Tell Me :
Talk
Every song that you mention has been performed on this tour with the exception of Sweet Virginia. I would love to hear ER played in Boston. As BV stated in his Toronto review to watch Keith get off on playing it!! It's got a nice funk to it.
As any pumpkin will know the age is betrayed by reality - he's really 26.
The vast majority of who? 100 people? So you work for a newspaper now, "polling" a small number of people to determine to the overall truth. Great.
Regardless, a vast majority of people around the world don't care if the Stones do a new album.
That's the whole point. The idea that anyone would be up in arms or confused or anything other than ecstatic if they did those songs anddozens others like them -- not rare obscurities but great Stones songs that most people who are going to a show would know -- is ridiculous. And it is the whole point of the OP. I think it's rubbish, I don't think the Stones or Mick believes it, I think it's just an excuse for being unwilling to rehearse and unable to play such a variety without rehearsing.
It's an insult to the fans to say they would not accept a setlist with such songs, a complete insult.
Because they've done those songs you've mentioned on tours over the years yet have never done Emotional Rescue.Emotional Rescue was a huge single in the States and to this day gets radio play.
Doesn't fit? Because of what? They played Melody once - that's jazz. According to what you say that isn't allowed. As well as Sweet Virginia or Faraway Eyes or Dead Flower - those are country songs. Miss You shouldn't be played because it's disco (according to a lot of people). So toss that one.
That's not exactly limiting but it does limit some things they've done.
So go ahead, continue to limit what you think. It's a very common problem in the United States: the red states are the people who don't like any kind of change. It's funny how it can appear in anything. even funnier when it involves any kind of art.
I agree with you regarding the Stones, but your comment in bold is completely unnecessary and off base.
It's like if I said it's a very common problem for progressives to bring conservatives into any and every discussion they can, no matter how irrelevant it may be to the subject matter.
Healing from the disappointment of a relatively static setlist? The nubers DO lie; If you play 23 songs a night, but only change one or two, afafter18 dates, you can claim to have played 57 songs, but, you played the SAME 21 every night, with two surprises, which aren't necessarily surprising. Dont be silly, did I say I wanted LA2 every night? No, I want the spirit of LA2. A little more MT and really, they could rotate 7, and still have 16 warhorses every night. You ever go to a show and here a new song you really dug? It happens and it's pretty cool. Also, I suspect the fan vote for SFM, was an attempt to get MT out more......everyone who has mentioned SFM also mentions MT. I assume this was a fan driven attempt to force the MT hand.
I can see it now....No Miss You and long lines demanding a refund!
Yeah, when you have such an incredibly massive and diverse catalogue, you can really do anything you want.
I was shocked (and crestfallen) to see such a pathetic show of support for a new album by our so called hardcore fan base here at IORR.
I can understand the casual fan not giving a rip but for so called hardcore fans to show such apathy is quite disturbing.
If the Stones decide to record a new album it won't be for commercial success, rather it will be because they have a burning desire to become recording artists again. And that is really the way it should be anyway. The fans can only do so much and after that it is up to the artist.
As for now (in 2013) it appears that Stones concert goers are willing to pay about $355.00 (on average) for a ticket to see them perform. It seems they are still in demand for their live shows. How long this continues is uncertain.
I have always said that I think they should close out their career with at least one last studio album. Since it probably won't be a commercial success they would be doing it primarily for pride. Let's see if they have any pride left, as artists.
I am enjoying the shows. I try to imagine myself in the shoes of a first time Stones concert goer-looking through his/her eyes. And Mick Taylor and the guests have definitely added some spice to this tour.
One of the big factors for me on this tour has been: Can they still "bring it?" The answer has been a resounding YES. That alone makes this tour worth following and being excited about.
Is it possible that at their age the memory bank has shrunk a bit? I am their age and I can't even remember all my nieces and nephews names. I think maybe we need to cut them a little slack. They have done 56 songs so far.
I think Macca and Dylan are older!
I'm a so called diehard but what you say is very true. Ofcourse I would like to hear all the obscure stuff but if they play more than one show in a town they usually mix it up a bit and that's good.
whaddya mean?!
