Was just thinking about how the Stones are so conservative with set lists, careful with their image, etc etc. and how it makes them too much "entertainers" and not enough "artists" at times. However, this same impulse/tendency is probably the same calculating caution that has kept them going as a band. Think of the "integrity" of Pink Floyd and the fact that they haven't kept it going in the same way as the Stones. So, every coin as two sides..."just as every cop's a criminal and all the sinners saints"

People want the Hot Rocks. That's why they play 70 % the same songs at every show. And people bring the money. That keeps the band together - not the love of the music. Money keeps them together, not only, but mainly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-04 17:49 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Today, The Stones nowadays are a living playing Juke Box.
Exept for private or small gigs , then they use some other songs.

Quote
tioms
Today, The Stones nowadays are a living playing Juke Box.
Exept for private or small gigs , then they use some other songs.

Private gigs have always stadium setlists. Shortened stadium setlists. The horror trip doesn't last as long...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-04 12:11 by Monsoon Ragoon.

It been discussed to death here; the Stones have been their own tribute band, morphing further and further into a greatest hits machine since the Steel Wheels Tour. At least up until 2006 they still included some new stuff in their shows. To be fair, at least they did Doom And Gloom and sometimes One More Shot up until recently. If the new album ever comes out will they have the confidence to play some of it live or will they not want to risk boring the greatest hits junkies? Enquiring minds want to know...Most recently the only anomaly was Out Of Control or Mixed Emotions, and a blues tune at Desert Trip. One can safely predict a setlist that dares not venture beyond 1981...or if lucky 1997 (OOC).

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Well, looking at Havana, everyone seems to be having a good time. You guys have to remember that there are very few people that travel to see multiple Stones shows, and watch fan videos on YouTube. For us, the same songs are a disappointment. But normal folks don't see enough shows to get tired of Brown Sugar. I have friends who consider themselves fans because they buy the new albums and have seen the group each time they've come to Japan. So that's six times in the last 27 years. That's most fans; it's just a handful that check nightly setlists.

Quote
drbryant
Well, looking at Havana, everyone seems to be having a good time. You guys have to remember that there are very few people that travel to see multiple Stones shows, and watch fan videos on YouTube. For us, the same songs are a disappointment. But normal folks don't see enough shows to get tired of Brown Sugar. I have friends who consider themselves fans because they buy the new albums and have seen the group each time they've come to Japan. So that's six times in the last 27 years. That's most fans; it's just a handful that check nightly setlists.

Of course. But look at Foxboro or Austin 2006 to see what is possible if they have a good day and the show is in an area where they already played 30 times OR on "DVD"-concerts. Indio I setlist was not bad eighter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-04 14:18 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
People want the Hot Rocks. That's why they play 70 % the same songs at every show. And people bring the money. That keeps the band together - not the love of the music.

I don't agree at all.

They certainly risk , as Charlie stated, everything. They risk reputation, which is everything.

The love of playing is so evident, and of course they are well paid, as it should be for veterans who have earned every bit of it.

It's simple math, 99% of the audience wants to hear the big hits, so that's what they play.

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
People want the Hot Rocks. That's why they play 70 % the same songs at every show. And people bring the money. That keeps the band together - not the love of the music.

I don't agree at all.

They certainly risk , as Charlie stated, everything. They risk reputation, which is everything.

The love of playing is so evident, and of course they are well paid, as it should be for veterans who have earned every bit of it.

They risc EVERYTHING playing Brown Sugar, Start Me Up, Jumping Jack Flash, Tumbling Dice, Satisfaction, Sympathy, Gimme Shelter, Paint It Black, Midnight Rambler, Miss You, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Paint It Black, It's Only Rock'n Roll (13 songs!) at every show since 2012 (and many of them on every stadium show since 1989)?? They risc nothing, that's it, at least not on most shows. It's a strange show meanwhile if they play three rarities like Desert Trip I. Strange days.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-05 15:37 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
duke richardson
...
They certainly risk...

Blue & Lonesome was certainly a risk. And funnily enough, some have criticized it as 'safe' but I recall when it was first announced, the idea was pretty heavily bashed around these parts -- not to mention, it could easily have flopped if they didn't play up to snuff.

The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

Quote
Koen
It's simple math, 99% of the audience wants to hear the big hits, so that's what they play.

