If they were to truly go by 'what did we play last time we were here to not play this time' then NO ONE would get any warhorses.

Which is impossible, of course, so when Mick talks about that obviously he's talking about the 1-4 non-warhorse songs they have in the set for whatever tour and it's just his marketing about nothing, because as we've seen on this tour, some nights they play Sad Sad Sad, or Out Of Control or Bitch or You Got Me Rocking or She's So Cold plus the 'fan vote', of which some of those may be, I can't remember. Which is still basically a So what, because they were going to possibly include them throughout the tour anyway.

In regards to concerts I used to stick to the rule that I only go see a band play when they have a new record out since I last saw them. Nowadays it's nigh impossible to go by that rule anymore. Still, there are more bands than the Stones who are still touring yet don't release new albums. Usually their argument is: there's no money in making a new record, touring is making a living. The (few) bands that I go see, make it a point to play something else, every tour and even on the same tour. Not releasing, and having to promote, a new record gives them the opportunity to actually delve into their own past, so we now get to hear songs that sometimes weren't even played in their day.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be an option for The Stones (apart from the occasional, smaller theatre shows). Is it because they still attract huge crowds? who then, supposedly, all want to hear the same songs over and over again? I do have my doubts about that, really. The Stones have lots more hits, from over 4 decades to play, so they could change the setlist very easily. Is it really true that audiences want to hear Tumbling Dice every time, when in all likelyhood, those huge audiences don't even know what album that song is actually from? Why not replace it with 19th Nervous Breakdown. Or any other hit songs from any decade, for that matter.
My suspicion is, that to a certain extent, The Stones are lazy (and, hey, they are entitled to be) and don't want to go to the trouble of revisiting those songs, and instead they focus on the warhorses, which are only a SELECTED list of warhorses, when there's lots more of them but they don't want to play them. Setlists from the early 80s and late 70s were a whole lot different, yet a large number of these socalled warhorses were around already at the time.
My point being: the 15 or so songs that we get to hear everytime, are only warhorses because they MADE THEM warhorses, conveniently so.
Just my wednesday afternoon musing.

I can’t help but roll my eyes when I read someone calling the Stones “lazy”.

Often enough it’s usually a fan who doesn’t agree with something that the band is doing. “They’re not switching up their setlists enough because they’re lazy.” or “They’re not releasing new music because they’re lazy.”

Please tell me how a 75 year old man who’s running a business, writing and recording songs, rehearsing and planning for a tour, taking a moment to have open heart surgery and then goes on to rehearse some more and tour is lazy?

Every decision the band makes is for a business/artistic reason. If I had to guess why they tend to stick to the warhorses that they do, I would guess that it’s probably because the band’s focus is on quality of performance. They’d rather play the same 15 songs as perfectly as they can than to mix up each performance with 15 different songs and play them at an average level.

At their age, they know the moment the quality of their performance is down, people will screaming for them hang it up...we have fans on here who already think they should hang it up when Keith makes a couple mistakes.

-Cam

I was going to make a new thread on this, but will add it here.

I recently put together a grid showing the songs of all 38 shows I've been to since 1981. Some interesting items of note:

Total different songs seen: 130
Songs seen at EVERY show: Only 3: T Dice, B Sugar, and HT Women
Songs seen only 1 time: Over a dozen, including just getting Sweet Virginia for the 1st time in Chicago 2.

So when you look at it, the Stones HAVE switched things up considerably over the years - may be minor changes, but they STILL seem to be trying one or two unique songs each show. Something they didn't really do back in the glory days of '69, '72 (at least from what I've been able to see).

Are there 'warhorses' we'd all love to see them drop in favor of something different? Sure. Rarities we'd love to hear? Of course. For me, Start Me Up is a song I can totally do without - it really doesn't go anywhere different on any night (and say what you will about say Miss You, but at least that CAN get interesting at the end!) - BUT, I recognize that 99% of the audience LOVES hearing Start Me Up, and the crowd gets into it each and every time...so who am I to say they should give it a rest?

I'm likely not saying much beyond what's already been written on this now 83 page long thread - Other than perhaps, for those that have been to multiple shows, it's a fun waste of time, to do your own tally of all the songs you've seen over the years.

Quote
erikjjf

Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash

Quote
kuenzer
It Won't Take Long

Only played once as i remember it, Hollywood Bowl.

Also in San Diego 2005.

Great gig!

Quote
CamRS
I can’t help but roll my eyes when I read someone calling the Stones “lazy”.

Often enough it’s usually a fan who doesn’t agree with something that the band is doing. “They’re not switching up their setlists enough because they’re lazy.” or “They’re not releasing new music because they’re lazy.”

Please tell me how a 75 year old man who’s running a business, writing and recording songs, rehearsing and planning for a tour, taking a moment to have open heart surgery and then goes on to rehearse some more and tour is lazy?

