Maybe this question has already been discussed to death, but at concerts, Bruce Springsteen throws out rarities like candy. I really don`t see why The Stones can`t do the same. With Bruce, there`s no talk of warhorses, no talk of owing this or that to the fans, and no commercial risk. The Stones are turning into a family act, instead of that indie act which they could be.

Indie act? Are you kidding me???

That's like saying McDonald's could be that 'fantastic bistro'.

[thepowergoats.com]

I think there's a number of reasons. They are from a decade older generation where you just kind of didn't do that. They are also older than Bruce and probably legitimately just aren't as familiar with their catalogue as he is with his. It could be anything. Its sad, but its the case.

Mick isn't wrong though. He wants to see people enjoying themselves and Satisfaction does that while Silver Train doesn't. You gotta have balls to take that risk, and if you weren't already a fan of Bruce it might be hard to sit through 3 hours of stuff when you really just want to hear Born To Run. Its tricky and Springsteen has managed to stick with it for all these years. I don't blame the Stones. Its them and the Beatles, and the Beatles aren't an entity anymore, so how can you really blame them trotting out their greatest hits at 70 just wanting the most casual of fans to remember them by that.

thank god they don't!

Playing "like Bruce" means less guitars and more horns and keyboards.

I'm sure the brass section, Matt Clifford and Mick could have done good versions of Out Of Time or Let It Loose, but I'm not sure if this is the way to go for the Stones...

...ya can always find a truck-driver who can belt out a tune at most road-houses



ROCKMAN

........ because Bruce is The Boss and Mick is only a Sir. Maybe, that is the reason?

93% of the audience don't want to hear the rarities.
5% considers Wild Horses or Bitch a rarity.
2% are IORR members.

Mick decides to play for 98% of the audience. Not the 2%.
Who could blame him.

Don't worry; on BTX (Springsteen message board) they're bitching that he's doing too many 'album' shows-Born to Run, Darkness..., and Born in the USA. Fans are a funny lot.

Quote
TheGoons
Don't worry; on BTX (Springsteen message board) they're bitching that he's doing too many 'album' shows-Born to Run, Darkness..., and Born in the USA. Fans are a funny lot.

Based on these "album shows" I think about the Stones doing the same. "Why don't they play Sticky Fingers instead of Let it Bleed?", and so on...

Because at this point of their career the Stones are a "Nostalgia Act" playing for the rich,who only want to hear the "Classics",plus they could never do a 3 hour show,Mick probably could,but Keith can hardly do the 1hr+ show,that they do nowdays,its just no comparison,at this stage of the game Bruce is far superior...

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Bowiestone and ROPENI are both spot on I think. Mick is catering to the 98% who are paying obscene money for tickets to hear the hits and we are lucky they can still give us 2 hours of music never mind three.

I also remember reading somewhere that Keith was all for digging deeper into the catalog but Mick has an aversion to risk so he sticks with the songs he knows the band can still play well. And Keith has said in more than one interview that Mick is the front man and must be comfortable with what songs they play so he apparently has final say on the setlists.

Quote
BowieStone
93% of the audience don't want to hear the rarities.
5% considers Wild Horses or Bitch a rarity.
2% are IORR members.

Mick decides to play for 98% of the audience. Not the 2%.
Who could blame him.

Absolutely.

Why don`t they play "like Bruce"?

Because they are The Rolling Stones

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

<<With Bruce, there`s no talk of warhorses>>

There's no talk of "warhorses" at a Stones show either--because most fans don't spend every hour of every day obsessing on every song of every album. In other words, most fans attending the shows are not registered with fan forums.

Regarding the "play like Bruce" question, there is no reason to because "Bruce" is nothing at all like the Stones, nowhere near as iconic to the general concert-going public. "Springsteen throws out rarities like candy"--well, considering that Springsteen didn't even have a (U.S.) top 10 hit until 7 years into his recording career (that would be like the Stones not scoring a significant hit until 1970) and has never had a number 1 single (in the U.S. anyway), it would seem that a good 99% of Springsteen's catalog is rarities to the general public.

And certainly Keith would be all for a deeper catalog for a set list--he'll play anything at any venue so long as he has the Stones onstage. But Mick was schooled in numbers and he knows what works for a crowd (the bottom line, if you will), and understands the fine art of pacing a show. The hits are what fans pay for, and the hits are what sends the crowd home on a buzz.

