Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack
SPOILER ALERT (i'll post it here not on the vienna topic)

today

sfm
lstn
td
like a rolling stone
oot
wild horses (vote)
ghost
paint it black (early!)

since someone reported from Vienna that a real choir was rehearsing in the stadium it's no surprise that they'll move YCAGWYW to a later spot in the set

Quote
jahisnotdead
I still regard Mick's conversation with Elton John about Madonna in "Being Mick" as one of the most revealing when it comes to set lists. When there's something unfamiliar being played, the energy level of the audience drops. It's just a fact. And when the Stones play a stadium, they want people jazzed up to the max from beginning to end. So the setlist has mostly settled into the same warhorses. People like to drink and sing along to their favorite songs with their friends. I get it and appreciate it. I'm glad the warhorse heavy setlist pleases the audience, but it's a bit dull in my opinion.

But then again you have artists like Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. who can play obscure b-sides or outtakes on a stadium and people are excited anyway.

Quote
franzk

Quote
jahisnotdead
I still regard Mick's conversation with Elton John about Madonna in "Being Mick" as one of the most revealing when it comes to set lists. When there's something unfamiliar being played, the energy level of the audience drops. It's just a fact. And when the Stones play a stadium, they want people jazzed up to the max from beginning to end. So the setlist has mostly settled into the same warhorses. People like to drink and sing along to their favorite songs with their friends. I get it and appreciate it. I'm glad the warhorse heavy setlist pleases the audience, but it's a bit dull in my opinion.

But then again you have artists like Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. who can play obscure b-sides or outtakes on a stadium and people are excited anyway.

Which was my point on another thread about how are all these other artists able to do it, but the Stones can't. Surely the average fan in attendance at a Stones show isn't anymore naïve than one at any of these other shows as to the artist's back catalog. Yes, there will always be some blank stares, but I think the vast majority of people in the stands would know most of the songs played. I think Mick & Co gravely underestimate their audience.

Quote
BeastyBurdeny

Quote
Stoneage
Why give it a thought? They won't change anything in the setlist after the first 8 songs (that is the only open space for changes). Of course Keith can change his 2-set of songs but they are always the usual suspects.
You don't need a university diploma in statistics to understand this - just study the setlists on this tour, and the tours before that.

I'm well aware of their setlist formula that has been used extensively for years. I was stating what I think they could realistically drop, from my own perspective - which will never be entirely the same as any other fan on this board. I have no expectations of them to ever do it. I actually find it fun to speculate such things, even if they are impossible.

Sure, BeastyBurdeny. Nothing wrong with that.

I think that The Stones are a little bit too preoccupied with their idea of a warhorse. For example: they've dropped (for obvious reasons) Brown Sugar since 2021 and I don't think that fans are very dissappointed. Since 2019 they quite rarely play IORR which was a staple for many years and they don't always play Street Fighting Man and I don't think many people mind it. On the other hand this year Out Of Time, which should be considered as a "deep cut" became one of the biggest crowd pleasers everywhere they've played it. So it brings a question: do they really need to play such songs as YCAGWAYW, MR, PIB or MY on every show? Maybe crowds would be equally happy with numbers they don't play that often or at all?

Midnight Rambler and Miss you could be cut shorter and could easily include another surprise song

Quote
franzk
I think that The Stones are a little bit too preoccupied with their idea of a warhorse. For example: they've dropped (for obvious reasons) Brown Sugar since 2021 and I don't think that fans are very dissappointed. Since 2019 they quite rarely play IORR which was a staple for many years and they don't always play Street Fighting Man and I don't think many people mind it. On the other hand this year Out Of Time, which should be considered as a "deep cut" became one of the biggest crowd pleasers everywhere they've played it. So it brings a question: do they really need to play such songs as YCAGWAYW, MR, PIB or MY on every show? Maybe crowds would be equally happy with numbers they don't play that often or at all?