I mean it gets repetitive. I mean it gets repetitive. I mean...
It was strictly making a point of about knuckle clenching conservatism, which that in bold demonstrates fantastically.
That's what you get for assuming such idiocy. Being a Stones fan, regardless of what kind, on a Stones board does not make it automatic that wanting a new album is a given. The general population hasn't cared for a new Stones album since Steel Wheels - and the only reason that one got any attention was that was back when things went by slow and the last one was their worst ever and their worst since Their Satanic Majesties Bowl Movement.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: May 27, 2013 10:45
Very good post RStones24! Don't let the bastards get you down! Yes, this is a good perspective to have. I do get a bit disappointed by the set lists on how static they are, but also, they are playing classic music that really hits to the core of a lot of folks memories and still is inspiring. And seeing them live playing this amazing music is what it is all about. The memory of a classic moment.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 27, 2013 12:41
So gag on from now then. No more japing, only idealization allowed. I'm not so sure I can handle that...
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: May 27, 2013 13:39
Quote
ThrylanQuote
flacnvinyl
Great thread btw. You are wrong on one account... Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Let It Bleed, Bitch, Star Star, Little Queenie.... those are not obscure songs. We are not requesting Gomper or Cool Calm Collected!
The setlist is more warhorse heavy than usual. No bstage to change things up. Few alterations. And sky high prices. If the prices were not insane you'd hear a lot less complaining! This coming from a 29 year old.
Well said. Sharing our dismay, is also a form of healing. To say only positive things would be a dishonor to the Stones. We only expect what they are capable of, and with the exception of LA2, they have been lackluster. This doesn't mean I dont love them; it means I know better.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: May 27, 2013 13:46
Healing from what? How would you feel if every show's setlist on this tour was identical to LA2? Every show?
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
lougio
()
Date: May 27, 2013 13:47
Every great band over the years has written songs that don't belong in their catalog. Emotional Rescue is one of those songs. It doesn't fit the mold of a blues/rock band and never has. These songs came from a period when Mick spent to much time in the basement of Studio 54 getting ripped. How can they justify playing this on their 50 year anniversary tour when songs like Love in Vain, Little Queenie, Bitch, Let it Bleed, Sway, Sweet Virginia and others that are in no way obscure songs are not in the set list. I thought things were going to improve after the LA show but this last show in Toronto may be the worst set list yet. The East Coast fans are not going to be happy with this at all.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: May 27, 2013 13:59
Quote
lougio
Every great band over the years has written songs that don't belong in their catalog. Emotional Rescue is one of those songs. It doesn't fit the mold of a blues/rock band and never has. These songs came from a period when Mick spent to much time in the basement of Studio 54 getting ripped. How can they justify playing this on their 50 year anniversary tour when songs like Love in Vain, Little Queenie, Bitch, Let it Bleed, Sway, Sweet Virginia and others that are in no way obscure songs are not in the set list. I thought things were going to improve after the LA show but this last show in Toronto may be the worst set list yet. The East Coast fans are not going to be happy with this at all.
Every song that you mention has been performed on this tour with the exception of Sweet Virginia. I would love to hear ER played in Boston. As BV stated in his Toronto review to watch Keith get off on playing it!! It's got a nice funk to it.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: May 27, 2013 14:03
I went to see R.E.M. in Norway and they did NOT do their big hit "Aftermath". So I was not happy with than. But may be R.E.M. fans said it was NOT boring because of that!
Bjornulf
Bjornulf
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: May 27, 2013 18:39
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
71TeleQuote
Rstones24
Wow. My first post on IORR and I'm called a punk. I guess you were never 25. Sorry for bothering you.
A sense of irony and sense of humor will go far here, 24.
and why the 24 when he CLAIMS to be 25? hmmm????
As any pumpkin will know the age is betrayed by reality - he's really 26.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: May 27, 2013 18:44
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
The vast majority of them apparently couldn't care less about about new music. I polled them and less than a hundred were in support of a new album.
The vast majority of who? 100 people? So you work for a newspaper now, "polling" a small number of people to determine to the overall truth. Great.
