Quote
lazzzybones

Quote
kowalski
Nice cover by Q mag. by the way...

This pic looks like a bee just stung Micks ass.

Nah, he's looking at the setlist that Chuck submitted.

Quote
3DTeafoe
I bet if the Stones did a concert tour of only 'obscure tunes' it would sell out in an instant.

i see your bet and raise you 5 warhorses....

Here's one "Crackin Up" for Mayor Rob Ford when they play in Toronto.

So Mick will be camping out for the duration of the Glastonbury festival. Very interesting! That means he'll be in the audience when Bill Wyman is onstage with his Rhythm Kings. I'd love to be a fly on the lining of the tent while Mick watches Bill perform.

I was just listening to Goin' Home. Would love to see a 12 minute version of that live!
Mick underestimates his audience.

Seems like the Commander has the wrong input on "social media". Twitter is mainly used by the establishment (journalists, actors and so on). "Twitter storms" are known, at least here in Sweden, for established (often PC) journalists and politicians making outpourings at the common man. Facebook is more democratic but mainly a social bragging vehichle (mostly for women). The Commander doesn't say a word about explicit Stones forums like this one for example. Maybe he never goes there....

Secret meetings with Thatcher I can understand though. Sir Michael was always a Thatcherite. Although being a tax dodger Sir Michael still has tea with high ranking Tories. Tax dodging is quite accepted in right wing circles.

Twitter is more youth oriented.......Mick hears what he wants to hear

Just play all of Hot Rocks. There's plenty of songs there that they haven't touched in years. Give the people who go to more than one of these shows something more than one song inserted in the middle that is different from the other shows and past tours.Stop playing it so freaking safe Mick. Oh and by the way, leave the girlfriend at home if she doesn't know more than a few songs that have been played millions of times on the radio. She's not a true fan anyway.

Quote
mighty stork
Just play all of Hot Rocks. There's plenty of songs there that they haven't touched in years. Give the people who go to more than one of these shows something more than one song inserted in the middle that is different from the other shows and past tours.Stop playing it so freaking safe Mick. Oh and by the way, leave the girlfriend at home if she doesn't know more than a few songs that have been played millions of times on the radio. She's not a true fan anyway.

I've said it several times......at these prices, tell me about the casual fan. I am a casual fan of several bands and I'm not paying 100$ or more to see them.

Gomper with Mick Taylor would be a killer track.
And Tracks like Light years, 2000 man and even On with Show would sound better and go over betterthen some of the war horses they have played for the last 30 yrs!

I really think it would add to the excitement of hearing a old track brought to life. Fans new and old would dig it if the Stones played their hearts out with cool songs like that!

Its still only rock n roll..

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
mighty stork
Just play all of Hot Rocks. There's plenty of songs there that they haven't touched in years. Give the people who go to more than one of these shows something more than one song inserted in the middle that is different from the other shows and past tours.Stop playing it so freaking safe Mick. Oh and by the way, leave the girlfriend at home if she doesn't know more than a few songs that have been played millions of times on the radio. She's not a true fan anyway.

I've said it several times......at these prices, tell me about the casual fan. I am a casual fan of several bands and I'm not paying 100$ or more to see them.

What I would really like to know is, at the end of the day (end of this tour) what the overall average cost of a ticket turned out to be. That for me would be the bottom line. AEG and the Stones had a strategy. It was to make life miserable for the scalpers and put as many fans in the seats at fair market value as possible.

I get it, like movie theaters.....start high, gradually drop till sales peak, then hold slightly above that, but I hate games....

Quote
Stoneage
Seems like the Commander has the wrong input on "social media". Twitter is mainly used by the establishment (journalists, actors and so on). "Twitter storms" are known, at least here in Sweden, for established (often PC) journalists and politicians making outpourings at the common man. Facebook is more democratic but mainly a social bragging vehichle (mostly for women). The Commander doesn't say a word about explicit Stones forums like this one for example. Maybe he never goes there....

Secret meetings with Thatcher I can understand though. Sir Michael was always a Thatcherite. Although being a tax dodger Sir Michael still has tea with high ranking Tories. Tax dodging is quite accepted in right wing circles.

Mick is notoriously vague and maneuvers around topics like a young Cassius Clay floating around his opponents like a butterfly!

