Tell Me :
Talk
Absolutely love your idea of turning the warhorses into medleys!
So how was the actual show? I saw them just five days before you did at Qwest Field up here in Seattle. I liked the Austin set list much better. They sure sounded good on the DVD.
That's exciting!
I don't know Tea, I think you're making my point for me. Sway and CYHMK were (IMHO) mostly embarassments. Ronnie shouldn't ever try "Vibrato" songs. Some Girls I'll give ya, IYCRM - pass.
It was a festival atmosphere, which was definitely different. There were several announcements about the show being filmed, and cameras were overhead on cables, which was a surprise to everyone. Keith doing Buddy Holly was a highlight, as well as "Bob Wills is Still the King".
I didn't think they played as well as the Houston arena show the previous winter, where they were absolutely on fire, but I was at a good vantage point at that show (Keith's side, just at the end of the stage left walkway thing, where I could see the stage lights shine through Jagger's overdyed hair).
I think your assessment is very accurate...However, (IMHO) from the standpoint of a long time fan and concertgoer, the warhorses have not faired well and/or have not been played well over time (and how could they?) with the band going through the motions and feigning enthusiasm... A couple comments on the warhorses: Honky Tonk Women, (which was one of my all time favorite Stones songs and one of the reasons I initially got hooked on them way back when) since 1989, has morphed into one of the worst concert versions of a great song that I have ever heard. Paint It Black which returned to the setlist on the Steel Wheels tour (at least initially) used to be performed with much power and passion, is now only a shell of itself....Sadly, the Stones have developed a formula for staging concerts that they know will appeal to the masses, but at the same time I feel that many true, loyal,long time Stones fans may feel that they are (myself among them) getting ripped off by paying extremely high prices to see a band going through the motions and not pushing themselves to take risks (ie. smaller arenas, varied setlists or deep cuts, different stage presentation, etc) that really could result in a very satisfying concert experience, and thus would add to the legend rather than detract from it....
Well, then again, Keith played some after his brain surgery on the last tour, Charlie's throat cancer was some years back now, and Ronnie has been sober for eight months or more. I think they could outdo the last tour, in performance and variety of songs...if they wanted to.
Speaking optimistically.
Mick's rock, I'm roll.
Similar experiences. Bob Dylan made his first Finnish concert in 1987 with Tom Petty's band. I met there people who felt disappointed because they had this idea of 60's folk singer who plays protest songs with an acoustic guitar and sings solo in their minds... I mean, the amount of "tourism" in these matters cannot be underestimated. Some big names gather people who don't really know anything of the substance actually. I think The Stones especially is able gather a lot of "tourists" who only know, say, "Satisfaction", "Start Me Up" and "You Really Got Me". I think the Stones are great to charm these kind of "tourist audiences". One can almost sense the feeling of "aah, this old hit is also theirs!". A Stones concert is always a happening that attracts a lot of interest and attention. The Stones is a culture historical institution. If it could be possible it would be interesting to compare the audiences, of say, The Stones and U2 or AC/DC. My hypothesis is that the amount of "tourists" is biggest in Stones concerts, while those other two basically gather the audiences from their "real" fans.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 19:09 by Doxa.
Ok, I'm a pretty big fan but I can't place "You really got me" Isn't that The KINKS?
Yeah, a Kinks song, but don't expect the tourists to be so precise about who exacly did what and when, especially when we are talking some over 40 years old things! I met once Finnish guy who after the concert was disappointed that the Stones didn't play "Cadillac". I said to him probably that was due to the fact that The Stones have never played it and it was a Renegades hit back in 1965 here in Finland (The Renegades was a strange pheneomenon - A British band which never made a breathrough in UK but was here in Finland - and some other countries I guess as well - a big thing, almost in the rank of The Beatles and the Stones.)
Of course, my listing was a caricature but the ignorance among Stones crowds is sometimes exhausting. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It just shows that the Stones are able to gather a lot of curious people (not many can - perhaps not anyone else in such a degree). And what is typical is that they win that audience quite easily. For "tourists" The Stones offer an incredible set of great songs. I guess most of teh big hits are familiar to the people - or they remember them obscurily - and the Stones deliver them convincigly, or if not anything else, Jagger's physicalism simply is a killer to witness for the first time. (and those who complain most are the diehard fans who have all seen them way too many times and concentrate on the irrelevant nuances, such as Ronnie being drunk or Keith's solos, etc...)
