So much for my winter sabbatical. Anyway, the million dollar question for the moment (at least in my mind) is, would a Stones tour flop (financially) minus the warhorses? What exactly do you think the result would be if the Stones showed up on the next tour playing nothing but new material, say, (for example) from the/a new album and new/old recently released Exile tracks? Would they be booed off the stage? Would the majority of past Stones concert goers be so disappointed that they would choose to sit the next tour out? What effect would this have on new fans that might be considering attending a Stones concert for the first time? Would really appreciate your input.

Yes, it will flop..........but not for me

__________________________

It would certainly shock a lot of people.

Would it flop? No. That would mean a complete financial loss on the whole tour. The Stones are not a vulnerable and weak band. They're 50 years old and at this point: a freakin institution. People are still going to go see the Stones. The circus is in town...so you go.

The show minus the warhorses still contains Stones songs. A lot of which would be recognizable to many folks. The first show would be jarring for a percentage of fans and might put people in doubt regarding coming back for any additional shows they schedule in that city. The other percentage would probably welcome it.

But you can't have this kind of show in a stadium. Nor can you pull it off with high ticket prices.

Yes, it will flop..........but not for me

That's cool NICOS but have regular blood pressure checks...That Viagra stuff can knock ya heart around BIG time



ROCKMAN

I don't think so. If you bare in mind that the majority who attend will only see the one show and not read fan-sites, then the likelihood is that they'll go thinking they'll hear the hits. Sure, some may leave disappointed, but the Stones corporation will already have their hard earned money



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 22:20 by Big Al.

How many casual ticket-buyers would know beforehand if the "horses" would be part of the show? Seems like the only people who would know what they were going to play (obsessives like us) would welcome the change. Might disappoint some of the attendees.

Big question to me is whether the band would sound any good playing something beside the usual suspects. They've never seemed real keen on learning/rehearsing deep cuts.

i don't think there's ever been a tour where word of mouth about setlists had anything to do with ticket sales.

Whoops, didn't see your post Big Al

Didn't mean to copy it. Great minds...

Quote
stonescrow
So much for my winter sabbatical. Anyway, the million dollar question for the moment (at least in my mind) is, would a Stones tour flop (financially) minus the warhorses? What exactly do you think the result would be if the Stones showed up on the next tour playing nothing but new material, say, (for example) from the/a new album and new/old recently released Exile tracks? Would they be booed off the stage? Would the majority of past Stones concert goers be so disappointed that they would choose to sit the next tour out? What effect would this have on new fans that might be considering attending a Stones concert for the first time? Would really appreciate your input.

How would they know what songs were going to be played before they bought the tickets?

As for sitting out the 'next tour'...what 'next tour' ? They'll be in their mid 70's by then. After this, they're done as a touring band unless they change the M.O. that theyve used for the last 25 years.

Look, this non-warhorse bollocks is nothing new. Look at the shows they were doing in 1969. The only song that could be classed as a 'warhorse' was 'Satisfaction'. Apart from a couple of Chuck Berry covers and a 'deep album cut' (I'm Free), the rest of the show consisted of material that was no more than 18 months old and which had never been played live before. They also played some songs that would be included on their next album.

A similar pattern on the rest of the tours for the next few years. Hardly anything pre-1968. And before anyone throws in songs like 'Honky Tonk women' or 'Brown sugar' as counter arguments, they werent warhorses, they were new songs that hadnt been played to death.

Nowadays, everyone raves about how great the shows in that 1969-73 era were - yet the whole thing was pretty much a warhorse free zone with hardly anything played that pre-dated Jumpin Jack Flash. The trend continued after that until the early 80s. Its only actually in the last decade that the show has become overly warhorse-heavy.

This 'they need to play warhorses' rubbish is revisionist bollocks which the Stones themselves have encouraged in order to excuse artistic laziness and a need to pander to non-fans who think that because theyve paid a week's salary to see a band they dont care about anyway it gives them some kind of 'right' to demand a shopping list of big hits.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 23:39 by Gazza.

Windsor Park for 10 nights then Gazza? Las Vegas no more.

That'll do me, Davy.

Women would be the one's in tears. Most, not all women, are probably there to see Mick and hear the big hits.

Take away the war horses and you will have long lines at the female restroom.

Quote
The Sicilian
Women would be the one's in tears. Most, not all women, are probably there to see Mick and hear the big hits.

Take away the war horses and you will have long lines at the female restroom.

there's no place for this kinda sexist attitude. there's plenty of men lining up in the female restrooms, too....

Gazza of course I jest, sadly and reluctantly I agree with all your observations. I live in misguided and optimistic hope. A bit like the Champions League prospects! Greeting from Glasgow.

Quote
belld
Windsor Park for 10 nights then Gazza? Las Vegas no more.

