Quote
potus43
They are AFRAID. They always have been of "taking chances" since 81 tour

definitely took risks that tour though:




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-01 02:01 by Turner68.

Quote
MCDDTLC

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
dcba
Don't worry MH they'll play Streets Of Love and Blinded By Love just for you...

Dammit again!
I've seen this band enough for two lifetimes
I only bought tickets this time to see Knocking...

Munich - CYHMK was only worth seelimg/listening to when Mick Taylor was handling the leads!!!! - They miss Bobby alot too, don't care for his replacement!

MLC

My friend you have a point that cannot be ignored...but time can't change me and I can't change time..I gotta go, I gotta see

Why can't they play the whole album in a stadium show for the hard-core fans? Because at least 50.000 out of the 60.000 are not hard-core fans. It's like saying why can't they play all there biggest hits for the casual fan at a club show.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
Wuudy
Why can't they play the whole album in a stadium show for the hard-core fans? Because at least 50.000 out of the 60.000 are not hard-core fans. It's like saying why can't they play all there biggest hits for the casual fan at a club show.

But Arlington goes to 11...

Play an arena then and advertise
it that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-02 22:05 by donvis.

why can't they play all their biggest hits for the casual fan at a club show?

oh wait...

Quote
Gfmsoccer
While they are still great rock stars, they are also smart businessmen.
They know the only way you can pull off a stadium tour theses days, is an all hits, warhorses show.

Bands that do album shows (Allman Bros, etc) do them in clubs for the hardcore fans who get into that. The Stones filmed that for you in LA, which will be out in the Fall. Stadium shows are not for the deep cut, hardcore fans. They are for 50,000 people who are classic rock fans and like to sign along with your big hits.

Ask ACDC, McCartney, Springsteen and the very few bands that can still do stadium shows. It's a sign-a-long baby! That's why they are there.

Nonsense......U2 play stadiums, they are the highest grossing band in the world, and they play what they want, when they want, as does Springsteen. They have balls, The Stones don't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-01 05:24 by strat72.

What confirmation from the band does anyone have that the Fonda show will be released? Even though it was filmed, that is no guarantee based on the past.

Quote
strat72

Quote
Gfmsoccer
While they are still great rock stars, they are also smart businessmen.
They know the only way you can pull off a stadium tour theses days, is an all hits, warhorses show.

Bands that do album shows (Allman Bros, etc) do them in clubs for the hardcore fans who get into that. The Stones filmed that for you in LA, which will be out in the Fall. Stadium shows are not for the deep cut, hardcore fans. They are for 50,000 people who are classic rock fans and like to sign along with your big hits.

Ask ACDC, McCartney, Springsteen and the very few bands that can still do stadium shows. It's a sign-a-long baby! That's why they are there.

Nonsense......U2 play stadiums, they are the highest grossing band in the world, and they play what they want, when they want, as does Springsteen. They have balls, The Stones don't.

I agree just because you have enough fans to fill a stadium is no excuse to
continue playing only warhorses in the stadium. To me it seems with the large attendance of a stadium the more diverse the musical tastes will be in comparison
To the arena or club audience.

Quote
strat72

Quote
Gfmsoccer
While they are still great rock stars, they are also smart businessmen.
They know the only way you can pull off a stadium tour theses days, is an all hits, warhorses show.

Bands that do album shows (Allman Bros, etc) do them in clubs for the hardcore fans who get into that. The Stones filmed that for you in LA, which will be out in the Fall. Stadium shows are not for the deep cut, hardcore fans. They are for 50,000 people who are classic rock fans and like to sign along with your big hits.

Ask ACDC, McCartney, Springsteen and the very few bands that can still do stadium shows. It's a sign-a-long baby! That's why they are there.

Nonsense......U2 play stadiums, they are the highest grossing band in the world, and they play what they want, when they want, as does Springsteen.

Except... U2 sucks!
I listened to the show they gave at the L.A. Roxy on May 28 and while the setlist is good the playing sucks. Whether you like or not U2 is a band that's been relying on big stages big PA's big video screens.
When they do'nt have to back them up they're not that exciting...

