For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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!)
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.
Quote
franzkQuote
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
BeastyBurdenyQuote
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.
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.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?
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...)
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?
Quote
DoxaQuote
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
Quote
StoneageQuote
DoxaQuote
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
franzkQuote
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
DoxaQuote
StoneageQuote
DoxaQuote
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
Quote
StonedRamblerQuote
GerardHennessyQuote
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?
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.
Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
franzkQuote
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
bitusa2012Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
franzkQuote
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.
Quote
franzkQuote
bitusa2012Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
franzkQuote
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
GasLightStreetQuote
franzkQuote
bitusa2012Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
franzkQuote
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.
Quote
liddas
I remain convinced that the only truly unreplaceable song is Satisfaction as the last encore.