Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: vertigojoe ()
Date: May 31, 2014 16:46

Quote
Nate
Quote
Turning To Gold
I think they just get BORED on a long tour, and I think that getting bored musically often has the OPPOSITE effect on the music then what people think it should be - instead of wanting to play more and different songs, once they get jaded and bored then the band just want to get in, play what's comfortable, easy and safe, run the show on autopilot, and then get out of there.

I know in '81 and '82 some songs like "Tops" were dropped, because they just weren't working out right.

If you compare it to a job site, when you are bored or tired at work you don't do an elaborate, amazing job on things....you just do the bare minimum work possible, and then get yourself out of there.

Also in the beginning of a tour they have more to prove, to themselves, to the fans, to the press etc. At the end of the tour, the hype factor is over and they are just getting the repetitive paycheck after paycheck after paycheck.

It would be interesting to chart WHEN in each tour the set list starts shortening. For all we know, it could even be happening based upon the break even point of the tour. After a certain number of early concerts, which are needed to pay for the total stage, lights, crew, trucks, etc., everything else is profit from that point forward.

What a complete load of horse****...do you honestly believe that they are touring to make money,they love what they do and that's why they do it.

Nate

So why do they charge so much money?

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Hanns Rainsch ()
Date: May 31, 2014 16:48

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Their setlists are really not THAT lame. It is just that dreaded second half. Pafter introductions.Even the band themselves must somehow switch on to some xsort of autopilot, come song 12. like someone said: CD 2 from late era shows are mostly not worth listening to.
When I am looking at setlists post '89 I find myself automatically zooming in on Song 4-6. that is where the suprises happen.

Yes, I hardly ever listen to songs from the second half of the show. The interesting stuff is played in the 1-3 setlist spots in the first half, which is often ruined, setlist-wise, by some easy crowd pleasers. But then again, they dusted off Out of Control on thursday.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: May 31, 2014 16:51

Quote
Stoneage
Sometimes you wonder on which data Sir Michael makes his set list decisions. He seems to think that the average Stones fan likes to hear the same songs
performed in the same manner over and over again. Like schooled monkeys...

The average Stones fan probably does. If you think a few hundred people posting on IORR represent average stones fans, I think perhaps you may be mistaken.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: buffalo7478 ()
Date: May 31, 2014 17:23

I think the band's setlist is designed to appeal to the least common denominator at each show: the casual or new fan that wants the to play the hits. Maybe they are sensitive to watching the real cash-cow fans paying the highest prices get bored or lose energy when they play something that is/was less popular or unknown to the average investment banker?

But it does really go back (for me at least) when I heard the play Tops in 1982 and I loved it, but probably 70,000 out of the 80,000 in attendance had no reaction...and that is before the Vegas era.

I think they want to put on a spectacle that gets the vast majority of the crowd enjoying the hits, positive energy in the room, and don't want to take risks. And especially now, in old age, with diminished skills, introducing new songs in a live setting is risky. The band that was once wild and edgy is now like a comfortable old sweater....but a lot of us aren't ready to sit in the rocking chair, content wearing an old sweater.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: vertigojoe ()
Date: May 31, 2014 17:33

Quote
buffalo7478
I think the band's setlist is designed to appeal to the least common denominator at each show: the casual or new fan that wants the to play the hits. Maybe they are sensitive to watching the real cash-cow fans paying the highest prices get bored or lose energy when they play something that is/was less popular or unknown to the average investment banker?

But it does really go back (for me at least) when I heard the play Tops in 1982 and I loved it, but probably 70,000 out of the 80,000 in attendance had no reaction...and that is before the Vegas era.

I think they want to put on a spectacle that gets the vast majority of the crowd enjoying the hits, positive energy in the room, and don't want to take risks. And especially now, in old age, with diminished skills, introducing new songs in a live setting is risky. The band that was once wild and edgy is now like a comfortable old sweater....but a lot of us aren't ready to sit in the rocking chair, content wearing an old sweater.