Not completely. There are hits that they don't play. Stuff from "best of" or "hits" albums performed on very rare occasions. Even stuff from 'Hot Rocks' doesn't get played for decades (or more) at a time.

Meanwhile,they have been playing "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)" heavily since 1989 but,I don't believe that particular song ever reached the top 10 .

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

Thank god.

The Rolling Stones give their audience what they want, it's as simple as that. And it's no different from what almost all successful artists do and have done since forever.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

Thank god.

The Rolling Stones give their audience what they want, it's as simple as that. And it's no different from what almost all successful artists do and have done since forever.

U2 and probably others big acts don't even play 45 % classics per show. Stones 65-(sometimes)80 %.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

Thank god.

The Rolling Stones give their audience what they want, it's as simple as that. And it's no different from what almost all successful artists do and have done since forever.

U2 and probably others big acts don't even play 45 % classics per show. Stones 65-(sometimes)80 %.

Well, I see we are both using a generalization Monsoon, but I bet mine is more accurate.

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

That's not true. Have a closer look at them.

'78 different from the prior tour.

'81 different from '78.

'89/'90 different from '81 and '78.

'94/'95 different from '89/'90.

'97/'98 different from '94/'95.

'99 different from '97/'98.

Then they went with yet another theme for '02 /'03.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

That's not true. Have a closer look at them.

'78 different from the prior tour.

'81 different from '78.

'89/'90 different from '81 and '78.

'94/'95 different from '89/'90.

'97/'98 different from '94/'95.

'99 different from '97/'98.

Then they went with yet another theme for '02 /'03.

Right. And that's how most bands from the 60's and 70's (and since then) do things. They come up with a setlist for a tour, and they may tweak it a little during the course of the tour but it basically stays the same. People like Springsteen, the Dead, Prince and Pearl Jam are exceptions.

They were doing new creative things until the licks tour. With the bigger bang-tour eveything started going on autopilot. I refuse to ever see Havanna Moon since it's the same old songs just slower with less energy than ever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-04 16:04 by EasterMan.

The Stones ticket prices mean that lots if rich tourists attend. Result is a greatest hits set. It''s unavoidable . Die hard fans would probably pay $1000 + a ticket to get a 1962 set list , but that would only fill a theatre in reality

Sc UK

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

Thank god.

The Rolling Stones give their audience what they want, it's as simple as that. And it's no different from what almost all successful artists do and have done since forever.

U2 and probably others big acts don't even play 45 % classics per show. Stones 65-(sometimes)80 %.

Well, I see we are both using a generalization Monsoon, but I bet mine is more accurate.

At least U2 doesn't play almost only singles/classics from their first 18 years. I know their setlists. All shows sell out, nevertheless.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-04 22:59 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
EasterMan
They were doing new creative things until the licks tour. With the bigger bang-tour eveything started going on autopilot. I refuse to ever see Havanna Moon since it's the same old songs just slower with less energy than ever.

Yes. I think that they started coasting at some point towards the end of the 2003 tour and there have been a few rare exceptions since then.

Anyway,I agree for the most part about "Havana Moon". Although,I would check out "Angie" from that show. One of the best versions of that song outside of the '73-'82 time period. Maybe "You Got the Silver" as well but,I prefer the Oakland '06 version (and the '99 versions).

Quote
EasterMan
They were doing new creative things until the licks tour. With the bigger bang-tour eveything started going on autopilot. I refuse to ever see Havanna Moon since it's the same old songs just slower with less energy than ever.

I was reluctant to bother with Havana Moon myself given the sameness of most recent Stones shows. However, when I finally did check it out I was most pleasantly surprised! Yep, most of the songs are the same as Hyde Park 2013 but they sound a lot livelier to my ears, and Keith-especially is in much better form in the Cuba gig. As one reviewer wrote of Hyde Park Live, Keith's presence seemed almost just ceremonial more than in the past years. In Havana Keith is fully present, engaged and sounding more like the "real Keith" than I've heard in a long time. Of course, it shows the benefit of being fully warmed up by the end of a tour. If they tend to do increasingly shorter tours, it's less likely that we'll see Keith at his best. As for them being creative up to the Licks Tour, I think they still were doing that on the Bigger Bang Tour as well. They did a decent amount of songs from the new album plus surprises like Night Time Is The Right Time, and they pulled some obscurities out from time to time. Sometimes they did Heartbreaker, Shattered, She's So Cold, Monkey Man. Don't be surprised if you never, ever hear those again...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
whitem8
The stones have been playing the same set lists since the 60s. They have on set list for entire tour... they are not the Dead.