Perhaps Mick could test the market for rarities by releasing a compilation album of B-sides and deep album cuts--call it Hot Pebbles or something, and then a follow-up called More Hot Pebbles.

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Why don`t they play "like Bruce"?

Because they are The Rolling Stones

That says it all.

I'm a fan of both (in different degrees), but come on, they're entirely different entities. And one thing to bear is mind is that Bruce tours almost constantly, something like 11 of the last 12 years, each time with an album to promote, and many of the "rarities" are tracks from the latest album, many of which get dropped as the tour winds on. The heart of his shows consists of the well-known numbers that people go to hear, with some lower-profile songs thrown in--but then the Stones do that too. I don't thing anybody would claim You Got Me Rockin' was a warhorse, whatever that is.

Quote
stonehearted
<<With Bruce, there`s no talk of warhorses>>

There's no talk of "warhorses" at a Stones show either--because most fans don't spend every hour of every day obsessing on every song of every album. In other words, most fans attending the shows are not registered with fan forums.

Regarding the "play like Bruce" question, there is no reason to because "Bruce" is nothing at all like the Stones, nowhere near as iconic to the general concert-going public. "Springsteen throws out rarities like candy"--well, considering that Springsteen didn't even have a (U.S.) top 10 hit until 7 years into his recording career (that would be like the Stones not scoring a significant hit until 1970) and has never had a number 1 single (in the U.S. anyway), it would seem that a good 99% of Springsteen's catalog is rarities to the general public.

And certainly Keith would be all for a deeper catalog for a set list--he'll play anything at any venue so long as he has the Stones onstage. But Mick was schooled in numbers and he knows what works for a crowd (the bottom line, if you will), and understands the fine art of pacing a show. The hits are what fans pay for, and the hits are what sends the crowd home on a buzz.

Perhaps Mick could test the market for rarities by releasing a compilation album of B-sides and deep album cuts--call it Hot Pebbles or something, and then a follow-up called More Hot Pebbles.

I think you underestimate Bruce's fan base. His fans are as rabid as the Stones fans and while he might not charge the outrageous prices the Stones do for tickets he pretty much sells out every Arena and Stadium show and as someone mentioned he is constantly on tour.

So while he may not have the chart hits The Stones have he does have his own "warhorses" fans come to expect to hear but when you play a 3 hours show just about every concert you can afford to vary the setlist each night and still play an hour + of the songs fans expect to hear.

I guess the difference is that Bruce has supernatural energy, to keep going for that long (plus his supporting cast must consist of about 15 people by now). Mick could probably keep going that long if he paced himself, remembering that Bruce isn't constantly dancing around the tongue stage, but I don't think Keith's health would let him. Plus sometimes less is just more. Two hours is still longer than many much younger bands play these days.

Noughties i know what you mean. You're all right. Stones are icons etc., best band in the world, Keith is the coolest guy in the world, they had no 1 hits that people want to hear.
Anyway...Stoneshearted. Stones never had such a success as Bruce had with Born in the USA album (5 songs in top 10 ?, Dancing In the Dark no.2 - yeahhh still it's not no.1). The best selling Stones record is Hot Rocks and Some Girls, but both not even close to BITUSA, which is about 30 million copies. But this is not a point.
I've seen Stones 6 times since 1998 and Bruce 5 times since 2007. I was and still am hardcore Stones fan but their shows are predictable. I was thrilled when they played Ruby Tuseday in Hyde Park, but it's one song i could't predict before the show. When i go to see Bruce i never know what's going to happen and this is cool.
I got whole Darkness album on Wembley stadium (80 000). This was fresh, the same when he did Lost and flood, or When I Leave Berlin in Berlin, Kitty's back in Koln. I could give you lot of exaples. On every show he is playing Born To Run but Born In the Usa or Streets Or Philladelphia are playing seldom (specially Streets - his biggest hit). It's like Stones without Satisfaction and JJF.
So, Stones are still great but don't give me shit about fantastic version of Brown Sugar or JJF. They do not risk anymore (in fact since 1989). Ok, they don't have to, Stones will always be the best band in history books anyway. But today i think Bruce is the best live act in the world ( 3-3,5h shows, requests, hits, pure music without needless show).
I still love Stones and if i can only afford to see them, i'll be there. It's like meeting with best friend.

