Last night in Wembley I experienced the most astonishingly beautiful concert. The Boss showed his true self., his essence, he and the E Street Band played their hearts out and truly connected with the audience. The set list was out of this world: they took requests from the audience and played an entire album Darkness on The Edge of Town. I do not seek to make any comparison between Springsteen and The Stones, as they are completely different artists, the point I was trying to make is if the Stones can play at such a level of extraordinary beauty and achieve that perferct connection with the audience. Now as a bit of background, Springsteen is my 2nd favorite artist after the Stones, and I have this belief (maybe it is a delusion) that the Stones have somewhere the capability to achieve this superior level in Hyde Park as London is their natural home. Maybe I am a dreamer.......

You can't compare Springsteen and the Stones, Bruce is far and away a better concert experience for the reasons you have stated...playing songs off of signs in the audience, differing his setlists by fifty percent every night, giving his fans a different experience at every show.
In Hyde Park you can expect the Stones to play most of the same setlist they have played since 1972...greatest hits because that is what their fans are used to, no imagination or change at all!

Nothing wrong with being a dreamer!

You can say Springsteen is the better concert experience and I disagree. Very different from the Stones and he is a great performer but I just find the Stones a cut above him. When he guested with them he came off as an amateur IMO. He is not in their league at all. I love his music but his music is just nowhere near as good as the Stones or the Who for that matter.

This is the set list for HYDE PARK 1:


Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Paint It Black
Gimme Shelter
A-1
A-2
A-3
Emotional Rescue
Doom And Gloom
One More Shot
Honky Tonk Women
--- Band presentation
A-4 (Keith)
A-5 (Keith)
Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)
Miss You
Start Me Up
Tumbling Dice
Brown Sugar
Sympathy For The Devil
--- Band off stage
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction (with Mick Taylor)

This is the set list for HYDE PARK 2:

Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Paint It Black
Gimme Shelter
B-1
B-2
B-3
Emotional Rescue
Doom And Gloom
One More Shot
Honky Tonk Women
--- Band presentation
B-4 (Keith)
B-5 (Keith)
Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)
Miss You
Start Me Up
Tumbling Dice
Brown Sugar
Sympathy For The Devil
--- Band off stage
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction (with Mick Taylor)

There might be surprises and probably guest artists, but this is the Rolling Stones, you do know what you get.

Bjornulf

bv - You are probably right and for the most part if you go see the show it IS an extraordinary experience at least that is what I think.

Can the Rolling Stones pull something out the bag ?

i'm picturing mick jagger traipsing around the park with a butterfy net right now

In a ridiculous looking white dress????

Bruce and the E Street band are a working band with a vast repertoire they can pull out any time.

The Stones used to be a working band many many years ago. Now, they are a bunch of guys who got back together, got some old songs back to the point where they can play them in public for a short nostalgia tour, and that's it.

I like the Stones catalog much better than Bruce's, but there really is no comparison between the two as a live act these days. What the Stones do on stage does not come close to what Bruce does.

The Stones are incredible performers and I worship them. What I meant was that Springsteen performace last night was on another level to that in Hyde Park last year which was incredible. I can compare it to same of the travelling I have done. I loved and enjoyed all my travelling, but there experiences that tapped into
my emotions on a superior level such as spending time on St Kilda Scotland or sleeping under the stars in the Sahara desert. Anyway I am dreaming that the Stones always incredible can reach for the stars and achieve the extraordinary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-16 20:23 by desertblues68.

Quote
bv
This is the set list for HYDE PARK 1:


Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Paint It Black
Gimme Shelter
A-1
A-2
A-3
Emotional Rescue
Doom And Gloom
One More Shot
Honky Tonk Women
--- Band presentation
A-4 (Keith)
A-5 (Keith)
Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)
Miss You
Start Me Up
Tumbling Dice
Brown Sugar
Sympathy For The Devil
--- Band off stage
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction (with Mick Taylor)

This is the set list for HYDE PARK 2:

Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Paint It Black
Gimme Shelter
B-1
B-2
B-3
Emotional Rescue
Doom And Gloom
One More Shot
Honky Tonk Women
--- Band presentation
B-4 (Keith)
B-5 (Keith)
Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)
Miss You
Start Me Up
Tumbling Dice
Brown Sugar
Sympathy For The Devil
--- Band off stage
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction (with Mick Taylor)

There might be surprises and probably guest artists, but this is the Rolling Stones, you do know what you get.

if we get these setlists, i`ll take it thankfully, hopefully not less than this....

Quote
bv

There might be surprises and probably guest artists, but this is the Rolling Stones, you do know what you get.

I'm hoping 'what we get' is a full length show. Not a shortened festival set (like Isle of Wight 2007)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-16 20:31 by Gazza.