Every decision the band makes is for a business/artistic reason. If I had to guess why they tend to stick to the warhorses that they do, I would guess that it’s probably because the band’s focus is on quality of performance. They’d rather play the same 15 songs as perfectly as they can than to mix up each performance with 15 different songs and play them at an average level.

At their age, they know the moment the quality of their performance is down, people will screaming for them hang it up...we have fans on here who already think they should hang it up when Keith makes a couple mistakes.

-Cam

Ok, what if I replace the word 'lazy' in my post with 'playing it safe'?

I never wanted to hear Miss You again live if I didn't have to. Could not stomach another time when Ronnie and Keith would come out to the center of the cat walk stroll around and laugh etc. Just seemed way to fake and and the whole thing was just too long and slow.


They did not do that in Houston. Only Mick hit the catwalk / B stage

The song also seemed to being played faster and the version seemed shorter than the past few tours. I may be way wrong on both of those but if felt like that to me.

And yes....the crowd loved it and sang as loud as they could.

DEmerson, I was thinking of posting something similar to your post too. I’ve only been going to shows since 2013, so all I’ve ever experienced is the so-called “Warhorse Era”. But even if you break down each of the 4 concerts I’ve been too, anyone can see how different each show was. It’s only 4 - but I apologize in advanced for the length:

Washington, DC - 2013
Get Off of My Cloud
IORR
PIB
GS
Worried About You
SFM
Emotional Rescue
Doom and Gloom
One More Shot
HTW
YGTS
BTMMR
MR
MY
SMU
TD
BS
SFTD
YCAGWYW
JJF
S

Nashville 2015
JJF
IORR
YGMR
TD
DaG
Bitch
Faraway Eyes
Wild Horses
Dead Flowers
HTW
BTMMR
Happy
MR
MY
GS
SMU
SFTD
BS
YCAGWYW
S

Desert Trip Weekend 1 - 2016
SMU
YGMR
Out of Control
Ride Em On Down
Mixed Emotions
Wild Horses
IORR
Come Together
TD
HTW
Slipping Away
Little TnA
MR
MY
GS
SFTD
BS
JJF
YCAGWYW
S

Landover, MD 2019
JJF
IORR
TD
YGMR
Mercy, Mercy
Rocks Off
YCAGWYW
Angie
Let it Bleed
SFTD
HTW
Slipping Away
BTMMR
MY
PIB
MR
SMU
BS
GS
S

Well, if that's different enough for some, cool. If you look at setlists a bit further in (recent) history, you will find that virtually every 'exceptional' song has already been played in the 'exceptional slot' in the years immediately before.

This is ok, really. But it's fact, and some of us just wouldn't feel the need to see a show three or four times over, just for a song or two that were considered a variation, a couple of years before. For those that do, enjoy!

Quote
SomeGuy
Well, if that's different enough for some, cool. If you look at setlists a bit further in (recent) history, you will find that virtually every 'exceptional' song has already been played in the 'exceptional slot' in the years immediately before.

This is ok, really. But it's fact, and some of us just wouldn't feel the need to see a show three or four times over, just for a song or two that were considered a variation, a couple of years before. For those that do, enjoy!

Then don't, easy as that.

Glad to agree.

Of course they'll play a lot of songs during a tour, or two. The main thing however is that 80 percent of the setlist is the same every time. You know, beforehand,
that 16 (take or add one or two) out of 19 songs will be the same. Especially the last 2/3 of the show is pretty much engraved in stone.

CamRS - you did pretty darn good for only 4 shows! Faraway Eyes, is pretty rare (one of the songs I only caught once), Come Together of course was unique to Desert Trip, and Mercy, Mercy is only the one time so far.

Quote
GasLightStreet
If they were to truly go by 'what did we play last time we were here to not play this time' then NO ONE would get any warhorses.

Which is impossible, of course, so when Mick talks about that obviously he's talking about the 1-4 non-warhorse songs they have in the set for whatever tour and it's just his marketing about nothing, because as we've seen on this tour, some nights they play Sad Sad Sad, or Out Of Control or Bitch or You Got Me Rocking or She's So Cold plus the 'fan vote', of which some of those may be, I can't remember. Which is still basically a So what, because they were going to possibly include them throughout the tour anyway.

My argument at this point is against repeating NON-WARHORSES in the same cities.

"I maintain that it IS NOT a good strategy to repeat non-warhorses in these cities.

They perform songs these days which Philadelphia (as an example) has never gotten live and others they have not gotten since the '70's.

We all have a clear idea to expect the warhorses to be repeated. However,when they start repeating non-warhorses,it leaves nothing new for people who return.

The aggravating part is that they are performing these non-warhorse songs that would be new for some cities but,they wait until they are somewhere where they have already performed them and do them again in the same cities.