There's no reason why over 75% of their set has to consist of well-known warhorses. But even if they do want to stick to that, then there are plenty of equally well-known songs they could rotate in and out of the setlist. For example, there is no reason why they could not substitute YCAGWYW for Wild Horses, Angie or Beast of Burden.

But right now, those are the songs that usually end up filling the rotating slots and dominate the song vote, rather than genuine rarities.

Still, it's nice that they have been mixing it up at least just a little bit more this tour.

You forgot some factors; like age, ability and comfort. Changes means less predictability, more work and higher risk. If you can pull it through with less work and less risk you tend to that.
Why overdo it? (To play the devil's advocate here...)

Quote
Stoneage
You forgot some factors; like age, ability and comfort. Changes means less predictability, more work and higher risk. If you can pull it through with less work and less risk you tend to that.
Why overdo it? (To play the devil's advocate here...)

One possible factor not mentioned yet: they might actually like playing those tunes. They are pretty good tunes (the ones we call 'war horses'). Playing those 14 times a year is not that bad (the other way to put it: if one only plays 14 gigs a year, probably one might like to play the best ones one got, and not go that experimental).

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-16 19:22 by Doxa.

I'd think age is a big factor being that it means remembering more tunes I know they reherse alot of songs do we know how many was rehearsed for this tour?

Quote
philrock90
I'd think age is a big factor being that it means remembering more tunes I know they reherse alot of songs do we know how many was rehearsed for this tour?

I don't know how many songs they rehearsed for this tour but here are some songs they rehearsed in 2021. Any of them would be a nice addition to the setlist.

Crazy Mama
Flip the Switch
Living in the Heart of Love
Emotional Rescue
Moonlight Mile
Sway
Live with Me
Play with Fire
No Expectations
Hand of Fate
Worried About You
If You Can't Rock Me
Just My Imagination
Doom and Gloom
Rough Justice
Memory Motel

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
You forgot some factors; like age, ability and comfort. Changes means less predictability, more work and higher risk. If you can pull it through with less work and less risk you tend to that.
Why overdo it? (To play the devil's advocate here...)

One possible factor not mentioned yet: they might actually like playing those tunes. They are pretty good tunes (the ones we call 'war horses'). Playing those 14 times a year is not that bad (the other way to put it: if one only plays 14 gigs a year, probably one might like to play the best ones one got, and not go that experimental).

- Doxa

Sure, but that kind of goes against anything Jagger stands for. As I understand him he very much likes to live in the present and follow trends. He doesn't like to dwell in the past.
Didn't he once say "I don't want to play Satisfaction when I'm 45"? I think he has adapted to what he thinks the audience wants to hear more than anything else.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
You forgot some factors; like age, ability and comfort. Changes means less predictability, more work and higher risk. If you can pull it through with less work and less risk you tend to that.
Why overdo it? (To play the devil's advocate here...)

One possible factor not mentioned yet: they might actually like playing those tunes. They are pretty good tunes (the ones we call 'war horses'). Playing those 14 times a year is not that bad (the other way to put it: if one only plays 14 gigs a year, probably one might like to play the best ones one got, and not go that experimental).

- Doxa

Sure, but that kind of goes against anything Jagger stands for. As I understand him he very much likes to live in the present and follow trends. He doesn't like to dwell in the past.
Didn't he once say "I don't want to play Satisfaction when I'm 45"? I think he has adapted to what he thinks the audience wants to hear more than anything else.

I don't think performers like Jagger minds about when the song is done. If it works here and now, it's relevant. Every song is tested in every concert, and if it works, why not to play it? If it does not, drop it. The songs live when you perform them. They are created to last forever, for eternal use. If you go to a concert an orchestra playing Mozart that has nothing to do with nostalgia, no matter how long ago those pieces are created.

Altogether, I think people misinterpret Jagger's dislike of nostalgia. For him it something that has happened in the past, and he is not so keen on remembering that or re-living it. Performing live is something different. It happens right now, not in the past.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-16 21:05 by Doxa.