Quote
Rokyfan
Bruce and the E Street band are a working band with a vast repertoire they can pull out any time.

The Stones used to be a working band many many years ago. Now, they are a bunch of guys who got back together, got some old songs back to the point where they can play them in public for a short nostalgia tour, and that's it.

I like the Stones catalog much better than Bruce's, but there really is no comparison between the two as a live act these days. What the Stones do on stage does not come close to what Bruce does.

I guess Bruce and the E Street band work really hard for the tours and they rehearse a huge collection of songs, the Stones have never done this, even in their greatest years, they didn't variate the songs very much between the concerts during the same tour, I saw Bruce in Helsinki last year, it was a 4 hour show, he didn't play his biggest hits at all in the first 2 hours! I'm not a really big Springsteen fan but for his hard core fans this concert must have been amazing and I was very jealous to them, and I must say that Bruce and the band had just unbelievable energy for the whole 4 hours, I have never been to that kind of concert before. It seemed to me that they hadn't even planned to play this long in advance (Jagger is a control freak and everything must be planned in advance so carefully especially nowadays), there was clearly a spontaneous feeling in the air, and Bruce was so excited like he would have liked to play even longer... This spontaneous feeling isn't really anymore in the Stones shows which is sad. But I really hope that they take significantly more risks in the Hyde Park concerts and variate the setlist from what have been seen in America but I'm a little skeptical that they will do. Maybe the problem is the lack of rehearsing, they can play the warhorses but the great majority of their catalog is something they can't really perform, they should take one year just to rehearse every day and be like a real band maybe after that it would be possible to variate the setlist in the way Bruce is capable of doing.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
bv

There might be surprises and probably guest artists, but this is the Rolling Stones, you do know what you get.

I'm hoping 'what we get' is a full length show. Not a shortened festival set (like Isle of Wight 2007)

This is the issue. Is this a "normal" 50 AND COUNTING gig or an extra festival gig? If the latter, we might expect a few songs less. I have had my doubts that the Hyde Park gigs are a kind of bonus for (a huge) AEG deal they had for an American tour. and not be treated as business as usual. I hope I'm wrong.

- Doxa

What the Stones do every night is extraordinary!! Every night, but people on this board getting used to it, even bored cuase they think it `s normal that there is a rockband full of original members in their seventies (!!) to bring up a 2,5 hour show with fitness, musicianship , spontanity and and and..
That is ertraordinary!
When Springsteen came up the Stones have had two careers behind. Springsteen will do it when he is 70, like Macca. But they can change the members in the band. So it`s easy when Macca has a fresh rock-sound with these young and flahy guitarists. So can Springsteen do in a few years. But doing it with the original members is different. We are fortunate that our band is showing the way again for all the following aged musicians.

Tom

Quote
electricmud
What the Stones do every night is extraordinary!! Every night, but people on this board getting used to it, even bored cuase they think it `s normal that there is a rockband full of original members in their seventies (!!)

Tom

There are only two original members, Mick and Keith, three( Charlie) if you count them being a full time band with manager, tours and recording contract act as the real beginning.

Quote
His Majesty
There are only two original members, Mick and Keith, three( Charlie) if you count them being a full time band with manager, tours and recording contract act as the real beginning.

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ....... no words.


Tom

Quote
electricmud

Quote
His Majesty
There are only two original members, Mick and Keith, three( Charlie) if you count them being a full time band with manager, tours and recording contract act as the real beginning.

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ....... no words.


Tom

Blame history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-16 22:09 by His Majesty.

Invite Bill, and let him play on all songs. That would make a world of difference.

Quote
rollingon

Quote
Rokyfan
Bruce and the E Street band are a working band with a vast repertoire they can pull out any time.

The Stones used to be a working band many many years ago. Now, they are a bunch of guys who got back together, got some old songs back to the point where they can play them in public for a short nostalgia tour, and that's it.

I like the Stones catalog much better than Bruce's, but there really is no comparison between the two as a live act these days. What the Stones do on stage does not come close to what Bruce does.

I guess Bruce and the E Street band work really hard for the tours and they rehearse a huge collection of songs, the Stones have never done this, even in their greatest years, they didn't variate the songs very much between the concerts during the same tour, I saw Bruce in Helsinki last year, it was a 4 hour show, he didn't play his biggest hits at all in the first 2 hours! I'm not a really big Springsteen fan but for his hard core fans this concert must have been amazing and I was very jealous to them, and I must say that Bruce and the band had just unbelievable energy for the whole 4 hours, I have never been to that kind of concert before. It seemed to me that they hadn't even planned to play this long in advance (Jagger is a control freak and everything must be planned in advance so carefully especially nowadays), there was clearly a spontaneous feeling in the air, and Bruce was so excited like he would have liked to play even longer... This spontaneous feeling isn't really anymore in the Stones shows which is sad. But I really hope that they take significantly more risks in the Hyde Park concerts and variate the setlist from what have been seen in America but I'm a little skeptical that they will do. Maybe the problem is the lack of rehearsing, they can play the warhorses but the great majority of their catalog is something they can't really perform, they should take one year just to rehearse every day and be like a real band maybe after that it would be possible to variate the setlist in the way Bruce is capable of doing.