Quote
swimtothemoon

Quote
strat72

Quote
Gfmsoccer
While they are still great rock stars, they are also smart businessmen.
They know the only way you can pull off a stadium tour theses days, is an all hits, warhorses show.

Bands that do album shows (Allman Bros, etc) do them in clubs for the hardcore fans who get into that. The Stones filmed that for you in LA, which will be out in the Fall. Stadium shows are not for the deep cut, hardcore fans. They are for 50,000 people who are classic rock fans and like to sign along with your big hits.

Ask ACDC, McCartney, Springsteen and the very few bands that can still do stadium shows. It's a sign-a-long baby! That's why they are there.

Nonsense......U2 play stadiums, they are the highest grossing band in the world, and they play what they want, when they want, as does Springsteen. They have balls, The Stones don't.

I agree just because you have enough fans to fill a stadium is no excuse to
continue playing only warhorses in the stadium. To me it seems with the large attendance of a stadium the more diverse the musical tastes will be in comparison
To the arena or club audience.

Their ticket sales seem to prove that a safe, conservative greatest hits set list is a guaranteed money spinner.

Quote
Gfmsoccer
While they are still great rock stars, they are also smart businessmen.
They know the only way you can pull off a stadium tour theses days, is an all hits, warhorses show.

Bands that do album shows (Allman Bros, etc) do them in clubs for the hardcore fans who get into that. The Stones filmed that for you in LA, which will be out in the Fall. Stadium shows are not for the deep cut, hardcore fans. They are for 50,000 people who are classic rock fans and like to sign along with your big hits.

Ask ACDC, McCartney, Springsteen and the very few bands that can still do stadium shows. It's a sign-a-long baby! That's why they are there.

Springsteen regularly plays complete albums during his stadium gigs.I've only seen him once and at the gig that I saw in Australia,he played the whole of Born To Run.The previous night he played the Born In The USA album

dcba- I feel I have to point out the obvious, you said U2 depends on big screens, etc. How can you notice less excitement by listening to the concert? Back to The Stones, they're definitely more exciting than U2 on their own. But I'll be honest I like the big stages and props they used throughout the years. Even though they didn't need them. Also, as much as I want them to play SF onstage I have to agree with Mick that most of the audience wouldn't enjoy it. That's painful to say. However, they could do some special gigs where they announced their intentions and hopefully all the fans would get in. That's in my perfect world anyway.

Quote
dcba

Quote
strat72

Quote
Gfmsoccer
While they are still great rock stars, they are also smart businessmen.
They know the only way you can pull off a stadium tour theses days, is an all hits, warhorses show.

Bands that do album shows (Allman Bros, etc) do them in clubs for the hardcore fans who get into that. The Stones filmed that for you in LA, which will be out in the Fall. Stadium shows are not for the deep cut, hardcore fans. They are for 50,000 people who are classic rock fans and like to sign along with your big hits.

Ask ACDC, McCartney, Springsteen and the very few bands that can still do stadium shows. It's a sign-a-long baby! That's why they are there.

Nonsense......U2 play stadiums, they are the highest grossing band in the world, and they play what they want, when they want, as does Springsteen.

Except... U2 sucks!
I listened to the show they gave at the L.A. Roxy on May 28 and while the setlist is good the playing sucks. Whether you like or not U2 is a band that's been relying on big stages big PA's big video screens.
When they do'nt have to back them up they're not that exciting...

Well you may think they suck, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a stadium band that play primarily for themselves and their hardcore fans, and not for their casual/corporate fans. They have the balls to do this, as does Bruce. The Stones are very, very conservative, and play it safe.

