Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Sure the Rolling Stones took their name from the song of another man. They started out as a cover band and they are ending as a cover band. In the beginning the covered the songs of some American guys. Nowadays they're covering mainly the songs of two Englishmen who once wrote some pretty good songs. Yes. They're covering themselves, they're doing that now for a very long time. They are playing the Rolling Stones. They're asking for more money than the Stones ever did at their prime. And they're getting it. But not from me. I mean, not anymore.

Wouldn't it be appropriate if they played at least one Chuck Berry song every night?
Maybe change that song occasionaly, Little Queenie, Let it rock, Carol would go well
with the big audiences. They could surprise us with Come On or You can't catch me.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Yeah, they always do that one.





I liked it

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Yeah, they always do that one.


I liked it

You don't have to be ashamed Dandy. I liked it, too.

why dont they do a cover of some songs by shocking blue.

with lisa on vocals.

they have a history of doing covers of blues and rock, so why not psychodelia.

venus and shocking you would be my choice of songs.

Why not Money Money Money (ABBA). Makes no sense musically, but philosophically.

In an unrelated thread dmay mentioned something that makes perfect sense. Re. the Stones setlist choices he said "What have they got to lose?"
And that is true. At this point they have nothing to prove. They can only enhance their legacy.
Talking about Neil Young, who stays out there. On some cusp. Good or bad is beside the point. The point is to keep taking risks.

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Understatement of the year

This thread seems to exist for pure fantasizing. I'll leave the door open a crack that they might still pull off a surprise or two but I think it's safe to say a Rolling Stones setlist is pretty much cast in stone at this point.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

My only wish: please no choir anymore. That's kindergarten. Four years is enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-05-31 16:02 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Sympathy as an opener ? Always thought it could work well. It would have to be dark though.

sc uk

I had no issues with the stones leaving the setlist pretty much unchanged a lot of years when they toured new albums. they would play the warhorses, 5 or more songs from the new album and 2-3 surprises. of course the setlist was a bit longer than it is now. the band had a few major tours that weren't in support of a new studio album, late 90's and 40 licks. they mixed the setlist up a big. its really been after the bigger bang tour ended that the band sticks to pretty much the same thing.

i would like that they include hang fire, dance little sister and lies.

------------m.

I hope they drop YCAGWYW as an encore, and rather spend those 8-10 minutes to play two other tracks, and quit using Matt's synth on Miss You, BUT I'll have no complaints if they keep playing Out of Control and make Street Fighting Man a regular number in the set.

Quote
potus43

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Understatement of the year

I guess embarrassing is a more appropriate description

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Understatement of the year

I guess embarrassing is a more appropriate description

Oops, we got a pact here on IORR..........

__________________________

Now we have a Sir discussing the Stones' setlists. He should've register on IORR.

Macca moans at the Stones: Former Beatle appears to have a dig by saying band should concentrate on playing their hits

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Now we have a Sir discussing the Stones' setlists. He should've register on IORR.

Macca moans at the Stones: Former Beatle appears to have a dig by saying band should concentrate on playing their hits

Interesting is how he states that people only want to hear the Stones hits and not the Stones new stuff. I thought that HE was one who DOES put his new stuff into his shows. Although he goes on to point out that, at his own shows, "'When I do a Beatles song the place lights up like a galaxy with all your mobile phones; when I do the new song it is going to be like a black hole.'"

I think it would be funny if Paul were to post here at IORR to see how many of the regular "setlist/warhorse whiners" would get in an argument with Sir Paul McCartney over playing hits vs. new tunes vs. deep cuts.

Although the headline seems to be saying he's dissing the Stones, to me it seems that he's actually validating Jagger's thoughts/views on the subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Now we have a Sir discussing the Stones' setlists. He should've register on IORR.

Macca moans at the Stones: Former Beatle appears to have a dig by saying band should concentrate on playing their hits

Interesting is how he states that people only want to hear the Stones hits and not the Stones new stuff. I thought that HE was one who DOES put his new stuff into his shows. Although he goes on to point out that, at his own shows, "'When I do a Beatles song the place lights up like a galaxy with all your mobile phones; when I do the new song it is going to be like a black hole.'"

I think it would be funny if Paul were to post here at IORR to see how many of the regular "setlist/warhorse whiners" would get in an argument with Sir Paul McCartney over playing hits vs. new tunes vs. deep cuts.

Although the headline seems to be saying he's dissing the Stones, to me it seems that he's actually validating Jagger's thoughts/views on the subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Exactly!

video: [youtu.be]

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Now we have a Sir discussing the Stones' setlists. He should've register on IORR.

Macca moans at the Stones: Former Beatle appears to have a dig by saying band should concentrate on playing their hits

Interesting is how he states that people only want to hear the Stones hits and not the Stones new stuff. I thought that HE was one who DOES put his new stuff into his shows. Although he goes on to point out that, at his own shows, "'When I do a Beatles song the place lights up like a galaxy with all your mobile phones; when I do the new song it is going to be like a black hole.'"

I think it would be funny if Paul were to post here at IORR to see how many of the regular "setlist/warhorse whiners" would get in an argument with Sir Paul McCartney over playing hits vs. new tunes vs. deep cuts.

Although the headline seems to be saying he's dissing the Stones, to me it seems that he's actually validating Jagger's thoughts/views on the subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I'm curious about McCartney's context of "new stuff". Does he mean anything post-1960s? Post 1970s? Or perhaps a more logical post-1981.