- Doxa
Thanks for sharing. The Austin concert is one of my favorites, watch it about once a month.
I agree, a "sprinkling" of warhorses as you have suggested should be enough to satisfy the "tourists".
I absolutely agree with what you are saying/suggesting here. They would definitely need to be up front with the paying public for changes so drastic, however, if they promoted the hell out of this concept, any concept for that matter, they might just be able to pull it off. Of course there would be some risk involved, and the question becomes would they be willing to take it? Past history says no.
Works for me.
Keith certainly looks healthier these days.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
riverrat
()
Date: November 20, 2010 04:23
After nearly 50 years of song writing, they have way too many songs to pick only 20 for a show. Maybe they could turn some of the war horses into medleys of 3 or so, and just play parts of the songs to satisfy the lesser fans for their grand finales and encores. LOL Or, they could take advantage of the digital age, realizing people can follow every show online, and so change the setlist a LOT, which means more raw, instead of polished, playing, which is enjoyable, IMO. It means they have to rehearse a bit more on the road, but they won't get to the point, either, where they are daydreaming of new curtains for their mansions while they are playing in Austin, TX. JMHO! 
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: November 20, 2010 04:42
Lot of people from Austin here! I'll never forget hearing the soundcheck from my house before walking over to the show back in '06.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 20, 2010 05:02
Quote
riverrat
After nearly 50 years of song writing, they have way too many songs to pick only 20 for a show. Maybe they could turn some of the war horses into medleys of 3 or so, and just play parts of the songs to satisfy the lesser fans for their grand finales and encores. LOL Or, they could take advantage of the digital age, realizing people can follow every show online, and so change the setlist a LOT, which means more raw, instead of polished, playing, which is enjoyable, IMO. It means they have to rehearse a bit more on the road, but they won't get to the point, either, where they are daydreaming of new curtains for their mansions while they are playing in Austin, TX. JMHO!
Absolutely love your idea of turning the warhorses into medleys!
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 20, 2010 05:05
Quote
Sipuncula
Lot of people from Austin here! I'll never forget hearing the soundcheck from my house before walking over to the show back in '06.
So how was the actual show? I saw them just five days before you did at Qwest Field up here in Seattle. I liked the Austin set list much better. They sure sounded good on the DVD.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: November 20, 2010 05:35
I'd like to find out!!
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
riverrat
()
Date: November 20, 2010 05:40
Quote
Sipuncula
Lot of people from Austin here! I'll never forget hearing the soundcheck from my house before walking over to the show back in '06.
That's exciting!
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
riverrat
()
Date: November 20, 2010 05:40
Quote
stonescrowQuote
riverrat
After nearly 50 years of song writing, they have way too many songs to pick only 20 for a show. Maybe they could turn some of the war horses into medleys of 3 or so, and just play parts of the songs to satisfy the lesser fans for their grand finales and encores. LOL Or, they could take advantage of the digital age, realizing people can follow every show online, and so change the setlist a LOT, which means more raw, instead of polished, playing, which is enjoyable, IMO. It means they have to rehearse a bit more on the road, but they won't get to the point, either, where they are daydreaming of new curtains for their mansions while they are playing in Austin, TX. JMHO!
Absolutely love your idea of turning the warhorses into medleys!
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
KSIE
()
Date: November 20, 2010 06:10
Quote
TeaAtThreeQuote
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 don't know Tea, I think you're making my point for me. Sway and CYHMK were (IMHO) mostly embarassments. Ronnie shouldn't ever try "Vibrato" songs. Some Girls I'll give ya, IYCRM - pass.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: November 20, 2010 06:53
Quote
stonescrow
So how was the actual show? I saw them just five days before you did at Qwest Field up here in Seattle. I liked the Austin set list much better. They sure sounded good on the DVD.
It was a festival atmosphere, which was definitely different. There were several announcements about the show being filmed, and cameras were overhead on cables, which was a surprise to everyone. Keith doing Buddy Holly was a highlight, as well as "Bob Wills is Still the King".
I didn't think they played as well as the Houston arena show the previous winter, where they were absolutely on fire, but I was at a good vantage point at that show (Keith's side, just at the end of the stage left walkway thing, where I could see the stage lights shine through Jagger's overdyed hair).
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
lougio
()
Date: November 20, 2010 15:46
I have an interesting answer to this question. I remember the comments of a friend of mine after he saw Shine a Light. This is a guy that likes the Stones but is not really a true fan like us and has only seen them in concert twice. His comment on Shine a Light was "I didn't like it,they played too many songs that I was not familiar with".