Despite the fact that they claim (or used to claim) to do the opposite.

In short,they could do the same songs,and just pay more attention to past set lists,play the songs in different cities,and more people would be getting more variety .... with the same songs.

Examples :

"Let it Bleed" could have been performed in Foxborough instead of being repeated in Washington, D.C. and it would have been new for them.

"Heartbreaker" could have been performed in Washington,D.C. or Chicago (never performed either place) instead of being repeated in Houston.

Houston could have easily gotten "You Got the Silver" for the first time but,they decided to do "Slipping Away" for the 3rd Houston concert in a row. And I love "Slipping Away" but,I just wish that they would try a little harder to avoid repeating these non-warhorses when they have become the only thing new to hope for."

I have given up arguing to drop or rest warhorses until / unless they go back to doing theater and club shows. That ship has sailed for larger venues.

Of course,it is possible to have good luck if you go to a handful of concerts but,many people go and return over the years when the band returns to their area or their city as opposed to following them around to different places.

Quote
DEmerson
I was going to make a new thread on this, but will add it here.

I recently put together a grid showing the songs of all 38 shows I've been to since 1981. Some interesting items of note:

Total different songs seen: 130
Songs seen at EVERY show: Only 3: T Dice, B Sugar, and HT Women
Songs seen only 1 time: Over a dozen, including just getting Sweet Virginia for the 1st time in Chicago 2.

So when you look at it, the Stones HAVE switched things up considerably over the years - may be minor changes, but they STILL seem to be trying one or two unique songs each show. Something they didn't really do back in the glory days of '69, '72 (at least from what I've been able to see).

Are there 'warhorses' we'd all love to see them drop in favor of something different? Sure. Rarities we'd love to hear? Of course. For me, Start Me Up is a song I can totally do without - it really doesn't go anywhere different on any night (and say what you will about say Miss You, but at least that CAN get interesting at the end!) - BUT, I recognize that 99% of the audience LOVES hearing Start Me Up, and the crowd gets into it each and every time...so who am I to say they should give it a rest?

I'm likely not saying much beyond what's already been written on this now 83 page long thread - Other than perhaps, for those that have been to multiple shows, it's a fun waste of time, to do your own tally of all the songs you've seen over the years.

Interesting post. Curious: so there have been shows where they did NOT play JJF? In the late era?

Quote
DEmerson
I was going to make a new thread on this, but will add it here.

I recently put together a grid showing the songs of all 38 shows I've been to since 1981. Some interesting items of note:

Total different songs seen: 130
Songs seen at EVERY show: Only 3: T Dice, B Sugar, and HT Women
Songs seen only 1 time: Over a dozen, including just getting Sweet Virginia for the 1st time in Chicago 2.

So when you look at it, the Stones HAVE switched things up considerably over the years - may be minor changes, but they STILL seem to be trying one or two unique songs each show. Something they didn't really do back in the glory days of '69, '72 (at least from what I've been able to see).

Are there 'warhorses' we'd all love to see them drop in favor of something different? Sure. Rarities we'd love to hear? Of course. For me, Start Me Up is a song I can totally do without - it really doesn't go anywhere different on any night (and say what you will about say Miss You, but at least that CAN get interesting at the end!) - BUT, I recognize that 99% of the audience LOVES hearing Start Me Up, and the crowd gets into it each and every time...so who am I to say they should give it a rest?

I'm likely not saying much beyond what's already been written on this now 83 page long thread - Other than perhaps, for those that have been to multiple shows, it's a fun waste of time, to do your own tally of all the songs you've seen over the years.

i don't have the list of shows you saw but since 1981 I am guessing more than 20 songs were songs they were performing for the current album and then most of them never played again? the telling part would be how many different songs have you seen at shows since the tor for the bigger bang album ended

Interesting post. Curious: so there have been shows where they did NOT play JJF? In the late era?[/quote]

I spoke too soon. I had it as a DC show in 1989, but just looked at setlist.com again and see they DID do JJ flash as an encore.

I recently saw he band in Foxboro and they are anything but lazy. One reason they play their hits in the stadiums is that the crowd is electrified by them and the band plays off the energy. You need energy in a 60K seat stadium playing You Gotta Move on a stool ain't going to work. I've been critical in the past of them for not mixing it up more but at this point we should be god damned happy to go see these treasured songs performed live because it simply is not going to happen for much longer. Yes we've been saying that for a long time but these guys are long in the tooth. Charlie at 78 sitting upright for two plus hours etc. How much longer can it go on. It's not like HTW, SMU and Satisfaction are ad songs they are what made the Rolling Stones what they are. Would I like to see Can't You Hear Me Knocking? or Stray Cat Blues yes but I was extremely satisfied with the show I went to. We need to be happy that they can still do this for a little while longer.

