Check out 72:
[rocksoff.org]

And 69:
[rocksoff.org]

They played ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME SHOW EVERY SINGLE NIGHT!

The difference today is that they have no new music that anyone cares about, whereas on those two tours, roughly 60-80% of the sets were devoted to music recorded in the prior 1-2 years.

So you had that element of discovery, excitement, of seeing a band at its creative peak and firing on all cylinders. The cool didn't come from the set list variation; they played the same songs EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.

Now that they are an oldies act, we want them to do what they never did in their prime: play different songs every night.

It's just kind of curious ...

best oldies act ever!

Quote
LongBeachArena72
Check out 72:
[rocksoff.org]

And 69:
[rocksoff.org]

They played ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME SHOW EVERY SINGLE NIGHT!

The difference today is that they have no new music that anyone cares about, whereas on those two tours, roughly 60-80% of the sets were devoted to music recorded in the prior 1-2 years.

So you had that element of discovery, excitement, of seeing a band at its creative peak and firing on all cylinders. The cool didn't come from the set list variation; they played the same songs EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.

Now that they are an oldies act, we want them to do what they never did in their prime: play different songs every night.

It's just kind of curious ...

not bi-curious, just curious then.

Disagree, it is the set lists. I want them to rotate the warhorses so those of us that go to multiple shows don't have to listen to the same exact 2nd half of the show every time. These songs can be rotated into the 2nd half of the show once in a while and played instead of HTW, SFTD, MY, TD -

Street Fighting Man
Under My Thumb
Lets Spend the Night Together
Beast of Burden
Shattered
Mixed Emotions
Love is Strong
She's So Cold
She was Hot

So?

I personally liked A Bigger Bang. Others didn't. So what? I love Doom and Gloom!
I am always up and dancing-even at my age-whenever it comes up on my iPod.

What do you want, sugar? Do you want a brilliant, imaginary band churning out solid gold tracks every year? Where is this band? The Beatles did extremely well but they have been gone forever. Dylan? Poor old Bob is dry.

We are blessed with this brilliant band, called The Rolling Stones, who have been around "50 years and counting" who have a sterling huge number of LPs behind them.
No-not all were great, but a hell of a lot of those LPs were marvelous.

I do not see what there is to complain about.

Bless the Rolling Stones and thank you for all the years of GREAT music.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, WH. Was just pointing out that LOTS of people here complain about lack of variety in the set lists when the Stones have never been the kind of band that played fast and loose with their sets every night.

Charlie can still keep time, Keith is still upright, Mick is still gymnastic enough to pull it off. They're poster-kids for the gerontological set; the fact that they can still do this for 2 hrs 2-3 times per week for a cpl of months defies logic.

But it's also a fact that they are—pure & simple—nostalgia and evoke memories of past glories rather than challenge each other and their audience with new music. Nothing wrong with memories, though.

I know it's hopelessly naive of me, but I just miss the days before they were co-opted, before they were dried-up creatively, when they thumbed their noses at the world, and were (or at least seemed) dangerous.

Couldn't disagree more. It isn't the 60s or 70s anymore and live concerts have evolved. Most bands back in those days played the same set of songs every night, yes the music being new made it somewhat different in some aspects. But back then most people were seeing these bands in concert for the first time and many the only time during a particular tour. Bands from those days who still tour today probably know that many of the people in the crowd have seen them before. And what disappoints me and many of my friends when we go to see them each tour is no element of surprise. Seeing the Stones in Boston in 2002, 2005 and then in Philly a few night ago its all the same songs. They did 3 new songs in 2005 and 2 the other night but besides that nothing that different. For a band with a catelog like theirs its really them hurting themselves by not mixing up even a little with the warhorses since they have probably about 30 or more songs that most people at a Stones show would know.

Every time I see other bands from this era there seems to be so much variation in what I hear them play or that "wow this is so cool to hear" but not with the Stones. Yeah I got lucky and saw them at the Beacon and it was great cause they didn't march out the same parade of warhorses that they can almost seem bored playing. But not everyone gets that chance to see them in that setting. So for many of my friends that are Stones fans they don't bother to shell out this kind of money to see them do the same set act they roll out so often.

Since I have nothing better to do I made a year-by-year rundown of the Philly setlist and it looks something like this:

1960's - 10 songs (65,65,66,68,68,69,69,69,69,69)
1970's - 7 songs (71,71,71,72,74,78,78)
1980's - 2 songs (80,81)
1990's - 0 songs
2000's - 0 songs.
2010's - 2 songs (2012,2012)

The average Stones song on the setlist is from 1975.

