My two pence worth:

The set list was NOT a drag. Fact.

2 1/2 hour show with 23 songs (25 originally scheduled) including I Wanna Be Your Man, Get Off My Cloud, It's All Over Now, Out Of Control ..... I could go on here...

Personally, this was my 8th time seeing them and there were at least 6 songs I'd never heard live before, so that is a massive bonus.

There will always be haters about the setlist and, if you're not at a show or aren't going to a show, it's very easy to slate it, but once you are there, caught up in the moment, it's only ever going to be brilliant and they could pack the setlist with warhorses and it would still be amazing and you all know it!

Quote
J.J.Flash
Do you people go to other concerts? I believe other artists play their "warhorses" as well?

I've been to Neil Young concerts where half the songs he played hadn't even been recorded yet.

Tatters - I have seen Neil Young on a number of occasions and he has played whatever HE wants to play. I for one do not like that. I don't mind some new, unrecorded songs but Ialso like a variety of older more well known songs and some songs that have not been played in a while. On more than one occasion at Neil I witnessed some people really bitching about this. It keeps Neil interested and if that is what he wants to do fine. With the Stones they have 10-15 songs that are part of the cultural DNA and they are going to play some of them at every show. I would personally like to see those songs rotated so JJF, HTW, BS and SMU are not played at EVERY show. However that being said I will take this setlist anytime as long as they are playing this well and usually the Stones get better with the more shows that they play. No complaints from me on this setlist.

I remember one particular Neil Young concert where the thought occurred to me that a casual fan, someone familiar only with the material on Decade, would not have recognized anything he played until the encore. I don't think anybody really wants a Stones concert like that, but I find it sad that even they think everything they've done since 1981 sucks.

Listening to the show now as I type. Obviously a few songs I could do without (Jeff Beck)(Start Me Up)...a few songs I would of rather heard (Lady Jane)(CYHMK)....but geez after 50 years they can still perform like this...I just don't see the need for any negativity.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 05:38 by No Expectations.

Quote
No Expectations
....but geez after 50 years they can still perform like this...I just don't see the need for any negativity.

No kidding....

but what woud IORR be with its whine and

Usually in connection with Stones concerts, I hope for variation , not too many warhorses and so many newer songs as possible.

Until tonight I have only listened to songs from the first concert through the PC at my work. But tonight, tonight!!!

Now I can say; Some of the warhorses sound completely revitalized. It is as if this was a concert on the first tour they were played, so fresh do they sound, It is as if they were new songs. Then to me regular setlist arguments that I normally symphatize with, but seldom insist on, do not apply.

To me it is as relevant to play these songs here by the reborn Rolling Stones as by the band that originally made those songs.

Now for me a remaining song from the concert for the first time, «Midnight Rambler».

Addition: After having listened to that version, I am overawed. The menace of the song regained. Setlist critiques, a song with that menace to be replaced? I don't know if that effect can be kept through many repeated playings. But as it was now, so long as it is, really to be replaced? Did you find it boring?

Or was it "You Can't Always Get What You Want" or "Sympathy for the Devil" in those versions you had in mind?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 06:34 by Witness.