The following night Bruce played nearly 4 hrs which included nearly 30 mins of stories....!!!

I've never seen Springsteen live and I would like to someday. But, at that length, I think once would be enough. I don't even want to hear my own stories for 30 minute. It isn't supposed to be a marathon.

I would love to see the Stones play a little longer and with a few more rarities, but it's not as big a deal to me as it it to others here. I like a lot of Bruce's music and I admire his work ethic. But I'd still take a Stones concert anyday over seeing Bruce Springsteen.

Quote
Ladykiller
........ because Bruce is The Boss

Well, that's not far off. He gets to do what he wants. He's one dude with a longtime talented backing band that he can simply tell to, "learn this, we're gonna play it". Same with Dylan or any solo artist, they have the luxury of digging deep. Could the Stones mix it up better? Sure. But as far as ease of doing it, it's not even in the same ballpark.

Quote
latebloomer
The following night Bruce played nearly 4 hrs which included nearly 30 mins of stories....!!!

I've never seen Springsteen live and I would like to someday. But, at that length, I think once would be enough. I don't even want to hear my own stories for 30 minute. It isn't supposed to be a marathon.

I would love to see the Stones play a little longer and with a few more rarities, but it's not as big a deal to me as it it to others here. I like a lot of Bruce's music and I admire his work ethic. But I'd still take a Stones concert anyday over seeing Bruce Springsteen.

I've never saw him live until last year. You can trust me, after seeing him once, you will always want to see him again.

As Reagan famously said, Christiano...trust, but verify. I'll get back to you if and when I ever see Springsteen.

He did come to DC a few years back and I tried to get a ticket, but they were all sold out and I wasn't going to jump through hoops to see him like I would with the Stones.

And I agree completely with carlorossi...it's kinda wacky to compare the two. Bruce is an entity unto himself, he can run the show. Even though Jagger appears to be the CEO, the stockholders Keith, Charlie, and Ronnie have to agree to the business plan. Although we complain about the dearth of touring and new albums, it ain't that easy with our quirky guys.

Quote
DaveG

Quote
BowieStone
93% of the audience don't want to hear the rarities.
5% considers Wild Horses or Bitch a rarity.
2% are IORR members.

Mick decides to play for 98% of the audience. Not the 2%.
Who could blame him.

Absolutely.

You can play both the warhorses and the rarities!There should b a nice mix, and Springsteen shows have something for everyone. A perfect mix!

Quote
birdie

Quote
DaveG

Quote
BowieStone
93% of the audience don't want to hear the rarities.
5% considers Wild Horses or Bitch a rarity.
2% are IORR members.

Mick decides to play for 98% of the audience. Not the 2%.
Who could blame him.

Absolutely.

You can play both the warhorses and the rarities!There should b a nice mix, and Springsteen shows have something for everyone. A perfect mix!

A song from an album - such as Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You or Some Girls - which has sold in excess of seven million copies cannot be in any way described as a 'rarity'. Likewise with any song thats on a greatest hits album like Hot Rocks or 40 Licks which has sold about ten million or more.

I refuse to believe that a band who have sold over 200 million records have an audience who despite paying a weeks' salary to see them consists almost entirely of people who either a) widely dislike over 90% of their back catalogue, b) are ignorant of all but about a dozen songs from it, or c) will be disappointed and outraged if theyre subjected to a very good song that they may not be very familiar with.

If that demographic is close to being correct, its the weirdest collection of non-music fans and non-Stones fans in the universe, and an audience unlike that of any act in history. The Stones may like to convince themselves that this is the sort of audience they 'have' to tailor a show towards because it means they can play it 'safe' content-wise, but IMO there's no logical argument which would support it. There have been numerous tours before where theyve dropped certain well known songs. People still had a great time and came back - and they came back because there were still enough songs to sustain a terrific concert experience and the band - on any given night - is still capable of being one of the best live bands out there.

