Glad this subject is being addressed objectively. I agree with both Hanns and Doxa. Unfortunately it seems The Stones don't want to satisfy us in any way, let alone setlist. What about the countless re-issues and no new album in 9 years. Of course some will say they don't owe it to us or just don't go to the concerts, all true but I don't want it to be like that. It's been a great ride and I don't feel I'm asking a lot to mix up the setlist with one or two songs and maybe release an EP with some new music. That would be enough for me. Anyhow, I'm still hopeful something will turn in the right way.

Quote
1962
Again and again the same shit. Boooooring!

I agree, people say, "oh but they play them so well and when you're there it's terrific"....well, they would wouldn't they, practice makes perfect and all that.

Just wish they could get on top of Child of the moon, Going home, Let it loose, Siver train (more) Winter, 100 years ago, 'til the next goodbye, Fingerprint file, Time waits for no one, Dance little sister........More B & B, Pretty beat up, The pain of love...........in the same way....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-06 17:31 by EddieByword.

Quote
varilla
Cristal clear Doxa. This is a tour not done for us, the hardcores. It is for casual listeners, attracted by the Stones legend, history, etc , etc.
For people who never ever attended a Stones concert or even just attended a couple of shows, and never listen Stones music other than ocassionally, this concerts must be unbelievable.

I consider Stripped as the last thing the Stones made specially for us, their so loyal fans

It is all made for some sort of Madame Tussaud loving kinda people.

Quote
1962
Again and again the same shit. Boooooring!

Absolutely, it's boring to hear the same arguements over and over again with little variety in their presentation, similar to a setlist.

Truth be told I will still make my pilgrimage to Germany to see them this summer and I will enjoy it. I just know not to expect anything of interest to me as a lover of all their music, not just the greatest hits.

There's a set of songs between warhorse and rarity that they've basically abandoned:

Little Red Rooster
Heart of Stone
Time is on my Side
19th Nervous Breakdown
Let's Spend The Night Together
She's a Rainbow
Mother's Little Helper
Street Fighting Man
Heartbreaker
Aint' Too Proud to Beg
Fool To Cry
Hot Stuff
Beast of Burden
She's So Cold
Waiting on a Friend
She Was Hot
Undercover of the Night
One Hit
Mixed Emotions

Those are all (except for Rooster, which was 1 in UK) chart hits in America, and I'm guessing were in most other places as well. They've just turned into rarities because only two or three of them are occasionally dug out.

Some good points from Doxa.

And some thoughts of mine: If "1962" counted correctly, then the Stones have played 26 different songs after just only 4 gigs. On the entire 1978 tour (which means 25 gigs) they had played 33 different songs. Yes, 33 only. Correct me if i am wrong, but i think that on the entire 1981/82 tour they had performed under 40 different songs (37 maybe?). So, fans who complain about the Stones being a "lazy live act nowadays" (due to the "lack" of setlist variety) should explain: In comparison with which era, exactly??

In the so called "golden years" there was much more variety between tours (as the band had a "promoting every last almum" policy), but the variety between gigs of the same tour was almost non -existent. And know something? The old "model" offered more safety to them! Because they were playing the same songs, including many new numbers on which the band had recently worked in the studios, maybe for months. More safe than turnig up "2000 LYFH" after 22 years and playing it in front of 130,000 people at Glasto, i think - just to mention an example...

Speaking for myself: i can live with the thought that on a particular gig they 'll give me "Respectable" instead of "CYHMK". But, honestly, i can't imagine a Stones gog without "JJF" and "HTW". And i'm not a "casual fan", of couse...

Quote
StonesCat
There's a set of songs between warhorse and rarity that they've basically abandoned:

Little Red Rooster
Heart of Stone
Time is on my Side
19th Nervous Breakdown
Let's Spend The Night Together
She's a Rainbow
Mother's Little Helper
Street Fighting Man
Heartbreaker
Aint' Too Proud to Beg
Fool To Cry
Hot Stuff
Beast of Burden
She's So Cold
Waiting on a Friend
She Was Hot
Undercover of the Night
One Hit
Mixed Emotions

Those are all (except for Rooster, which was 1 in UK) chart hits in America, and I'm guessing were in most other places as well. They've just turned into rarities because only two or three of them are occasionally dug out.

Good stuff in there.