There's an analogy with modern football here.[soccer]
Manchester Utd used to fill their stadium every game with working class people from the local area. They would faithfully attend every game, paying for their tickets but probably very rarely purchasing anything in the club store, and maybe buying a cup of Bovril at Half Time.
So this had to change. They priced out the local fan, replacing him with "Customers" who would attend one game per season, spend a fortune in the MegaStore, and buy the overpriced burgers etc from the catering concessions.
However new fan didn't know the words to the songs the fans sang, and didn't know the people sitting around him. The result? A totally sterile atmosphere. But big bucks in the clubs coffers.
Maybe not the perfect analogy, but definitely some similarities to RS Inc.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: buffalo7478 ()
Date: May 31, 2014 17:38

Quote
vertigojoe
Quote
buffalo7478
I think the band's setlist is designed to appeal to the least common denominator at each show: the casual or new fan that wants the to play the hits. Maybe they are sensitive to watching the real cash-cow fans paying the highest prices get bored or lose energy when they play something that is/was less popular or unknown to the average investment banker?

But it does really go back (for me at least) when I heard the play Tops in 1982 and I loved it, but probably 70,000 out of the 80,000 in attendance had no reaction...and that is before the Vegas era.

I think they want to put on a spectacle that gets the vast majority of the crowd enjoying the hits, positive energy in the room, and don't want to take risks. And especially now, in old age, with diminished skills, introducing new songs in a live setting is risky. The band that was once wild and edgy is now like a comfortable old sweater....but a lot of us aren't ready to sit in the rocking chair, content wearing an old sweater.

There's an analogy with modern football here.[soccer]
Manchester Utd used to fill their stadium every game with working class people from the local area. They would faithfully attend every game, paying for their tickets but probably very rarely purchasing anything in the club store, and maybe buying a cup of Bovril at Half Time.
So this had to change. They priced out the local fan, replacing him with "Customers" who would attend one game per season, spend a fortune in the MegaStore, and buy the overpriced burgers etc from the catering concessions.
However new fan didn't know the words to the songs the fans sang, and didn't know the people sitting around him. The result? A totally sterile atmosphere. But big bucks in the clubs coffers.
Maybe not the perfect analogy, but definitely some similarities to RS Inc.

Sounds spot on.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Long John Stoner ()
Date: May 31, 2014 21:41

When I used to communicate regularly with Chuck Leavell, their ages and ability to give what they felt was a quality performance through the length of the show was always in the front of their minds. Saying they're bored is just silly. Jagger does think they need to play to the fan who might not have ever seen them before, so long time fans are going to have to hear some songs over and over. But as far as the duration of the show and number of songs, if their thinking is what it was before, it has everything to do with how long they feel they can stay on stage without having the performance suffer. In other words, it's a concession to age, nothing more, nothing less.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: DiamondDog7 ()
Date: May 31, 2014 23:05

Quote
Aquamarine
Quote
DiamondDog7

The 'warhorses' are easy for them and those songs are major crowdpleasers. Especially for the 'new' fans and festival lovers. This tour isn't really for the real die hard fans over here. Quite honestly, this whole tour isn't about pleasing the real fans, but pleasing the big crowd!(

Please define "real fans."

Real or die-hard fans are;
- Fans who knows everything about the Stones.
- Fans who can tell about the periods of the Stones.
- Fans who can judge the songs by which member on which instrument bla bla bla.
- Fans who have high expectations.


Average fans are;
- Fans who only have the 'best of' albums by The Stones.
- Fans who already are satisfied with the hits during the concerts.
- Fans who go crazy on 'warhorses' and scream out of tune during concerts.
- Fans who tell wrong information to their friends during concerts.


LOL
That's my point of view. ;-)

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Aquamarine ()
Date: June 1, 2014 00:29

OK, I don't know everything about the Stones, so I'm turning in my "real fan" badge. sad smiley

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: latebloomer ()
Date: June 1, 2014 00:34

Quote
Aquamarine
OK, I don't know everything about the Stones, so I'm turning in my "real fan" badge. sad smiley

Well you sure know more than me Aqua, so I'm out too. Better yet, since this is turning into high school, let's just start our own club and call ourselves The Rolling Stones level two fans. Level one can be DDog, level three can be the poor slobs who only go to hear the hits and think they are fans, but aren't really...

Grrrrr.............