I don't want to sound like a cynic, because I do love Bruce and will be seeing him again on the upcoming Southern leg of his tour, but the "requests" are pretty much fixed. I mean, it gives the impression of being like "stump the band" but he pretty much knows what he wants to play in that slot and what he doesn't, and he won't read out a request he doesn't want to do. Having said which, he IS a terrific live act, no argument there.

Quote
RollingFreak
I think there's a number of reasons. They are from a decade older generation where you just kind of didn't do that. They are also older than Bruce and probably legitimately just aren't as familiar with their catalogue as he is with his. It could be anything. Its sad, but its the case.

Mick isn't wrong though. He wants to see people enjoying themselves and Satisfaction does that while Silver Train doesn't. You gotta have balls to take that risk, and if you weren't already a fan of Bruce it might be hard to sit through 3 hours of stuff when you really just want to hear Born To Run. Its tricky and Springsteen has managed to stick with it for all these years. I don't blame the Stones. Its them and the Beatles, and the Beatles aren't an entity anymore, so how can you really blame them trotting out their greatest hits at 70 just wanting the most casual of fans to remember them by that.

Bruce is 64. He's older than all of the Stones (except Charlie) were at the end of the Bigger Bang tour. Its not as if he's from a different generation. Besides, most bands before or since choose not to be that diverse. So the Stones arent actually 'unusual'

I think your 'gotta have balls' remark is probably the most accurate. I find it a bit amazing (based on comments from Chuck Leavell about how the setlist is drawn up) that a performer of Mick Jagger's undoubted brilliance is reluctant to a) play more than one ballad per show, b) play anything from the Brian Jones era that isnt a warhorse or radio hit or c) play hardly any new material in case he loses the attention of his audience. I sometimes also feel Mick doesnt have a lot of confidence in the band. Simple as that.

He actually didnt used to be as timid as that. When you look at the sort of show the Stones were doing in the 90s for example they really did dip in to their catalogue a lot deeper, as well as insist on playing new songs. Even if the setlists didnt vary much, they took chances in their song selections. You cant imagine them now playing some of those songs in stadiums. The difference has only really accelerated in the last 15 years since their audience demographic has increasingly changed. The audience is a lot older - mostly because the shows are so expensive and theyve lost a generation of young fans by pricing them out of attending - and a sizeable % of that demographic (as they see it anyway) are 'box tickers' who maybe own a greatest hits album, might be there on a corporate junket or have paid a large amount of money to see them. So there's more of a sense of 'entitlement' from said audience (based on the amount of money theyve shelled out) to hear 'certain' songs. And as the shows have got shorter over the years (25% less songs now than 20 years ago) - the songs that are falling by the wayside are the less well known selections. The reality is that its a false assumption on the Stones'part (I doubt anyone wanted their money back in Abu Dhabi on Friday because they didnt play Honky Tonk Women and the problem of 'having to play so many hits' can easily be resolved by rotating a couple of them every show....after all they have enough classics to go round)

Its unfortunate that theyve really allowed themselves to become that sort of corporate jukebox (if any band has earned the right to play what the hell they like, its the Stones), but its an inevitable consequence when any act cares far more about concert grosses than taking themselves onto a new level as artists.

Still, theyre not really doing anything that we should be surprised about by now, so when you buy a ticket, you know what youre getting. Paying £1,000 for a ticket doesnt really (and shouldnt) give the audience member any greater sense of entitlement than it does for a concert where youve paid £100 or even £10.


(edit - my bad. They DID play HTW in Abu Dhabi. Point remains though, I doubt anyone would have had a shitfit if they didnt. :-) )



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-24 01:58 by Gazza.

Quote
Aquamarine
I don't want to sound like a cynic, because I do love Bruce and will be seeing him again on the upcoming Southern leg of his tour, but the "requests" are pretty much fixed. I mean, it gives the impression of being like "stump the band" but he pretty much knows what he wants to play in that slot and what he doesn't, and he won't read out a request he doesn't want to do. Having said which, he IS a terrific live act, no argument there.

I think some of it he has an idea about (because there are some people who go to multiple shows and so he'll see the 'signs' maybe before he chooses to play them) but there are occasions when they do pretty much wing it. This being a classic and often hilarious example.





besides while HE might know it, its a lot to ask a large band to be up to the job of nailing a song they havent rehearsed either thoroughly or even at all.

The bottom line is though for a fan that even if you do see the printed setlist before the show, you can pretty much be sure that a sizeable amount of it will be changed and that the show will be longer than what it would be if he stuck to what his original plans were.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-24 01:26 by Gazza.

