I don't get why people hazzle "the warhorses". That is just a synonym for their hits. Those hits are the same ones that turned us on to the band in the first place. If they hadn't had the hits, they would not have toured since 1982, or they might have been in a situation like Pretty Things, Kinks and bands like that. Do we really prefer that? And hey, as much as I like the odd numbers in concerts - She smiled sweetly, Low Down, Already over me, Dance and stuff like that - I can't bring myself to dislike a concert roundup consisting of Tumblin' dice, Start med Up, Sympathy, Brown Sugar and JJFlash. I just can't.

Please give us a new record and a new tour. I'll take my chances for yet another great year or so following the tour, meeting fellow Stones fans, listening to old and new songs, warhorses and obscure songs, drinkin' beer and just stay happy with MY band!

1.08



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 15:15 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
NedKelly
I don't get why people hazzle "the warhorses". That is just a synonym for their hits.

I suppose your favorite album is JUMP BACK...??

Of course the "hits" are necessary at a concert.....but what's the point of recording a new
album if you're not going to play it live?? (that's a rhetorical question...we know why)

The question is....are we (as devoted fans & concert-goers) ENABLERS?

They play the same hits tour after tour and we keep paying the $200 a ticket every time.

There's so many second tier (non-warhorse hits & favorites) that would satisfy everybody.
Ones that rarely get played.

I don't mind them playing:
IORR
HTW
Satisfaction
JJF
TD
SMU
SFtd

These are all great songs but they do not all need to be played at the same show. Change them up do two or three and then play the second tier hits like Mother's Little Helper, 19th Nevvous Breakdown and the deep album cuts. That to me would be so much better than what they have done on the last few tours. That is assumming they ever go on the road again!

Usually they play like 6 or 7 warhorses, in a setlist of 20 songs. that makes less than one third of the song. Then they ofte play two or three songs from their latest album, and the ten remaining they have at least one obscure song, and then they have to cover four decades of material in 9 songs. I think they do a really good job at that.

I mean, if I could make the setlist it would something like Roseland, but I'm a hard core fan. When I see other bands I definetely will have the hits, because I don't know the obscure stuff, and that bores me.

The Stones play to tens of thousand people each gig, it should't be to hard to understand why their setlists are how they are. And that said, I've seen them about 50 times, and they have played well over 120 differant songs to me. So I'm not complaining.

I don't mind them playing their warhorses, the same tired ones over the past 20 years, just so long as it's not at a show I go to.

Quote
NedKelly
I mean, if I could make the setlist it would something like Roseland, but I'm a hard core fan. When I see other bands I definetely will have the hits, because I don't know the obscure stuff, and that bores me.

question: if you don't know a song, you can't enjoy it?

Quote
NedKelly
Usually they play like 6 or 7 warhorses, in a setlist of 20 songs. that makes less than one third of the song. Then they ofte play two or three songs from their latest album, and the ten remaining they have at least one obscure song, and then they have to cover four decades of material in 9 songs. I think they do a really good job at that.

they could do a better job if they played 30 songs.

In '89-'90 they did 26-28 songs for $35 ...and now ticket prices are 5 times as much
and the setlist has been cut to 19-20. I still don't mind paying $10 per song but.....

If it's to protect Jagger's voice, Keith's fingers or prevent Charlie from getting carpal tunnel syndrome...
....then I understand. Does McCartney do something special to his vocal chords?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 17:19 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con
In '89-'90 they did 26-28 songs for $35 ...and now ticket prices are 5 times as much and the setlist has been cut to 19-20. I still don't mind paying $10 per song but.....

If it's to protect Jagger's voice, Keith's fingers or prevent Charlie from getting carpal tunnel syndrome...
....then I understand. Does McCartney do something special to his vocal chords?

And you just showed what's wrong with paying the insane amount of money the Stones charge to see them nowadays. It has nothing to do with the music, it all has to do with the stage, paying the rent, paying the hotel bill and, what was the other one - oh yeah - the MONEY. It's not about the music. The music is WHY the money is made but it's not made for the sake of playing music.