That's not true. Have a closer look at them.

'78 different from the prior tour.

'81 different from '78.

'89/'90 different from '81 and '78.

'94/'95 different from '89/'90.

'97/'98 different from '94/'95.

'99 different from '97/'98.

Then they went with yet another theme for '02 /'03.

Yes each tour has had a few different songs. My point is that when they tour they keep the same set list the entire tour. They have since they began touring. Forty Licks was probably the most unique in that they did several different sets. The recent Zip Code also was interesting in that they changed up what they played from Sticky Fingers nightly. Granted that was two to three songs, but interesting.

Mostly agree.
They were brilliant up until the late '70s, but since then have mostly just been monetizing their history.
They can do what they want, of course, but the only irritating thing is when Keith says something like, 'We're going to growing this thing and see where it goes,' when really they are just mining the same setlist/act for decades.
But it's hard to keep changing. Maybe a few acts like Bowie and Neal Young have managed to go down new roads.
And the Stones have such a big machine/entourage that they probably couldn't make money if they just played smaller places. I can't see Mick and Keith getting on a tour bus and sharing a motel room again to save on expenses.
I've been thinking lately that Jagger and Richards might have done more interesting material had they broken up in the '80s.

Dylan, McCartney and The Who are just as bad at playing the same setlist and relying on the warhorses. Waters, too, although he is going to put a new album out for this tour, so we'll be hearing some of that.

Neil Young is the exception of the Desert Trippers. He continues to regularly incorporate new material and to delve through his deep back catalog of material, and remains the most authentic and vital artist of the lot.

Quote
Javadave
Dylan, McCartney and The Who are just as bad at playing the same setlist and relying on the warhorses.

Although McCartney doesn't change the setlist during a specific tour, it definitely changes each tour (or year to year). In looking at a 2016 setlist, more than half of the 35 songs were different compared to when I saw him in 2005, and about a dozen different than in 2010...plus, he's not afraid to play new material.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
Koen
It's simple math, 99% of the audience wants to hear the big hits, so that's what they play.

Not completely. There are hits that they don't play. Stuff from "best of" or "hits" albums performed on very rare occasions. Even stuff from 'Hot Rocks' doesn't get played for decades (or more) at a time.

Meanwhile,they have been playing "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)" heavily since 1989 but,I don't believe that particular song ever reached the top 10 .

Depends on the chart and the country. But everyone knows the song.

They played nearly all bigger hits at least sometimes or once after 1989. Mother's Little Helper and Have You Seen Your Mother Baby are the only early top 10 hits they never played (after 1966). They even played the Australian number 1 - Under The Boardwalk, although not in Australia. Even Lady Jane. Even Heart Of Stone. MLH and HYSYMB would be indeed strange choices, although Jagger did the latter only 24 years ago. Unfortunately, the magic of 2012/13 is gone meanwhile. But even then they played all above mentioned warhorses. But four years ago they played 22 tracks, not 19. That makes a difference. They didn't throw out three warhorses, but three interesting ones.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-04 23:26 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
They played nearly all bigger hits at least sometimes or once after 1989. Mother's Little Helper and Have You Seen Your Mother Baby are the only early top 10 hits they never played (after 1966). They even played the Australian number 1 - Under The Boardwalk, although not in Australia. Even Lady Jane. Even Heart Of Stone. MLH and HYSYMB would be indeed strange choices, although Jagger did the latter only 24 years ago. Unfortunately, the magic of 2012/13 is gone meanwhile. But even then they played all above mentioned warhorses. But four years ago they played 22 tracks, not 19. That makes a difference. They didn't throw out three warhorses, but three interesting ones.

My point is that they have played "Heart of Stone" FOUR times in the last 48 YEARS of touring .... all four in 2002.

They have played "Time is on My Side" ONE single time in a Stones concert during the last 34 YEARS.

They have played "Lady Jane" ONE single time in the last 48 YEARS of touring.

They have performed "Play With Fire" ZERO times in the past 27 YEARS since January of February of 1990.

So,there have been just SIX concerts in the last 27 YEARS with ANY of these four songs.

There's stuff on post-1971 compilations which doesn't get performed enough,either. I agree though,that the reduced set lists are probably a factor in this.