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Aquamarine ()
Date: June 1, 2014 00:50

Quote
latebloomer
Quote
Aquamarine
OK, I don't know everything about the Stones, so I'm turning in my "real fan" badge. sad smiley

Well you sure know more than me Aqua, so I'm out too. Better yet, since this is turning into high school, let's just start our own club and call ourselves The Rolling Stones level two fans. Level one can be DDog, level three can be the poor slobs who only go to hear the hits and think they are fans, but aren't really...

Grrrrr.............

It would be rather scary to know everything about them, though--so I think we're better off in level two. winking smiley

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: latebloomer ()
Date: June 1, 2014 01:01

Quote
Aquamarine
Quote
latebloomer
Quote
Aquamarine
OK, I don't know everything about the Stones, so I'm turning in my "real fan" badge. sad smiley

Well you sure know more than me Aqua, so I'm out too. Better yet, since this is turning into high school, let's just start our own club and call ourselves The Rolling Stones level two fans. Level one can be DDog, level three can be the poor slobs who only go to hear the hits and think they are fans, but aren't really...

Grrrrr.............

It would be rather scary to know everything about them, though--so I think we're better off in level two. winking smiley

Yes, a little mystery is always a good thing. But, I've calmed down and see now that DiamondDog7 did include a LOL, so sorry about the rant. I love your Stones dedication DD7, and besides, I couldn't stay mad at anyone who is a "true" Stones fan. grinning smiley

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: hirschjaeger ()
Date: June 1, 2014 02:12

Quote
Long John Stoner
When I used to communicate regularly with Chuck Leavell, their ages and ability to give what they felt was a quality performance through the length of the show was always in the front of their minds. Saying they're bored is just silly. Jagger does think they need to play to the fan who might not have ever seen them before, so long time fans are going to have to hear some songs over and over. But as far as the duration of the show and number of songs, if their thinking is what it was before, it has everything to do with how long they feel they can stay on stage without having the performance suffer. In other words, it's a concession to age, nothing more, nothing less.

you forgot something maybe
die hard fans like us want surprises
and have for example also many bootlegs too

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: black n blue ()
Date: June 1, 2014 02:24

I'd like to hear something prior to 1965 Satisfaction. the catalog is there folks.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Long John Stoner ()
Date: June 1, 2014 03:48

Quote
hirschjaeger
Quote
Long John Stoner
When I used to communicate regularly with Chuck Leavell, their ages and ability to give what they felt was a quality performance through the length of the show was always in the front of their minds. Saying they're bored is just silly. Jagger does think they need to play to the fan who might not have ever seen them before, so long time fans are going to have to hear some songs over and over. But as far as the duration of the show and number of songs, if their thinking is what it was before, it has everything to do with how long they feel they can stay on stage without having the performance suffer. In other words, it's a concession to age, nothing more, nothing less.

you forgot something maybe
die hard fans like us want surprises
and have for example also many bootlegs too

To be blunt, Jagger doesn't care. He thinks Stones show should be structured to the person who has never seen them before. He doesn't want a first timer walking away from a show wondering why they didn't see JJF or HTW or pick your old song. It's hard to disagree with that approach, seeing as how the majority of attendees at most if not all shows are seeing them for the first time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 03:50 by Long John Stoner.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Date: June 1, 2014 05:53

Well,if that's the case,they must be doing something drastically wrong IF all of those people from all of those attendance / money grossing - record setting world tours are not returning.

People HAVE been walking away for ages since 1989 wondering why they did not play "Time is on My Side" (except for 1 single concert) and "Waiting On a Friend" (except for roughly a dozen concerts) .... just to name a couple. They only played "Paint it Black" on 1 world tour in a span of 31 YEARS starting in mid-1967. Hit songs can be / have been / will be left out. It's just a matter of which ones and when + how often.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: hirschjaeger ()
Date: June 1, 2014 23:10

i am so happy not going to zurich,
wishes, if there is antother Stones tour, Play in Little place like hallenstadion, or olympiahalle, or O2, max. 12000, thay they can Change a lot of the set list, bc there are more than 12000 die hard fans, who follow the Stones in tour, i did it also 1990, 1994-95, 1997-98-99 2003 in europe and 2006 in europe, lots of other die hard fans like me did the same

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Powerage ()
Date: June 1, 2014 23:24

Quote
Nate
Quote
Turning To Gold
I think they just get BORED on a long tour, and I think that getting bored musically often has the OPPOSITE effect on the music then what people think it should be - instead of wanting to play more and different songs, once they get jaded and bored then the band just want to get in, play what's comfortable, easy and safe, run the show on autopilot, and then get out of there.