Quote
varilla
This is a tour not done for us, the hardcores. It is for casual listeners, attracted by the Stones legend, history, etc , etc.
For people who never ever attended a Stones concert or even just attended a couple of shows, and never listen Stones music other than ocassionally, this concerts must be unbelievable.

I consider Stripped as the last thing the Stones made specially for us, their so loyal fans

Everybody thinks they're hardcore, everybody thinks they don't belong in this group. But this group sound like they deserve a tour, especially if they've never had the chance to see the band before. Imagine you're the Stones and you know there are a bunch of people in the audience, many of them for the first time, wondering what your band's all about. After all these years, that must be one of the most exciting reasons to get on a stage.

Quote
laertisflash
Some good points from Doxa.

And some thoughts of mine: If "1962" counted correctly, then the Stones have played 26 different songs after just only 4 gigs. On the entire 1978 tour (which means 25 gigs) they had played 33 different songs. Yes, 33 only. Correct me if i am wrong, but i think that on the entire 1981/82 tour they had performed under 40 different songs (37 maybe?). So, fans who complain about the Stones being a "lazy live act nowadays" (due to the "lack" of setlist variety) should explain: In comparison with which era, exactly??

..

Well,,in 1981/82 they were playing 24-26 songs a night. More than half the show had never been played live before or for many many years. Half the songs had been released within the last three years. So, whilst the setlist was static - it was also a fresh show. Likewise with 1978. And from 1969-73 or so, songs like Brown Sugar, HT Women and Tumbling Dice werent warhorses that had been played to death, they were relatively new songs.

The bottom line is that when you look at a modern Stones setlist, then compare it to most of the Bigger Bang shows and then go back to the stadium shows on the Licks tour - the content is almost the same. And when they do reduce the show length, its the 'fresher' content that gets squeezed out.

I actually have no beef with the Stones playing a show in a large venue which largely consists of their best known material - merely with the fact that its pretty much the same bloody 10-12 songs that take up most of the show year-in, year-out. People arent going to walk out in disgust and the world isnt going to stop revolving on its axis if they rotate maybe a couple of those songs with a few other major hits - they can drop each of those dozen songs maybe one night in six or ten and substitute it with a 'Little Red Rooster', 'Out of Time'or 'Beast of Burden' for example. No one's going to really object - seriously. They have the back catalogue to get away with it. And are people seriously going to argue that a performer of Jagger's calibre (who we're all told ad nauseam is the greatest showman on earth and has no peers when it comes to working a crowd) is afraid of losing the attention of an audience if he doesnt bombard them with the same set of warhorses every night?

Good point Gazza. In 1978 or 1982 they were still musically relevant and toured to promote their album. Since the 80s, their albums have basically been alibis for monster tours. I think the "driving force" behind the static setlists today is Jagger, who always wants to play it safe. He's the greatest frontman ever but he also seems to be very afraid of the audience's reaction, especially those bored guys who pay 2 k for a VIP package at any gig that hits their hometown. I remember reading Chuck Leavell's blog during the 2007 Euro tour in which he complained about static and repetitive sets...

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
varilla
This is a tour not done for us, the hardcores. It is for casual listeners, attracted by the Stones legend, history, etc , etc.
For people who never ever attended a Stones concert or even just attended a couple of shows, and never listen Stones music other than ocassionally, this concerts must be unbelievable.

I consider Stripped as the last thing the Stones made specially for us, their so loyal fans

Everybody thinks they're hardcore, everybody thinks they don't belong in this group. But this group sound like they deserve a tour, especially if they've never had the chance to see the band before. Imagine you're the Stones and you know there are a bunch of people in the audience, many of them for the first time, wondering what your band's all about. After all these years, that must be one of the most exciting reasons to get on a stage.

I agree, but on the flipside, I think there are a lot of casual fans or even non fans who are just curious about their music that are missing out because of the high prices. I went by myself to the 2012 concert in Newark, mostly because the price was so high I could only justifty one ticket. The $85 option in 2013 allowed me to take all of my family, so now my kids know about the Stones music first hand and my son has become a big fan.