Quote
franzk

Quote
philrock90
I'd think age is a big factor being that it means remembering more tunes I know they reherse alot of songs do we know how many was rehearsed for this tour?

I don't know how many songs they rehearsed for this tour but here are some songs they rehearsed in 2021. Any of them would be a nice addition to the setlist.

Crazy Mama
Flip the Switch
Living in the Heart of Love
Emotional Rescue
Moonlight Mile
Sway
Live with Me
Play with Fire
No Expectations
Hand of Fate
Worried About You
If You Can't Rock Me
Just My Imagination
Doom and Gloom
Rough Justice
Memory Motel

I'd love to of been a fly on the wall

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
You forgot some factors; like age, ability and comfort. Changes means less predictability, more work and higher risk. If you can pull it through with less work and less risk you tend to that.
Why overdo it? (To play the devil's advocate here...)

One possible factor not mentioned yet: they might actually like playing those tunes. They are pretty good tunes (the ones we call 'war horses'). Playing those 14 times a year is not that bad (the other way to put it: if one only plays 14 gigs a year, probably one might like to play the best ones one got, and not go that experimental).

- Doxa

Sure, but that kind of goes against anything Jagger stands for. As I understand him he very much likes to live in the present and follow trends. He doesn't like to dwell in the past.
Didn't he once say "I don't want to play Satisfaction when I'm 45"? I think he has adapted to what he thinks the audience wants to hear more than anything else.

I don't think performers like Jagger minds about when the song is done. If it works here and now, it's relevant. Every song is tested in every concert, and if it works, why not to play it? If it does not, drop it. The songs live when you perform them. They are created to last forever, for eternal use. If you go to a concert an orchestra playing Mozart that has nothing to do with nostalgia, no matter how long ago those pieces are created.

Altogether, I think people misinterpret Jagger's dislike of nostalgia. For him it something that has happened in the past, and he is not so keen on remembering that or re-living it. Performing live is something different. It happens right now, not in the past.

- Doxa

Okay, what you are basically saying then is that Jagger is happy being a nostalgic act doing the golden oldies forever. I wonder if he would admit to that if he was asked straight off
(of course that would never happen [people are afraid of him], but anyway)?

I think some people are obsessed and still stuck with quotes and things said many years ago. Is it any wonder why Mick hates doing interviews?

Everyone is still stuck on quotes about singing Satisfaction in their forties and not wanting to be a Beach Boys nostalgia act, blah blah blah.

Move on. I think a part of what offends fans is that their favorite band is a nostalgia act which means they are also nostalgia fans. Stop pretending that the Stones are a current group in competition with the latest artists--they are not.
The Stones' music is old---and so are you. The Stones themselves are old--so are we. The need to keep them "current" and an active band is all in vain.

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
Stoneage
As it is now I consider the gig done after song 8. I would be more than happy to leave the gig then if I could get some money back by returning the ticket or selling it to someone outside.
The warhorse bonanza I could do without.

Totally agree. Whatever hope there is - and it is pretty limited hope at that - it is for some modicum of variety during the first eight numbers.After that we are in warhorse-land.

I honestly cannot understand why The Stones do not freshen things up a bit more than they do. They could include 9/10 warhorses each time and still accommodate some different material. I'm not talking about 6/7 deep cuts- I'm talking about tracks like Little Red Rooster, All Over Now, Lady Jane, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, We Love You, Dandelion - all big hits. And then there are tracks like Mixed Emotions, Ride Em On Down, Waiting On A Friend, Harlem Shuffle, Fool To Cry, Hot Stuff, Rock And A Hard Place, Doo doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker). Again some decent sized hits, and some better known album tracks. Tracks like these would be a pleasant surprise and bring a lot of pleasure to those of us who have been fans forever...

Seriously - these are stadium gigs. Who knows Dandelion or We Love You except a bunch of a few hundred die hard fans?