I disagree. Even though I would love to see a show without any warhorses as I've heard them too many times, they have to play all there great hits. I just wish that they would mix up the first part of the show more. I get it that they keep the first four songs the same as it is important to have a steady rocking start of the show. But still, they have many songs that a suitable for this part of the show.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Wuudy
I disagree. Even though I would love to see a show without any warhorses as I've heard them too many times, they have to play all there great hits. I just wish that they would mix up the first part of the show more. I get it that they keep the first four songs the same as it is important to have a steady rocking start of the show. But still, they have many songs that a suitable for this part of the show.

they dont. And they arent. They just happen to always play the same bloody ones. For decades on end. Look, NO ONE is going to walk out in protest or vow not to come back if, say, on the night they went, they dropped 'Start me Up' and replaced it with '19th Nervous Breakdown' or 'Love is strong' or 'Shattered'.

Anyone who cant see this cant be listening or watching any other act. Anyone realises that its unreasonable for an act with 50 years of music behind them and as many great songs as anyone else in history to play ALL their best known and loved songs.

There are scores of songs that everyone attending a Stones show should reasonably be expected to know very well which dont get played at all or hardly ever. They could rotate even two or three of those songs in and out of the average show per night and still play a show similar in impact to what theyre doing now but with a little variety. Surely that would be better for the concert goer to have a tiny element of surprise and for the band as well? As it stands at the minute, you could go home after 7 or 8 songs and, unless Keith mixes his mini set up a bit, you will know exactly what the last two thirds of the show will consist of and in what order.

I'm not even getting into the seemingly unreasonable expectation that they play anything unusual or 'deep'. They dont even have to dig THAT deep to make the show more interesting. Its good to see that theyve been playing well and that the fans are enjoying the shows, but imagination-wise, theyre completely on auto pilot.

Quote
WindyHorses
So?

I personally liked A Bigger Bang. Others didn't. So what? I love Doom and Gloom!
I am always up and dancing-even at my age-whenever it comes up on my iPod.

What do you want, sugar? Do you want a brilliant, imaginary band churning out solid gold tracks every year? Where is this band? The Beatles did extremely well but they have been gone forever. Dylan? Poor old Bob is dry. .

Yeah his last five albums of new material - amongst the most successful of his career - have proved hes washed up. The five that hes put out in the time that the Stones - a band with three songwriters - have managed to release ONE new record.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-20 04:03 by Gazza.

they've been on autopilot for YEARS !

By mixing up their setlists like most acts, they would also entice more fans to go to multiple shows.
Sure, there will always be the hard-core who still go to as many shows as they can afford regardless of what they play, but for other fans (like myself) who know 95% of the setlist before they step in the door, 1 show is enough.
Unless they start mixing up their setlists then there's no point going to another near-replica of a concert.

I think charging a third of the prices theyre charging - as most acts do - would encourage more people to go to multiple shows...or even one show. LOL

I doubt they care about that, to be honest. They still get paid, either way.

Since BV has seen the Stones many times on this and past tours, I'd be interested in his opinion on the set lists this year thus far.

I saw them last night in Philly... I find the set list boring and I've only seen four shows..

but watching last night I just think the entire show is built around covering for Keith/ take the focus of attention away from him.. there is no way he could do much more than he does..to me it looked like he wasn't even playing most of the time..

I disagree with the original poster. IT'S THE SETLISTS!!!! Plenty of bands thrived as a live act long after their albums contained anything memorable. The Grateful Dead comes to mind, so do the Allman Brothers and even U2!

If you're going to hit the road and ask your fans to get on the bus year after (every few) year(s), then you have to vary your presentation. The Stones halfhearted attempt at variation -- switching a few songs in the first part of their show, while parading out the same snoozefest of so-called "warhorses" -- is the reason I haven't bothered to go see them live since 1998.

I'm not completely ungrateful and I admire the music they've turned out. I just think that there's a parallel narrative to the "Greatest Rock n Roll Band" story, which is that they've missed so many opportunties, tour after tour, to truly remind their fans why they are the greatest.

Parading out the same songs instead of digging into their vast catalogue and leting it rip is a poor surrogate for demonstrating greatness...
...or justifying soaring ticket prices.

I don't care if they are completely static......there are a few that have been beaten to death!!! I MY has appeared in over 95% of the shows since it was recorded. Same for SMU and TD. JJF & HTW won't ever leave, but it is interesting that the two tours that get a lot of love on here, 72', didn't have SFTD, and 81'-82' didn't have SFTD or GS.....those tours were fine. Christ, I almost miss Shattered, and I have seen it 4-5 shows. Watch the first seven, then go home, put on Hot Rocks, and pat yourself on the back for not buying 40 Licks, or Grrr!