Never mind this 'play what we know' argument that seems to be the excuse of lazy concert attendees everywhere. 'Know what they play' should be more appropriate. If someone's prepared to pay $800 or whatever to see a band, its not much to expect them to buy a few CDs and be familiar with more than about a dozen songs. A band of the Stones' greatness deserve more respect than that and shouldnt have to pander to people's utter laziness.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-24 04:48 by Gazza.

Why don`t they play "like Bruce"?

Thank heavens they don't, the audience haven't paid to hear the same tune for 4 hours ......... zzzzz zzzzz

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

<<Never mind this 'play what we know' argument that seems to be the excuse of lazy concert attendees everywhere>>

The fact remains that their concert audience consists largely of "classic rockers"--that is, a general audience of casual fans who don't follow every song of every concert in real time. Their experience of a Stones show is once every blue moon, whenever the band comes to town--and yes, they want to hear those hits they've heard from oldies radio and classic rock stations and the ones used in the Scorsese movies.

Sure Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, and Some Girls have sold in the millions--but over decades. A song like No Use In Crying is a rarity because concert audiences have never heard it played live, and radio stations haven't played it since 1982.

It's a safe bet that the Stones have forgotten how to play hundreds of their own songs, because they haven't been attempted since the final take of a given recording session. With musicians, it has to do with muscle memory and their hands have a better facility for playing the songs they have played all along.

In their earlier years, when they were young enough to have hits, that was the time to challenge an audience with new songs. But they are at an age now when the market will not allow them to have number 1 songs let alone even top 40. Ever since the Stones turned 50, they have found themselves disregarded by the big hit singles market, and others of their generation as well. Because that market for new big hits belongs to the young, it is better that acts like the Stones play their nuggets for their audience, which at this point is middle aged and older.

Also, being a consummate professional, for Jagger the pacing of a show is everything. Big opening, a few rarities and slow or acoustic numbers in the middle, and a big finish. They have the hits to master the big opening and big finish.

It is what it is, and they will never produce another Some Girls type record that produces an iconic number 1 song. We should just accept that they are willing to celebrate the big hits that they have had and that even they know by now that they will never surpass their list of "Hot Rocks" or that they will take the time re-learning the hundreds of songs they have forgotten to play just because a handful of posters on a fan forum think it would be a good idea. Remember also that just because a song has been recorded and released on an album, it doesn't mean that every song will work live, whether for the band, the audience, or both.

God I was tired of seeing the band do Satisfaction and the rest of the standards way back when it only cost you about $100 to do it. Can't tell how boring it would be now that it would cost more like around $!000? What else can they do though? Alot of people don't know anything but the obvious hits so they gotta play em just to fill the seats. Best of luck to the Stones and the latest tour. Not planning on taking it in personally however as it costs way too much and they've kind of bored me now for years.

It should be noted that a surprisingly high amount of posters here still are saying that the setlists for the 78 and 81/82 tours were horrible.

Those were setlists with lots of new songs, a few r&b and rock'n'roll covers and some of the warhorses...

It just blows my mind that Stones fans would be bored by hearing the band play Satisfaction live. Apart from anything else, how often do most of us get to hear them at all? 99.99999% of fans can't afford the money or the time off work to travel around the country or the world watching every night of a tour, which may come every five years or more. The band are playing for the people at those live shows who haven't heard any of those songs LIVE for five or more years, and who are just desperate to hear them one more time. The band's not going to be able to continue forever--now is NOT the time to get jaded because you've heard these great songs too often! It won't be long sadly before we're all desolated by the fact we'll never hear them again.

I should say something about Bruce now, but I can't think of anything. Go Bruce! I love you too.

Quote
RollingFreak
They are from a decade older generation where you just kind of didn't do that. They are also older than Bruce

Bruce is only six years younger than Mick and Keith so to me they're the same generation. Twenty years younger and that would've been a different story.