Quote
frankotero
dcba- I feel I have to point out the obvious, you said U2 depends on big screens, etc. How can you notice less excitement by listening to the concert? Back to The Stones, they're definitely more exciting than U2 on their own. But I'll be honest I like the big stages and props they used throughout the years. Even though they didn't need them. Also, as much as I want them to play SF onstage I have to agree with Mick that most of the audience wouldn't enjoy it. That's painful to say. However, they could do some special gigs where they announced their intentions and hopefully all the fans would get in. That's in my perfect world anyway.

+1

This is all off topic. I again maintain that an arena that advertised all of Sticky Fingers would be played in a special event would sell out with little problem. I could care less about Bono (as pronounced in the name Sonny Bono) and u2

Quote
donvis
This is all off topic. I again maintain that an arena that advertised all of Sticky Fingers would be played in a special event would sell out with little problem. I could care less about Bono (as pronounced in the name Sonny Bono) and u2

Yes it would sell out, but it's a pipe dream. The reason it will never happen is because The Stones play it safe, both artistically, and commercially, unlike U2 and Springsteen who prove that you do not have to stick to a greatest hit, jukebox formula to do well at the box office.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-01 23:58 by strat72.

it's possible they were going to do it, and then saw all the rude comments from mick taylor fans demanding that he be included, and so they called it off.

Quote
Turner68
it's possible they were going to do it, and then saw all the rude comments from mick taylor fans demanding that he be included, and so they called it off.

Agreed, that sounds like a resonable explonation.

The Stones do not have the balls.

In 2002 there were 5 cities in which they played a stadium, arena, and theater all in one week. In LA alone between the 3 shows they played 60 different songs. That certainly wasn't playing it safe.

Quote
donvis
After perusal of last night's set list which is the total opposite of any kind of Sticky Fingers highlighting, I have been thinking. There is absolutely no reason on earth why that Fonda set list could not have been performed in a stadium or arena for the just the hard core fans. All the promoters had to do was bill it as such. Just announce that this is a special show in which all of Sticky Fingers will be played just for hard core fans, no Satisfaction, no SFTD, etc. it would not have been much different than the 5 2012 anniversary shows.( Those were a special event, people knew what they were and came from all over the world.)I am still pissed that Sticky Fingers was wasted on a bunch of models and movie stars.
Yeah it's my fault I didn't go out there, but not everyone can leave their job for a week and just hang out in LA hoping that against all odds they were going to play all of Sticky Fingers. For me it wasn't a matter of money, it was a matter of time and uncertainty. But tell me for sure and I will be there! And spare me the Stones don't owe their fans anything bullshit. Remember the 50th Anniversary videos where Mick is saying "oh fans thank you so much, without you we would not have it so great"? Well apparently he didn't really mean it.

the reason you don't understand is because you think you know everything and you know very little.

1. what makes you think a "hardcore fan" is any better than anyone else? because you know every song,every tour,the bands kids names,every back-up player from every tour and record you somehow think that makes you a "more quality fan"-it doesnt.
your enjoyment of the rolling stones is no more important than that of a person who got free tickets from the company they work for and know maybe 3 songs.

2.the band have a job-they are performers.playing in a large venue is an artform and one the rolling stones have perfected over many years of touring.
their job is to entertain the people who showed up at the venue to the best of their ability.it isnt to figure out which fans are big fans,small fans,xtra special fans-they dont give a shit who you are,how you got there or what your deep burning desire is for them to do for you.

3.part of the artform of a big show is keeping the energy up.there is nothing worse than losing the attention of a large crowd.it's a nightmare and once the crowds focus is gone they are hard to get back.for a massive show with 1000's its nearly impossible and can result in a boring night for everyone.playing a bunch of obscure songs.playing too many slow songs,acting as if it's no big deal to you and you "expect" the crowd to cheer,playing for yourselves and not the audience etc is a recipe for this disaster.

4.the cure for this is to hit the audience with 19 or 20 of the best rock and roll songs ever written.if you happen to be the band who wrote said songs-its probably best to play them.