Regardless, a vast majority of people around the world don't care if the Stones do a new album.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: May 27, 2013 18:51
Quote
ThrylanQuote
flacnvinyl
Great thread btw. You are wrong on one account... Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Let It Bleed, Bitch, Star Star, Little Queenie.... those are not obscure songs. We are not requesting Gomper or Cool Calm Collected!
The setlist is more warhorse heavy than usual. No bstage to change things up. Few alterations. And sky high prices. If the prices were not insane you'd hear a lot less complaining! This coming from a 29 year old.
Well said. Sharing our dismay, is also a form of healing. To say only positive things would be a dishonor to the Stones. We only expect what they are capable of, and with the exception of LA2, they have been lackluster. This doesn't mean I dont love them; it means I know better.
That's the whole point. The idea that anyone would be up in arms or confused or anything other than ecstatic if they did those songs anddozens others like them -- not rare obscurities but great Stones songs that most people who are going to a show would know -- is ridiculous. And it is the whole point of the OP. I think it's rubbish, I don't think the Stones or Mick believes it, I think it's just an excuse for being unwilling to rehearse and unable to play such a variety without rehearsing.
It's an insult to the fans to say they would not accept a setlist with such songs, a complete insult.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: May 27, 2013 19:04
Quote
lougio
Every great band over the years has written songs that don't belong in their catalog. Emotional Rescue is one of those songs. It doesn't fit the mold of a blues/rock band and never has. These songs came from a period when Mick spent to much time in the basement of Studio 54 getting ripped. How can they justify playing this on their 50 year anniversary tour when songs like Love in Vain, Little Queenie, Bitch, Let it Bleed, Sway, Sweet Virginia and others that are in no way obscure songs are not in the set list. I thought things were going to improve after the LA show but this last show in Toronto may be the worst set list yet. The East Coast fans are not going to be happy with this at all.
Because they've done those songs you've mentioned on tours over the years yet have never done Emotional Rescue.Emotional Rescue was a huge single in the States and to this day gets radio play.
Doesn't fit? Because of what? They played Melody once - that's jazz. According to what you say that isn't allowed. As well as Sweet Virginia or Faraway Eyes or Dead Flower - those are country songs. Miss You shouldn't be played because it's disco (according to a lot of people). So toss that one.
That's not exactly limiting but it does limit some things they've done.
So go ahead, continue to limit what you think. It's a very common problem in the United States: the red states are the people who don't like any kind of change. It's funny how it can appear in anything. even funnier when it involves any kind of art.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Jah Paul
()
Date: May 27, 2013 19:09
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
lougio
Every great band over the years has written songs that don't belong in their catalog. Emotional Rescue is one of those songs. It doesn't fit the mold of a blues/rock band and never has. These songs came from a period when Mick spent to much time in the basement of Studio 54 getting ripped. How can they justify playing this on their 50 year anniversary tour when songs like Love in Vain, Little Queenie, Bitch, Let it Bleed, Sway, Sweet Virginia and others that are in no way obscure songs are not in the set list. I thought things were going to improve after the LA show but this last show in Toronto may be the worst set list yet. The East Coast fans are not going to be happy with this at all.
Because they've done those songs you've mentioned on tours over the years yet have never done Emotional Rescue.Emotional Rescue was a huge single in the States and to this day gets radio play.
Doesn't fit? Because of what? They played Melody once - that's jazz. According to what you say that isn't allowed. As well as Sweet Virginia or Faraway Eyes or Dead Flower - those are country songs. Miss You shouldn't be played because it's disco (according to a lot of people). So toss that one.
That's not exactly limiting but it does limit some things they've done.
So go ahead, continue to limit what you think. It's a very common problem in the United States: the red states are the people who don't like any kind of change. It's funny how it can appear in anything. even funnier when it involves any kind of art.
I agree with you regarding the Stones, but your comment in bold is completely unnecessary and off base.
It's like if I said it's a very common problem for progressives to bring conservatives into any and every discussion they can, no matter how irrelevant it may be to the subject matter.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: May 27, 2013 19:14
Quote
Maindefender
Healing from what? How would you feel if every show's setlist on this tour was identical to LA2? Every show?