But to the other point: sadly, average concert goer is not a hardcore fan anymore. They are there just to see the legends playing legendary well-known songs. Perhaps Stones should divide their setlist into three where the middle part consists few not so often heard songs and couple of rarities. This would be a good time for those average fans to go to the loo or buy some refreshments while moaning how The Stones play an odd I've-never-heard-it-on-the-radio song. But at least hardcore fans would be satisfied

I agree that request is probably just part of the show but i don't think they rehersed songs like Take It As It Comes, which was outtake from River era. Sometimes his choices are obvious like Hungry Heart, Working On the Highway or even Trapped (great song) but sometmies they play Lost In Flood, or Pretty Woman because it's Roy Bittan's saint's day. I'm not saying Bruce is playing only obscure b sides but at least you got a chance to hear it.
I agree with Gazza, Mick don't like to risk, he needs full atention from everybody all the time. He gets it when he's singing Miss You or Brown Sugar, but not on a rare things. I think he should know people would love their shows even if the played on banjos. They're Rolling Stones for sake.
Anyway isn't it strange that Angie is a rare tune for us ?

Quote
BowieStone
93% of the audience don't want to hear the rarities.
5% considers Wild Horses or Bitch a rarity.
2% are IORR members.

Mick decides to play for 98% of the audience. Not the 2%.
Who could blame him.

That might be true, but I would not consider (for instance) Lady Jane or Heart of Stone as rarities or obscurities. These Songs are catchy and well known and would certainly impress the audience. I really miss some ballads like those in the setlist.

At the same time I cannot imagine that you could play decent versions of Let it loose or Child of the moon in an arena or stadium show.

Quote
saltoftheearth

Quote
BowieStone
93% of the audience don't want to hear the rarities.
5% considers Wild Horses or Bitch a rarity.
2% are IORR members.

Mick decides to play for 98% of the audience. Not the 2%.
Who could blame him.

That might be true, but I would not consider (for instance) Lady Jane or Heart of Stone as rarities or obscurities. These Songs are catchy and well known and would certainly impress the audience. I really miss some ballads like those in the setlist.

At the same time I cannot imagine that you could play decent versions of Let it loose or Child of the moon in an arena or stadium show.

Today, those songs are obscurities. 48 years ago, they weren't

I might be wrong, but I can't see any others than the die-hards putting on Heart Of Stone regularly...

Note: Both these songs have been performed in concert (2002 and 2013).

Quote
Gazza

This is truly mind blowing.

Sure, if Bruce wants to play something as a request, it is usually not that difficult to find one in the crowd, but I am absolutely sure he throws many of those in really as spontaneous challenges.

The one above is an excellent example. I remember for instance in Vienna two years ago he did Empty Sky - he sat behind a piano, improvised a bit, then asked for the lyrics to be brought to him on a sheet of paper. He did a nice solo version of it. In the same show he did Tougher Than The Rest. He obviously could not believe it popped up as a sign and commented that it must had been a huge hit in Vienna or something. I am sure that everyone who has seen any Springsteen concert has some story like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-24 11:22 by Happy24.

Bruce Springsteen has a very strong need to be liked.

The Rolling Stones have a very strong need to be as rich as possible.

I don't judge one motivation to be "better" than the other, but that's why they don't play like Bruce. They don't need to be liked, they just need to be as rich as possible.

Geeeeeeeeez in that case lets hope Donald Trump don't learn ta play the guitar ....



ROCKMAN

<<They don't need to be liked>>

Not personally--but they need for people to like what they do. Which is why they've worked so hard at perfecting the stage show. Mick puts a lot of energy and thought into it and Keith puts a lot of heart and soul into it.

Whether you agree with the greatest hits approach or not, at least they never phone it in. They know how to have fun.

Quote
stonehearted
<<They don't need to be liked>>

Not personally--but they need for people to like what they do. Which is why they've worked so hard at perfecting the stage show. Mick puts a lot of energy and thought into it and Keith puts a lot of heart and soul into it.