I will go to several shows no matter what they do and so will most of the people reading this board but it takes more than us to make a tour a success. That is why a certain number of "warhorses" will always be in the set.
The other reason they will be in the set is (let's be honest with ourselves) these are the songs that made us the fans that we are today.
I will go to several shows no matter what they do and so will most of the people reading this board but it takes more than us to make a tour a success. That is why a certain number of "warhorses" will always be in the set.
The other reason they will be in the set is (let's be honest with ourselves) these are the songs that made us the fans that we are today.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
folke
()
Date: November 20, 2010 16:50
Why is it so hard for people to appreciate a song they haven't heard before? Never got that. If you've only heard the warhorses (hate that expression by the way) and love them you shouldn't have any problems with lesser-known songs that are just as good. I can't stand those narrow-minded morons.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: November 20, 2010 16:52
Quote
lougio
I have an interesting answer to this question. I remember the comments of a friend of mine after he saw Shine a Light. This is a guy that likes the Stones but is not really a true fan like us and has only seen them in concert twice. His comment on Shine a Light was "I didn't like it,they played too many songs that I was not familiar with".
I will go to several shows no matter what they do and so will most of the people reading this board but it takes more than us to make a tour a success. That is why a certain number of "warhorses" will always be in the set.
The other reason they will be in the set is (let's be honest with ourselves) these are the songs that made us the fans that we are today.
I think your assessment is very accurate...However, (IMHO) from the standpoint of a long time fan and concertgoer, the warhorses have not faired well and/or have not been played well over time (and how could they?) with the band going through the motions and feigning enthusiasm... A couple comments on the warhorses: Honky Tonk Women, (which was one of my all time favorite Stones songs and one of the reasons I initially got hooked on them way back when) since 1989, has morphed into one of the worst concert versions of a great song that I have ever heard. Paint It Black which returned to the setlist on the Steel Wheels tour (at least initially) used to be performed with much power and passion, is now only a shell of itself....Sadly, the Stones have developed a formula for staging concerts that they know will appeal to the masses, but at the same time I feel that many true, loyal,long time Stones fans may feel that they are (myself among them) getting ripped off by paying extremely high prices to see a band going through the motions and not pushing themselves to take risks (ie. smaller arenas, varied setlists or deep cuts, different stage presentation, etc) that really could result in a very satisfying concert experience, and thus would add to the legend rather than detract from it....
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: November 20, 2010 16:56
Quote
Stoneage
Well, there is a more sober way to look at this too. What can we really expect? They are all pensioners (except Ronnie); they haven't played together for approx three years; Keith has undergone a brainsurgery, Charlie a throatcancer operation, Ronnie is a cronic alkoholist, Mick's voice is getting more and more nasal and so on, so on... . Perhaps mediocre version of the warhorses, click-tracks and (partly) playback is the best we can hope for? I mean if this is the last tour, who´s not going to see them, anyway?
Well, then again, Keith played some after his brain surgery on the last tour, Charlie's throat cancer was some years back now, and Ronnie has been sober for eight months or more. I think they could outdo the last tour, in performance and variety of songs...if they wanted to.
Speaking optimistically.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
marchbaby
()
Date: November 20, 2010 18:25
Quote
Justin
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.
Mick's rock, I'm roll.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 20, 2010 19:05
Quote
StonesTodQuote
Roscoe
My thought about setlists and warhorses has always been this. When playing two or more shows per city, do a "Hits" show and a "Non-Hits" show (or whatever you want to call it). Yes, the Licks Tour did something like this but only in a very few cities. But take it a step further- and this is the key to making it work. When the tour is announced, have Mick explain the concept up front. Let the ticket buyer know that not all shows will be hit-laden. In each city the advertising should clearly designate which night is a "Hits" show and which is a "Non-Hits" show. Print it right on the ticket. As long as you can read, you know what to expect.
And jeez, play 'Out of Control' every damn night already!
won't work. the publicity around dylan's gospel tour could NOT have been missed, yet i saw and heard plenty of complaints and folks walking out in disgust. loved it.