Healing from the disappointment of a relatively static setlist? The nubers DO lie; If you play 23 songs a night, but only change one or two, afafter18 dates, you can claim to have played 57 songs, but, you played the SAME 21 every night, with two surprises, which aren't necessarily surprising. Dont be silly, did I say I wanted LA2 every night? No, I want the spirit of LA2. A little more MT and really, they could rotate 7, and still have 16 warhorses every night. You ever go to a show and here a new song you really dug? It happens and it's pretty cool. Also, I suspect the fan vote for SFM, was an attempt to get MT out more......everyone who has mentioned SFM also mentions MT. I assume this was a fan driven attempt to force the MT hand.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 27, 2013 19:25
Other big artists can and do shake up their set lists. Dylan, Springsteen, McCartney.
To argue they can't, or that we're 'missing the point' is quite naïve.
The argument is that there needs to be a limit to artistry to appease fans that only go to one or two shows.
I doubt very much the casual fan would boycott if they limited the warhorses to only half the set.
To argue they can't, or that we're 'missing the point' is quite naïve.
The argument is that there needs to be a limit to artistry to appease fans that only go to one or two shows.
I doubt very much the casual fan would boycott if they limited the warhorses to only half the set.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
REMChicagoBOY
()
Date: May 27, 2013 19:25
My only issue with the setlist is the catering to the "big hits" casual crowd over the "catalog fans". I do recognize if they play nothing but "deep cuts" the entire show, then the casual fans will start to get bored, and Mick doesn't like that. However, I must say, hearing "Start Me Up" or "SFTD" for the 598th time live does become a major snore. we quit seeing Elton John because of this reason, it's the same 12 songs, over and over and over again. I love Elton's studio catalog, but he's a complete bore live. Elton, like Mick, doesn't like looking at a bored audience when not playing a major hit. I get that.
What I don't get is when you have a major, extensive, diverse catalog, and you choose to play the same songs each night just to please the "hits" fans. Honestly, do they have to play "One More Shot" each night? The song sucks, so drop it each night and replace with a "deep cut" that will please the "catalog fans". I"d kill for a "One HIt (to the Body)" or "Going to a Go-Go" (and neither of those songs are "deep cuts", they were hit singles!)
McCartney completely redid his current setlist for this reason alone. I love "Jet" but it's time to drop it for something else. He is now playing "Your Mother Should Know", "All Together Now" and "Hope of Delverance". It's excellent.
What I don't get is when you have a major, extensive, diverse catalog, and you choose to play the same songs each night just to please the "hits" fans. Honestly, do they have to play "One More Shot" each night? The song sucks, so drop it each night and replace with a "deep cut" that will please the "catalog fans". I"d kill for a "One HIt (to the Body)" or "Going to a Go-Go" (and neither of those songs are "deep cuts", they were hit singles!)
McCartney completely redid his current setlist for this reason alone. I love "Jet" but it's time to drop it for something else. He is now playing "Your Mother Should Know", "All Together Now" and "Hope of Delverance". It's excellent.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 27, 2013 19:39
The Twitter and Facebook people Sir Michael are asking for advice don't even know what a setlist is!
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
fahthree
()
Date: May 27, 2013 20:17
Quote
treaclefingers
I doubt very much the casual fan would boycott if they limited the warhorses to only half the set.
I can see it now....No Miss You and long lines demanding a refund!
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 27, 2013 20:19
Quote
fahthreeQuote
treaclefingers
I doubt very much the casual fan would boycott if they limited the warhorses to only half the set.
I can see it now....No Miss You and long lines demanding a refund!
Yeah, when you have such an incredibly massive and diverse catalogue, you can really do anything you want.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 27, 2013 20:34
It's not just the setlist, it's the way the warhorses are performed. Songs like SMU, BS and JJF have sounded almost the same since 1989. It gets too repetitive. Do you know what I mean? Do you know what I mean?
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: May 27, 2013 20:50
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
The vast majority of them apparently couldn't care less about about new music. I polled them and less than a hundred were in support of a new album.
