how would you want them to play them?

for example, i'm sick to death of jumping jack flash, but i'd love to see it played with the original intro, the bass turned up (with daryl trying to follow keith's original playing), no guitar solo, and ronnie not playing that one lick over and over again.

and i'd love them to further embrace otis redding's version of satisfaction and do it with a horn section.

start me up, played funkier, maybe even with with a break in which they reggaefy (?) it ala the original unreleased version.

i can't think of anyway to save me from being bored by brown sugar.

I think this becomes a question of, how many times do you see the band? If you only get to see them once, I can't see any way you'd be bored by Brown Sugar. I saw them three times since last November, and I know many people saw them a lot more. But my heart just exploded when they lit into JJF and the others, and the last thing I'd want is to hear them do a country version of it or something. I guess if you go to a lot of shows it's different.

Always loved the way they do the big hits, but I'd fricking love if they did an acoustic set of 3 songs, which would be HTW, WH and SFTD. Could you imagine Mick sitting on a stool howling his heart out on an acoustic SFTD? That would be something.

JumpingKentFlash

As much as I have been tired of hearing those being played again and again over the past few years, I really, really enjoyed all of them in Hyde Park (2).
I don't know what it is, but they sounded fresh and the whole band played fantastic.

There were some subtle changes in the arrangements and everybody added something extra to them, a lick here, a lick there...they had a lot of eye-contact and everything they did seemed less scripted than on most of the previous tours.

From a musical point of view (and I'm playing in bands, too) I enjoyed their playing in Hyde Park more than ever before.

I feel as though their popularity has left them no choice but to play the warhorses.

If you wanted to turn somebody on to the Stones who never heard them would you play;

'Brown Sugar' or 'Gomper'

'Jumping Jack Flash' or 'Back to Zero'

Their live hits show is their calling card to generate revenue.

It's just business, don't take it personal if they don't play 'Love In Vain'

But I think just about everybody started with listening to the big hits!...then, you move to the lesser known material, then b-sides, then live albums, then bootlegs, then outtakes...then...etc..etc...

But it starts with the Hits! To draw you in!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-21 11:30 by Marhsall.

Quote
sonomastone
how would you want them to play them?

for example, i'm sick to death of jumping jack flash, but i'd love to see it played with the original intro, the bass turned up (with daryl trying to follow keith's original playing), no guitar solo, and ronnie not playing that one lick over and over again.

and i'd love them to further embrace otis redding's version of satisfaction and do it with a horn section.

start me up, played funkier, maybe even with with a break in which they reggaefy (?) it ala the original unreleased version.

i can't think of anyway to save me from being bored by brown sugar.

I have never understood why they have not used to the intro to JJF.....it's as iconic as anything else in the song.....totally agree

Play them as a medley at the end. Like Diana Ross did with the Temptations hits. Throw BS, JJF and SF together and make a 5 minutes medley out of it. Skip HTW altogether. Skip Keith's boring interlude songs. Never play a song longer than 7 minutes. And, if they were able to, vary the performance of them so that they don't sound exactly the same from time to time. Other artists are capable of that...

Quote
bigbitch
I have never understood why they have not used to the intro to JJF.....it's as iconic as anything else in the song.....totally agree

I read something on here once that Keith said they don't play the intro because it's similar to Street Fighting Man. I don't think the studio versions could ever be mixed up, but live they could be maybe.

Seems this past tour the warhorses worked much better live than on paper. In the arena some -- SMU, JJF, Shelter -- just rocked, sounded fresh and alive in a way they haven't. People not at the show were bored with the warhorses; people there loved them.

medleys are the cheesiest thing ever . . . thankfully they never went that route.

Quote
Stoneage
Play them as a medley at the end. Like Diana Ross did with the Temptations hits. Throw BS, JJF and SF together and make a 5 minutes medley out of it. Skip HTW altogether. Skip Keith's boring interlude songs. Never play a song longer than 7 minutes. And, if they were able to, vary the performance of them so that they don't sound exactly the same from time to time. Other artists are capable of that...

Oh God, please, no. People complain about "Vegas" Stones. What you describe is exactly what Elvis Presley did and it was horrible. Even George Harrison in the Beatles Anthology said he wished he could have talked to Presley and said ditch the jumpsuit, the horns, all that, and just put on a pair of jeans and a t-shirt and play Hound Dog and Heartbreak Hotel like they were supposed to be played.