Similar experiences. Bob Dylan made his first Finnish concert in 1987 with Tom Petty's band. I met there people who felt disappointed because they had this idea of 60's folk singer who plays protest songs with an acoustic guitar and sings solo in their minds... I mean, the amount of "tourism" in these matters cannot be underestimated. Some big names gather people who don't really know anything of the substance actually. I think The Stones especially is able gather a lot of "tourists" who only know, say, "Satisfaction", "Start Me Up" and "You Really Got Me". I think the Stones are great to charm these kind of "tourist audiences". One can almost sense the feeling of "aah, this old hit is also theirs!". A Stones concert is always a happening that attracts a lot of interest and attention. The Stones is a culture historical institution. If it could be possible it would be interesting to compare the audiences, of say, The Stones and U2 or AC/DC. My hypothesis is that the amount of "tourists" is biggest in Stones concerts, while those other two basically gather the audiences from their "real" fans.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 19:09 by Doxa.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: November 20, 2010 19:41
It depends on what "without warhorses" means. In my opinion, if they played Start Me Up to open the show, and closed with Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar and Satisfaction, they could play anything they wanted in between and it would have no impact whatsoever on the success of the tour. If they went on stage and played nothing but old blues numbers - close with King Bee! - I would be in heaven, but the tour would quickly tank.
Word of mouth is good enough to kill tours - remember when Diana Ross went out with two "Supremes" and billed it as a reunion. Initial shows were well attended, but once word got out, the tour just died.
Word of mouth is good enough to kill tours - remember when Diana Ross went out with two "Supremes" and billed it as a reunion. Initial shows were well attended, but once word got out, the tour just died.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Jesse1960
()
Date: November 20, 2010 21:20
The Stones could go out and play Charlie Browns Christmas and pack em in. Of course the pencil neck geeks who write for the music fish wrappers would be to shocked to put their opinion in words.Like Grateful Deads placement of tunes in the 87-95 period the Stones could place enough of the "battle axes" throughout the set to keep even the tee shirt fans happy.A perfect balance, for me would be two sets.First set new, newer, and more obscure selections. Second set Rolling Stones Hall of Fame Hit Parade.Chocked with the big hits and the epics.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
thabo
()
Date: November 21, 2010 01:10
It really depends on how they will promote it. For instance if they will promote their next tour as an anniversiry of their 50 yrs existance and as a homage to their original inspirators of how it all began. Using such teminology gping on the road playing the very songs that made them big in the first place, the covers from their very first albums and EP and singles (from Route 66, Hich Hike, Mona, She Said Yeah, All Over Now, Susy Q etc). A real 50 yrs Return to the Roots Tour and promote it as such it will be a tremendous succes, warhorses after all is a term meaning songs everybody knows, well everybody knows All Over Now, Everybody Needs Somebody, Time is On My side or Route 66. And the Stones are after all at their best playing covers. I really can see only succes in that, another tour without a clear theme playing the same songs again as last tours will be more in danger of becoming a flop.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
thabo
()
Date: November 21, 2010 01:24
Likewise they could promote the tour, and call it, "the Hidden Gems tour, a strawl through the fields of the not so well known gems of 50 yrs Stones History". With songs like Dance Little Sister, Laugh I Nearly Died, Mother's Little Helper, Doo Doo Doo Heartbreaker, I Am Waiting etc etc These are really great songs and also very varied in style or speed. A Tour becomes a flop only because of EXPECTATIONS, the clue to succes is the right promotion. If you promote it well with a good advertisement clearly describing and promoting a particulair THEME, people will get curious and prepar themselves for it, they will have the right expectation and thus it can never become a flop (unless they play bad, but NOT because of the songs).
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
winter
()
Date: November 21, 2010 03:29
There's just too much to choose from for a no-warhorses tour to fail. It also depends what you call a warhorse; are YGMRocking, Shelter and Rambler warhorses? BS, HTW, SFTD, Satisfaction, SMU, Miss You, JJF, IORR, YCAGWYW, Street Fighting Man and Tumbling Dice sure are, but they could still play a ton of great or familiar tunes to make it work for everybody.
Base the setlist around a multi-era batch of 14-15 strong songs, played nightly instead of the warhorses, chosen from stuff like: Not Fade Away, Get Off My Cloud, Paint It Black, 2000LYFH, Monkey Man, Bitch, Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, ADTL, Beast of Burden, Undercover, Mixed Emotions, Love Is Strong, Out of Control, Saint of Me, Rough Justice, Rain Fall Down, Plundered My Soul, a 2011 new tune or two.