5.if you notice the set has an ebb and flow-it starts fast.as keith says "hit em with a good kickin number everyone knows"then has a couple of fast or mid tempo rockers that are well known and then shifts again to either a new song or a lesser known song then a "fan vote" song.before going into the ""showpiece numbers" midnight rambler,you cant always get,etc ones that tend to be longer and/or awe inspiring before the flury at the end.it's a well devolped sense of timing and paying attention to crowd reaction that has been learned over years of playing live-i doubt you'll find anyone who is accidently the best in the world at what they do.

6.what makes you think those arent the songs the rolling stones themselves want to play?? when asked not too long ago what his favorite song to play live was keith said-"jumpin jack flash"

7.thing is,you dont have a band that can play stadiums.you dont know how to play stadiums,they do.leave it to the experts.maybe some day the stones will play only small venues and do all lesser known songs-of course you wont be able to get in...but at least you'll have something you can still bitch about.

The worst thing is that they became very predictable, in other words - it's boring. I know it's always nice to hear Miss you but come on. They have so many hits that they don't play often (only form 40 licks): Hot Stuff, Waiting On A friend, One Hit, Mixed Emotion, Love Is Strong, 19th, Under My thumb, Fool To Cry, Undercover. What about Anybody Seen My Baby ? These are all their greatest hits. I assume that most of stadium fans know Hot Rocks, Jump Back, 40 licks & grrrr albums. There are lots of great hits out there. Everybody would be happy. Here is an example with few songs from SF.

Start Me Up
Iorr
19th
Anybody Seen My Baby
Doom & Gloom
Sway
Bitch
Dead Flowers
Honky Tonk Woman
Happy
This Place Is Empty
Midnight Rambler
Gimme shelter
Under My Thumb
Mixed Emotion/ Rock And A Hard Place/ Undercover
Sympathy
JJF
YCAGWYW
Satisfaction

So here we have 19 songs with almost all warhorses. Can you imagine somebody unhappy with that ? 4,5 other songs make the setlist different but it's still reasonable from Micks point of view. The other thing is songs order. It the same since 1989 (or even 1978). I don't expect Coming down again, The Lantern, Out Of Time or Let Me Down Slow in the set list. I just wish a little mix, something fresh for each tour. What i like most about Bruce gigs is you never know what' going to happen. I love Stones and i always will but i think they are afraid to take risk and for me it's unwarranted.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
donvis
After perusal of last night's set list which is the total opposite of any kind of Sticky Fingers highlighting, I have been thinking. There is absolutely no reason on earth why that Fonda set list could not have been performed in a stadium or arena for the just the hard core fans. All the promoters had to do was bill it as such. Just announce that this is a special show in which all of Sticky Fingers will be played just for hard core fans, no Satisfaction, no SFTD, etc. it would not have been much different than the 5 2012 anniversary shows.( Those were a special event, people knew what they were and came from all over the world.)I am still pissed that Sticky Fingers was wasted on a bunch of models and movie stars.
Yeah it's my fault I didn't go out there, but not everyone can leave their job for a week and just hang out in LA hoping that against all odds they were going to play all of Sticky Fingers. For me it wasn't a matter of money, it was a matter of time and uncertainty. But tell me for sure and I will be there! And spare me the Stones don't owe their fans anything bullshit. Remember the 50th Anniversary videos where Mick is saying "oh fans thank you so much, without you we would not have it so great"? Well apparently he didn't really mean it.

the reason you don't understand is because you think you know everything and you know very little.

1. what makes you think a "hardcore fan" is any better than anyone else? because you know every song,every tour,the bands kids names,every back-up player from every tour and record you somehow think that makes you a "more quality fan"-it doesnt.
your enjoyment of the rolling stones is no more important than that of a person who got free tickets from the company they work for and know maybe 3 songs.

2.the band have a job-they are performers.playing in a large venue is an artform and one the rolling stones have perfected over many years of touring.
their job is to entertain the people who showed up at the venue to the best of their ability.it isnt to figure out which fans are big fans,small fans,xtra special fans-they dont give a shit who you are,how you got there or what your deep burning desire is for them to do for you.