The vast majority of who? 100 people? So you work for a newspaper now, "polling" a small number of people to determine to the overall truth. Great.
Regardless, a vast majority of people around the world don't care if the Stones do a new album.
I was shocked (and crestfallen) to see such a pathetic show of support for a new album by our so called hardcore fan base here at IORR.
I can understand the casual fan not giving a rip but for so called hardcore fans to show such apathy is quite disturbing.
If the Stones decide to record a new album it won't be for commercial success, rather it will be because they have a burning desire to become recording artists again. And that is really the way it should be anyway. The fans can only do so much and after that it is up to the artist.
As for now (in 2013) it appears that Stones concert goers are willing to pay about $355.00 (on average) for a ticket to see them perform. It seems they are still in demand for their live shows. How long this continues is uncertain.
I have always said that I think they should close out their career with at least one last studio album. Since it probably won't be a commercial success they would be doing it primarily for pride. Let's see if they have any pride left, as artists.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: May 27, 2013 21:04
Quote
Stoneage
It's not just the setlist, it's the way the warhorses are performed. Songs like SMU, BS and JJF have sounded almost the same since 1989. It gets too repetitive. Do you know what I mean? Do you know what I mean?
I am enjoying the shows. I try to imagine myself in the shoes of a first time Stones concert goer-looking through his/her eyes. And Mick Taylor and the guests have definitely added some spice to this tour.
One of the big factors for me on this tour has been: Can they still "bring it?" The answer has been a resounding YES. That alone makes this tour worth following and being excited about.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
crumbling_mice
()
Date: May 27, 2013 21:07
I understand the logical argument in this i.e., The Stones justifying playing the 'classics' to please younger audiences etc, but essentially this argument doesn't hold up...as someone already points out, the likes of Springsteen, Macca and Dylan manage to combine their classics alongside less well known numbers.
The majority of younger fans will expect the big five, JJF, SFTD, BS, Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter. After that they may know 6 or 7 more songs, but will still be blissfully unaware of the remainder and it is these songs which could be revolved or replaced by what we on IORR might call gems. I'd argue that the likes of Shattered, Respectable, Miss You, Get OFf MY Cloud, could be dropped and no young fans would even realise it.
We are entitled to expect some of the tunes never played before, after all they are having rest days, they have the talents of MIck Taylor to hand and it could welll be the last time!
The majority of younger fans will expect the big five, JJF, SFTD, BS, Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter. After that they may know 6 or 7 more songs, but will still be blissfully unaware of the remainder and it is these songs which could be revolved or replaced by what we on IORR might call gems. I'd argue that the likes of Shattered, Respectable, Miss You, Get OFf MY Cloud, could be dropped and no young fans would even realise it.
We are entitled to expect some of the tunes never played before, after all they are having rest days, they have the talents of MIck Taylor to hand and it could welll be the last time!
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
camper88
()
Date: May 27, 2013 21:12
Rstones24,
Your post raises some fair objections to many of the setlist rants we regularly get on IORR. So, fair enough. Good On ya. Duly noted and taken under advisement.
However, as you might imagine, it's not like this is a topic that we haven't thought a lot about; hence, allow me to offer a counter to your post with . . . well, a little different perspective.
A little perspective:
Since the 1989 Steel Wheels tour (and just slightly less than half way through the Rolling Stones 50 year history), the Stones have been a touring band, as opposed to a recording band--with only 3 studio albums of new material released since the 1989 tour, that is, pretty much for half of their existence as a band.
So the question for many fans, given that they don't make new records really, is what do they choose to perform when on tour? Given that this is mostly all the Stones do now, this seems a fair question. Given that they charge as much as $1,500 for a standing only ticket in the pit, this is more than a fair question.
More perspective:
Since 1972, (when the band was a mere ten years old) the touring set has included a subset of songs that have since become referred to as "the warhorses": JJF, BS, Satisfaction, TD, HTW and Happy. Since 1981 (for more than 25 years), this set has expanded to include SMU, SG.
