Quote
lem motlow
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.

You present a strong case as to why they should continue with the status quo, however, the term "warhorses" isn't going away anytime soon, to deeply entrenched around here. Looks like "tourists" is another one we are going to have to get used to!

Quote
Doxa
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

Doxa,

Glad you "weighed in" on this topic. Brilliant insight (you called it speculation) into the mind of Mick Jagger, the businessman! There is no denying that to present the corporation known as the Rolling Stones and guided by Mick Jagger have been a smashing commercial success. To say they/he have developed a "winning formula" would be a gross understatement. I can certainly understand the sentiment of "why tinker with success?" especially coming from Mr. Jagger's point of view since he is primarily (if not solely) responsible for the set lists, as well as the ultimate overall success of the tour. Speaking in terms of a professional sports franchise Mick is more or less part Owner, President, GM, Head Coach, and Ouarterback all in one. That is one helluva lot of responsibility to fall on one man's shoulders so believe me I have all the respect in the world for Mick and his decision making relating to the commercial success of the Rolling Stones. Having said that I would still like to see him at least consider the possibility of a change in direction going forward. Even though their business model (as it relates to touring) has been successful up to now, it is entirely possible that it has run it's course. On the other hand some would argue that there will never be a shortage of "tourists" willing and eager to take their turn at the real "Magical Mystery Tour"!

PS: In the end I have confidence that Mick will make the right decision. So DW if your listening in, pass this along to Mick: Please consider us (your hardcore fan base) and that is all we ask!

The problem is that what some call warhorses are what others call signature songs. One could argue that the Stones are held in such high esteem and can charge top dollar for concert tickets because those signature songs are part of their legacy. Maybe Jagger doesn't think he can justify charging top dollar for tickets without playing the signature songs.

Every major act's got 'em. Nearly all of them have to play 'em every night. Imagine a Who show without Baba O'Riley and Won't Get Fooled Again, a Springsteen show without Born to Run, a Kinks show without Lola and You Really Got Me, a Frank Sinatra show without My Way, an Elvis Costello show without Alison, a Stooges show without I Wanna Be Your Dog, a Zeppelin show without Kashmir and Stairway, etc. Even Dylan still plays Highway 61 Revisited and Like a Rolling Stone every night.

On the other hand, the Grateful Dead and the Allman Brothers Band have been able to mix up their set lists and without diminishing box office appeal. The Dead continued to draw notwithstanding their devoting 20 minutes per show to drum jams and pure noodling. However, those bands draw a, er, different kind of audience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 18:41 by ab.

hmmmm...looked like a simple yes or no question... no.....

all they have to do is replace the warhorses with borderline warhorses which are songs that are very well known in their own right and then throw in a bunch of rarely played nuggets and there ya go a new and interesting set list to satisfy all of us

Quote
ab
Imagine a Who show without Baba O'Riley and Won't Get Fooled Again, a Springsteen show without Born to Run, a Kinks show without Lola and You Really Got Me, a Frank Sinatra show without My Way, an Elvis Costello show without Alison, a Stooges show without I Wanna Be Your Dog, a Zeppelin show without Kashmir and Stairway, etc. Even Dylan still plays Highway 61 Revisited and Like a Rolling Stone every night.

Seen plenty of Springsteen shows that didnt feature BTR (generally the non-E Street Band shows are almost or totally warhorse free) and I can think of several Dylan songs that are better known than Highway 61 and which dont or rarely get played. And both of those songs you listed have been omitted from the set for years at a time.

Youre right about most acts having 'warhorses' but older acts actually have an advantage in that they have PLENTY of them, which can and could easily be rotated in and out of a show without making it less appealing. The Stones included.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 02:41 by Gazza.

I stand corrected: While Springsteen's solo acoustic and Sessions Band shows didn't include Born to Run, every E Street Band show I've seen has included it, as did the three that I saw with his 1992-93 band. The only warhorses that Springsteen played solo or with the Sessions Band were wildly rearranged.

Recently, Highway 61, Thin Man, and Rolling Stone have been in Dylan's set list pretty much nightly. (The show I saw two weeks ago included five from the Highway 61 Revisited album). But he recently dropped Watchtower, hardly ever plays Blowin' in the Wind, and only works many other of his signature songs (Lay Lady Lay, Don't Think Twice, Baby Blue, It Ain't Me Babe, etc.) into a rotation. Other nightly songs these days are newer ones (Thunder on the Mountain and Jolene). Still, Dylan works a lot of his repertoire into his set lists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 09:23 by ab.