3.part of the artform of a big show is keeping the energy up.there is nothing worse than losing the attention of a large crowd.it's a nightmare and once the crowds focus is gone they are hard to get back.for a massive show with 1000's its nearly impossible and can result in a boring night for everyone.playing a bunch of obscure songs.playing too many slow songs,acting as if it's no big deal to you and you "expect" the crowd to cheer,playing for yourselves and not the audience etc is a recipe for this disaster.

4.the cure for this is to hit the audience with 19 or 20 of the best rock and roll songs ever written.if you happen to be the band who wrote said songs-its probably best to play them.

5.if you notice the set has an ebb and flow-it starts fast.as keith says "hit em with a good kickin number everyone knows"then has a couple of fast or mid tempo rockers that are well known and then shifts again to either a new song or a lesser known song then a "fan vote" song.before going into the ""showpiece numbers" midnight rambler,you cant always get,etc ones that tend to be longer and/or awe inspiring before the flury at the end.it's a well devolped sense of timing and paying attention to crowd reaction that has been learned over years of playing live-i doubt you'll find anyone who is accidently the best in the world at what they do.

6.what makes you think those arent the songs the rolling stones themselves want to play?? when asked not too long ago what his favorite song to play live was keith said-"jumpin jack flash"

7.thing is,you dont have a band that can play stadiums.you dont know how to play stadiums,they do.leave it to the experts.maybe some day the stones will play only small venues and do all lesser known songs-of course you wont be able to get in...but at least you'll have something you can still bitch about.

Yes I am smarter than you. I at least know to start a sentence with a capital letter. Again you are missing the point. They played all of Sticky Fingers 10 days ago. They could do it again for the people who have supported them through thick and thin even buying shitty remasters and shoddy live albums. And yeah I bet I know more about the Rolling Stones than you do, and have spent more money on them. I am takng 7 people to a show at $1279 a ticket plus $70 ticket insurance each so I guess that entitles me to bitch. And 4 people to a second show also.

Quote
donvis

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
donvis
After perusal of last night's set list which is the total opposite of any kind of Sticky Fingers highlighting, I have been thinking. There is absolutely no reason on earth why that Fonda set list could not have been performed in a stadium or arena for the just the hard core fans. All the promoters had to do was bill it as such. Just announce that this is a special show in which all of Sticky Fingers will be played just for hard core fans, no Satisfaction, no SFTD, etc. it would not have been much different than the 5 2012 anniversary shows.( Those were a special event, people knew what they were and came from all over the world.)I am still pissed that Sticky Fingers was wasted on a bunch of models and movie stars.
Yeah it's my fault I didn't go out there, but not everyone can leave their job for a week and just hang out in LA hoping that against all odds they were going to play all of Sticky Fingers. For me it wasn't a matter of money, it was a matter of time and uncertainty. But tell me for sure and I will be there! And spare me the Stones don't owe their fans anything bullshit. Remember the 50th Anniversary videos where Mick is saying "oh fans thank you so much, without you we would not have it so great"? Well apparently he didn't really mean it.

the reason you don't understand is because you think you know everything and you know very little.

1. what makes you think a "hardcore fan" is any better than anyone else? because you know every song,every tour,the bands kids names,every back-up player from every tour and record you somehow think that makes you a "more quality fan"-it doesnt.
your enjoyment of the rolling stones is no more important than that of a person who got free tickets from the company they work for and know maybe 3 songs.

2.the band have a job-they are performers.playing in a large venue is an artform and one the rolling stones have perfected over many years of touring.
their job is to entertain the people who showed up at the venue to the best of their ability.it isnt to figure out which fans are big fans,small fans,xtra special fans-they dont give a shit who you are,how you got there or what your deep burning desire is for them to do for you.

3.part of the artform of a big show is keeping the energy up.there is nothing worse than losing the attention of a large crowd.it's a nightmare and once the crowds focus is gone they are hard to get back.for a massive show with 1000's its nearly impossible and can result in a boring night for everyone.playing a bunch of obscure songs.playing too many slow songs,acting as if it's no big deal to you and you "expect" the crowd to cheer,playing for yourselves and not the audience etc is a recipe for this disaster.