Yes! I'd go the full fan asylum package so that I could be right on the swamp/pitch infront of the stage!!

It'd be the only time the place would be full. Is there the demand for an NI show though? I can't think of a big enough venue.

I believe that the next tour (if there is one) may include longer residencys as has been suggested here, with the main cities (London, New York etc.) being catered for. If they're to do say 5 shows in London in quick succession, I hope that means they'd have to vary the set list rather than having a @#$%& warhorse week!

If it was a stadium tour, yes, it would.

Quote
SoulPlunderer

Quote
belld
Windsor Park for 10 nights then Gazza? Las Vegas no more.

Yes! I'd go the full fan asylum package so that I could be right on the swamp/pitch infront of the stage!!

It'd be the only time the place would be full. Is there the demand for an NI show though? I can't think of a big enough venue.

I believe that the next tour (if there is one) may include longer residencys as has been suggested here, with the main cities (London, New York etc.) being catered for. If they're to do say 5 shows in London in quick succession, I hope that means they'd have to vary the set list rather than having a @#$%& warhorse week!

Pitch is in perfect condition! Less of the 'swamp' bollocks, you! Think you'll find it's regularly 'full' and was so for the Italy game last month.><

U2 and Dylan/Morrison have staged shows at Botanic Gardens in '97 and '98 respectively, which could be adapted to hold more than Windsor. The U2 show was seen by about 35-40,000 people. There are also strong rumours of U2 playing Belfast next summer towards the end of their tour before they finish it in Dublin. There's no question in my mind that the Stones could pull a crowd of 25-30,000 plus for an outdoor show in Belfast. And with the Republic's economy officially in the toilet, theres never been a better time to stage an Irish show north of the border instead of in or around Dublin.

As for 'longer residencies' - it'll only really work with a more fan-friendly ticket pricing. Even on the last tour, there was less demand than ever when there were multiple night stands in one city.

Wouldn't mind the warhorses at all if they: a) distributed them better in the show (not all in the last 1/3) b) played fewer of them c) played them differently than before (try to ignite some spark in them!) d) kept them short (maximum 5 minutes a song).

or e) rotated them.

Nothing wrong with a show consisting mainly of very well known songs. It just doesnt have to be the same ones all the time.

A subject I mentioned before in a previous thread a few years ago. I think its still a valid argument and very doable.

[www.iorr.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-19 02:26 by Gazza.

Gazza, can someone please pass this on to Sir Mick or someone else in his court?

Quote
Stoneage
Gazza, can someone please pass this on to Sir Mick or someone else in his court?

Stonage,

That very thought is the main reason I continue to post here. It is my belief that at least someone from their camp is listening in.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow
So much for my winter sabbatical. Anyway, the million dollar question for the moment (at least in my mind) is, would a Stones tour flop (financially) minus the warhorses? What exactly do you think the result would be if the Stones showed up on the next tour playing nothing but new material, say, (for example) from the/a new album and new/old recently released Exile tracks? Would they be booed off the stage? Would the majority of past Stones concert goers be so disappointed that they would choose to sit the next tour out? What effect would this have on new fans that might be considering attending a Stones concert for the first time? Would really appreciate your input.

How would they know what songs were going to be played before they bought the tickets?

As for sitting out the 'next tour'...what 'next tour' ? They'll be in their mid 70's by then. After this, they're done as a touring band unless they change the M.O. that theyve used for the last 25 years.

Look, this non-warhorse bollocks is nothing new. Look at the shows they were doing in 1969. The only song that could be classed as a 'warhorse' was 'Satisfaction'. Apart from a couple of Chuck Berry covers and a 'deep album cut' (I'm Free), the rest of the show consisted of material that was no more than 18 months old and which had never been played live before. They also played some songs that would be included on their next album.

A similar pattern on the rest of the tours for the next few years. Hardly anything pre-1968. And before anyone throws in songs like 'Honky Tonk women' or 'Brown sugar' as counter arguments, they werent warhorses, they were new songs that hadnt been played to death.

Nowadays, everyone raves about how great the shows in that 1969-73 era were - yet the whole thing was pretty much a warhorse free zone with hardly anything played that pre-dated Jumpin Jack Flash. The trend continued after that until the early 80s. Its only actually in the last decade that the show has become overly warhorse-heavy.

This 'they need to play warhorses' rubbish is revisionist bollocks which the Stones themselves have encouraged in order to excuse artistic laziness and a need to pander to non-fans who think that because theyve paid a week's salary to see a band they dont care about anyway it gives them some kind of 'right' to demand a shopping list of big hits.

