartneyt are doing 3hr shows.Reports of their demise have proven false.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.
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeWell Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartneyt are doing 3hr shows.Reports of their demise have proven false.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.
Quote
Edith GroveQuote
sweetcharmedlifeWell Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney are doing 3hr shows.Reports of their demise have proven false.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.
Come on down to the N.O. show, SCL, (when it happens) I'll buy you a beer.
Quote
GazzaQuote
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
birdie
they should do a minimum of 25 songs per night. With setlist changes every night.
Quote
melilloQuote
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
Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
They should retire.
Quote
Edith GroveQuote
melilloQuote
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.