I would be surprised if Mick ever admitted that it was IORR and other sites like this (including Facebook and twitter) that prompted him to give Mick Taylor more playing time. Not sure his ego is up for admitting that the fans prompted his decision regarding Mick Taylor.

Quote
Aquamarine
"His secret meetings with Thatcher"?

Indeed.

Start a "Tell Mick he can take credit for MT and a more adventurous setlist" thread. Appeal to the ego.....

Quote
Thrylan
Start a "Tell Mick he can take credit for MT and a more adventurous setlist" thread. Appeal to the ego.....

I don't think there is much chance of Mick altering the set lists as dramatically as we would have him. At least not for this tour.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
Thrylan
Start a "Tell Mick he can take credit for MT and a more adventurous setlist" thread. Appeal to the ego.....

I don't think there is much chance of Mick altering the set lists as dramatically as we would have him. At least not for this tour.

I know, the weaker Keith gets, more the balance swings...

It is his notion of "general fan" that is a bit obscure here.

But but.., this idea of if anyone is going to a concert, one needs to be familiar with the songs beforehand... If not, one is not supposed to going to enjoy? This seems to hold on both in hardcore fan circles and with casual fans ("general fans"/tourists). Why is that a norm?

I mean, what about letting the music speak for itself? Why not giving a chance for reflections as "hey, I don't know this tune, but it sounds damn good!". Or Jagger thinking: "This is not a very well-known song, but who cares, it's damn good. Let's play it!". Why should not to give even to one's "girl friend" a chance to hear good music she hasn't ever heard? Why to under-estimate her? Why there is not a chance for musical surprises at all?

But I guess a kind of non-spoken deal was that when the modern concert concept - by Cohl and others - were created, and the ticket prices went uphill, it contained a kind of guarantee that certain songs are going to be heard. And not even that: people will get to hear almost any song one has might heard from a radio by casual listening. The Stones are in many ways forerunners or pioneers in this concept, and Jagger's conservative pragmatism seem to have an experimental base. Funnily, it is him who have mostly done The Stones an oldie's nostalgia act, no matter he claims hating nostalgia. Talk is cheap, Mick!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-24 09:53 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
It is his notion of "general fan" that is a bit obscure here.

But but.., this idea of if anyone is going to a concert, one needs to be familiar with the songs beforehand... If not, one is not supposed to going to enjoy? This seems to hold on both in hardcore fan circles and with casual fans ("general fans"/tourists). Why is that a norm?

I mean, what about letting the music speak for itself? Why not giving a chance for reflections as "hey, I don't know this tune, but it sounds damn good!". Or Jagger thinking: "This is not a very well-known song, but who cares, it's damn good. Let's play it!". Why should not even give even to one's "girl friend" a chance to hear good music she hasn't ever heard? Why to under-estimate her? Why there is not a chance for musical surprises at all?

But I guess a kind of non-spoken deal was that when the modern concert concept - by Cohl and others - were created, and the ticket prices went uphill, it contained a kind of guarantee that certain songs are going to be heard. And not even that: people will get to hear almost any song one has might heard from a radio by casual listening. The Stones are in many ways forerunners or pioneers in this concept, and Jagger's conservative pragmatism seem to have an experimental base. Funnily, it is him who have mostly done The Stones an oldie's nostalgia act, no matter he claims hating nostalgia. Talk is cheap, Mick!

- Doxa

Well said! I have been turned on to new songs live, I have not recognized others due to interesting changes....etc. I miss the days when studio versions couldn't be recreated. Imagine fans in 69' hearing SFTD for the first time. Mick, tell me they didn't LOVE it. I think he is insulting our collective intelligence.

Quote
stonehearted
So Mick will be camping out for the duration of the Glastonbury festival. Very interesting! That means he'll be in the audience when Bill Wyman is onstage with his Rhythm Kings. I'd love to be a fly on the lining of the tent while Mick watches Bill perform.

Nah, he'll be in his yurt, and nowhere near whichever of about 12 different stages Bill is playing on.

Probably.

Which is his loss, actually, because I've always enjoyed the Rhythm Kings.

Quote
Doxa
It is his notion of "general fan" that is a bit obscure here.

But but.., this idea of if anyone is going to a concert, one needs to be familiar with the songs beforehand... If not, one is not supposed to going to enjoy? This seems to hold on both in hardcore fan circles and with casual fans ("general fans"/tourists). Why is that a norm?

