I would have no problem with warhorses if they would play songs like Jumpin' Jack Flash or Brown Sugar in short, rough 3 minute-versions like in the days till 89 and not 10 minutes with horns, backup vocals and a incredible lack of guitars (esp.Miss You).
They could even play a much longer setlist if they would not strech every song so long.
Every song sounded better in the 70s.
Just compare Hand Of Fate from Paris 76 with Hand Of Fate from Paris 03.
It seems to be a joke. Although they have modern sound systems, the guitars are incredibly thin and weak.
If they'd have played Moonlight Mile or Some Girls in the 70s, I'm sure that it would have sounded much better than in 99.
I can live without songs, you need professional backing vocals for.
They should only play songs on which Mick sings alone, perhaps sometimes backed up by Chuck, Keith, Ronnie and Darryl.
I think not a single fan wants to hear all these horns and singers.

Second that thought absolutly. Bring up the guitars in the mix, and
get a feel like the '78 tour. I know that there were some bad performances
that year, at least they were really playing. But when I listen to
the Passaiac theater boot- That's what I hope for.

I hope they play like at the Press conference.

I've listened to the tracks over and over again. They rock.

Brown Sugar should not be rehearsed any more. It's perfect.

If the new single is called Warhorses, they surely play Warhorses not only once, but again.

Good subject the Stones should listen to this. I suggest if the opening shows are the same as usual fans should not go! May sound hard for the "last tour", but I stayed away from the Licks tour just because of this and I am not going to see Chuck play solo's on the warhorses ever again.

I agree with every word hanns said, exactly how i feel about the warhorses also
the hand of fate quote is %100 right

Kill some of the warhorses, please. Start with some classic's instead:

The Last Time, Get Off My Cloud, Time Is On My Side, Heart Of Stone, Play With Fire, Not Fade Away, Satisfaction, Paint It Black, and then blast into GIMME SHELTER.


Then into Sympathy, Happy, Jumping Jack Flash.

B -stage - Hot Stuff, Everything is Turning To Gold, Miss You (the disco B-stage set)

Finish by playing a couple new new songs (only if they're good), then Hand Of Fate....
and then a mini Blues revue - Little Red Rooster, Mannish Boy, I Just Want To Make Love To You, from the main stage
Followed by MIDNIGHT RAMBLER as the grand finale encore.

I wonder if AC/DC fans sit around and grumble about their group playing the same old tired songs over and over...."Hey, we're tired of Back in Black, Highway to Hell, and Shook Me All Night Long." Of course they don't....there is nothing wrong with the Rolling Stones playing their most famous songs. I'm pissed if I don't hear Brown Sugar, JJFlash, etc. I have no problem including One Hit, Sway, Slave, etc........just make the show longer. Let's bring back the 27 song list instead of the 21 song list.

Well Shawn,

At $400 dollars a clip you think that would give them incentive to play a lenghty setlist

As Hahn said:

"I would have no problem with warhorses if they would play songs like Jumpin' Jack Flash or Brown Sugar in short, rough 3 minute-versions like in the days till 89 and not 10 minutes with horns, backup vocals and a incredible lack of guitars (esp.Miss You).

They could even play a much longer setlist if they would not strech every song so long. "

That's the key for sure!!

Chris F.

27-song setlist are a thing of the past. The Stones (esp. Mick) are smart about the ageing effects...it's not just that the # of songs has been reduced, but the actual amount of playing has also been gradually reduced over the years. Long introductions...the long walks back and forth on the catwalk - these are all calculated into producing a 2-hour show that's relatively short on actual music, without being particularly discernible to the average fan - after all, we are still being entertained all the while. Very smart, shrewd. Mick ain't no dummy.

Mick and the boys continue to defy their age. I can't believe they are able to do as well as they do.....I remember the 75 article in Rolling Stone that joked about the Stones touring in 2005 as the first 60 year old rock band. Guess what......it wasn't a joke and the shows are very good. Yes, Mick is very, very smart! Could not agree more.

sadly, they are 60+ and to have just keith and ronnie doing most of the back up vocals....well after about 6 shows they be dead...they can hardly carry a note on a good day and to have them just to back up jagger....well i want my money back...ha also to have the horns, etc..it gives keith/ronnie a break...i would rather have them do a shorter set list and have less, chuck, horns, etc..less fillers and more stones.... more guitars, less horns...but we will get a shorter concert. which is cool for me....

I've said this in other posts.......but Keith's days as a harmonizing vocalist have been over since 1975. Ron can't sing a lick. I have no problem with Lisa and Bernard....I believe they add to the show. Has anyone ever asked Keith about why the guitars are so low in the mix. I've never heard him address this.

ask chuck.... but they did come back a bit on the licks tour of america...check out live licks ...and i think i heard that we will see and hear more up front guitars on this tour.... i also think it must have something to do with how well ronnie is playing....if he's off then the guitar mix will be downplayed and we will get to hear more chuck!

Actually, I thought the sound on the 1999 tour was very good. Better than the so-called good old days of 1981, when the band was drunk/high. Ronnie didn't play much, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-19 19:15 by Elmo Lewis.