Whether you agree with the greatest hits approach or not, at least they never phone it in. They know how to have fun.

i agree, on all points.
they put more thought and energy into their shows than many "young" and "hungry" up and coming bands.

The difference is made by the audience. Why it is so, I do not know.

Take just any filler form any Springsteen's album: no matter which one, if Bruce plays it, the whole stadiums will dance and singalong. This is something that always amazes me at his concerts.

It's as if the whole audience was formed by hardcore fans!

Let's face it: this is not the case for the Stones. There is always a considerable low in energy when something "obscure" is played ("obscure" i.e. "non warhorse").

C

The point is that an audience can be formed by an artist throughout the years. Springsteen did this for his audience and Bob Dylan did the same to his audience (maybe in an even extreme way; the master makes the rules). And the Stones did the same for their audience.
The basic difference is that the Stones formed a audience that wants and expect a greatest hits show, while Bob Dylan formed a different audience.

<<the Stones formed a audience that wants and expect a greatest hits show>>

Could be the other way around, because it was the audience that made those songs hits to begin with.

There was no complaining during the NS tour - nor during the Licks club shows and arena shows, if memory serves...

Quote
slewan
The point is that an audience can be formed by an artist throughout the years. Springsteen did this for his audience and Bob Dylan did the same to his audience (maybe in an even extreme way; the master makes the rules). And the Stones did the same for their audience.
The basic difference is that the Stones formed a audience that wants and expect a greatest hits show, while Bob Dylan formed a different audience.

- Hmm, if so, it`s pretty bleak, and loathsome, in the case of The Stones!

Quote
slewan
The point is that an audience can be formed by an artist throughout the years. Springsteen did this for his audience and Bob Dylan did the same to his audience (maybe in an even extreme way; the master makes the rules). And the Stones did the same for their audience.
The basic difference is that the Stones formed a audience that wants and expect a greatest hits show, while Bob Dylan formed a different audience.

This is a very good observation (and the three examples you've given just happen to be my three favourite acts)

You end up getting the audience you deserve. Not simply in terms of quantity, but also in quality. Not that I'm saying that everyone in a Stones (or any) audience doesnt have the right to be entertained or get what they feel is their money's worth - but in my own experience the audience at the other two acts you mention tend to have a higher % of 'hard cores'. Even if the overall number of attendees are less. Its a different demographic, but I dont think the difference is as extreme as some people (especially the Stones themselves) like to convince themselves that it is.

PS - 'the master makes the rules'. Nice use of a Dylan lyric!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It should be noted that a surprisingly high amount of posters here still are saying that the setlists for the 78 and 81/82 tours were horrible.

Those were setlists with lots of new songs, a few r&b and rock'n'roll covers and some of the warhorses...

..plus a shitload of songs (eg Under My Thumb, Lets Spend the Night Together, Time is On My Side and even Satisfaction) which had not been (or hardly) played since the 60's and some old songs (eg Let It Bleed) which had never been played at all prior to that tour.

Half of the show in Europe in 1982 consisted of songs that had been released since their previous Euro tour in 1976. In a set that consisted of around 24-25 songs per show, the only songs that remained from the show they were doing in 1976 were Brown Sugar, Jumpin Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Tumbling Dice plus a handful of versions of Angie.

It was a quite remarkable transformation which was totally ignored at the time and which has been largely overlooked since.

Shouldn't this topic be OT? My topic comparing the 2 was made so....

"They" are pretty on topic

How about something like this:

1) Start Me Up
2)IORR
3)If You Can't Rock Me
4)Tumbling Dice
5)Emotional Rescue
6)Time is on My Side
7)Hand of Fate
8)Silver Train
9)Honkey Talk Women
10)Slipping Away
11)Happy-Little T&A- Before They Make Me Run
12)Midnight Rambler
13)Dead Flowers
14)Gimmie Shelter
15)JJF
16)Hang Fire
17)Brown Sugar
18)Let it Bleed
19)Satisfaction

Something for everybody, warhorses and some rarities. Doesn't
seem too hard!