Add 2-3 'sing-alongs' or covers: Just My Imagination, Dead Flowers, Sweet Virginia, Angie, Wild Horses, Its All Over Now, That's How Strong My Love Is
2 from Keith (Happy/BTMMR and a slow one)
1 from Ron: a Stones/Faces rocker or well known blues cover w/ Mick on Harp
3-4 rotating songs, either from above list (not already used nightly in core) or stuff like Under the Radar, Respectable, Whip, IYCRM, Star Star, Heartbreaker, Sway, CYHMK, 19th NB, Rambler, etc. For stadium shows, 2-3 of those slots could go to the old warhorses.
I think the new and/or average non-fan would still know more than half of the material and have a great time.
Base the setlist around a multi-era batch of 14-15 strong songs, played nightly instead of the warhorses, chosen from stuff like: Not Fade Away, Get Off My Cloud, Paint It Black, 2000LYFH, Monkey Man, Bitch, Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, ADTL, Beast of Burden, Undercover, Mixed Emotions, Love Is Strong, Out of Control, Saint of Me, Rough Justice, Rain Fall Down, Plundered My Soul, a 2011 new tune or two.
Add 2-3 'sing-alongs' or covers: Just My Imagination, Dead Flowers, Sweet Virginia, Angie, Wild Horses, Its All Over Now, That's How Strong My Love Is
2 from Keith (Happy/BTMMR and a slow one)
1 from Ron: a Stones/Faces rocker or well known blues cover w/ Mick on Harp
3-4 rotating songs, either from above list (not already used nightly in core) or stuff like Under the Radar, Respectable, Whip, IYCRM, Star Star, Heartbreaker, Sway, CYHMK, 19th NB, Rambler, etc. For stadium shows, 2-3 of those slots could go to the old warhorses.
I think the new and/or average non-fan would still know more than half of the material and have a great time.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
KeefintheNight82
()
Date: November 21, 2010 10:06
Quote
Doxa
I think The Stones especially is able gather a lot of "tourists" who only know, say, "Satisfaction", "Start Me Up" and "You Really Got Me".
- Doxa
Ok, I'm a pretty big fan but I can't place "You really got me" Isn't that The KINKS?
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 21, 2010 10:55
Quote
KeefintheNight82Quote
Doxa
I think The Stones especially is able gather a lot of "tourists" who only know, say, "Satisfaction", "Start Me Up" and "You Really Got Me".
- Doxa
Ok, I'm a pretty big fan but I can't place "You really got me" Isn't that The KINKS?
Yeah, a Kinks song, but don't expect the tourists to be so precise about who exacly did what and when, especially when we are talking some over 40 years old things! I met once Finnish guy who after the concert was disappointed that the Stones didn't play "Cadillac". I said to him probably that was due to the fact that The Stones have never played it and it was a Renegades hit back in 1965 here in Finland (The Renegades was a strange pheneomenon - A British band which never made a breathrough in UK but was here in Finland - and some other countries I guess as well - a big thing, almost in the rank of The Beatles and the Stones.)
Of course, my listing was a caricature but the ignorance among Stones crowds is sometimes exhausting. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It just shows that the Stones are able to gather a lot of curious people (not many can - perhaps not anyone else in such a degree). And what is typical is that they win that audience quite easily. For "tourists" The Stones offer an incredible set of great songs. I guess most of teh big hits are familiar to the people - or they remember them obscurily - and the Stones deliver them convincigly, or if not anything else, Jagger's physicalism simply is a killer to witness for the first time. (and those who complain most are the diehard fans who have all seen them way too many times and concentrate on the irrelevant nuances, such as Ronnie being drunk or Keith's solos, etc...
)- Doxa
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 21, 2010 11:23
By the way - to continue my speculation - I have the idea that when Mick decides the set list he has in mind the people like I described above. He wants to make sure that the tourists are kept excited, that they are satisfied, tell their friends what a great experience the concert was, and will come next time around again (the die-hard fans will come in any case so Mick doesn't care a shit about them). It needs to be this sort of calculation that drives Mick's conservative hit-based set lists but it is not only that.
Namely, another feature that seem to drive Jagger's mind in making the set lists is what kind of songs and in which order they are run to keep the drama on - for example, not playing too many (two?) ballads because that would kill the tension and the idea of The Stones rocking hard ("the greatest rock and roll band in the world", anyone?). Not to expect too many slows blues songs either. Jagger is really a pragmatist in accordance to his songs - they "work" or they "don't". A total pro, instrumental attitude. For his reason I think The Stones play a mediocre song like "You Got Me Rocking" as their second or third song in their set lists. It works well in that context, building up the rocking atmosphere. Catchy and easy, and even if you heard it first time you will immediately learn to sing-along it. And why not to change a winning receipt?