What some here don't seem to understand: their setlist isn't the way it is because they are lazy or anything (they practice more than 80 songs at a rehearsal). It's determined by crowd reaction. If a rare song like Out Of Time will get a good crowd reaction, they might play it the whole tour. But if they played "Dandelion" almost nobody would sing - people would just stand there, start talking or go to the toilet. Why would they want that?

I really am aware they are stadium gigs. But that does not mean that 80% of every setlist has to be warhorses. I am NOT asking for a setlist of rarities. I am asking the band to give SOME consideration to us unfortunate 'few hundred die hard fans'. I get the feeling that being a die hard fan is somehow a badge of dishonour. Like we are a lesser type of fan in some way. I think that is a little bit unfair. Die hard fans have been around for a long long time. Our money and our support has played its own part in building the legend of the band. Is it too much to ask that we are given occasional crumbs from the table? And perhaps hear five or six tracks different tracks rather than the occasional one or two we might get from time to time.

And your comment that 'what some here don't seem to understand' is rather unnecessary. I was certainly not implying any laziness on the part of the band. Puzzlement yes, but not laziness. And, with respect, you then rather contradict yourself in your reference to 'Out of Time'. If that manages to get a good reaction - and it really is a rarity - then why would Dandelion, or We Love You not get the same?

Surely they are worth at least an occasional punt too, to check out audience reaction?

I want "Brown Sugar" back.

I must say that Radiohead is one of the dullest concerts I’ve been to the last five years - and I go to quite a few.

I wouldn't mind if they cut Miss You or Start Me Up but I would need therapy if they cut Rambler. For me it's the quintessential Stones live song.

Quote
Justin
I think some people are obsessed and still stuck with quotes and things said many years ago. Is it any wonder why Mick hates doing interviews?

Everyone is still stuck on quotes about singing Satisfaction in their forties and not wanting to be a Beach Boys nostalgia act, blah blah blah.

Move on. I think a part of what offends fans is that their favorite band is a nostalgia act which means they are also nostalgia fans. Stop pretending that the Stones are a current group in competition with the latest artists--they are not.
The Stones' music is old---and so are you. The Stones themselves are old--so are we. The need to keep them "current" and an active band is all in vain.

To some extent the Rolling Stones ceased to be a 'current group' after UNDERCOVER. To me their latest and most probably last great album. In my interpretation, the reserved reception to that album brought the band to the brink of disbandment, and this breakdown produced DIRTY WORK.

When the Stones reformed, it was with the then new recreation of studio songs in concert. However, spread over time they released studio albums. Especially VOODOO LOUNGE appeared backwards looking. Seemingly they themselves needed to find their own musical feet. BRIDGES TO BABYLON was on the other hand quite enterprising. It was as if they tried once again to function as a working band. From all of their studio albums since STEEL WHEELS, songs were included in their setlists. If they were not fully a current group, they were still to some lesser degree a working band. That was the case up to A BIGGER BANG.

However, from 2012 the Stones stopped featuring a recent album in setlists. From then they were not in any sense a current group. I have mildly argued against the label "nostalgia act". For their large audiences are probably not consisting mainly of people that are familiar with all their releases. Instead I consider the Stones of later years as a cover band of the band they once were.

You say "move on". Somehow I have. The music of the Rolling Stones is still my favourite music. But my listening time for the Stones is probably down to 10 % of a total that is also reduced. I have only recently acquired HAMPTON COLISEUM and LIVE IN LEEDS. Albums that I slowly will listen to approximately nine times, at the moment I am at the fourth time. After that, I will slowly make myself familiar with the EL MOCAMBO release. That way, for several months I have obtained a situation, when I am privileged to listen to Rolling Stones releases that are new to me.

Because some of the time I need to listen to music that is new for me. I am of an older generation. The for me new music that I listen to, is hardly new. However, I like to listen to musical careers of acts that I have not done before, either from recent decades or even from longer back. I hardly think that is out of nostalgia. Instead I think it concerns an investigation.

I see only one concert of this Stones tour. Last time was one concert only in 2017. It is due to the largely unchanged setlists. I don't want to complain about that, but it is the reason why.