There is a whole generation who hasn't discovered this amazing band and that is a shame. But, to be fair to the Stones, the problem of high ticket prices is across the board, in all forms of entertainment. Heck, you can't even get to a NFL game anymore without spending a fortune, let alone go to see a top theatrical performance. My mother grew up in NYC and talked about skipping school to take in all the matinees of the Broadway shows. There's no way any teenager could afford that today.

Sorry if some of this has been covered on this thread already, I'm just jumping in.

Quote
latebloomer
I agree, but on the flipside, I think there are a lot of casual fans or even non fans who are just curious about their music that are missing out because of the high prices. I went by myself to the 2012 concert in Newark, mostly because the price was so high I could only justifty one ticket. The $85 option in 2013 allowed me to take all of my family, so now my kids know about the Stones music first hand and my son has become a big fan.

Good point...
...The $85 option was not really available to the casual fan (because they didn't know about it), unless they heard about it from people like us.

Quote
laertisflash
On the entire 1978 tour (which means 25 gigs) they had played 33 different songs. Yes, 33 only. Correct me if i am wrong

Actually 21 songs on the 1978 tour, not 33



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-06 20:47 by Erik_Snow.

Since the setlists are static from Honky Tonk Women (song 8) and forward why not make a deal with a Stones tourist? You walk out just before HTW and let the tourist in to watch the warhorse bonanza.
You can pay for 7 songs and the tourist for 13. Wouldn't that be a great deal?

Quote
Stoneage
Since the setlists are static from Honky Tonk Women (song 8) and forward why not make a deal with a Stones tourist? You walk out just before HTW and let the tourist in to watch the warhorse bonanza.
You can pay for 7 songs and the tourist for 13. Wouldn't that be a great deal?

As long as the tourist in question pays for 65% of my flight, hotel and drinks bill, I'm in!

Quote
Stoneage
Since the setlists are static from Honky Tonk Women (song 8) and forward why not make a deal with a Stones tourist? You walk out just before HTW and let the tourist in to watch the warhorse bonanza.
You can pay for 7 songs and the tourist for 13. Wouldn't that be a great deal?

Sounds like a plan, but the tourist might be down to 9 or 10 by the end of this tour.

Yeah, the problems would be a) finding the right tourist, b) explaining the deal to the box office...

The two major complaints on this board are over and over again, set list choice and ticket price.
These things are inextricably linked to each other.
Charge that kind of money and you HAVE to play the hits and nothing but the hits.
Kinda obvious isn't it?

And that is the choice the band have made..

Well they are making very bad choices. For Some Girls tour they played the whole album practically. If you play the stuff enough the fans will love it. I ain;t asking for zero warhorses. But they could -- if they just tried - sprinkle in, what, 5 songs a la Silver Train.Is that asking too much. Everybody would be happy.

Quote
vertigojoe
The two major complaints on this board are over and over again, set list choice and ticket price.
These things are inextricably linked to each other.
Charge that kind of money and you HAVE to play the hits and nothing but the hits.
Kinda obvious isn't it?

Well that's a point. How was that saying again.....once you've said Las you gotta to say....

Here is an adapted set list that would go over very well.

1. Jumpin' Jack Flash

2. You Got Me Rocking (How about "If You Can't Rock Me")

3. It's Only Rock'n'Roll

4. Tumbling Dice (How about "Hey Negrita")

5. Ruby Tuesday (How about "Dance")

6. Doom and Gloom

7. Respectable (winner song vote, with Special Guest: Tomoyasu Hotei)

8. Honky Tonk Women > (How about "Silver Train")

-- Band Introductions --

9. Slipping Away (Keith, with Mick Taylor)

10. Before they make me run (Keith)

11. Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)

12. Miss You (How about "Streets of Love" or "Moonlight Mile")

13. Paint it Black

14. Gimme Shelter

15. Start Me Up (How about "Mixed Emotions")

16. Sympathy for the Devil

17. Brown Sugar

-- ENCORE --

18. You Can't Always Get What You Want (with 'The Senzoku Freshman Singers')

and add in "One Hit" and "Rough Justice" for 21 songs

Quote
laertisflash
Some good points from Doxa.

And some thoughts of mine: If "1962" counted correctly, then the Stones have played 26 different songs after just only 4 gigs. On the entire 1978 tour (which means 25 gigs) they had played 33 different songs. Yes, 33 only. Correct me if i am wrong, but i think that on the entire 1981/82 tour they had performed under 40 different songs (37 maybe?). So, fans who complain about the Stones being a "lazy live act nowadays" (due to the "lack" of setlist variety) should explain: In comparison with which era, exactly??