If people are tired of the warhorses, that means they've seen enough shows and shouldn't go to any more. The vast majority of people who go to a Stones' concert have never been before, and they'd like to hear them for the first time. Many people here write about taking their kids for the first time. Think they want a cheesy medley?

This is what happens when an act has been around as long as the Rolling Stones. The longer it goes, the more proprietary and entitled some fans will get, and the more things like this fester. Playing warhorses is the price that has to be paid for long term success.

I don't like stagnation, that's all. That is not what music is about. But I'm afraid that is very much where The Stones are these days. Anything is better than stagnation. Even a medley...

JJF as the opener, works great at 3:30.....Brown Sugar 75' style, SFTD 69'-75' style. IORR 75' style. YCAGWYW, early 70's.....Dance for Miss You, throw in a LIB, or a LMG, give GS break....,Cut the horns to a bare minimum..... 81' style(there's a reason that your gets so much love), and keep these songs around 3-4 minutes, ala 69'. JJF's biggest problem is it never ends, same with HTW, GS, SFTD and BS.....maybe add a couple of songs.

Quote
Stoneage
Play them as a medley at the end. Like Diana Ross did with the Temptations hits. Throw BS, JJF and SF together and make a 5 minutes medley out of it. Skip HTW altogether. Skip Keith's boring interlude songs. Never play a song longer than 7 minutes. And, if they were able to, vary the performance of them so that they don't sound exactly the same from time to time. Other artists are capable of that...

So you'd like short, tight versions of Midnight Rambler and CYHMK? Really??

Quote
Treaclefingers
So you'd like short, tight versions of Midnight Rambler and CYHMK? Really??

Yes, 7 minutes, maybe 7:30, maximum. And I don't need CYHMK. It was great on record but fusion jazz is a bit dated in 2013.

Quote
Thrylan
...JJF's biggest problem is it never ends,

More than once over the years I've thought...'Okay, enough already!'... At 'Sarstock' in Toronto it was driving people out of the park at the end....It should be a 3-minute song, not an 8-minute riff stuck on repeat....(Unlees Mick Taylor is soloing in the background, mind you...)

Quote
palerider22

Quote
Thrylan
...JJF's biggest problem is it never ends,

More than once over the years I've thought...'Okay, enough already!'... At 'Sarstock' in Toronto it was driving people out of the park at the end....It should be a 3-minute song, not an 8-minute riff stuck on repeat....(Unlees Mick Taylor is soloing in the background, mind you...)

Yes. I defend Ronnie quite a bit, but I did recently come across a 72' version that MT tore up, but it clocked in at about 4:30......nuff said.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Treaclefingers
So you'd like short, tight versions of Midnight Rambler and CYHMK? Really??

Yes, 7 minutes, maybe 7:30, maximum. And I don't need CYHMK. It was great on record but fusion jazz is a bit dated in 2013.

I'm not sure you'll be in the majority then but to each his own.

I have no problem with hearing the so-called 'Warhorses' at all. It would be nice, however, if they were to mix them up a little. The latter-half of their show is nearly identical every night.

Quote
sonomastone
how would you want them to play them?

for example, i'm sick to death of jumping jack flash, but i'd love to see it played with the original intro, the bass turned up (with daryl trying to follow keith's original playing), no guitar solo, and ronnie not playing that one lick over and over again.

and i'd love them to further embrace otis redding's version of satisfaction and do it with a horn section.

start me up, played funkier, maybe even with with a break in which they reggaefy (?) it ala the original unreleased version.

i can't think of anyway to save me from being bored by brown sugar.

Two of the greatest songs ever written, you must be a big fan...not...

A lot of people attending the shows might not have had the opportunity to see them before...The way I see it is the Stones owe ALL of their fans - not just us die-hards - a good show. And that means they'll undoubtedly play the WHs.

Hey, my dream show would be all the songs from Exile, Gimme Shelter, and Monkey Man - but that isn't going to happen. Regardless, they're amazing and even the warhorses rocked.

If I went to a Stones show and didn't hear "Gimme Shelter" I would be gravely disappointed. The Stones are
in marvelous shape, but not so much that they'll do an all-Exile show or play, say, LIB and Sticky Fingers
back to back. Or wildly inventive or varied arrangements.

We're getting what they're able--and want--to give, now. A show that will draw the kinds of crowds necessary
to haul in the size profits that makes it worthwhile for them to do it. So, they have to appeal to the
average attendee, which isn't a lot of us here.