In a concert of approximately 22 songs like Toronto's, about 37% of the songs are the same songs that the band has played for every single concert for over 30 years. This number approaches 55% of all songs if you include IORR, SFTD, and Gimme Shelter. That is, for more than half of the band's life, over half of the songs that the band plays live (as a touring band, not a recording band) have been the same. Gig in, gig out.
Now if this were the Rockettes' Christmas Pageant at Radio City Music Hall or Handel's Messiah or Tchiakovsky's Nutcracker, I could see why people wouldn't want to have the playlist messed with--tradition and all that, and new generations getting to hear the same stale Christmas songs that people listened to in 1950--or 1741 (if you're a big Handel fan)
.
But it's not Handel and it's not the Rockettes.
It's Rock'n' Roll.
Final perspective:
The one thing about rock n' roll, it's like the proverbial shark: if it stops moving, it dies. It can't be preserved under glass, it can't be put on display (sorry Cleveland), and it can't live on Broadway or a Vegas stage (sorry Billy Joel and ABBA). It's born to raise hell, burn up, and not fade away. With all respect to that special guest from Nashville, that ain't rock'n roll, and I don't like it.
That's what's at the heart of the setlist requests. Not an aversion to some of the greatest songs written in the last 50 years, but a love of the raw dynamism and inventiveness of the band that created this music. We don't think that they can do more, we know they can.
We just want them to hit this with the same passion and force that they had when they changed the world the first 100 times, with songs they already know and we already love.
Cheers,
On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-27 21:20 by camper88.
Your post raises some fair objections to many of the setlist rants we regularly get on IORR. So, fair enough. Good On ya. Duly noted and taken under advisement.
However, as you might imagine, it's not like this is a topic that we haven't thought a lot about; hence, allow me to offer a counter to your post with . . . well, a little different perspective.
A little perspective:
Since the 1989 Steel Wheels tour (and just slightly less than half way through the Rolling Stones 50 year history), the Stones have been a touring band, as opposed to a recording band--with only 3 studio albums of new material released since the 1989 tour, that is, pretty much for half of their existence as a band.
So the question for many fans, given that they don't make new records really, is what do they choose to perform when on tour? Given that this is mostly all the Stones do now, this seems a fair question. Given that they charge as much as $1,500 for a standing only ticket in the pit, this is more than a fair question.
More perspective:
Since 1972, (when the band was a mere ten years old) the touring set has included a subset of songs that have since become referred to as "the warhorses": JJF, BS, Satisfaction, TD, HTW and Happy. Since 1981 (for more than 25 years), this set has expanded to include SMU, SG.
In a concert of approximately 22 songs like Toronto's, about 37% of the songs are the same songs that the band has played for every single concert for over 30 years. This number approaches 55% of all songs if you include IORR, SFTD, and Gimme Shelter. That is, for more than half of the band's life, over half of the songs that the band plays live (as a touring band, not a recording band) have been the same. Gig in, gig out.
Now if this were the Rockettes' Christmas Pageant at Radio City Music Hall or Handel's Messiah or Tchiakovsky's Nutcracker, I could see why people wouldn't want to have the playlist messed with--tradition and all that, and new generations getting to hear the same stale Christmas songs that people listened to in 1950--or 1741 (if you're a big Handel fan)
.
But it's not Handel and it's not the Rockettes.
It's Rock'n' Roll.
Final perspective:
The one thing about rock n' roll, it's like the proverbial shark: if it stops moving, it dies. It can't be preserved under glass, it can't be put on display (sorry Cleveland), and it can't live on Broadway or a Vegas stage (sorry Billy Joel and ABBA). It's born to raise hell, burn up, and not fade away. With all respect to that special guest from Nashville, that ain't rock'n roll, and I don't like it.
That's what's at the heart of the setlist requests. Not an aversion to some of the greatest songs written in the last 50 years, but a love of the raw dynamism and inventiveness of the band that created this music. We don't think that they can do more, we know they can.
We just want them to hit this with the same passion and force that they had when they changed the world the first 100 times, with songs they already know and we already love.