Quote
thrak
Noughties i know what you mean. You're all right. Stones are icons etc., best band in the world, Keith is the coolest guy in the world, they had no 1 hits that people want to hear.
Anyway...Stoneshearted. Stones never had such a success as Bruce had with Born in the USA album (5 songs in top 10 ?, Dancing In the Dark no.2 - yeahhh still it's not no.1). The best selling Stones record is Hot Rocks and Some Girls, but both not even close to BITUSA, which is about 30 million copies. But this is not a point.
I've seen Stones 6 times since 1998 and Bruce 5 times since 2007. I was and still am hardcore Stones fan but their shows are predictable. I was thrilled when they played Ruby Tuseday in Hyde Park, but it's one song i could't predict before the show. When i go to see Bruce i never know what's going to happen and this is cool.
I got whole Darkness album on Wembley stadium (80 000). This was fresh, the same when he did Lost and flood, or When I Leave Berlin in Berlin, Kitty's back in Koln. I could give you lot of exaples. On every show he is playing Born To Run but Born In the Usa or Streets Or Philladelphia are playing seldom (specially Streets - his biggest hit). It's like Stones without Satisfaction and JJF.
So, Stones are still great but don't give me shit about fantastic version of Brown Sugar or JJF. They do not risk anymore (in fact since 1989). Ok, they don't have to, Stones will always be the best band in history books anyway. But today i think Bruce is the best live act in the world ( 3-3,5h shows, requests, hits, pure music without needless show).
I still love Stones and if i can only afford to see them, i'll be there. It's like meeting with best friend.

Nicely put,on the money....

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
Gazza

Quote
RollingFreak
I think there's a number of reasons. They are from a decade older generation where you just kind of didn't do that. They are also older than Bruce and probably legitimately just aren't as familiar with their catalogue as he is with his. It could be anything. Its sad, but its the case.

Mick isn't wrong though. He wants to see people enjoying themselves and Satisfaction does that while Silver Train doesn't. You gotta have balls to take that risk, and if you weren't already a fan of Bruce it might be hard to sit through 3 hours of stuff when you really just want to hear Born To Run. Its tricky and Springsteen has managed to stick with it for all these years. I don't blame the Stones. Its them and the Beatles, and the Beatles aren't an entity anymore, so how can you really blame them trotting out their greatest hits at 70 just wanting the most casual of fans to remember them by that.

Bruce is 64. He's older than all of the Stones (except Charlie) were at the end of the Bigger Bang tour. Its not as if he's from a different generation. Besides, most bands before or since choose not to be that diverse. So the Stones arent actually 'unusual'

I think your 'gotta have balls' remark is probably the most accurate. I find it a bit amazing (based on comments from Chuck Leavell about how the setlist is drawn up) that a performer of Mick Jagger's undoubted brilliance is reluctant to a) play more than one ballad per show, b) play anything from the Brian Jones era that isnt a warhorse or radio hit or c) play hardly any new material in case he loses the attention of his audience. I sometimes also feel Mick doesnt have a lot of confidence in the band. Simple as that.

He actually didnt used to be as timid as that. When you look at the sort of show the Stones were doing in the 90s for example they really did dip in to their catalogue a lot deeper, as well as insist on playing new songs. Even if the setlists didnt vary much, they took chances in their song selections. You cant imagine them now playing some of those songs in stadiums. The difference has only really accelerated in the last 15 years since their audience demographic has increasingly changed. The audience is a lot older - mostly because the shows are so expensive and theyve lost a generation of young fans by pricing them out of attending - and a sizeable % of that demographic (as they see it anyway) are 'box tickers' who maybe own a greatest hits album, might be there on a corporate junket or have paid a large amount of money to see them. So there's more of a sense of 'entitlement' from said audience (based on the amount of money theyve shelled out) to hear 'certain' songs. And as the shows have got shorter over the years (25% less songs now than 20 years ago) - the songs that are falling by the wayside are the less well known selections. The reality is that its a false assumption on the Stones'part (I doubt anyone wanted their money back in Abu Dhabi on Friday because they didnt play Honky Tonk Women and the problem of 'having to play so many hits' can easily be resolved by rotating a couple of them every show....after all they have enough classics to go round)

Its unfortunate that theyve really allowed themselves to become that sort of corporate jukebox (if any band has earned the right to play what the hell they like, its the Stones), but its an inevitable consequence when any act cares far more about concert grosses than taking themselves onto a new level as artists.