As artists, yeah, they're lazy. They mostly stick to the tried and true.
With their huge catalog, they could be building shows or tours around certain albums or periods. They could be experimenting with new arrangements or covers. It's been a corporate rock show since 1989, aside from a few minor experimental forays.
They've played Mercy, Mercy once this tour (once, right?) and get praised for it.
Granted, they are good at what they do, but there is an alternative universe in which they are less popular but far more interesting.

My only regret today is that I didn't get to go to one of the earlier shows this tour when there were still 20 songs in the set list. By eliminating that one song I've missed my chance to hear Play With Fire, Mercy Mercy or some other obscure song when I finally catch my first show in Denver and I was really looking forward to that.

Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind...

missed the chance to hear anything from B&L also....

It is interesting to see many comments on the set lists. Still, does anyone really think the Stones, at their age and time in their career, really care about fans who count 19 or 20 songs, or who don't want to hear this or that song?

They are still the most successful rock act on the planet. They fill up stadiums with their current concept. For me this is easy: Never change a winning team.

Bjornulf

Hmm, I understand the idea of keeping a winning team. However, I believe without us there wouldn't be much interest in The Stones. I can't imagine a youngster out of the blue deciding to listen to Rock and Roll on their own without any influence from somewhere like Parents or Friends. Yes they're older and established but they're also still in business. They've also proved they can play rare songs beautifully like Play With Fire and Mercy Mercy, so why not indulge us and themselves while at it. There's always more than one perspective, who's right I don't know. But this is the way I see it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-02 10:44 by frankotero.

When I saw Bob Dylan last year in Salzburg he played quite a lot of songs I've never heard before. I'm not a die-hard fan of him by any means but I loved to see him from time to time over the decades.

I can't even name the songs he played with 2 or 3 exceptions but I think if he would play more "war-horses" I'd most likely go to see him more often.

So I will wait for at least another decade - if he's still playing then - to see him again.

In 2017 I spoke to a colleague of mine before the Spielfeld-show and she told me that her parents never let her go to see the Stones when she was young but now she's heading for her first show, together with her son, and she really hopes to hear Jumpin' Jack Flash.
What I mean to say - she's one of the 80,000 that go there to sing along to Satisfaction, JJF, Miss You and HTW and all the others. Me I was one out of a few dozens there who was waiting for Dancing With Mr.D. which they didn't play at this show ;-)

I can understand why they play for the masses and not for the hard-core fan when in front of 50,000 people. And as it seems they have their limits now and Jagger can't sing for more than two hours (or is it Charlie with the pain in his back ?) and a 19 songs-set list leaves no space for surprises.

<and a 19 songs-set list leaves no space for surprises>

Well, MR lasts for 10-14 minutes. IMO, they should always play it, but there are fans who'd like to see them play three or four other songs in that slot.

They have a bunch of other great tunes they could do acoustic on the B-Stage as well.

And I haven't even mentioned song #2,3 or 5 yet

But I'm not complaining. Actually, I think they have done an effort this time to change it around a bit. The first half of the show is quite different from gig to gig.

6 out of the first 8 songs DOES NOT equal "the first half of the show".

It's not so much about not playing any warhorses, it's more about not playing all of them.

Jumping Jack Flash
Tumbling Dice
It's Only Rock N Roll
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Sympathy For The Devil
Honky Tonk Women
Miss You
Midnight Rambler
Paint It Black
Start Me Up
Brown Sugar
Gimme Shelter
Satisfaction

That's 13 warhorses. Obviously the casual fans don't need to hear all of them. They could easily scratch 4 of those songs from the setlist and replace with something more interesting.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
6 out of the first 8 songs DOES NOT equal "the first half of the show".

Of course not, but the changes made during the first half give the audience a different experience of the first half - as there are no changes during the second half.

Quote
bv
It is interesting to see many comments on the set lists. Still, does anyone really think the Stones, at their age and time in their career, really care about fans who count 19 or 20 songs, or who don't want to hear this or that song?

They are still the most successful rock act on the planet. They fill up stadiums with their current concept. For me this is easy: Never change a winning team.

They already have changed "a winning team".

Look at the '94 set lists and the '97 set lists and tell me that nothing has changed.

Or maybe the current lack of change ...... actually is the change ...... if you want to philosophize ...... compared to other tours in the past.

Not a recent change but,it started to change this way later on in 2003.

Are there 'warhorses' we'd all love to see them drop in favor of something different? Sure. Rarities we'd love to hear? Of course. For me, Start Me Up is a song I can totally do without - it really doesn't go anywhere different on any night (and say what you will about say Miss You, but at least that CAN get interesting at the end!) - BUT, I recognize that 99% of the audience LOVES hearing Start Me Up, and the crowd gets into it each and every time...so who am I to say they should give it a rest?


Couldn't have said it better.