If you want surprises and varied setlists - Springsteen is the best choice.
If you want the same song and dance in almost the same order every time - The Rolling Stones would be the best choice.
Simple as that.

The most important thing is how good the songs they are playing are, right?

I don't want the Stones to play Staying Alive or Highway To Hell, instead of Emotional Rescue or It's Only Rock'n'Roll

The most important thing is not even how good the songs they are playing, are.
Instead it is that they are playing them.

The Stones have the ability to make a relatively ordinary studio song of theirs, comparatively speaking, shine, really SHINE, during a live concert, by virtue of their treatment of it. When you return after the concert, that is one of the gems of the concert experience.

That is why their playing "Silver Train" then, something else another time, another place would be a special treat.

I would like Stones to take pride in that ability and regularly display it. Such various songs, THAT, played by themselves, the best of those from a tour, that would be something to release on an album of live versions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-27 12:17 by Witness.

a longer setist (22/23 songs) with 2 or 3 rarities thrown in every night would make everybody happy.
they don't need to "play like Bruce".

Quote
Witness
The most important thing is not even how good the songs they are playing, are.
Instead it is that they are playing them.

Yeah! How would it look if they turned up not playing them?

Because THEY ARE NOT bruce ...

Bjornulf

Quote
Witness
The most important thing is not even how good the songs they are playing, are.
Instead it is that they are playing them.

The Stones have the ability to make a relatively ordinary studio song of theirs, comparatively speaking, shine, really SHINE, during a live concert, by virtue of their treatment of it. When you return after the concert, that is one of the gems of the concert experience.

That is why their playing "Silver Train" then, something else another time, another place would be a special treat.

I would like Stones to take pride in that ability and regularly display it. Such various songs, THAT, played by themselves, the best of those from a tour, that would be something to release on an album of live versions.

Exactly! And which songs might those be?

In the O2 Arena, they made Before They Make Me Run, Doom And Gloom, Gimmie Shelter, Brown Sugar, JJF and Satisfaction shine. By no means ordinary songs, though.

They are playing those songs regularly, because they love them, make them swing and because the audience loves them. The fact that a microscopical percentage of the fans (the hard cores) have seen the band many times, and want them to change around, can't alter that, imo.

But they also surprise us now and again. Out Of Control in London was extraordinarily good

If they play ST or TTNG, it's only because they want to give something back to the hard core fans. The remaining 90% would scratch their heads...

Quote
Stoneage
I don't think it only has to do with which songs they play but also how they play them. Basically I think that the warhorses have sounded almost the same since about 94'.

True. But I guess the need to play certain songs is married with the need to play them 'safely' - that is, any radical way to interpret them is out of question. The arrangements are as fixed as the songs themselves. As with chosing the songs, this is most likely to do both with internal reasons (the nature of the band these days plus aging) as external ones (pleasing the expectations of their potential audiences, that is, the taste of 'casual' fans - from where the big money comes in).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-27 13:17 by Doxa.

They`ve become as conservative as art before modernism, with all it`s "- of course you can`t do this, and you can`t do that..."

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
............................
The Stones have the ability to make a relatively ordinary studio song of theirs, comparatively speaking, shine, really SHINE, during a live concert, by virtue of their treatment of it. When you return after the concert, that is one of the gems of the concert experience.

..................................

Exactly! And which songs might those be?

.................................

I wrote that they had the ability to make even the said songs shine. It was the ability that was important. It need not to be only those songs, though, even if it might. Instead it could involve any songs on the continuum between masterpieces or/ and warhorses and what might perhaps be called ordinary songs of theirs. But as to songs of the mentionned category, even if I think it adds to the balance between songs on its album, I think I have read praise of a live version of "Streets of Love" that many posters hold in low esteem in its studio version.

I give in to the challenge to make long or short lists that could be called "relatively ordinary studio song of theirs, comparatively speaking" (especially during working hours).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-27 14:08 by Witness.

SOL is a good example, imo. It was beautifully performed on both of the shows I saw them play it in 2006 and 2007.

Even songs like Rock And A Hard Place and Oh, No Not You Again, which aren't among my favourites, work well in concert.

Yes, I agree, they really have the uncanny ability to make certain songs shine.... with gothic elements.

Now would be a good time to make a list of songs that acquire gothic qualities in concert.

<with gothic elements>

Quote
stonehearted
Yes, I agree, they really have the uncanny ability to make certain songs shine.... with gothic elements.

Now would be a good time to make a list of songs that acquire gothic qualities in concert.

E.g. "Streets of Love" made as a gothic song? In advance, you'd better rewrite the lyrics then.

Quote
Witness

Quote
stonehearted
Yes, I agree, they really have the uncanny ability to make certain songs shine.... with gothic elements.

Now would be a good time to make a list of songs that acquire gothic qualities in concert.

E.g. "Streets of Love" made as a gothic song? In advance, you'd better rewrite the lyrics then.

Well, he "crossed the Rubicon"...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
I don't think it only has to do with which songs they play but also how they play them. Basically I think that the warhorses have sounded almost the same since about 94'.

True. But I guess the need to play certain songs is married with the need to play them 'safely' - that is, any radical way to interpret them is out of question. The arrangements are as fixed as the songs themselves. As with chosing the songs, this is most likely to do both with internal reasons (the nature of the band these days plus aging) as external ones (pleasing the expectations of their potential audiences, that is, the taste of 'casual' fans - from where the big money comes in).

- Doxa

That is a bit sad. A true musician wouldn't do a thing like that. That constitutes the exact antipode to what the art of music should be about. It shouldn't be about playing it safe...

Lets face it..the Stones are incapable of playing for more than 2 hours on stage.
They are also incapable of variety.
I understand all this..wish their ticket prices would reflect their efforts..
I wont be paying more that $100 to see the Stones knowing it will be a similar effort than the last tour.
At least with Bruce you get effort and value for cash.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The most important thing is how good the songs they are playing are, right?

I don't want the Stones to play Staying Alive or Highway To Hell, instead of Emotional Rescue or It's Only Rock'n'Roll

Well that IS a good point. Springsteen's set lists look kinda boring.Though why do the Stones do all those rehearsals with other songs - just to tease us?

To see if they can make them swing?

The funny thing is that songs like Worried About You, Memory Motel, Out Of Control and No Expectations were among the best they did on the last tour - so they don't really have to dig that deep to make more fans happy.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The most important thing is how good the songs they are playing are, right?

I don't want the Stones to play Staying Alive or Highway To Hell, instead of Emotional Rescue or It's Only Rock'n'Roll

No, I wouldn't either, especially when they are only playing around 19 songs! Springsteen on the other hand can afford to throw in a couple of covers, especially when he is playing 30-31 songs. Certainly no shortage of his songs!

I've seen the Stones 10 times and Bruce 9 times. Even though they all were born in the 1940's, they come from very different mind sets in terms of their relationship with the audience. Bruce relates closer to the audience and sees himself in some ways as one of them. He's half on stage and half in the crowd (literally). The Stones view the audience from a cool distance and always have. That's not necessarily good or bad, just their viewpoint.

Bruce also likes to challenge the band and keep them on their toes. Because he is definitely in charge (while Mick and Keith share leadership), he gets exactly what he wants.

I'm a big fan of both, and I didn't always think this, but at this point of their careers Bruce is way ahead as a live act.