All the time I am reading here the people are complaining about the setlist. What is so wrong with it? I can`t understand it. There are so many people at the concert which have never seen the Stones live. Of course they like to hear the big hits. But out of the 8 big shows on the 2012/13 tour we got this songs which I call "rare":


I Wanna Be Your Man
It`s All Over Now
Out Of Control
Going Down
Lady Jane
Champagne and Reefer
Around And Around
Who Do You Love
Factory Girl
Emotional Rescue
Little Red Rooster
No Expectations

That`s 12 song out of 8 shows. I think this is great. Bands like AC/DC never change anything in their sets. And these are songs which we never heard that often before either:

Get Off Of My Cloud
All Down The Line
The Last Time
Live With Me
Respectable
Dead Flowers
Let It Bleed
Bitch

Remember the Steel Wheels tour. They changed only a few songs. But from Voodoo Lounge to today they played so many different songs.

I like it!

Nothing - besides Miss You

but this is your personal taste. a lot of people like that song

That's the problem. 50 years of being fans and they can't bother to modify things a bit. I tweeted at them today and said thank you for playing Let It Bleed.. please add Little Queenie. Fans know more than hot rocks. It is true. Massive catalog but the last half of the show, aside from Rambler is stale.

Quote
hockenheim95
a lot of people like that song

I am sure there can be salvation for those!

Quote
flacnvinyl
That's the problem. 50 years of being fans and they can't bother to modify things a bit. I tweeted at them today and said thank you for playing Let It Bleed.. please add Little Queenie. Fans know more than hot rocks. It is true. Massive catalog but the last half of the show, aside from Rambler is stale.

but these are the songs most people want to hear. there aren`t 20.000 hardcore fans at the shows. they`ve played so many rare songs on every tour. what more could they do to satisfy everybody?

Hockenheim you are sooooo right!

There is nothing wrong with the first half of the setlist. The second part however is warhorse overloaded and very static. Basically you can go home after hearing "One More Shot"...

Quote
Stoneage
There is nothing wrong with the first half of the setlist. The second part however is warhorse overloaded and very static. Basically you can go home after hearing "One More Shot"...

That`s sad for you...

"what more could they do to satisfy everybody?'

We've been through this before.

They have such a vast catalog. They're also so good at playing blues tunes, and Chuck Berry tunes. They could change up more than 2 or 3 or 4 songs a night and most fans would know most of the songs.

They could rotate Street Fighting Man and several others of their hits through the warhorses, and still have a warhorse miniset to end the show, without playing exactly the same ones every night.

Springsteen, whatever one things of him (and I love him), does that. He plays a few warhorses every night, rotates some others, plays at least a few from his latest album, and spends 1/4 to 1/2 the concert playing rarities, covers, or non-warhorse songs.

The Stones have almost never taken that approach. They play the same set, varying a few songs, each tour. It makes it easier for them, and most fans are very satisfied. But it takes away the OMG feeling -- and the related feeling that they're taking risks -- from most of the show.

Once upon a time, the Stones were about danger, and risk.

I am very pleased with the set lists on this tour. Actually I think it's unreal that they still perform at this level, remembering the last tour six years ago when they seem to be a bit tired. They played only 19 songs at most of the shows. I would probably have laughed at you if you had told me back in 2007 that the Stones would tour again six years later performing longer shows (23 songs) with more energy, with Mick Taylor regularly joining in on Midnight Rambler and with a sharp, sober and focused Keith Richards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-09 23:04 by The Worst..

I love the setlist. Sure, I'd like to see 'em drop Start Me Up and Miss You, but that is never gonna happen.

As a fan since 64 I want to get excited and go holy shit! They haven't played that one Like Heart of Stone.

they are much better than Bigger Bang but they don't hold a candle to Licks -- that about sums it up.

Nothing wrong, just more Taylor, please...

- Doxa

Be happy they are still going at it. They play for 2+ hours sith much energy.

Conservative estimate is that 75% of concert-goers are casual fans and wouldn't know any of the rarer songs.

Not happy they've dropped from 23 to 22 songs! What will it be when they get to the East Coast?? 20?? Same ticket prices!! How about $100 less for every song dropped?