Cheers,
On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-27 21:20 by camper88.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: May 27, 2013 21:18
Quote
crumbling_mice
I understand the logical argument in this i.e., The Stones justifying playing the 'classics' to please younger audiences etc, but essentially this argument doesn't hold up...as someone already points out, the likes of Springsteen, Macca and Dylan manage to combine their classics alongside less well known numbers.
The majority of younger fans will expect the big five, JJF, SFTD, BS, Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter. After that they may know 6 or 7 more songs, but will still be blissfully unaware of the remainder and it is these songs which could be revolved or replaced by what we on IORR might call gems. I'd argue that the likes of Shattered, Respectable, Miss You, Get OFf MY Cloud, could be dropped and no young fans would even realise it.
We are entitled to expect some of the tunes never played before, after all they are having rest days, they have the talents of MIck Taylor to hand and it could welll be the last time!
Is it possible that at their age the memory bank has shrunk a bit? I am their age and I can't even remember all my nieces and nephews names. I think maybe we need to cut them a little slack. They have done 56 songs so far.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
crumbling_mice
()
Date: May 27, 2013 21:46
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
crumbling_mice
I understand the logical argument in this i.e., The Stones justifying playing the 'classics' to please younger audiences etc, but essentially this argument doesn't hold up...as someone already points out, the likes of Springsteen, Macca and Dylan manage to combine their classics alongside less well known numbers.
The majority of younger fans will expect the big five, JJF, SFTD, BS, Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter. After that they may know 6 or 7 more songs, but will still be blissfully unaware of the remainder and it is these songs which could be revolved or replaced by what we on IORR might call gems. I'd argue that the likes of Shattered, Respectable, Miss You, Get OFf MY Cloud, could be dropped and no young fans would even realise it.
We are entitled to expect some of the tunes never played before, after all they are having rest days, they have the talents of MIck Taylor to hand and it could welll be the last time!
Is it possible that at their age the memory bank has shrunk a bit? I am their age and I can't even remember all my nieces and nephews names. I think maybe we need to cut them a little slack. They have done 56 songs so far.
I think Macca and Dylan are older!
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
bobo
()
Date: May 27, 2013 21:57
Quote
Rstones24
Hey everyone. I'm 25, been checking out these boards forever since I went to my first Stones show in 2002 on the Licks tour. I've just never registered until now.
I've been to 6 Stones shows, and will be going to 3 more when they come back east.
Why now? I can't believe how many of you are bashing the Stones! We are all guilty of losing perspective in our lives with various things, and from my vantage point, the diehard Stones fans are REALLY guilty of this with their setlist complaining.
Please, take a step back and think. Okay, there are say 20K fans at a Stones show. How many of those fans are going to multiple shows? Consider the ticket prices. Maybe 5%? So 1K out of 20K? And how many of those fans that are going to multiple shows are "diehard" fans, who only want to hear the obscure songs? Even less than that! Everyones judgment on here is clouded because you are such huge Stones fans. You follow the setlist every night. You watch every single Youtube video. No wonder you get tired of hearing the same songs over and over?
Consider this: On May 3rd, everyone was so happy they played Emotional Rescue. Now, literally 23 days later, people bitch and moan when they play that, because they're not switching it up. Wait a minute...how many people that heard Emotional Rescue on the west coast also heard it last night in Toronto? I'd venture less than 50-100 fans. Yet what's changed? All of you watching it on Youtube after every show? How is that the Stones' fault? How is it their fault that everyone going to the Philly shows in June are stalking the setlist every night in May? If you want to be surprised, don't look at the setlist.
The Stones are my favorite band in the world. Yes, I want to hear the obscure songs. But when I go see Bruce Springsteen, I'm pissed off when he doesn't play Glory Days, Born to Run, Rosalita, etc. Just as a normal person who is seeing the Stones for the 3rd time ever and don't watch every Youtube video from every show would be pissed off if they don't hear Honky Tonk Woman, Tumbling Dice, or Miss You.
I just can't believe the lack of perspective by many intelligent folks on here. It's mind-boggling. Mailing it in? I have a great friend that went to the Toronto show. He hasn't missed a tour since 1981, but he's still just a "casual" fan. He's a bigger music fan in general than Stones fan. After the show last night, he texted me saying it's the best he's ever seen them. He just went and enjoyed the music, rather than picking apart every bum note or noticing how close Keith went to Mick or complaining about the last minute of SFM.
