Hey Mick you invited Springsteen to play with the Stones in Newark. Take a look at the kind of setlist he gives his fans night after night. Bruce always digs deep in the catalogue while playing the necessary 4 or 5 warhorses. This is not a safe setlist!

Setlist:
Shackled and Drawn
Out in the Street
Hungry Heart
We Take Care of Our Own
Wrecking Ball
Death to My Hometown
My City of Ruins
Spirit in the Night
Does This Bus Stop at 82nd Street?
Red Headed Woman
Streets of Fire
Because the Night
She's the One
Cover Me
Darlington County
Waitin' on a Sunny Day
Raise Your Hand
The Rising
Badlands
Land of Hope and Dreams
* * *
Racing in the Street
Radio Nowhere
Born to Run
Dancing in the Dark
Santa Claus is Comin' to Town
Tenth Avenue Freeze-out

I'm a HUGE Springsteen fan, but him and the Stones are just different. I do understand where the Stones are coming from. They simply have more warhorses that they need to play each night. So many of their songs are classic, just like Springsteen's, but to the point that they go down in rock history. Springsteen only has a few songs like that, that are literally universally known. Pretty much Born To Run, Thunder Road, Hungry Heart, Born In The USA, Badlands, The Rising, Dancing In The Dark... thats about it. As a fan of his, I love that I don't even have to sit through THOSE every show, but I do think he's an anomaly. He doesn't even have a lot of songs that he needs to play, and even those he ignores sometimes. He's got balls and is risky, and its something very few artists do of his stature.

The Stones on the other hand: you've got Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Sympathy For The Devil, Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice, Its Only Rock And Roll, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Start Me Up. Not to mention Paint It Black, Street Fighting Man, Miss You and many others that are also extremely well known. Their setlists write themselves. Its kind of their fault for writing so many classic songs. I've seen the Stones once, and I didn't even get all those songs in the first list (no Gimme Shelter or YCAGWYW). When you have so many classic songs, it gets tricky, and Springsteen is sort of lucky he doesn't have that many universally known, and even more lucky for his fans that he doesn't really care. But when you list out the Stones songs I just did, you have to think "they have a point. Those are songs everyone knows and would be disappointed to miss, AND that actually cover a sizable portion of their career." Those songs just plain get the job done right there, and its sad but also honorable that its hard to fit rarities with them.

Quote
RollingFreak
I'm a HUGE Springsteen fan, but him and the Stones are just different. I do understand where the Stones are coming from. They simply have more warhorses that they need to play each night. So many of their songs are classic, just like Springsteen's, but to the point that they go down in rock history. Springsteen only has a few songs like that, that are literally universally known. Pretty much Born To Run, Thunder Road, Hungry Heart, Born In The USA, Badlands, The Rising, Dancing In The Dark... thats about it. As a fan of his, I love that I don't even have to sit through THOSE every show, but I do think he's an anomaly. He doesn't even have a lot of songs that he needs to play, and even those he ignores sometimes. He's got balls and is risky, and its something very few artists do of his stature.

The Stones on the other hand: you've got Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Sympathy For The Devil, Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice, Its Only Rock And Roll, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Start Me Up. Not to mention Paint It Black, Street Fighting Man, Miss You and many others that are also extremely well known. Their setlists write themselves. Its kind of their fault for writing so many classic songs. I've seen the Stones once, and I didn't even get all those songs in the first list (no Gimme Shelter or YCAGWYW). When you have so many classic songs, it gets tricky, and Springsteen is sort of lucky he doesn't have that many universally known, and even more lucky for his fans that he doesn't really care. But when you list out the Stones songs I just did, you have to think "they have a point. Those are songs everyone knows and would be disappointed to miss, AND that actually cover a sizable portion of their career." Those songs just plain get the job done right there, and its sad but also honorable that its hard to fit rarities with them.

But isn't great that as Springsteen fans we know we might just get Lost in the Flood, Kittys Back, Growin Up, Independence Day, etc.. on any given night. As Stones fans we have almost zero chance of getting gems like Let it Loose, Prodigal Son, Dear Doctor, Time Waits for No One,etc... So it is just very frustrating and disheartening.

Also another artist like Bruce who does what he wants and is another of my favorites is David Bowie.

Quote
rambler44
But isn't great that as Springsteen fans we know we might just get Lost in the Flood, Kittys Back, Growin Up, Independence Day, etc.. on any given night. As Stones fans we have almost zero chance of getting gems like Let it Loose, Prodigal Son, Dear Doctor, Time Waits for No One,etc... So it is just very frustrating and disheartening.

Also another artist like Bruce who does what he wants and is another of my favorites is David Bowie.

Oh yes, absolutely. Thats why I've seen Bruce 7 times and the Stones once, which will be twice now with this upcoming tour. In 7 shows, I have seen Light Of Day, Blinded By The Light, Incident On 57th Street, Jersey Girl, Be True, Kitty's Back, Detroit Medley, Sweet Soul Music, Higher And Higher, Lost In The Flood, Living On The Edge Of The World, Talk To Me, and countless others that are hidden gems. Plus my holy grail, seeing the entire River album in sequence which was just incredible. Yes, as Bruce fans we are lucky he loves his catalogue and gets around to it as much as we would like and the shows are still outstanding. I'd love the Stones if they did that too, but at the level the Stones are at in the history of rock, I understand why they feel they can't, and then I think their laziness leads to them not really wanting or caring to. They get around to stuff, but they have a catalogue just as good as Bruce's, if not better, and its a crime that some of the stuff never gets played live. I just think Bruce has a better deal, not having as many songs he has to play, and for being known for playing anything, which helps him get away with it.

And yeah, Bowie is incredible too. He plays whatever the hell he wants and does it geniusly. There are none like him. But good call. There are very few at that level of fame that do that, and Bowie and Bruce certainly do whatever they want.

If you don't like BS or HTW you can't really be a Stones fan in my opinion!!!

Star