I mean, what about letting the music speak for itself? Why not giving a chance for reflections as "hey, I don't know this tune, but it sounds damn good!". Or Jagger thinking: "This is not a very well-known song, but who cares, it's damn good. Let's play it!". Why should not to give even to one's "girl friend" a chance to hear good music she hasn't ever heard? Why to under-estimate her? Why there is not a chance for musical surprises at all?

But I guess a kind of non-spoken deal was that when the modern concert concept - by Cohl and others - were created, and the ticket prices went uphill, it contained a kind of guarantee that certain songs are going to be heard. And not even that: people will get to hear almost any song one has might heard from a radio by casual listening. The Stones are in many ways forerunners or pioneers in this concept, and Jagger's conservative pragmatism seem to have an experimental base. Funnily, it is him who have mostly done The Stones an oldie's nostalgia act, no matter he claims hating nostalgia. Talk is cheap, Mick!

- Doxa

It is NOT Mick who has primarily turned them into an oldies act. Keith said in an interview in 2012 that he didn't understand why Mick would want to rehearse 60 songs, responding "let's just rehearse 30!" Keith himself says in Life they mostly play "Stones classics" in the repertoire these past 20 years. Keith has just as much to do with this as Mick. They'd play LESS so called "obscure" tracks if it were up to Keith--we'd get the same ALL warhorses set if it were up to him. Be glad Mick makes them rehearse 30 odd of the so called "obscure numbers" and puts 3 or 4 in a set each night--that ain't Keith doing it.

I suppose the "general fan" contains not just one's "girlfriends" and people like that, but also people like from the press. Jagger's audience is pretty wide, and he wants to please them all (translation: $$$$).

It reminds me of the conference for VOODOO LOUNGE in Europe, back in 1995. Some (stupid) journalist asked "why do you start your concert with such an unknown song? ("Not Fade Away"), into which Jagger replied, a bit uneasily, something to the effect: "we are trying to make it more well-known". For a reason or other, Jagger seems to be afraid that kind of reactions.

But why always needs to follow the guidance of the most ignorant, the least fan-like people? It is almost absurd how little Jagger seem to trust in his own music sometimes.

- Doxa

What Mick is saying is fair enough. He knows that you have to get the balance right between the warhorses and the more obscure stuff. What that balance is is open to interpretation. I personally beleive that the Staples Center setlist was a perfect balance, albeit I'd like to see a couple of newer ones in there too. Oh, and bring back Dead Flowers! (Has anyone else noticed the setlist has reduced in size by one song?)

You can't please everyone though. There will be people who want to see al of Satanic (I'd pay good money for that) and there will be thoses who only want to see Satisfaction and JJF. The Stones opt for the middle line.

I do not think that anyone wants the Stones to play a 'B-sides and rarities' show (which they could only do at a pre-announced special occasion like for example the Montreux Jazz Festival) but I hope that Mick Jagger appreciates the fans' proposition. Two obscure songs per concert and a few lesser played ones would be o.k. if we are honest and realistic.

To this day I regret that they dropped Ventilator blues and Torn and frayed in 1972 after one or two shows, and that they did not play Key to the highway at least a few times during that tour. These would have been nice alternatives to the otherwise fixed setlist.

Btw, where is Al Perkins these days when they'd need him urgently to sit in playing pedal steel on Torn and frayed??

Quote
CanYouHearTheMusic

Be glad Mick makes them rehearse 30 odd of the so called "obscure numbers" and puts 3 or 4 in a set each night--that ain't Keith doing it.

That's not consistent with what we've heard over the years. Mick is actually known to be very conservative with setlist selection - it actually seems that in many cases, it is Chuck, in his capacity as musical director, that suggests unusual tracks.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
What I would really like to know is, at the end of the day (end of this tour) what the overall average cost of a ticket turned out to be. That for me would be the bottom line. AEG and the Stones had a strategy. It was to make life miserable for the scalpers and put as many fans in the seats at fair market value as possible.

If that strategy were true, it would just be a weak excuse to justify the outrageous prices. Only a slim minority of fans--the hardcore types, rather than the casual fans--ever patronize the scalper contingent. To gouge 95% of the fans just to stifle the profits of touts who serve the 5% minority is the most cynical "strategy" anyone could ever think of.