Bringing this back up for a quick idea...

IF the Stones ever tour again, I think they should do something completely different, keeping in mind the latest technology of the whole world being aware of each concert thru camera phones, internet, forums like this, etc. They should also take advantage of the fact that they have a gazillion songs to choose from and many people travel to multiple shows and love to hear different songs.

So, they should do short touring spurts, like they did in the beginning, for like 2 months, after a rehearsal period, and then take a break for like 6 wks. Then, they should have another rehearsal period of all different songs for another 2 month tour, then take another break. And keep doing this with completely different shows, short term, travelling the world as long as able, taping the shows, and giving us what we want--variety!! (Mick should understand that concept.)

So no huge, expensive stage construction needed. Just a variety of music in different places. Whatever back up musicians/singers needed to make the sound good, but drop the blow up props and circus stuff and moving stage. Just emphasize short term touring and different music each segment. Keith should be able to handle that, I would think...That's what he did in the beginning, although the shows were a lot shorter in length. Can the Stones play 20 different songs every segment??? How good are they? I bet they could!

Oh yeah....in one of the 2 month stints, they should include Mick Taylor, and maybe Bill Wyman, if possible! And if not for the whole period, at least for 1 show! That could be at the Olympics...

If they ever tour again, it shouldn't be a repeat of A Bigger Bang. It needs to be something creatively different for the World's Greatest Rock'n Roll band. This seems easier for them, given their ages, giving them needed rests and enabling them to stop when they want to or need to, and it would satisfy our need to hear a huge variety of their songs live. (I must be dreaming again)

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

If the stones announced ahead of time they weren't doing the hits, i predict lower ticket sales... but i could never in a million years picture them saying (even if for some crazy reason they decided to).

tickets are sold months before a show. even if there was a genuine uproar (which i could never picture from the average fan) the money would already be in the bank.

the bigger question is what would be in it for the band if they decided to drop the hits?

If what you mean by "tour" is stadiums and arenas, then yes.

I can't imagine them doing a show with no warhorses... if they did, I can't imagine how it would be received across the board. It would be nice if they added arena shows to the big city stadium gigs (NY,LA,Chicago) and in Europe(London,Paris,Madrid,Amsterdam,and others). The arena shows would be without warhorses. They would have 12000-18000 seats for those who are interested in other songs, and the Stadium show would give a lot of regular fans what they have come to expect. I would be at both, but of course the arena first.

Yeah, such a tour would definitely flop because the masses come for the hits. If the Stones wanted to play a non-warhorse show they would certainly do it in a smaller venue as a specioal event (similiar to the STRIPPED album). But they would ruin the tour if they started to play only lesser known songs in stadiums and arenas. ('Well, that was Soul survivor, and now we would like to play Blue turns to grey').

Quote
saltoftheearth
Yeah, such a tour would definitely flop because the masses come for the hits. .

There are loads of 'hits' or well-known songs which arent 'warhorses' because they hardly or never get played.

Quote
riverrat
Bringing this back up for a quick idea...

IF the Stones ever tour again, I think they should do something completely different, keeping in mind the latest technology of the whole world being aware of each concert thru camera phones, internet, forums like this, etc. They should also take advantage of the fact that they have a gazillion songs to choose from and many people travel to multiple shows and love to hear different songs.

So, they should do short touring spurts, like they did in the beginning, for like 2 months, after a rehearsal period, and then take a break for like 6 wks. Then, they should have another rehearsal period of all different songs for another 2 month tour, then take another break. And keep doing this with completely different shows, short term, travelling the world as long as able, taping the shows, and giving us what we want--variety!! (Mick should understand that concept.)

So no huge, expensive stage construction needed. Just a variety of music in different places. Whatever back up musicians/singers needed to make the sound good, but drop the blow up props and circus stuff and moving stage. Just emphasize short term touring and different music each segment. Keith should be able to handle that, I would think...That's what he did in the beginning, although the shows were a lot shorter in length. Can the Stones play 20 different songs every segment??? How good are they? I bet they could!

Oh yeah....in one of the 2 month stints, they should include Mick Taylor, and maybe Bill Wyman, if possible! And if not for the whole period, at least for 1 show! That could be at the Olympics...

If they ever tour again, it shouldn't be a repeat of A Bigger Bang. It needs to be something creatively different for the World's Greatest Rock'n Roll band. This seems easier for them, given their ages, giving them needed rests and enabling them to stop when they want to or need to, and it would satisfy our need to hear a huge variety of their songs live. (I must be dreaming again)

Absolutely, and never stop dreaming...or posting, especially great ideas like the one you have presented here. It has always been my belief that someone (possibly someone like Don Was) is a member of this forum. If I thought otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time here. The fact that we are hearing rumblings about Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor is a sign that our opinions are gaining momentum.