"IF..." Didn't you post that you finally saw the Stones in concert for the FIRST time in May 2013

Quote
stonesrule
"IF..." Didn't you post that you finally saw the Stones in concert for the FIRST time in May 2013

Um, yes, stonesrule. And your point is...? (other than apparently lobbing a puzzling, misguided, blunted
barb) - lol

Doubt anyone else needs it parsed it out, but since my respect for you is based on your unique type of
contribution, which impact the site's overall tone, content, and collegiality, I'll break it down for you.

I was using the subjunctive mood -- so, literally, if I were not to have used vernacular shorthand,
the sentence would have been: "If I were to attend..." which suggests a hypothetical condition,
and removes the statement from the mundane reality of whether I have or haven't attended a show, or whether
I will or won't attend a show in the future. The statement is that a Rolling stones show would suffer
without Gimme Shelter played--which some people have expressed they can do without.

hope that ameliorates your confusion!
swiss

Quote
Long John Stoner

Quote
Stoneage
Play them as a medley at the end. Like Diana Ross did with the Temptations hits. Throw BS, JJF and SF together and make a 5 minutes medley out of it. Skip HTW altogether. Skip Keith's boring interlude songs. Never play a song longer than 7 minutes. And, if they were able to, vary the performance of them so that they don't sound exactly the same from time to time. Other artists are capable of that...

Oh God, please, no. People complain about "Vegas" Stones. What you describe is exactly what Elvis Presley did and it was horrible. Even George Harrison in the Beatles Anthology said he wished he could have talked to Presley and said ditch the jumpsuit, the horns, all that, and just put on a pair of jeans and a t-shirt and play Hound Dog and Heartbreak Hotel like they were supposed to be played.

If people are tired of the warhorses, that means they've seen enough shows and shouldn't go to any more. The vast majority of people who go to a Stones' concert have never been before, and they'd like to hear them for the first time. Many people here write about taking their kids for the first time. Think they want a cheesy medley?

This is what happens when an act has been around as long as the Rolling Stones. The longer it goes, the more proprietary and entitled some fans will get, and the more things like this fester. Playing warhorses is the price that has to be paid for long term success.

Perfectly said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-21 21:57 by Jesse.

BULLSH!T!! Dylan has been around 50 years, he mixes it up, Springsteen's been around 40 years, he does a marathon and mixes it up...but neither is an egocentric, maniacal lead singer who begins to get jealous of the spotlight 35 seconds into a guitar solo, and neither feels the need to be relevant to 20 year olds, which is silly and petty for a 70 year old man. Throw what's left of the Dead in too...,they don't care who's in the audience, they play what they feel.

Quote
Thrylan
BULLSH!T!! Dylan has been around 50 years, he mixes it up, Springsteen's been around 40 years, he does a marathon and mixes it up...but neither is an egocentric, maniacal lead singer who begins to get jealous of the spotlight 35 seconds into a guitar solo, and neither feels the need to be relevant to 20 year olds, which is silly and petty for a 70 year old man. Throw what's left of the Dead in too...,they don't care who's in the audience, they play what they feel.

Yep, that's why they were never in the bands but always solo acts

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Thrylan
BULLSH!T!! Dylan has been around 50 years, he mixes it up, Springsteen's been around 40 years, he does a marathon and mixes it up...but neither is an egocentric, maniacal lead singer who begins to get jealous of the spotlight 35 seconds into a guitar solo, and neither feels the need to be relevant to 20 year olds, which is silly and petty for a 70 year old man. Throw what's left of the Dead in too...,they don't care who's in the audience, they play what they feel.

Yep, that's why they were never in the bands but always solo acts

And the Dead/Other ones? Also, let's be honest, Mick DID try to sack his band, and it was a miserable fail, found out the hard way. Bruce dumped the E Street Band for a bit, did much better than Mick, and put it back together. Bruce is no Mick nor is Dylan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-21 23:18 by Thrylan.

Quote
sonomastone


i can't think of anyway to save me from being bored by brown sugar.

Get them to jack it WAY up like on the 75/76 tours.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
sonomastone


i can't think of anyway to save me from being bored by brown sugar.

Get them to jack it WAY up like on the 75/76 tours.

Nothing beats 5th avenue on a flatbed truck......and that was Ronnie, for the Taylorites.....

I can't believe that the majority here thinks that complete and utter stagnation is the best way to go for a band. Elvis should have stayed like he was in the fifties and The Rolling Stones should never move away from playing the same songs over and over again in exactly the same manner? Isn't that a tad boring?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-22 01:01 by Stoneage.