Please, please...get some perspective! 90% of the fans DO NOT want to go to a concert, spend $300 a ticket, and not know the words to songs 4-12 like you guys want to happen. It's just a fact. The Rolling Stones are 100% correct in believing this. Ask anyone who isn't a diehard Shidobee or IORR or Rocksoff person and they'll tell you the same thing.
If Michael Jackson came back to live and you went to see him for the novelty of it (assuming you aren't a diehard MJ fan), would you be upset or be totally fine if he didn't play Billy Jean, Beat It, Smooth Criminal, PYT, Don't Stop, etc? Or would you say he's mailing it in?
Thanks for listening. Rant over.
I'm a so called diehard but what you say is very true. Ofcourse I would like to hear all the obscure stuff but if they play more than one show in a town they usually mix it up a bit and that's good.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 27, 2013 22:13
Quote
Stoneage
It's not just the setlist, it's the way the warhorses are performed. Songs like SMU, BS and JJF have sounded almost the same since 1989. It gets too repetitive. Do you know what I mean? Do you know what I mean?
whaddya mean?!
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: May 27, 2013 22:19
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Stoneage
It's not just the setlist, it's the way the warhorses are performed. Songs like SMU, BS and JJF have sounded almost the same since 1989. It gets too repetitive. Do you know what I mean? Do you know what I mean?
whaddya mean?!
I mean it gets repetitive. I mean it gets repetitive. I mean...
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: May 27, 2013 22:19
Quote
Jah PaulQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
lougio
Every great band over the years has written songs that don't belong in their catalog. Emotional Rescue is one of those songs. It doesn't fit the mold of a blues/rock band and never has. These songs came from a period when Mick spent to much time in the basement of Studio 54 getting ripped. How can they justify playing this on their 50 year anniversary tour when songs like Love in Vain, Little Queenie, Bitch, Let it Bleed, Sway, Sweet Virginia and others that are in no way obscure songs are not in the set list. I thought things were going to improve after the LA show but this last show in Toronto may be the worst set list yet. The East Coast fans are not going to be happy with this at all.
Because they've done those songs you've mentioned on tours over the years yet have never done Emotional Rescue.Emotional Rescue was a huge single in the States and to this day gets radio play.
Doesn't fit? Because of what? They played Melody once - that's jazz. According to what you say that isn't allowed. As well as Sweet Virginia or Faraway Eyes or Dead Flower - those are country songs. Miss You shouldn't be played because it's disco (according to a lot of people). So toss that one.
That's not exactly limiting but it does limit some things they've done.
So go ahead, continue to limit what you think. It's a very common problem in the United States: the red states are the people who don't like any kind of change. It's funny how it can appear in anything. even funnier when it involves any kind of art.
I agree with you regarding the Stones, but your comment in bold is completely unnecessary and off base.
It's like if I said it's a very common problem for progressives to bring conservatives into any and every discussion they can, no matter how irrelevant it may be to the subject matter.
It was strictly making a point of about knuckle clenching conservatism, which that in bold demonstrates fantastically.
Re: You guys are REALLY missing the point with the setlists...
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: May 27, 2013 22:25
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
JumpinJackOLantern
The vast majority of them apparently couldn't care less about about new music. I polled them and less than a hundred were in support of a new album.
The vast majority of who? 100 people? So you work for a newspaper now, "polling" a small number of people to determine to the overall truth. Great.
Regardless, a vast majority of people around the world don't care if the Stones do a new album.
I was shocked (and crestfallen) to see such a pathetic show of support for a new album by our so called hardcore fan base here at IORR.
That's what you get for assuming such idiocy. Being a Stones fan, regardless of what kind, on a Stones board does not make it automatic that wanting a new album is a given. The general population hasn't cared for a new Stones album since Steel Wheels - and the only reason that one got any attention was that was back when things went by slow and the last one was their worst ever and their worst since Their Satanic Majesties Bowl Movement.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.