I know in '81 and '82 some songs like "Tops" were dropped, because they just weren't working out right.

If you compare it to a job site, when you are bored or tired at work you don't do an elaborate, amazing job on things....you just do the bare minimum work possible, and then get yourself out of there.

Also in the beginning of a tour they have more to prove, to themselves, to the fans, to the press etc. At the end of the tour, the hype factor is over and they are just getting the repetitive paycheck after paycheck after paycheck.

It would be interesting to chart WHEN in each tour the set list starts shortening. For all we know, it could even be happening based upon the break even point of the tour. After a certain number of early concerts, which are needed to pay for the total stage, lights, crew, trucks, etc., everything else is profit from that point forward.

What a complete load of horse****...do you honestly believe that they are touring to make money,they love what they do and that's why they do it.

Nate

IMO
1/ They just love what they do
2/ They don't want to give up the place to any another band... Just impossible for Mick and Keith. They have to fill the space.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-01 23:48 by Powerage.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: angee ()
Date: June 2, 2014 01:12

I liked Gazza's point that there are many songs that are quite well known, and not deep, deep cuts that would be great t hear. Some are even rehearsed but perhaps not to everyone's standards.

Then again, bringing in Mick Taylor since 2012 has added a very nice kick! Yes, it'd be good to have him on a few more tunes, but hey, maybe he will do a little more as 14 on Fire progresses.

~"Love is Strong"~

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: fahthree ()
Date: June 2, 2014 01:38

What causal fan doesn't know "Time Is On My Side"? Answer - none.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Pecman ()
Date: June 2, 2014 06:05

I think you are correct...and 100% percent on the money.

But at this point...I'll take a 2 hour show at the beginning of the tour and be
satisfied with 1 hr and 45 min at the end of the tour.

P.S. Don't Tell Mick!

Pecman

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: saltoftheearth ()
Date: June 2, 2014 10:01

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Stoneage
Sometimes you wonder on which data Sir Michael makes his set list decisions. He seems to think that the average Stones fan likes to hear the same songs
performed in the same manner over and over again. Like schooled monkeys...

The average Stones fan probably does. If you think a few hundred people posting on IORR represent average stones fans, I think perhaps you may be mistaken.

That's the point! Like it or not but most of the concert-goers are guys who have the greatest-hits-albums at home, and they expect a greatest-hits-concert with a spectacular light-show. They would not mind if the hits were played note by note like the originals, perhaps with a longer guitar solo.
This is what the Rolling Stones are basically doing today, and therefore they are still so successful. Thias is what happens with other bands from the 1960s as well, think only of Santana.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: brownsugar86 ()
Date: June 2, 2014 11:39

I wonder if they've ever discussed the idea of having an interval half way throught the set.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Date: June 2, 2014 17:45

Quote
saltoftheearth
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Stoneage
Sometimes you wonder on which data Sir Michael makes his set list decisions. He seems to think that the average Stones fan likes to hear the same songs
performed in the same manner over and over again. Like schooled monkeys...

The average Stones fan probably does. If you think a few hundred people posting on IORR represent average stones fans, I think perhaps you may be mistaken.

That's the point! Like it or not but most of the concert-goers are guys who have the greatest-hits-albums at home, and they expect a greatest-hits-concert with a spectacular light-show. They would not mind if the hits were played note by note like the originals, perhaps with a longer guitar solo.
This is what the Rolling Stones are basically doing today, and therefore they are still so successful. Thias is what happens with other bands from the 1960s as well, think only of Santana.

That's not everyone's point.

The other point is that THERE ARE "GREATEST HITS" THAT ARE RARELY IF EVER PLAYED IN CONCERT.

To insinuate that the Rolling Stones only have had 8 to 12 "hits" is ridiculous.

There's much more than JJF,IORR,TD,HTW,MY,SFTD,SMU,BS,YCAGWYW,and Satisfaction.

There's not even any such "Greatest Hits" album with just these 10 songs (that I am aware of).

