To "The Sicilian" I would like to say: study all the setlists - in combination with the locations - available and analyse theme carefully. You will find that the Rolling Stones really do have an ear for the diehard fans! Check out some USA or European clubshows, for instance for a start. The Stones for sure listen!
But greed is never welcome anywhere ...

Quote
bv
I like what they play. That is why I go to concerts and rehearsals. If you don't like what they play then how can you be a fan of something they don't normally do?

Hey, I love what they play, seen them play the same song over and over, and to me...it's different every time! Hey Bjornulf! HOW....do I get those rehearsal tickets? Pal? :-)

Quote
onestep

Quote
bv
I like what they play. That is why I go to concerts and rehearsals. If you don't like what they play then how can you be a fan of something they don't normally do?

Hey, I love what they play, seen them play the same song over and over, and to me...it's different every time! Hey Bjornulf! HOW....do I get those rehearsal tickets? Pal? :-)

Rehearsal tickets? He's standing outside the buildings and hears what they play - or he doesn't hear anything.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
onestep

Quote
bv
I like what they play. That is why I go to concerts and rehearsals. If you don't like what they play then how can you be a fan of something they don't normally do?

Hey, I love what they play, seen them play the same song over and over, and to me...it's different every time! Hey Bjornulf! HOW....do I get those rehearsal tickets? Pal? :-)

Rehearsal tickets? He's standing outside the buildings and hears what they play - or he doesn't hear anything.

Oh you child you.....I have a feeling Bjornulf has been inside a time or two...I was lucky enough to hear The Stones rehearse JUMP ONTOP OF ME BABY in Philadelphia during No Security....

Of course, as discussed ad infinitum, the Stones can and will play what they want.

However, as we are doubtlessly into the final few tours, and the Stones are playing fewer shows per tour than previously, the band could have added some variety to their setlists between short tours, to make attending shows on different tours more appealing.

It wouldn't have taken too much effort, and there were obvious ways in which to vary setlists in recent years. 2012-14 tours could have been advertised as celebrating 50 years of the Stones, with more of an emphasis on recordings from the band's very formative years. We actually saw this at the 02 shows, but these early numbers didn't survive in the setlist for long. The band could have taken their newly released compilation as a guide, and simply picked a few tracks from Disc 1 of the 80 track version of GRRR! (say 3 or 4 in addition to 'Paint It, Black' which would likely be included anyway) to include in the set.

The obvious opportunity to change the setlist in 2015 was to associate the tour more closely with the re-release of Sticky Fingers. Every song from the album was rehearsed for the LA club show, so 6 or 7 tracks from Sticky Fingers could have been played at every show, even if they were the same 6 or 7.

2016/17 could have incorporated several songs from Blue & Lonesome (I appreciate we had one at each of the 2016 shows) to promote the album and create a different setlist.

This approach would not only have appeased fans who crave more setlist diversity, but would also have provided casual fans with different experiences, as well as helping to sell Sticky Fingers and Blue & Lonesome.

It´s also a matter of what works and what doesn´t... some of the rarely performed songs just don´t work on stage (Silver Train for example or One Hit)... Their current setlist IS working on stage, so they don´t feel the need to change it.
What´s the use of a trainwreck of a rather obscure song. Rather listen to another Wild Horses than to a messed up Time Waits For No One... And there is nothing for them to promote, B&L sells without promoting it as anybody can see. The 50+-audience are mostly long time followers and most of them own every release. The 30 minus part of the audience do not rush the stores after the show, they listen to songs on spotify or they simply follow some obscure link to download the complete discography... The Stones know that of course. There´s nothing left to promote, everything is free on the net... so they will keep on doing what they are doing since they started rolling again in 2012. To change the setlist signifi cantly, they would have to rehearse for months... but rehearsal venues are very expensive. And at their age they just don´t want to rehearse for weeks or months, I can understand that. They are playing their game the safe and easy way. They are not in their 20s anymore, they aren not in their 50s anymore... they are all in their SEVENTIES. Lower your expectations, be thankful that they are still rolling (do they?)...