4.the cure for this is to hit the audience with 19 or 20 of the best rock and roll songs ever written.if you happen to be the band who wrote said songs-its probably best to play them.

5.if you notice the set has an ebb and flow-it starts fast.as keith says "hit em with a good kickin number everyone knows"then has a couple of fast or mid tempo rockers that are well known and then shifts again to either a new song or a lesser known song then a "fan vote" song.before going into the ""showpiece numbers" midnight rambler,you cant always get,etc ones that tend to be longer and/or awe inspiring before the flury at the end.it's a well devolped sense of timing and paying attention to crowd reaction that has been learned over years of playing live-i doubt you'll find anyone who is accidently the best in the world at what they do.

6.what makes you think those arent the songs the rolling stones themselves want to play?? when asked not too long ago what his favorite song to play live was keith said-"jumpin jack flash"

7.thing is,you dont have a band that can play stadiums.you dont know how to play stadiums,they do.leave it to the experts.maybe some day the stones will play only small venues and do all lesser known songs-of course you wont be able to get in...but at least you'll have something you can still bitch about.

Yes I am smarter than you. I at least know to start a sentence with a capital letter. Again you are missing the point. They played all of Sticky Fingers 10 days ago. They could do it again for the people who have supported them through thick and thin even buying shitty remasters and shoddy live albums. And yeah I bet I know more about the Rolling Stones than you do, and have spent more money on them. I am takng 7 people to a show at $1279 a ticket plus $70 ticket insurance each so I guess that entitles me to bitch. And 4 people to a second show also.

perhaps it comes down to the band's personal preference.

would they rather play rarities and full albums to hard core fans, or play the hits to fans who know them less well. both seem like equally valid strategies. if their goal is to be exposed to the greatest number of people as possible, they'd play warhorses in stadiums. if their goal is to make the big fans happy, they'd play the cuts the big fans want to hear.

i think the choice they made is clear. no point being surprised or outraged about it.

if you want to please the masses, you serve hamburgers and fries. if you want to please the connoisseurs then you serve entrecôte bordelaise. they are serving ham burgers and fries, and have been for 52 years.

They are serving gourmet burgers and fries, though.

Movie stars and models should get the hits. The hard core fans should get all of Sticky Fingers.

agreed donvis.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Agree with a lot of what's been said, and I can see both sides, but I have to say it does seem like the Stones haven't had a lot of guts lately... I get they want to appeal to a wider base, but it's not like the album cuts are junk! CYHMK is a great song and it was never on a single, Sway and Sister Morphine are great, too; in fact, most of SF is great. And for crying out loud, in 1975, on the TOTA, they played Hey Negrita, a track not even released yet! But I digress...
I think thrak put a good setlist together for the Stones, a better list than they themselves could probably manage, but IMHO, it could use a couple tweaks...

Quote
thrak
Start Me Up
Iorr CYHMK
19th
Anybody Seen My Baby
Doom & Gloom
Sway
Bitch
Dead Flowers
Honky Tonk Woman
Happy
This Place Is Empty
Midnight Rambler
Gimme shelter
Under My Thumb
Mixed Emotion/ Rock And A Hard Place/ Undercover
Sympathy
JJF
YCAGWYW
Satisfaction Brown Sugar

Thrak made a great setlist, but my logic is this:
Brown Sugar > Satisfaction: I think we all know how Satisfaction sounds... and it gets hugely dragged out, more than BS probably will, particularly with Keys 6 feet under (RIP Bobby). Plus, they're supposed to be promoting SF, so why not include its biggest hit?
CYHMK > IORR: I personally think IORR is a little overrated as a song... at in any case, imho, CYMHK is a lot better than a lot of Stones songs.
So... one more album cut and I killed a warhorse in IORR.
Criticisms, suggestions, complaints, death threats, I welcome it all.