And, ha ha, you basically summed up why they aren't touring, at least, last year and most likely this year...etc

I prefer to think of the warhorses as their legacy songs, the ones that explain why many people care about them. A large portion of the audience would feel cheated if they didn't play 'em, especially considering ticket prices.

I remember my boss complaining because they didn't play Satisfaction at the No Security show he saw in 1999. Never mind everything they did play.

If they wanted to dig deeper into the catalog, they should announce as much before tickets go on sale (as Bowie did in the '90s), play smaller venues (arenas/amphitheatres), and charge less. Full disclosure and a change in the business model.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
sweet neo con
In '89-'90 they did 26-28 songs for $35 ...and now ticket prices are 5 times as much and the setlist has been cut to 19-20. I still don't mind paying $10 per song but.....

If it's to protect Jagger's voice, Keith's fingers or prevent Charlie from getting carpal tunnel syndrome...
....then I understand. Does McCartney do something special to his vocal chords?

And you just showed what's wrong with paying the insane amount of money the Stones charge to see them nowadays. It has nothing to do with the music, it all has to do with the stage, paying the rent, paying the hotel bill and, what was the other one - oh yeah - the MONEY. It's not about the music. The music is WHY the money is made but it's not made for the sake of playing music.

And, ha ha, you basically summed up why they aren't touring, at least, last year and most likely this year...etc

Oh I know. I think we agree. Wasn't sure if your "ha ha" meant you were laughing at me
because I wasn't aware of their primary motive.

I posted this in another thread a couple of weeks ago to illustrate the point that they can come up with an interesting setlist while still playing enough of the "familiar" tunes (warhorses!) to please the masses.

For example, let's assume they don't do a new album and decide to cut the setlist down to 17 songs...the next tour will most likely look 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)

I'm guessing even the most casual fan would enjoy this show. Plenty of familiar songs without going on auto-pilot...and the pacing coupled with shorter songs (no Miss You!) could allow for more tunes overall.

The problem isn't the warhorses...it's the same warhorses over and over...all of them every night. With their catalog, it doesn't take much to change things up, and we're not talking "Child of the Moon" or "Let It Loose" or "<< "insert your own favorite rarity" >>"...the setlist I assembled is full of great songs that are hardly obscure.

Quote
NedKelly
I don't get why people hazzle "the warhorses". That is just a synonym for their hits.

It isnt. Its a 'synonym' for the songs that get played ALL the time.

If you think the Stones have nothing more to offer than 10 'must play' songs then there's not much left to say.

There are lots of 'hits' that never get played or hardly get played at all.

No one's suggesting they ignore all of their best known songs. A bit of rotation isn't unreasonable, though.

How is this for a setlist for an arena:
1) Jumping Jack Flash
2) 19th Nevous Breakdown
3) Bitch
4) Dancing with Mr. D
5) Sweet Virginia
6) Angie
7) Love In Vain
8) It's All Over Now
9) Time Is On My Side
10) Start Me Up
11) Gimme Shelter
12) Coming Down Again
13) Happy
14) Back of My Hand
15) Plundered My Soul
16) Monkey Man
17) Can't You Hear Me Knocking?
18) Paint It Black
19) Street Fighting Man
20) Brown Sugar
Encore
21) Route 66
22) Midnight Rambler
23) Satisfaction

Quote
Jah Paul
I posted this in another thread a couple of weeks ago to illustrate the point that they can come up with an interesting setlist while still playing enough of the "familiar" tunes (warhorses!) to please the masses.

but "FAMILIAR" does not equal "WARHORSE"

and I know Mick sees the following songs as his high energy home-stretch...leading
to the finale...............but come on. Mick, if you consider these "must plays" at least scatter
them around in the setlist.

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)

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Jah Paul
I posted this in another thread a couple of weeks ago to illustrate the point that they can come up with an interesting setlist while still playing enough of the "familiar" tunes (warhorses!) to please the masses.

but "FAMILIAR" does not equal "WARHORSE"

and I know Mick sees the following songs as his high energy home-stretch...leading
to the finale...............but come on. Mick, if you consider these "must plays" at least scatter
them around in the setlist.