Well, we - the diehard ones - can complain his decisions, and we would love to The Stones to "challenge" us more because we know what treasures they potentially have in them, but how can you argue with the sales of their recent tours? I guess Jagger knows that starting to mess with the winning receipt would only have the danger to affect to their sales. And that most probably is the worst and last thing Jagger could make ever compromises with.
I love the ideas offered here of promoting a non-war horses tour, but I am afraid that is too idealistic.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 11:31 by Doxa.
Namely, another feature that seem to drive Jagger's mind in making the set lists is what kind of songs and in which order they are run to keep the drama on - for example, not playing too many (two?) ballads because that would kill the tension and the idea of The Stones rocking hard ("the greatest rock and roll band in the world", anyone?). Not to expect too many slows blues songs either. Jagger is really a pragmatist in accordance to his songs - they "work" or they "don't". A total pro, instrumental attitude. For his reason I think The Stones play a mediocre song like "You Got Me Rocking" as their second or third song in their set lists. It works well in that context, building up the rocking atmosphere. Catchy and easy, and even if you heard it first time you will immediately learn to sing-along it. And why not to change a winning receipt?
Well, we - the diehard ones - can complain his decisions, and we would love to The Stones to "challenge" us more because we know what treasures they potentially have in them, but how can you argue with the sales of their recent tours? I guess Jagger knows that starting to mess with the winning receipt would only have the danger to affect to their sales. And that most probably is the worst and last thing Jagger could make ever compromises with.
I love the ideas offered here of promoting a non-war horses tour, but I am afraid that is too idealistic.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 11:31 by Doxa.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: November 21, 2010 11:25
of course it would flop and not only that it should flop.first off,you should get that stupid term "warhorses"out of your vocabulary.
the songs the band play live are their best songs-quick,name me five better rockers than jumpin jack flash,satisfaction and brown sugar.this isn't the gathering of the hippies on indie night at the f/cking local dance hall we're talking about here,its a big time rock and roll show.
when 50-80,000 people are paying top dollar the band might just wanna put their best foot forward,ya think? i'm sorry they are so huge but it comes with the territory.
girls,cocaine,champagne,=childs play.guess what,the stones are addicted to huge crowds worshiping at their feet and then getting 5 million a night;,deal with it.thats the game now.just like everyone else i would love to see them in a bar singing child of the moon but it just aint gonna happen.
the songs the band play live are their best songs-quick,name me five better rockers than jumpin jack flash,satisfaction and brown sugar.this isn't the gathering of the hippies on indie night at the f/cking local dance hall we're talking about here,its a big time rock and roll show.
when 50-80,000 people are paying top dollar the band might just wanna put their best foot forward,ya think? i'm sorry they are so huge but it comes with the territory.
girls,cocaine,champagne,=childs play.guess what,the stones are addicted to huge crowds worshiping at their feet and then getting 5 million a night;,deal with it.thats the game now.just like everyone else i would love to see them in a bar singing child of the moon but it just aint gonna happen.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 21, 2010 18:44
When the Stones opt to play lesser known hits - but hits nonetheless - they prefer such tripe as Undercover Of The Night and Rock And A Hard Place.
If they were to do a show of tunes mainly centered around those two in terms of vibe, rhythm and beats, it WOULD be a flop!
If they were to do a show of tunes mainly centered around those two in terms of vibe, rhythm and beats, it WOULD be a flop!
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 21, 2010 19:54
Quote
SipunculaQuote
stonescrow
So how was the actual show? I saw them just five days before you did at Qwest Field up here in Seattle. I liked the Austin set list much better. They sure sounded good on the DVD.
It was a festival atmosphere, which was definitely different. There were several announcements about the show being filmed, and cameras were overhead on cables, which was a surprise to everyone. Keith doing Buddy Holly was a highlight, as well as "Bob Wills is Still the King".
I didn't think they played as well as the Houston arena show the previous winter, where they were absolutely on fire, but I was at a good vantage point at that show (Keith's side, just at the end of the stage left walkway thing, where I could see the stage lights shine through Jagger's overdyed hair).