For the last few years my dream has been of one studio album more of recently created music from the Rolling Stones. Like in days of old making myself familiar with it during that marvellous process. Thereafter to experience 4 to 6 songs from such an album in setlists. Then I would passionately want to see the Rolling Stones in concert more than just once. - I have given up that dream. I don't know if there will be a new Rolling Stones album. Maybe the future will bring a vaults release or two that will be available to the not too old posters here.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-17 12:04 by Witness.

I would love to hear this setlist from 07/12/1962:

Kansas City (Little Willie Littlefield cover)

Baby What's Wrong (Jimmy Reed cover)

Confessin' the Blues (Jay McShann cover)

Bright Lights, Big City (Jimmy Reed cover)

I Believe I'll Dust My Broom (Robert Johnson cover)

Down the Road Apiece (Will Bradley Trio cover)

Mad Love (I Want You to Love Me) (Muddy Waters cover)

Bad Boy (Eddie Taylor cover)

I Ain't Got You (Billy Boy Arnold cover)

Hush Hush (Jimmy Reed cover)

Ride 'Em on Down (Eddie Taylor cover)

Back in the U.S.A. (Chuck Berry cover)

Kind of Lonesome (Jimmy Reed cover)

Blues Before Sunrise (Leroy Carr cover)

Big Boss Man (Jimmy Reed cover)

Don't Stay Out All Night (Billy Boy Arnold cover)

Tell Me That You Love Me (Paul Anka cover)

Happy Home (Elmore James cover)

Doing the Crawdaddy (Bo Diddley cover)

Got My Mo-Jo Working (But It Just Won't Work on You) (Ann Cole with the Suburbans cover)

Note: First ever live performance as the Rollin' Stones. Lineup consisted of Brian Jones, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ian Stewart on piano, Dick Taylor on bass and Mick Avory on drums. Mick Avory can't remember his appearance, another candidate is Tony Chapman. From setlist.fm

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
franzk

Quote
jahisnotdead
I still regard Mick's conversation with Elton John about Madonna in "Being Mick" as one of the most revealing when it comes to set lists. When there's something unfamiliar being played, the energy level of the audience drops. It's just a fact. And when the Stones play a stadium, they want people jazzed up to the max from beginning to end. So the setlist has mostly settled into the same warhorses. People like to drink and sing along to their favorite songs with their friends. I get it and appreciate it. I'm glad the warhorse heavy setlist pleases the audience, but it's a bit dull in my opinion.

But then again you have artists like Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. who can play obscure b-sides or outtakes on a stadium and people are excited anyway.

Which was my point on another thread about how are all these other artists able to do it, but the Stones can't. Surely the average fan in attendance at a Stones show isn't anymore naïve than one at any of these other shows as to the artist's back catalog. Yes, there will always be some blank stares, but I think the vast majority of people in the stands would know most of the songs played. I think Mick & Co gravely underestimate their audience.

The Stones can’t do it because I think they genuinely attract 1) the hard core Stones fans but also 2) a whole, large cadre of people who “need” to see these living legends, and in doing so, say and respond along the lines of “oh yeah, we know and dig this!”

Whereas Springsteen, for whom I’m a nutter, mainly attracts only the hard core fans. We know all his music. Yes, he gets a few others for whom there is the attraction to see “a legend”, but NOT IN the numbers that “must” see The Stones.

So The Stones can’t play new/obscure stuff. The large contingent of those needing to see the living legend that IS The Stones would not get it. Energy drops.

Springsteen concert energy remains high because he attracts way more hard core and way less “need to see him” type people. He draws almost ALL FANS who know his catalogue. Energy remains high.

Rod

^Not sure I agree with you Rod. Maybe that applies in the US, but here in Europe I think Bruce is among those bucketlist legends that people just want to see at least once. There are tons of casual fans at his stadium gigs. Yet he still plays really obscure material.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-17 13:55 by KeVvV2011.