In the so called "golden years" there was much more variety between tours (as the band had a "promoting every last almum" policy), but the variety between gigs of the same tour was almost non -existent. And know something? The old "model" offered more safety to them! Because they were playing the same songs, including many new numbers on which the band had recently worked in the studios, maybe for months. More safe than turnig up "2000 LYFH" after 22 years and playing it in front of 130,000 people at Glasto, i think - just to mention an example...

Speaking for myself: i can live with the thought that on a particular gig they 'll give me "Respectable" instead of "CYHMK". But, honestly, i can't imagine a Stones gog without "JJF" and "HTW". And i'm not a "casual fan", of couse...

good points, fact is The Stones were never The Grateful Dead. How do you have a show without Satisfaction??? Unrealistic.

To me, it seems like a no-brainer to do a couple small venues, advertise that you're going to play some different kind of material, charge the die-hards that will come out the nose, everyone knows what they're in for and goes away happy. Lose the spectacle and get some of the emotion and grit back for just a few shows.

Quote
StonesCat
To me, it seems like a no-brainer to do a couple small venues, advertise that you're going to play some different kind of material, charge the die-hards that will come out the nose, everyone knows what they're in for and goes away happy. Lose the spectacle and get some of the emotion and grit back for just a few shows.

Amen.

Quote
StonesCat
To me, it seems like a no-brainer to do a couple small venues, advertise that you're going to play some different kind of material, charge the die-hards that will come out the nose, everyone knows what they're in for and goes away happy. Lose the spectacle and get some of the emotion and grit back for just a few shows.

Way too much like hard work..

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
laertisflash
Some good points from Doxa.

And some thoughts of mine: If "1962" counted correctly, then the Stones have played 26 different songs after just only 4 gigs. On the entire 1978 tour (which means 25 gigs) they had played 33 different songs. Yes, 33 only. Correct me if i am wrong, but i think that on the entire 1981/82 tour they had performed under 40 different songs (37 maybe?). So, fans who complain about the Stones being a "lazy live act nowadays" (due to the "lack" of setlist variety) should explain: In comparison with which era, exactly??

In the so called "golden years" there was much more variety between tours (as the band had a "promoting every last almum" policy), but the variety between gigs of the same tour was almost non -existent. And know something? The old "model" offered more safety to them! Because they were playing the same songs, including many new numbers on which the band had recently worked in the studios, maybe for months. More safe than turnig up "2000 LYFH" after 22 years and playing it in front of 130,000 people at Glasto, i think - just to mention an example...

Speaking for myself: i can live with the thought that on a particular gig they 'll give me "Respectable" instead of "CYHMK". But, honestly, i can't imagine a Stones gog without "JJF" and "HTW". And i'm not a "casual fan", of couse...

good points, fact is The Stones were never The Grateful Dead. How do you have a show without Satisfaction??? Unrealistic.

I don't know, it worked OK in 72. It was a boasting point. We can put on a great show and not play or biggest hit and nobody cares. (except for very few encores)

I think that we need to give the guys a chance now that the tour is heading for 2 straight arena shows and 1 unusual setting (sands ballroom SG)....

I think and still hope that there will be more rotations.
Otherwise i dont get why they re going through the trouble of rehearsing 60-70 songs...but i could be wrong..

Anyway still so excited about whats to come...

The 2012-14 shows follows the same pattern. There are rotations of songs in the first 1/3 of the show. The rest, 2/3, is pretty static. It's unlikely that they will change this pattern.
We can wish for this or that but that won't, most probably, change things.

Quote
Stoneage
The 2012-14 shows follows the same pattern. There are rotations of songs in the first 1/3 of the show. The rest, 2/3, is pretty static. It's unlikely that they will change this pattern.
We can wish for this or that but that won't, most probably, change things.

Yeah but the difference between 2012/13 and 2014 is that now they only have space left for one ballad and one album rocker. Given that the ballad is Angie or Wild Horses, the opener Start Me Up and the web choice Street Fighting Man, the set is the standard war horse package (the same since Steel Wheels) plus Doom and the Keith songs, who, by the way, stopped alterning his set from show to show in 2005.