They have a strategy, alright--stadium earnings at arena-size shows. That way they don't have to travel as much. Instead, they can play 3 arena shows in one city and get paid as if they'd played 3 stadium shows, whereas they would have satisfied demand if they had just played 1 stadium show in a city. Work smaller, earn larger. Less travel, more pay. That's the strategy.

Mick has been underestimated the crowd for decades. Every show goer doesn't need to recognize every song.

Quote
CanYouHearTheMusic

Quote
Doxa
It is his notion of "general fan" that is a bit obscure here.

But but.., this idea of if anyone is going to a concert, one needs to be familiar with the songs beforehand... If not, one is not supposed to going to enjoy? This seems to hold on both in hardcore fan circles and with casual fans ("general fans"/tourists). Why is that a norm?

I mean, what about letting the music speak for itself? Why not giving a chance for reflections as "hey, I don't know this tune, but it sounds damn good!". Or Jagger thinking: "This is not a very well-known song, but who cares, it's damn good. Let's play it!". Why should not to give even to one's "girl friend" a chance to hear good music she hasn't ever heard? Why to under-estimate her? Why there is not a chance for musical surprises at all?

But I guess a kind of non-spoken deal was that when the modern concert concept - by Cohl and others - were created, and the ticket prices went uphill, it contained a kind of guarantee that certain songs are going to be heard. And not even that: people will get to hear almost any song one has might heard from a radio by casual listening. The Stones are in many ways forerunners or pioneers in this concept, and Jagger's conservative pragmatism seem to have an experimental base. Funnily, it is him who have mostly done The Stones an oldie's nostalgia act, no matter he claims hating nostalgia. Talk is cheap, Mick!

- Doxa

It is NOT Mick who has primarily turned them into an oldies act. Keith said in an interview in 2012 that he didn't understand why Mick would want to rehearse 60 songs, responding "let's just rehearse 30!" Keith himself says in Life they mostly play "Stones classics" in the repertoire these past 20 years. Keith has just as much to do with this as Mick. They'd play LESS so called "obscure" tracks if it were up to Keith--we'd get the same ALL warhorses set if it were up to him. Be glad Mick makes them rehearse 30 odd of the so called "obscure numbers" and puts 3 or 4 in a set each night--that ain't Keith doing it.

I disagree. It is Mick who has turned them into oldies act since he thinks that that is the music their potential audience wants to hear. It is him, because the power to decide is in his hands. If there is anyone trying to suggest some "obscure" songs, it is Chuck Leavell (but also Jagger seemingly understands that it is good to have some "obscure" numbers as well to make the show's drama or story better, and I suppose, also to please the hardcore fans). I don't think Keith has any role here. He might wish or want whatever he likes, but he only has real power over his two solo songs. Keith admits this, for example, by saying that since Mick sings them - and it is up to his voice - he has the right to decide what to do or not.

So my point is that it doesn't matter if Keith is more conservative or not (he is), he really doesn't have an active role here. But I agree that Keith loves playing these "classics" a'la "Satisfaction", "Flash", "Dice", etc. as he said many times with different words during the years (not so sure of Jagger). But I suggest that Keith's willingness to stick in familair classics has also something to do with his playing skills - and lazyness - as well. The old dog doesn't learn new tricks easily.

- Doxa

Quote
Thommie
Mick has been underestimated the crowd for decades. Every show goer doesn't need to recognize every song.

This is true, imo anyone with half an ear will recognise a good band whatever song they're playing...(with the proviso that they are playing a half decent song in the first place)......it's not like the Stones unused catalogue is just made up of a load of Ba-ba-black sheep stuff...............

Quote
sjs12
What Mick is saying is fair enough. He knows that you have to get the balance right between the warhorses and the more obscure stuff. What that balance is is open to interpretation. I personally beleive that the Staples Center setlist was a perfect balance, albeit I'd like to see a couple of newer ones in there too. Oh, and bring back Dead Flowers! (Has anyone else noticed the setlist has reduced in size by one song?)

You can't please everyone though. There will be people who want to see al of Satanic (I'd pay good money for that) and there will be thoses who only want to see Satisfaction and JJF. The Stones opt for the middle line.

A good take. It is the balance in question, and I think it has not been healthy for ages (the "obscure songs" contain not the non-war horses from the past, but also any new material since "Start Me Up".)

But for today's reality, when all is nostalgia, I also think the Staples Center setlist was almost optimal.

- Doxa