Obviously he hasn't seen any of their shows from 2012-2016: with exception to Doom, the few times they've done One More Shot and Out Of Control, there have been shows that they haven't done anything "new" ie post-1981, which was last done in 2007.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Now we have a Sir discussing the Stones' setlists. He should've register on IORR.

Macca moans at the Stones: Former Beatle appears to have a dig by saying band should concentrate on playing their hits

Interesting is how he states that people only want to hear the Stones hits and not the Stones new stuff. I thought that HE was one who DOES put his new stuff into his shows. Although he goes on to point out that, at his own shows, "'When I do a Beatles song the place lights up like a galaxy with all your mobile phones; when I do the new song it is going to be like a black hole.'"

I think it would be funny if Paul were to post here at IORR to see how many of the regular "setlist/warhorse whiners" would get in an argument with Sir Paul McCartney over playing hits vs. new tunes vs. deep cuts.

Although the headline seems to be saying he's dissing the Stones, to me it seems that he's actually validating Jagger's thoughts/views on the subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I'm curious about McCartney's context of "new stuff". Does he mean anything post-1960s? Post 1970s? Or perhaps a more logical post-1981.


Obviously he hasn't seen any of their shows from 2012-2016: with exception to Doom, the few times they've done One More Shot and Out Of Control, there have been shows that they haven't done anything "new" ie post-1981, which was last done in 2007.

He saw them live at least once in 2016, at the Desert Trip (first weekend):

"Paul McCartney (top right) claps while the Rolling Stones cover The Beatles' Come Together @Desert Trip Indio"



[twitter.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-30 16:30 by Cristiano Radtke.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Now we have a Sir discussing the Stones' setlists. He should've register on IORR.

Macca moans at the Stones: Former Beatle appears to have a dig by saying band should concentrate on playing their hits

Interesting is how he states that people only want to hear the Stones hits and not the Stones new stuff. I thought that HE was one who DOES put his new stuff into his shows. Although he goes on to point out that, at his own shows, "'When I do a Beatles song the place lights up like a galaxy with all your mobile phones; when I do the new song it is going to be like a black hole.'"

I think it would be funny if Paul were to post here at IORR to see how many of the regular "setlist/warhorse whiners" would get in an argument with Sir Paul McCartney over playing hits vs. new tunes vs. deep cuts.

Although the headline seems to be saying he's dissing the Stones, to me it seems that he's actually validating Jagger's thoughts/views on the subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I saw Paul in 2016 Sacramento CA (about 75% of the show, my H wasn't feeling real well, probably shouldn't have gone in the first place, but it was either him, or my mother-in-law....)
Anyway, Paul does seem keen on how the audience reacts. When he did play a new number, he actually stated (like in the article) 'oh now you're all going to go quiet' he is sensitive to it, just gander at his flocks of model blondes he puts right up front who have memorized his tunes (go to all his gigs) and dance/jam/enthuse right in front of him to glance down at/replenish his mojo.
I would say to Paul:
If YOU want to insure the audience's heart rates don't dip,
please stop regaling stories about dead musicians.
But please keep 'Foxy Lady' in your show, cuz that surprise and awesome guitar playing was the one song that got me out of my seat.
Missed the close, and if I sound too cool for school, let me admit had I stayed for 'Jet'
I probably woulda stood too!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-30 18:50 by 35love.

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Why did the do come together? Did the want to impress mccartney? And why not inviting him on stage? Strange. ...

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Why did the do come together? Did the want to impress mccartney? And why not inviting him on stage? Strange. ...

Because it's a Lennon song. I don't know why they didn't chose the similar Get Back, a McCartney song.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Why did the do come together? Did the want to impress mccartney? And why not inviting him on stage? Strange. ...

Because it's a Lennon song. I don't know why they didn't chose the similar Get Back, a McCartney song.

Might be. But Paul was member of that band called BEATLES, so the song is connected with him as well. And Paul played several non Mc Cartney Beatles songs over the last years in his shows. Anyway, a very strange choice for the stones and really bad played...

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Why did the do come together? Did the want to impress mccartney? And why not inviting him on stage? Strange. ...

Because it's a Lennon song. I don't know why they didn't chose the similar Get Back, a McCartney song.

Might be. But Paul was member of that band called BEATLES, so the song is connected with him as well. And Paul played several non Mc Cartney Beatles songs over the last years in his shows. Anyway, a very strange choice for the stones and really bad played...

I think he doesn't play Come Together (normally).

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
MrMibbs

Quote
potus43
The same boring set list with zero "chances"

Come together is HORRIBLE!

Why did the do come together? Did the want to impress mccartney? And why not inviting him on stage? Strange. ...

Because it's a Lennon song. I don't know why they didn't chose the similar Get Back, a McCartney song.

Might be. But Paul was member of that band called BEATLES, so the song is connected with him as well. And Paul played several non Mc Cartney Beatles songs over the last years in his shows. Anyway, a very strange choice for the stones and really bad played...

I think he doesn't play Come Together (normally).

I don't think,the Stones care about that. Maybe they invited Paul but he prefered to do a lazy evening...

Three or four Blue & Lonesome songs, plus another new one, would be SWEET to see and hear this fall.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-14 17:56 by Kurt.