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: BluzDude ()
Date: June 2, 2014 17:46

Quote
Pecman
I think you are correct...and 100% percent on the money.

But at this point...I'll take a 2 hour show at the beginning of the tour and be
satisfied with 1 hr and 45 min at the end of the tour
.

P.S. Don't Tell Mick!

Pecman

Kind of funny when you think about it....for most bands, the shows gets l-o-n-g-e-r as the tour progresses.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Long John Stoner ()
Date: June 2, 2014 20:38

Quote
BluzDude
Quote
Pecman
I think you are correct...and 100% percent on the money.

But at this point...I'll take a 2 hour show at the beginning of the tour and be
satisfied with 1 hr and 45 min at the end of the tour
.

P.S. Don't Tell Mick!

Pecman

Kind of funny when you think about it....for most bands, the shows gets l-o-n-g-e-r as the tour progresses.



Most bands don't have an average age of 70 years old, either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-02 20:38 by Long John Stoner.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: hirschjaeger ()
Date: June 5, 2014 04:53

for one time the set list for Israel was ok, bc it was the first concert every and unfortunately also the last i fear,
in Israel, there were lots of first stonex Viewers execpt the die hard fans who follow the tour.

lets hope for another Stones tour in smaller places and lets hope than they do soemthing for diehard fans, and Change half of set on every Show, like bruce springsteen does it.

anyway thanks for all Charly, Keith, Ronnie and mick and Bobby and lisa......................

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: June 5, 2014 05:25

Quote
vertigojoe
Quote
buffalo7478
I think the band's setlist is designed to appeal to the least common denominator at each show: the casual or new fan that wants the to play the hits. Maybe they are sensitive to watching the real cash-cow fans paying the highest prices get bored or lose energy when they play something that is/was less popular or unknown to the average investment banker?

But it does really go back (for me at least) when I heard the play Tops in 1982 and I loved it, but probably 70,000 out of the 80,000 in attendance had no reaction...and that is before the Vegas era.

I think they want to put on a spectacle that gets the vast majority of the crowd enjoying the hits, positive energy in the room, and don't want to take risks. And especially now, in old age, with diminished skills, introducing new songs in a live setting is risky. The band that was once wild and edgy is now like a comfortable old sweater....but a lot of us aren't ready to sit in the rocking chair, content wearing an old sweater.

There's an analogy with modern football here.[soccer]
Manchester Utd used to fill their stadium every game with working class people from the local area. They would faithfully attend every game, paying for their tickets but probably very rarely purchasing anything in the club store, and maybe buying a cup of Bovril at Half Time.
So this had to change. They priced out the local fan, replacing him with "Customers" who would attend one game per season, spend a fortune in the MegaStore, and buy the overpriced burgers etc from the catering concessions.
However new fan didn't know the words to the songs the fans sang, and didn't know the people sitting around him. The result? A totally sterile atmosphere. But big bucks in the clubs coffers.
Maybe not the perfect analogy, but definitely some similarities to RS Inc.

The 'tourists' only make up a small percentage of the average 75,000 home gate. United have about 60,000 season ticket holders though, who presumably attend pretty much every home game.

So you'd like to think they'd be familiar with the people around them AND the songs.

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: June 5, 2014 05:27

Quote
bonddm
Re: the reduction in set lists from 23/24 to 19,why not just have an intermission like on the Licks tour if a continuous 2 and a 1/2 hour set is too much for Charlie and/or another member?
It's obviously not practical for the festival dates,but is for the arena shows, considering they don't have support acts and usually finish early.

Huh?

Re: Setlist evolution...
Posted by: Cristiano Radtke ()
Date: June 5, 2014 05:40

I never complaint about the setlists, because I think the worst thing is NOT to be at a Stones concert. Sometimes the setlists can be predictable, but it's always fun. Nobody in Lisbon would ever imagine Bruce Springsteen would join them on stage, and Let's Spend the Night Together in Zurich was pretty fine.

The Stones never disappoint their fans and actually it could be worse, I think. Could you imagine the Stones playing exactly the same 19 songs without changing any of it at a concert? AC/DC made this on maybe 10+ concerts in a row, and I'm sure their fans liked every concert a lot. I'm not comparing the bands, just facing the facts.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1637
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home