'Next Tour' meaning the coming tour. I was assuming word would spread pretty quickly about something so drastic as a total elimination of the warhorses and other oldies, or that the Stones themselves would probably tip the public off for the same reason prior to the tour, however, you raise a point that should be explored. If there was limited word of mouth or no prior tip off then it would obviously be one more reason why they really don't need to play the warhorses to insure a financially successful tour. In other words what the fans don't know won't hurt them until it is too late and their pockets have been emptied, although I doubt the Stones would make such drastic changes without informing their paying customers.

Certainly if not playing the warhorses isn't putting the tour in financial jeopardy then obviously other reasons must be considered as to why they continue to recycle the same old worn out songs, tour, after tour, after tour.........

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
Stoneage
Gazza, can someone please pass this on to Sir Mick or someone else in his court?

Stonage,

That very thought is the main reason I continue to post here. It is my belief that at least someone from their camp is listening in.

Problem is even if Sir Mick would want to do something like this, does the band have it in them to master all of the extra songs and actually play them competently when called upon?? Sorry to say, but we're not talkin' the E Street Band here.

Sure wish they would have taken a more confident, innovative approach in their shows the last 20 years...then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion now, it would just be a given.

Quote
KSIE

Big question to me is whether the band would sound any good playing something beside the usual suspects. They've never seemed real keen on learning/rehearsing deep cuts.

I disagree. I think the tunes they phone in are the Warhorses, whereas when they do take on a deep cut they seem to pay more attention and play it better, ihho. Think Sway, If You Can't Rock Me, CYHMK, Some Girls, etc. Those tunes are played with more passion than the horses.

And I echo whoever said, play the horses, but at least play them differently.

T@3

I believe it may flop without the warhorses. At one of the Wembley shows on the Licks tour the women behind me moaned (loudly) that the band played little off the "licks" album. I can't see there being too many people who are desperate for songs like Salt of the Earth and 2000 man. At the recent Bon Jovi shows at the o2 they were quite light on hits and full of rarities. I noticed that the casual fans sat patiently through the rarities and only got into during the hits. I think the lack of critical acclaim for a stones tour without the warhorses could cause it to flop in the long term. I think it would be a success to start with (assuming they didn't annouce a lack of hits) jsut on there name. It would probably suffer when they reached the second leg. Just my opinion.

Maybe we should give Mick more credit for his choices, afterall it's him who's up there and have to sing the songs and maybe more importantly, he can feel the energy from the audience when playing warhorses vs. a new song.

In interviews he's talked about giving the audience the best possible experience every time and he knows/feels the difference between different songs.

If you take the last 5 tours and on average compare to other big artist, I'm pretty sure The Stones are on the top 10% of who's changing their set lists the most.

Having said that, I think the idea situation is for Mick and Chuck to take turn picking one song at the time for each nights set list! And maybe Mick can get two veto's and that's it! :-)

I remember Stockholm 1998 (indoors at Globen). The songs that worked best were from Bridges over Babylon. Mick was on fire during "Out of control" and the audience could never stop singing the chorus of "Saint of me" after the song had stopped. Mick and Keith were just smiling happily.

Quote
The Sicilian
Women would be the one's in tears. Most, not all women, are probably there to see Mick and hear the big hits.

Take away the war horses and you will have long lines at the female restroom.

WHAT????? I'm a woman and I'd kill to NEVER again hear a warhorse. I'd kill to see Keith doing a set of four songs without Mick!!

That said, I do believe the warhorses must be played because people still want to hear 'Satisfaction', etc. And they know ahead of time because (at least in my city) the newspapers give reviews of the previous night's show and also give the setlist.

Damn, that was really sexist!! Thank God you said "Most, not all....".Geez.

the stones can play everything

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

A few years ago Iron Maiden released the 'A Matter of Life and Death' LP, hailed in numerous rock publications to be one of the finer records in the cannon. the following tour saw them play the entire record live, followed by a few of their classics as encores.

The response I seem to remember was very mixed. Of course hard core maiden fans loved it, a chance to see the band minus the same old songs. I thought it was a great idea and helped keep the band fresh live. the following year they toured the 'Somewhere Back in Time' concept which was a tour specifically designed around the 'Live after death era, all classics all night.

Right now Maiden have released the 'Final Frontier' LP, and the new tour consists primarily of songs recorded since 2000 onwards.

For me, as a live act, Maiden are an inspiration for other bands, never resting on their laurels, always challenging both themselves and the audience. This has paid off, with them achieving a level of success that even exceeds their 80's prime, No.1 albums, sell-out tours, critical lauding etc. Like ‘em or loathe ‘em, you have to respect the way they stand by their music and re-invent the tours and keep it fresh.

It can be done. I think the Stones just need to have a little more faith in themselves and their music. Of course people will bitch and moan at the concerts for not hearing all the big hits. But if your a fan of the music then the music should do the talking.