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
franzk

Quote
jahisnotdead
I still regard Mick's conversation with Elton John about Madonna in "Being Mick" as one of the most revealing when it comes to set lists. When there's something unfamiliar being played, the energy level of the audience drops. It's just a fact. And when the Stones play a stadium, they want people jazzed up to the max from beginning to end. So the setlist has mostly settled into the same warhorses. People like to drink and sing along to their favorite songs with their friends. I get it and appreciate it. I'm glad the warhorse heavy setlist pleases the audience, but it's a bit dull in my opinion.

But then again you have artists like Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. who can play obscure b-sides or outtakes on a stadium and people are excited anyway.

Which was my point on another thread about how are all these other artists able to do it, but the Stones can't. Surely the average fan in attendance at a Stones show isn't anymore naïve than one at any of these other shows as to the artist's back catalog. Yes, there will always be some blank stares, but I think the vast majority of people in the stands would know most of the songs played. I think Mick & Co gravely underestimate their audience.

The Stones can’t do it because I think they genuinely attract 1) the hard core Stones fans but also 2) a whole, large cadre of people who “need” to see these living legends, and in doing so, say and respond along the lines of “oh yeah, we know and dig this!”

Whereas Springsteen, for whom I’m a nutter, mainly attracts only the hard core fans. We know all his music. Yes, he gets a few others for whom there is the attraction to see “a legend”, but NOT IN the numbers that “must” see The Stones.

So The Stones can’t play new/obscure stuff. The large contingent of those needing to see the living legend that IS The Stones would not get it. Energy drops.

Springsteen concert energy remains high because he attracts way more hard core and way less “need to see him” type people. He draws almost ALL FANS who know his catalogue. Energy remains high.

I don't exactly agree with this logic. As a hardcore fan I'm not that excited when I hear YCAGWYW or MY for the millionth time. I'd rather hear Can't You Hear Me Knocking or Hot Stuff in this place. And the remaining fans who are much younger they have different experiences with the Stones and different understanding of "classic" hits. When I told my younger friend that I was at The Stones show recently he asked me: "Did they play Anybody Seen My Baby?" Because that was the period he was growing up with and these songs are "classic" for him. So if the Stones want to please wider population of fans it doesn't mean they have to stick to the same warhorses that defined them in the 60. or 70.

Quote
franzk

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
franzk

Quote
jahisnotdead
I still regard Mick's conversation with Elton John about Madonna in "Being Mick" as one of the most revealing when it comes to set lists. When there's something unfamiliar being played, the energy level of the audience drops. It's just a fact. And when the Stones play a stadium, they want people jazzed up to the max from beginning to end. So the setlist has mostly settled into the same warhorses. People like to drink and sing along to their favorite songs with their friends. I get it and appreciate it. I'm glad the warhorse heavy setlist pleases the audience, but it's a bit dull in my opinion.

But then again you have artists like Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. who can play obscure b-sides or outtakes on a stadium and people are excited anyway.

Which was my point on another thread about how are all these other artists able to do it, but the Stones can't. Surely the average fan in attendance at a Stones show isn't anymore naïve than one at any of these other shows as to the artist's back catalog. Yes, there will always be some blank stares, but I think the vast majority of people in the stands would know most of the songs played. I think Mick & Co gravely underestimate their audience.

The Stones can’t do it because I think they genuinely attract 1) the hard core Stones fans but also 2) a whole, large cadre of people who “need” to see these living legends, and in doing so, say and respond along the lines of “oh yeah, we know and dig this!”

Whereas Springsteen, for whom I’m a nutter, mainly attracts only the hard core fans. We know all his music. Yes, he gets a few others for whom there is the attraction to see “a legend”, but NOT IN the numbers that “must” see The Stones.

So The Stones can’t play new/obscure stuff. The large contingent of those needing to see the living legend that IS The Stones would not get it. Energy drops.

Springsteen concert energy remains high because he attracts way more hard core and way less “need to see him” type people. He draws almost ALL FANS who know his catalogue. Energy remains high.