Still, theyre not really doing anything that we should be surprised about by now, so when you buy a ticket, you know what youre getting. Paying £1,000 for a ticket doesnt really (and shouldnt) give the audience member any greater sense of entitlement than it does for a concert where youve paid £100 or even £10.

Gazza...

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
Gazza
its an inevitable consequence when any act cares far more about concert grosses than taking themselves onto a new level as artists.

Why assume it's one or the other? Maybe the Stones just want to do what they do so very well, and aren't interested in taking themselves to a new level. It's a miracle they're still out there performing so well at this level, and given the longevity of the band, totally ground-breaking. And as for the concert grosses--show me a band who really doesn't care if anybody comes to see them. I won't debate that Stones tickets prices are way too high, but I do question that that's why they're out there.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
Gazza
its an inevitable consequence when any act cares far more about concert grosses than taking themselves onto a new level as artists.

Why assume it's one or the other? Maybe the Stones just want to do what they do so very well, and aren't interested in taking themselves to a new level. It's a miracle they're still out there performing so well at this level, and given the longevity of the band, totally ground-breaking. And as for the concert grosses--show me a band who really doesn't care if anybody comes to see them. I won't debate that Stones tickets prices are way too high, but I do question that that's why they're out there.

Not saying its one or the other. I'm saying that more emphasis is put on one than the other. The Stones are undeniably great entertainers who do what they do very very well (I wouldnt be attending so many shows down the years if I thought otherwise) but theyre unquestionally artistically complacent and unambitious - four studio albums in the second half of their career kinda emphasises that. And thats not a big deal - at this stage, they're a nostalgia act who have more in common artistically with 99% of oldies acts in the twilight of their careers. its not an outrageous or unusual concept - its only an issue if anyone is still trying to convince themselves that theyre an evolving, current band for whom music and artistic development is an important factor in their M.O. By now, we all know what we're going to get - whether its enough to keep fans satisfied or interested enough to attend their shows is up to the individual of course.

I dont think making huge amounts of money is the sole reason why theyre touring, but its a significant factor. Probably THE most significant. Demanding grosses of $4 million-plus per show (or whatever it is) - a figure so high that more and more promoters have been reluctant to take a chance on it - would sense a less than altruistic perspective or motivation when it comes to touring.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Playing "like Bruce" means less guitars and more horns and keyboards.

I'm sure the brass section, Matt Clifford and Mick could have done good versions of Out Of Time or Let It Loose, but I'm not sure if this is the way to go for the Stones...

Less guitars? Doesn't Bruce have like 15 people playing guitar in the band now?

How do you feel about Stones doing all Springsteen songs and Bruce attempting to perform all Stones songs? Very short tour!

Having just seen Bruce last Saturday night in Melb I thought he played too long now where at times the audience was a bit dis-engaged especially at a large outdoor show. The following night Bruce played nearly 4 hrs which included nearly 30 mins of stories....!!! Still a great show but not as good as his last year's gigs indoors in Melb.

The Stones have never been big risk takers for their live shows and it does take bigger balls to do what Bruce taking requests on a whim from the audience.

It will be interesting to see how the Stones go in Adelaide then in Melb in a month's time in both outdoor and indoor settings. Bruce plays too long, Pearl Jam did 2.5 hrs here in January, so ideally the Stones should maybe add a song or 2 with some rarities that they do in rehearsals but don't seem to make it to a live setting.

pool's in but the patio ain't dry

Quote
Gazza
- at this stage, they're a nostalgia act who have more in common artistically with 99% of oldies acts in the twilight of their careers. its not an outrageous or unusual concept - its only an issue if anyone is still trying to convince themselves that theyre an evolving, current band for whom music and artistic development is an important factor in their M.O.

Again, I don't really get this dichotomy. Evolving, no--as you said, very little new material. But that doesn't make them by default a stuck-in-the-past nostalgia act. They're not trying to recreate 1972, and I don't think anybody at their shows old enough to remember those days thinks they are. Contrary to what folks seem to think, they're constantly trying out new arrangements and presentations, etc.

And to get back on topic, Bruce (AND I LOVE BRUCE) may be constantly releasing new albums, but he's not significantly evolving musically. He IS a great showman, and so is Mick, and both of them know exactly what they do best, which is not to pretend to be each other. So, I think things are fine as they are.