The Stones actually rehearse for several weeks longer before a tour than the E Street Band do. The ESB generally do a couple of weeks - they tend to work up songs into the show at soundchecks etc as the tour progresses.

Before they do a world tour, the Stones tend to rehearse for about 5-6 weeks. The main difference is that one band's musicians tend to remain active in between tours and the other band's doesn't.

As you probably know, the show you saw in Helsinki last year was the longest concert Bruce has ever played. 4 hours and 5 minutes, I think - and that didnt count the 20 minute pre-show acoustic set he played a couple of hours beforehand.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-16 22:17 by Gazza.

Quote
electricmud
When Springsteen came up the Stones have had two careers behind. Springsteen will do it when he is 70, like Macca. But they can change the members in the band. So it`s easy when Macca has a fresh rock-sound with these young and flahy guitarists. So can Springsteen do in a few years. But doing it with the original members is different. We are fortunate that our band is showing the way again for all the following aged musicians.

Tom

A common misnomer about Paul's band...although they're all younger than he is, other than the drummer Abe (who's 42), none of them are young dudes! Rusty Anderson (lead guitar) is 54...Brian Ray (guitar/bass) is 58...and keyboardist "Wix" is 57. And they've all been together for the past 11 years, so there's been no "changing out" during that time.

Quote
electricmud

When Springsteen came up the Stones have had two careers behind. Springsteen will do it when he is 70, like Macca. But they can change the members in the band. So it`s easy when Macca has a fresh rock-sound with these young and flahy guitarists. So can Springsteen do in a few years. But doing it with the original members is different. We are fortunate that our band is showing the way again for all the following aged musicians.

Tom

Two careers behind them? Bruce is six years younger than Mick & Keith. His first record was released 9 and a half years after them and he had been a working musician since 1966. His 'young and flashy' guitarists are 62 (and one of them has had a double hip replacement!)- the same age that Keith reached during the last Stones tour and older than Woody was during it. The core of the band has basically been unchanged for about three decades apart from two members dying. Like the Stones its occasionally been supplemented by horn players and backing singers to expand the sound for tours.

I do agree with what you said about what the Stones are doing is extraordinary, but we'll have to agree to disagree on your claim that they have great spontaneity. Thats something thats never been their strong point, either in impromptu song choices (by that I mean something that they'll just decide to play on the spur of the moment - not bringing in occasional rarities that theyve rehearsed) or in the way the songs are performed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-16 22:30 by Gazza.

...instead of butterflies this time what about
some killer bees ta get the crowd up on their feet ...... aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh



ROCKMAN

Quote
Gazza

Quote
bv

There might be surprises and probably guest artists, but this is the Rolling Stones, you do know what you get.

I'm hoping 'what we get' is a full length show. Not a shortened festival set (like Isle of Wight 2007)

My words exactly:

Date: April 4, 2013

I just hope that the Stones will play a full set (let´s say 2 hours)
and not a shortened one as part of a festival lineup (like Toronto 2003
or Isle of Wight 2007), both with a 16/15 song set lasting for 1 hour
and 40 or 30 minutes.

I'm a huge Bruce fan, but I think it's only fair to note that his shows aren't as spontaneous as they appear (especially the request section). Which takes nothing away from the fact that he's an amazing performer. My brother was also at Wembley last night, and was blown away.

But Bruce and the Stones are apples and oranges in terms of their band and musical histories and approaches--the fact that they're both rock bands is about all they have in common.

I can't understand this fixation with quantity. Personally I, almost always, prefer quality over quantity. In fact I would prefer the band to play 90 minutes and cut the second part warhorse bonanza in half.
90 minutes is the perfect format for movies, cassette tapes and rock concerts...

I was not comparing the two artists as you say they are completely different, I was wondering whether the Stones can blow the audience away in Hyde Park and play beautifully. We have seen glimpses of this in the last tour, but from reports there has not been a performance at a superior level. Some of the fans coming to.Hyde Park could not afford or could not get tickets for the 02 in November.They would be disappointed if they got a shorter than usual set and a very good but stll not excellent concert.

How good would it be if they opened with "I'm Yours & I'm Hers" ! Now that would be a surprise !

The Dead would play for five hours and jam and vary the set list. Would you rather see them than the Stones? Apples and oranges. The first time I saw Bruce in '75 he kept returning for encores until a third of the audience was left. I liked it but the Stones have always had a completely different vibe and mindset.