I don't exactly agree with this logic. As a hardcore fan I'm not that excited when I hear YCAGWYW or MY for the millionth time. I'd rather hear Can't You Hear Me Knocking or Hot Stuff in this place. And the remaining fans who are much younger they have different experiences with the Stones and different understanding of "classic" hits. When I told my younger friend that I was at The Stones show recently he asked me: "Did they play Anybody Seen My Baby?" Because that was the period he was growing up with and these songs are "classic" for him. So if the Stones want to please wider population of fans it doesn't mean they have to stick to the same warhorses that defined them in the 60. or 70.

You don't have to even remotely agree to that logic. And then right after you disagree with it you state the exact reason why your opinion and observation doesn't match up with reality. Because you talk about what you would rather hear as well as a select group of younger people aware of the Stones and their recent output and that dismisses the majority of people.

Fact is, a majority of people seeing The Rolling Stones either have or have heard:

HOT ROCKS
REWIND
FORTY LICKS
whatever on the radio between 1965 and 1981

Maybe LET IT BLEED, maybe STICKY FINGERS, maybe EXILE, maybe SOME GIRLS, maybe TATTOO YOU.

Some not caring person that has Spotify... no better than HOT ROCKS or FORTY LICKS. It's just there. HONK is the newest and includes Living In A Ghost Town now but it's basically JUMP BACK updated with what just REWIND updated.

They're only about money from touring. Product placement ie hits comps... whatever.

They have become Mike Love's Beach Boys.

I would love to hear them doing more recent tunes! But anything post-1981, with exception to 2 songs, was apparently a waste of their time.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
franzk

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
franzk

Quote
jahisnotdead
I still regard Mick's conversation with Elton John about Madonna in "Being Mick" as one of the most revealing when it comes to set lists. When there's something unfamiliar being played, the energy level of the audience drops. It's just a fact. And when the Stones play a stadium, they want people jazzed up to the max from beginning to end. So the setlist has mostly settled into the same warhorses. People like to drink and sing along to their favorite songs with their friends. I get it and appreciate it. I'm glad the warhorse heavy setlist pleases the audience, but it's a bit dull in my opinion.

But then again you have artists like Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. who can play obscure b-sides or outtakes on a stadium and people are excited anyway.

Which was my point on another thread about how are all these other artists able to do it, but the Stones can't. Surely the average fan in attendance at a Stones show isn't anymore naïve than one at any of these other shows as to the artist's back catalog. Yes, there will always be some blank stares, but I think the vast majority of people in the stands would know most of the songs played. I think Mick & Co gravely underestimate their audience.

The Stones can’t do it because I think they genuinely attract 1) the hard core Stones fans but also 2) a whole, large cadre of people who “need” to see these living legends, and in doing so, say and respond along the lines of “oh yeah, we know and dig this!”

Whereas Springsteen, for whom I’m a nutter, mainly attracts only the hard core fans. We know all his music. Yes, he gets a few others for whom there is the attraction to see “a legend”, but NOT IN the numbers that “must” see The Stones.

So The Stones can’t play new/obscure stuff. The large contingent of those needing to see the living legend that IS The Stones would not get it. Energy drops.

Springsteen concert energy remains high because he attracts way more hard core and way less “need to see him” type people. He draws almost ALL FANS who know his catalogue. Energy remains high.

I don't exactly agree with this logic. As a hardcore fan I'm not that excited when I hear YCAGWYW or MY for the millionth time. I'd rather hear Can't You Hear Me Knocking or Hot Stuff in this place. And the remaining fans who are much younger they have different experiences with the Stones and different understanding of "classic" hits. When I told my younger friend that I was at The Stones show recently he asked me: "Did they play Anybody Seen My Baby?" Because that was the period he was growing up with and these songs are "classic" for him. So if the Stones want to please wider population of fans it doesn't mean they have to stick to the same warhorses that defined them in the 60. or 70.