Thanks for sharing. The Austin concert is one of my favorites, watch it about once a month.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 21, 2010 20:02
Quote
drbryant
It depends on what "without warhorses" means. In my opinion, if they played Start Me Up to open the show, and closed with Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar and Satisfaction, they could play anything they wanted in between and it would have no impact whatsoever on the success of the tour. If they went on stage and played nothing but old blues numbers - close with King Bee! - I would be in heaven, but the tour would quickly tank.
Word of mouth is good enough to kill tours - remember when Diana Ross went out with two "Supremes" and billed it as a reunion. Initial shows were well attended, but once word got out, the tour just died.
I agree, a "sprinkling" of warhorses as you have suggested should be enough to satisfy the "tourists".
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 21, 2010 20:21
Quote
thabo
Likewise they could promote the tour, and call it, "the Hidden Gems tour, a strawl through the fields of the not so well known gems of 50 yrs Stones History". With songs like Dance Little Sister, Laugh I Nearly Died, Mother's Little Helper, Doo Doo Doo Heartbreaker, I Am Waiting etc etc These are really great songs and also very varied in style or speed. A Tour becomes a flop only because of EXPECTATIONS, the clue to succes is the right promotion. If you promote it well with a good advertisement clearly describing and promoting a particulair THEME, people will get curious and prepar themselves for it, they will have the right expectation and thus it can never become a flop (unless they play bad, but NOT because of the songs).
I absolutely agree with what you are saying/suggesting here. They would definitely need to be up front with the paying public for changes so drastic, however, if they promoted the hell out of this concept, any concept for that matter, they might just be able to pull it off. Of course there would be some risk involved, and the question becomes would they be willing to take it? Past history says no.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 21, 2010 20:29
Quote
winter
There's just too much to choose from for a no-warhorses tour to fail. It also depends what you call a warhorse; are YGMRocking, Shelter and Rambler warhorses? BS, HTW, SFTD, Satisfaction, SMU, Miss You, JJF, IORR, YCAGWYW, Street Fighting Man and Tumbling Dice sure are, but they could still play a ton of great or familiar tunes to make it work for everybody.
Base the setlist around a multi-era batch of 14-15 strong songs, played nightly instead of the warhorses, chosen from stuff like: Not Fade Away, Get Off My Cloud, Paint It Black, 2000LYFH, Monkey Man, Bitch, Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, ADTL, Beast of Burden, Undercover, Mixed Emotions, Love Is Strong, Out of Control, Saint of Me, Rough Justice, Rain Fall Down, Plundered My Soul, a 2011 new tune or two.
Add 2-3 'sing-alongs' or covers: Just My Imagination, Dead Flowers, Sweet Virginia, Angie, Wild Horses, Its All Over Now, That's How Strong My Love Is
2 from Keith (Happy/BTMMR and a slow one)
1 from Ron: a Stones/Faces rocker or well known blues cover w/ Mick on Harp
3-4 rotating songs, either from above list (not already used nightly in core) or stuff like Under the Radar, Respectable, Whip, IYCRM, Star Star, Heartbreaker, Sway, CYHMK, 19th NB, Rambler, etc. For stadium shows, 2-3 of those slots could go to the old warhorses.
I think the new and/or average non-fan would still know more than half of the material and have a great time.
Works for me.
Re: Would Stones Tour Flop Without Warhorses?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: November 21, 2010 20:38
Quote
angeeQuote
Stoneage
Well, there is a more sober way to look at this too. What can we really expect? They are all pensioners (except Ronnie); they haven't played together for approx three years; Keith has undergone a brainsurgery, Charlie a throatcancer operation, Ronnie is a cronic alkoholist, Mick's voice is getting more and more nasal and so on, so on... . Perhaps mediocre version of the warhorses, click-tracks and (partly) playback is the best we can hope for? I mean if this is the last tour, who´s not going to see them, anyway?
Well, then again, Keith played some after his brain surgery on the last tour, Charlie's throat cancer was some years back now, and Ronnie has been sober for eight months or more. I think they could outdo the last tour, in performance and variety of songs...if they wanted to.
Speaking optimistically.
Keith certainly looks healthier these days.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chris girard , cyclist , Domonkos , EddieByword , erbissell , frankotero , HotStuff92 , IsakSun , JDSAM1994 , jmd , letitloose6 , llsbsk , mariano , ohmercy61 , rastakeith , Shotaway2 , spidey39 , sway1971 , testamora , thorgal34 , wolundamo
Guests:
2037
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10