It surprises me the fact that people who demand more variety and more "danger" as for the setlists, are usualy the same people who recollect the so called "golden years". But, if i remember correctly the corresponding statistics, on the entire 1978 and 1981 tour the Stones played only 33 and 37 songs respectively. On the current tour, they have already played 31 songs, after just three gigs...

I mean different songs, of course...

Quote
laertisflash
It surprises me the fact that people who demand more variety and more "danger" as for the setlists, are usualy the same people who recollect the so called "golden years". But, if i remember correctly the corresponding statistics, on the entire 1978 and 1981 tour the Stones played only 33 and 37 songs respectively. On the current tour, they have already played 31 songs, after just three gigs...

The band is notorious for regurgitating the same songs night after night, it went back to 1969 if not earlier. That doesn't mean anyone has to be happy about it, but we shouldn't be surprised.

There really is nothing wrong with these sets it's just the fact the people who are hardcore about the stones over the years are always hoping for that rare album cut to come out. But you really have to play the crowd pleasing songs for the casual stones listeners who hear them on the radio and know the hits. personally i'd rather hear all the non-hits! but i think they are doing a good job overall.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
laertisflash
It surprises me the fact that people who demand more variety and more "danger" as for the setlists, are usualy the same people who recollect the so called "golden years". But, if i remember correctly the corresponding statistics, on the entire 1978 and 1981 tour the Stones played only 33 and 37 songs respectively. On the current tour, they have already played 31 songs, after just three gigs...

The band is notorious for regurgitating the same songs night after night, it went back to 1969 if not earlier. That doesn't mean anyone has to be happy about it, but we shouldn't be surprised.

correct. unhappy and unsurprised. and unsurprised about being unhappy and unhappy about being unsurprised.

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
laertisflash
It surprises me the fact that people who demand more variety and more "danger" as for the setlists, are usualy the same people who recollect the so called "golden years". But, if i remember correctly the corresponding statistics, on the entire 1978 and 1981 tour the Stones played only 33 and 37 songs respectively. On the current tour, they have already played 31 songs, after just three gigs...

The band is notorious for regurgitating the same songs night after night, it went back to 1969 if not earlier. That doesn't mean anyone has to be happy about it, but we shouldn't be surprised.

correct. unhappy and unsurprised. and unsurprised about being unhappy and unhappy about being unsurprised.

I am unhappy that you are unsurprised.

Quote
Tonstone

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
laertisflash
It surprises me the fact that people who demand more variety and more "danger" as for the setlists, are usualy the same people who recollect the so called "golden years". But, if i remember correctly the corresponding statistics, on the entire 1978 and 1981 tour the Stones played only 33 and 37 songs respectively. On the current tour, they have already played 31 songs, after just three gigs...

The band is notorious for regurgitating the same songs night after night, it went back to 1969 if not earlier. That doesn't mean anyone has to be happy about it, but we shouldn't be surprised.

correct. unhappy and unsurprised. and unsurprised about being unhappy and unhappy about being unsurprised.

I am unhappy that you are unsurprised.

thanks. every little bit helps.

They`re boring!

Last night's setlist is outstanding. Yes I want to see the hits rotated too but I am not complaining with last night.

songs 1-10 are just fine the rest is the greatest hits show IMO, can you imagine how great it would be if they brought out taylor for a set of sway - no expectations, cyhmk and twfno, holy crap! but will they do it? of course not



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-10 02:48 by melillo.

The only thing wrong with the setlist is the number of songs they're playing from their last six studio albums: 0

btw we can throw winter into mick taylors set list also

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
Tonstone

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
laertisflash
It surprises me the fact that people who demand more variety and more "danger" as for the setlists, are usualy the same people who recollect the so called "golden years". But, if i remember correctly the corresponding statistics, on the entire 1978 and 1981 tour the Stones played only 33 and 37 songs respectively. On the current tour, they have already played 31 songs, after just three gigs...

The band is notorious for regurgitating the same songs night after night, it went back to 1969 if not earlier. That doesn't mean anyone has to be happy about it, but we shouldn't be surprised.

correct. unhappy and unsurprised. and unsurprised about being unhappy and unhappy about being unsurprised.

I am unhappy that you are unsurprised.

thanks. every little bit helps.

Thanks for your Little Help