You don't have to even remotely agree to that logic. And then right after you disagree with it you state the exact reason why your opinion and observation doesn't match up with reality. Because you talk about what you would rather hear as well as a select group of younger people aware of the Stones and their recent output and that dismisses the majority of people.

Fact is, a majority of people seeing The Rolling Stones either have or have heard:

HOT ROCKS
REWIND
FORTY LICKS
whatever on the radio between 1965 and 1981

Maybe LET IT BLEED, maybe STICKY FINGERS, maybe EXILE, maybe SOME GIRLS, maybe TATTOO YOU.

And this is where my point of view is totally different. In Hyde Park I saw maaany people in their 20-30s. These are people who were born around 2000. I guess most of them don't even listen do physical albums. Today Spotify is way more relevant to what people listen to. And among the most played Stones tracks on Spotify you have Anybody Seen My Baby (no. 4), Doom And Gloom (no. 5), Ghost Town (no. 6) and in the Top 30 also She's A Rainbow, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Mother's Little Helper or Too Much Blood. (see: [open.spotify.com]) I think referring to the physical record sales and saying that most people know only songs from Hot Rocks and Sticky Fingers is not relevant today, because The Rolling Stones draw to their shows a lot of young people (as I mentioned before) and not only people of their generation (which is the main difference between them and The Beach Boys).

I tend to disagree as well. Anytime one goes to a Stones show here in the US, it is an event on par with a football game. Fans are in the parking lots tailgating, playing music, drinking and getting high. I think the vast majority of folks at their shows know 80-85% of their catalog. I think some folks on here and the band themselves sell their fans short. Look at the reception that Out of Time has received, and that IS an obscure song, made more famous by Chris Farlowe, but how many folks in attendance could not have known that the boys did it originally? How else would it have been so well received if most of the audience didn't know of its existence? They have a ton of hits that they routinely omit, and they never - or rarely - revisit the latter day stuff. Aside from TY, ER-forward is virtually ignored. The only songs that get played with any sense of regularity are You Got Me Rocking and Out of Control.

Their catalog is so deep, and they ignore most of it, and the fans would welcome more of a mix-up no doubt. I, too, fall into the category of not needing to pay the price of a ticket anymore to hear most of the same show. Now, if they were to come back Stateside, IDK, I might be swayed to change my mind. But Nashville was a fitting end to seeing them live for me, with my sons, and getting 3 new songs not heard live prior, which was my wish.

The warhorses to me are almost all worn out and boring. The ONLY staples I needed at EVERY show were JJF and BS, and now I can't even get that. If it is a Stadium show, I also need Sympathy, because in the stadium, the effects (when they had them) are incredible. MY, IORR, Satisfaction, and to some extent Keef's set, are all stale and worn out. MY has been in the same damn position for decades now. I for one am happy that they've dropped IORR - I was tired of it back on the ABB tour, and that was almost 20 years ago. Keef has so many other songs, and he always seems to play the same ones - Happy, Little T&A, Slipping Away, and BTMMR. I was ecstatic when he broke out Connection in Nashville. I wish he'd venture into the Voodoo cuts, or Can't Be Seen as a different rocker, or break out some of his other ballads - How Can I Stop, All About You, Losing My Touch.

There's room to mix-up the setlist for sure. But I think they just have this weird view of their fans. I think more of the casual fans are sitting in the boxes "dangling their jewelry" as opposed to in the actual stadium.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-18 21:08 by VoodooLounge13.

As a matter of fact, at least here in Milano, there was no energy level drop when they played non hits like 19th or Ghost Time. Quite the opposite: even my young daughters joined the Out of Time sing along, and they never heard the song before!

And I didn't hear one single complaint because they didn't play Brown Sugar or IORR.

I remain convinced that the only truly unreplaceable song is Satisfaction as the last encore.

For the rest of the list, they have so many great songs in their repertoire that they could just play anything!

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-18 19:44 by liddas.

Quote
liddas

I remain convinced that the only truly unreplaceable song is Satisfaction as the last encore.

And yet it could be challenged with most 70s setlists.