[[color=#FFFFFF].[/color]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 17:41 by camper88.

Well laid out and said.

Isn't it ironic for them to have half the fans complaining that the tickets are too expensive, and the other half complaining that the set lists are not designed for people seeing multiple shows on the tour?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-20 09:00 by sonomastone.

I'm a one show per tour guy. NS was about the last time for me. I would like to do one more show, but without much new material, the surprise factor is low. Every other tour, they've also whipped out a chestnut or two....ER is a welcome surprise, but that's about it. There have been tours where I considered multiple shows....but not this one. 7-23, I mean 22, er, I mean 21 look pretty stagnant and set.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
they've been on autopilot for YEARS !

By mixing up their setlists like most acts, they would also entice more fans to go to multiple shows.
Sure, there will always be the hard-core who still go to as many shows as they can afford regardless of what they play, but for other fans (like myself) who know 95% of the setlist before they step in the door, 1 show is enough.
Unless they start mixing up their setlists then there's no point going to another near-replica of a concert.

I really doubt that "enticing more fans to go to multiple shows" is anywhere on their radar. Multi-show patrons are very, very big fans already (top 5%? top 2%). They're captured. The tickets sell pretty well anyway, without the multiple sales.

What I can't figure out is that in putting these tours/shows together, with their repetative set list of war horses, are the stones (a) serving the public, (b) expanding their fan base, or (c) lazy? It's (a) if you figure that the this is really what most people-- all but the hardcore fans-- want to hear. It's (b) if they want to appeal to and educate the young and newbie while they have the chance. It's (c) if they're old and tired and just looking for (yet another) big pay day.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-20 10:14 by Mister_D.

I didn't know there was a problem.

Quote
Mister_D

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
they've been on autopilot for YEARS !

By mixing up their setlists like most acts, they would also entice more fans to go to multiple shows.
Sure, there will always be the hard-core who still go to as many shows as they can afford regardless of what they play, but for other fans (like myself) who know 95% of the setlist before they step in the door, 1 show is enough.
Unless they start mixing up their setlists then there's no point going to another near-replica of a concert.

I really doubt that "enticing more fans to go to multiple shows" is anywhere on their radar. Multi-show patrons are very, very big fans already (top 5%? top 2%). They're captured. The tickets sell pretty well anyway, without the multiple sales.

What I can't figure out is that in putting these tours/shows together, with their repetative set list of war horses, are the stones (a) serving the public, (b) expanding their fan base, or (c) lazy? It's (a) if you figure that the this is really what most people-- all but the hardcore fans-- want to hear. It's (b) if they want to appeal to and educate the young and newbie while they have the chance. It's (c) if they're old and tired and just looking for (yet another) big pay day.

how about all of the above? doing the warhorses makes complete sense to just about everyone but us.

The Stones have always been conservative about their setlists, except for the Licks tour, and to some extent the NS tour.

We just have to deal with it, that the Stones have a chore setlist for each tour - with minimal alternation of songs.

However, they have played lots of different songs on this tour (a tour that many of us didn't belive would happen, let alone that they would manage to pull through).

It's ok to wish for many obscure numbers each night, but we need to put things into perspective here - it's the Stones. From the boots I've heard from the club gigs on the Licks tour there were lots of hit and miss-nights, and some great nights.

It's the Stones. If they were to alternate as much as the fans want them to, we WILL get piano versions of lots of the songs...

What I am beginning to realize is, I am accustomed to them supporting an album. With that said, there are usually more than 2 new songs, so the "parade of horses" didn't really start until the show was 14-16 deep.....now it starts at about 9. That's a long parade. Show to show variation isn't my issue, it's the whole Hot Rocks feel for the last 1-1 1/2 hrs that I have mixed feelings about.

The difference this time is that the "parade" is interrupted by Keith's set and Midnight Rambler, before they pick it up again. The result is a better balance, imo.

People say it's boring after after One More Shot or Emotional Rescue, but I disagree.

If you're tired of the war horses, it's when Miss You begins that your yawning muscles start to do something.

Then again, Miss You has been performed brilliantly on this tour, imo...

Well, I gushed a bit up on the Sticky thread.....you should appreciate my feelings...

There you go, Thrylan! In what could have been the middle of the "parade" there is a 15 minute Rambler instead

The Stones always manage to surprise us in one way or another...

They should start selling half-tickets. 300$ for the 1st part, 300$ for the warhorses, and 600$ the full show.

And for the Taylor songs, a special 200$ package. You just have to keep coming in and out of the place. A separate waiting room with a loudspeaker will call the attendants.

"All the M Taylor ticket holders, please report to your seats."