Quote
Gazza
Youre right about most acts having 'warhorses' but older acts actually have an advantage in that they have PLENTY of them, which can and could easily be rotated in and out of a show without making it less appealing. The Stones included.

I posted this in another thread, but assuming they don't do a new album and decide to rehash the same old songs in an even shorter set, we're probably looking at something like this every night...

1. Start Me Up
2. Bitch
3. Let’s Spend The Night Together
4. Ruby Tuesday
5. Angie
6. Miss You
7. You Can’t Always Get What You Want
8. Happy
9. Before They Make Me Run
10. Honky Tonk Women
11. Paint It Black
12. Tumbling Dice
13. It’s Only Rock n Roll
14. Sympathy For The Devil
15. Brown Sugar
16. Jumpin’ Jack Flash
17. Satisfaction (encore)

When it COULD be something like this...

1. Under My Thumb
2. All Down The Line
3. Stray Cat Blues
4. Love In Vain
5. Wild Horses
6. Dead Flowers
7. Parachute Woman
8. Loving Cup
9. Little T&A (like ’81, please)
10. You Got The Silver
11. Mercy Mercy
12. It’s All Over Now
13. 19th Nervous Breakdown
14. Let It Bleed
15. Gimme Shelter
16. Street Fighting Man
17. Brown Sugar
18. Jumpin’ Jack Flash
19. Midnight Rambler
20. Satisfaction (encore)

Still some of the familiar warhorses near the end of the set, but a lot of great stuff prior to that point...and there's tons more they could rotate in and out, like Gazza said.

Of course, that would require rehearsing...and learning stuff they haven't played for years...and not being on auto-pilot every show...and...ahh, forget it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-04 04:57 by Jah Paul.

As Tom Petty once said, "When I see Ray Charles he better play What I Say"
Everybody has that warhorse problem and in a strange what a wonderful problem to have.

How many of you have been around since the beginning? Warhorses? Let me set you straight here. They are called clasics for a reason. Would I pay to see them play an obscure setlist? You bet.But I been around for the whole 50 years. i have heard every song they have ever played live anyway.To the younger fans they need to hear what REAL ROCK and ROLL was/is.There is none left today.Well maybe a little.I will admit to love hearing Gimme Shelter,Midnight Rambler,JJF,BS and the others.Problem is their song list of hits is so big a 5 hour show would not get them all in.And they are not going to play more than a 20 song setlist.Lets just be glad we will get to see them one more time if their health holds up.Just an original fans opinion.

It depends on your definition of 'flop'. On a huge stadiumstour they're simpley bound to play some of the warhorses for which the majority of the audience knows them. I'm a singer in a Rolling Stonestributeband and you'd be surprised how many time people request Satisfaction and Sympathy For The Devil....

On the other hand a smaller venues tour thats would focus on their roots and lesser known songs would most probably be greatly appreciated in other circles. For sure the majority of the diehard fanbase would be thrilled.

Then again a Stoneshow without a couple of warhorses nowadays would probably feel somewhat like an incomplete ritual.

Quote
mickscarey
Tour will happen. Start in 2011

Eh. That's not the question. And you're wrong anyway - it's 2011 and no tour has started.

If they do another tour it's going to be loaded with "warhorses"...it will probably be very similar to the previous tour and it's surely their last...The smaller venues and lesser known songs thing just won't happen.

Quote
lem motlow
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.

Warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses,etc...

Quote
lem motlow
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.

There are A LOT of songs that are better than Satisfaction. And JJF doesn't count because they play it like shit and have been since the mid 1970s. Tumbling Dice, Gimme Shelter, Street Fighting Man, Bitch, If You Can't Rock Me, Monkey Man, hell, even Start Me Up and on and on and on...

Quote
lem motlow
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.

NOT ALL PEOPLE PAY TOP DOLLAR. Get THAT out of your vocabulary.

Quote
lem motlow
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.

And you just described the band's joy of playing warhorses and nothing new or different worth a shit - which they proved with Sway and Streets Of Love.

They could if they called it something else. "Specials" or something. But that would probably have to be recorded, filmed and Im not sure Keith is in shape. It would demand some good guitar playing and Mick would have to sing with his heart, through his mouth, not the nostrils, and not sound like he's joking (Shine a light).