When so comparatively many have bought BLUE AND LONESOME, and as the Stones apparently almost at once were able to play it, age or not, why not let that album feature abundantly, really abundantly, in setlists? Would not very many be heavily disappointed if not? Let it happen then!

Quote
bv
I like what they play. That is why I go to concerts and rehearsals. If you don't like what they play then how can you be a fan of something they don't normally do?

I like what they play too. But I also like what they refuse to play. I mean if your infant child grew up and only said 15 words for 10 years you would still love him but you might want to hear an expanded vocabulary besides mama, papa, yes, no, hi, airplane...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-10 00:01 by The Sicilian.

Drop iorr,miss you, and put can't you hear me knocking in every night

This feels like a good time to bring up a little Ron Wood vs Taylor. Just to spar a bit; a light workout...

Quote
HMS
It´s also a matter of what works and what doesn´t... some of the rarely performed songs just don´t work on stage (Silver Train for example or One Hit)... Their current setlist IS working on stage, so they don´t feel the need to change it.
What´s the use of a trainwreck of a rather obscure song. Rather listen to another Wild Horses than to a messed up Time Waits For No One... And there is nothing for them to promote,

B&L sells without promoting it as anybody can see.

The 50+-audience are mostly long time followers and most of them own every release. The 30 minus part of the audience do not rush the stores after the show, they listen to songs on spotify or they simply follow some obscure link to download the complete discography... The Stones know that of course. There´s nothing left to promote, everything is free on the net... so they will keep on doing what they are doing since they started rolling again in 2012. To change the setlist signifi cantly, they would have to rehearse for months... but rehearsal venues are very expensive. And at their age they just don´t want to rehearse for weeks or months, I can understand that. They are playing their game the safe and easy way. They are not in their 20s anymore, they aren not in their 50s anymore... they are all in their SEVENTIES. Lower your expectations, be thankful that they are still rolling (do they?)...

Respectfully HMS, B&L was extremely heavily promoted; extremely so...very much completely so; the entire thrust of the thing was very much promoted thruout the world and all media in a wide variety of ways...

and playing the game "the safe and easy way" is obviously what they're doing, and yes they are old...i've significantly lowered my expectations along the way, but safe and easy was not what drew me to The Rolling Stones, nor is it, imo, what the thrust of their power, glory and wonderful songwriting represents.
I am an older guy and going to love them no matter what; just because. just because they are great...but in all fairness to their own catalong of truly great rock and pop songs, well...safe and easy is ok now and again in the set for certain; especially for the ancient, of which I am one, but they are crapping out on their own still existent most excellent talent imo.

You´re right - B&L was all over the media....

What I meant was they don´t need to promote B&L by playing it live - and of course they never will. Maybe they will throw in one song like they did in the desert but the album will not affect their setlist. Not even a new album of originals will affect their setlist very much. They will never drop any warhorse, so there is no space for new songs in a 2-hours-set. If they´d only drop Miss You, there would be space enough for three new songs...

Yes they are playing the same songs all over again, but at least these are great songs.

It's sowing and reaping. They sowed during the 60s and 70s and have been reaping ever since. They stopped being relevant in the mid-70s. In a way they stopped working in the 70s.
And did other things like aggregating real estate, wifes and being celebrities. Thankfully they couldn't say no to all the money touring could make so they kept on with that. Until they drop probably.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-10 16:34 by Stoneage.

Or they should just cut the songs shorter. Miss You 8mns, Gimme Shelter 8mns, Satisfaction 12 mins, Brown Sugar 7mns.

They could clock Satisfaction in at 6mns, GS at 5, Miss You at 6, Brown Sugar at 4 as they used to on tours where they played more songs. That would give 14 additional minutes where they could play 3 more songs. That would be 22 instead of 19 and the die-hard fans would be as satisfied as the regular fans because everyone got the songs they wanted. I just don't get why they are playing some songs out for so many minutes. With the impressive horn sections they used to have until 2007 and a bit better guitar work the songs still envolved until the end but now it's just a bit pointless. It sure sounds great live, I was at some concerts in 2014. But who needs these 12 mins of Satisfaction after all?