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)

I agree...but for some reason, Mick thinks those 10 or so songs (including the predictable home stretch) are the only tunes people know and are expecting to hear. In his mind, everything else isn't "familiar"...and he's selling his audience and the Stones' catalog short in the process.

But, of course, this is the formula they've created the last 20 years. Not sure if they could break the pattern even if they wanted to at this point.

Quote
Jah Paul

I agree...but for some reason, Mick thinks those 10 or so songs (including the predictable home stretch) are the only tunes people know and are expecting to hear.

Well..Thank God for the LICKS TOUR (& no security tour)

We learned from the Licks Tour that at least they were aware of what the fans wanted (sort of).
Problem is they categorized us into Stadium, Arena & Club fans. Mick is still convinced
that the Stadium crowds want one thing and Club-goers want to hear something different.
I accept that there might be some differences but there's LOTS of overlap.

Does Mick just want those Stadium fans to buy JUMP BACK?
It's very likely that if those same fans go to a show and hear CYHMK or Fingerprint File
or Ain't Too Proud to Beg or Break The Spell...that they might say "hey...that's good.
What album is that from?? I'm going to track it down."

From Mick's perspective (I guess) it's about holding the crowds attention for
every second with hits and running around on a big stadium stage. I grant that is
important and not easy to do. And I accept that Mick probably thinks it's too risky
to deviate too much from the proven setlists but.....I think he'd be surprised.

The irony is....we've heard them in interviews say how fun it is to dig up and
play "deeper" tracks....to change things up and make things more interesting etc....

MJ has also contradicted himself with statements about not wanting to dwell on the past etc...
and saying things in concert like "here's a new one....if it wasn't for the new ones there wouldn't
be any "old ones". (something convoluted like that)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-17 21:24 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
skipstone

Quote
sweet neo con
In '89-'90 they did 26-28 songs for $35 ...and now ticket prices are 5 times as much and the setlist has been cut to 19-20. I still don't mind paying $10 per song but.....

If it's to protect Jagger's voice, Keith's fingers or prevent Charlie from getting carpal tunnel syndrome...
....then I understand. Does McCartney do something special to his vocal chords?

And you just showed what's wrong with paying the insane amount of money the Stones charge to see them nowadays. It has nothing to do with the music, it all has to do with the stage, paying the rent, paying the hotel bill and, what was the other one - oh yeah - the MONEY. It's not about the music. The music is WHY the money is made but it's not made for the sake of playing music.

And, ha ha, you basically summed up why they aren't touring, at least, last year and most likely this year...etc

Oh I know. I think we agree. Wasn't sure if your "ha ha" meant you were laughing at me
because I wasn't aware of their primary motive.

Right. No, wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing at what it truly is.

Quote
NedKelly
I don't get why people hazzle "the warhorses". That is just a synonym for their hits. Those hits are the same ones that turned us on to the band in the first place. If they hadn't had the hits, they would not have toured since 1982, or they might have been in a situation like Pretty Things, Kinks and bands like that. Do we really prefer that? And hey, as much as I like the odd numbers in concerts - She smiled sweetly, Low Down, Already over me, Dance and stuff like that - I can't bring myself to dislike a concert roundup consisting of Tumblin' dice, Start med Up, Sympathy, Brown Sugar and JJFlash. I just can't.

Please give us a new record and a new tour. I'll take my chances for yet another great year or so following the tour, meeting fellow Stones fans, listening to old and new songs, warhorses and obscure songs, drinkin' beer and just stay happy with MY band!

I have nothing personal against "the Warhorses" for the casual concert goers, however, when just about all of them turn up on just about every concert DVD for decades they do become a little repetitious. I can accept the argument that they are somewhat expected by the casual fan attending a concert, however, when it comes to their DVD's they should consider filming just the theater shows so they can do newer material, covers, and more rarities.