Quote
RRMan03
How many of you have been around since the beginning? Warhorses? Let me set you straight here. They are called clasics for a reason. Would I pay to see them play an obscure setlist? You bet.But I been around for the whole 50 years. i have heard every song they have ever played live anyway.To the younger fans they need to hear what REAL ROCK and ROLL was/is.There is none left today.Well maybe a little.I will admit to love hearing Gimme Shelter,Midnight Rambler,JJF,BS and the others.Problem is their song list of hits is so big a 5 hour show would not get them all in.And they are not going to play more than a 20 song setlist.Lets just be glad we will get to see them one more time if their health holds up.Just an original fans opinion.

Younger fans have long been priced out of Rolling Stones concerts, which I think defeats that side of the argument. Additionally, who out there who can afford to see the Stones hasn't already had ample opportunities to see them already? This isn't a band who are attracting new fans to their concerts, regardless of what they do or don't play. If anything, less people are going because a) its too expensive and b) theyve seen the same format and content enough times. Those people aren't being replaced.

You're correct in that they have so many 'classic' songs. I dont think anyone would reasonably expect the Stones, or any major act, to do a large scale show which consists of relatively obscure material (and how 'obscure' can such material be anyway when the band has sold over 200 million records?) but the issue is with it being the same batch of about 10-11 songs which seem to get played at every show. The shows are becoming shorter with each tour, yet the same 'warhorses' remain in the set regardless and therefore take up a higher % of the show with each succeeding year.

A small tweak would make for a better and more interesting show, and I doubt anyone would complain. Ie, instead of keeping the same 10-11 warhorses in the set every night, permutate that selection from a list of about 15-20 big hits by adding a few well known songs that never or rarely get played - and then rotate them. For example, maybe one night in five they could drop JJF and replace it with Gimme Shelter (which has hardly been played in the last decade), or else rest Brown Sugar and bring in Out of Time (a well known song that theyve never played)

That still means that you have a large % of the show consisting of songs that everyone knows (much the same as before) and it still leaves some room for playing songs that theyd want to play or that would be appreciated by people who (shock, horror) actually buy their music.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-05 17:37 by Gazza.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
lem motlow
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.

Warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses, warhorses,etc...

Quote
lem motlow
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.

There are A LOT of songs that are better than Satisfaction. And JJF doesn't count because they play it like shit and have been since the mid 1970s. Tumbling Dice, Gimme Shelter, Street Fighting Man, Bitch, If You Can't Rock Me, Monkey Man, hell, even Start Me Up and on and on and on...

Quote
lem motlow
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.

NOT ALL PEOPLE PAY TOP DOLLAR. Get THAT out of your vocabulary.

Quote
lem motlow
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.

And you just described the band's joy of playing warhorses and nothing new or different worth a shit - which they proved with Sway and Streets Of Love.

Right on, skip.

Its actually an insult to the band to assume they're 'just' a 'big time rock n roll' show. Their back catalogue is about a lot more than just that, and it sells them short to think that a concert has to just consist of two hours of grand rock anthems.

And as for the 'this is what people pay top dollar for' argument - when a band allows the audience to dictate to them what they have to play simply because theyve chosen to charge them large sums of money for a ticket, then thats a band who have lost control of their own music and their own destiny. After 50 years the Stones deserve better than being a rich man's personal jukebox - if they dont, it becomes a glorified karaoke night.

Quote
RRMan03
How many of you have been around since the beginning? Warhorses? Let me set you straight here... i have heard every song they have ever played live anyway.

It's very possible that a lot of people have heard "every song they have ever played live" too, because if you own any of the hits comps as well as the album, that's where all their songs are.

But what you're talking about really is because of technology. For example, let's say you weren't in Austin, TX when they played Bob Wills Is Still The King. But since you have The Biggest Bang, you've heard it!

WOW! That's amazing!

However, warhorses? Yeah, "clasics", as you say. But even that is not accurate. It's a edited amount of the "clasics". They don't play them all, just a number of them almost every tour. In 1969 Jumpin' Jack Flash was played at every show. But it was new. From 1989 onward, well, it's just Stones-by-numbers now - and poorly done at that. It's a 7 piece jigsaw puzzle that's obviously easy to put together over and over again.

....all interesting and good points...but aren't The Rolling Stones the best tribute band on the Rolling Stones...except for say a rare occasion like the Black Crows circa December 2010 at The Filmore?

yeah! will be a flop--even in theaters or club-concerts!!!

no "sympathy for the devil"???

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

Yes, they could - easily.

Yes.

Bjornulf