They used to play a 28 song set 1989 that lasted not longer than an 18-song set in 2016 in Buenos Aires - 2:25h. It's all about how long you play a song and how much break time it takes. They could still pull of a full 22 song set in 2:15 for sure with many great songs in it as well as the well known songs.

I also don't know why they rely on such a stale song selection since 2012. They have to play the whole set again before they start anyway because they take long breaks. It would not be too difficult to mix the second half up a bit.

With all these points said, they could for sure pull of a 22-song-set like this for example:

Start Me Up
Shattered
Paint It Black
Heartbreaker
Slave
Just Your Fool
Memory Motel
Little Queenie
Can't Always Get
Miss You
Tumbling Dice
The Worst (Keith)
Little T&A (Keith)
Out Of Control
Midnight Rambler
Gimme Shelter
Honky Tonk Woman
Sympathy For The Devil
Jumping Jack Flash
It's Only Rock'n'Roll
Brown Sugar
Satisfaction (Encore)

That would be 90% of the songs they usually play and space for a few special gems too. But that complaining is at high level. That said, the show they are putting on nowadays is sure great for their age and all of that and I think nobody that leaves a Stones concert was really disappointed ever.

Face it, they're on cruise control, at this point. There's a definite method to the madness. It's much easier for them to play less songs and extend them than having to learn and remember more songs.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Oh Yeah I love when Dice finishes the first part! That's the way it should be! Mmm mm yummy those yellow and red lights in 05/06/07 and Mick's oh yeah, oh yeahhhhh and oh yeeaaah! And off we go!!!! 3rd song is too early IMHO.....

But Outta Control can't be too close to Rambler.... Keith uses the capoed TV and the songs are quite similar riff-wise when it comes to what Keith's playing....

The warhorses-heavy set list is justified because most of the people who attend shows are casual fans and want to listen to the same old same old greatest hits set.

I wonder what would have happened if every once in a while some time between 1989 and today they had done a no warhorses tour (or even mini tour), promoted as such.

Be it a "hidden gems" tour, or a tour heavily based on the then current album (say they played most of Bigger Bang on the Bigger Bang Tour).

Does anybody really think it would be a fiasco?

Fine enough, probably a full size stadium tour would be asking too much. But don't you think that a 15 concerts arena tour based on such a concept be an easy sell out?

C

Quote
liddas
The warhorses-heavy set list is justified because most of the people who attend shows are casual fans and want to listen to the same old same old greatest hits set.

I wonder what would have happened if every once in a while some time between 1989 and today they had done a no warhorses tour (or even mini tour), promoted as such.

Be it a "hidden gems" tour, or a tour heavily based on the then current album (say they played most of Bigger Bang on the Bigger Bang Tour).

Does anybody really think it would be a fiasco?

Fine enough, probably a full size stadium tour would be asking too much. But don't you think that a 15 concerts arena tour based on such a concept be an easy sell out?

C

Look what happened to U2 on the 1997 Tour. Half filled venues everywhere.

Quote
Stonesfan2146
Or they should just cut the songs shorter. Miss You 8mns, Gimme Shelter 8mns, Satisfaction 12 mins, Brown Sugar 7mns.

They could clock Satisfaction in at 6mns, GS at 5, Miss You at 6, Brown Sugar at 4 as they used to on tours where they played more songs. That would give 14 additional minutes where they could play 3 more songs. That would be 22 instead of 19 and the die-hard fans would be as satisfied as the regular fans because everyone got the songs they wanted. I just don't get why they are playing some songs out for so many minutes. With the impressive horn sections they used to have until 2007 and a bit better guitar work the songs still envolved until the end but now it's just a bit pointless. It sure sounds great live, I was at some concerts in 2014. But who needs these 12 mins of Satisfaction after all?

They used to play a 28 song set 1989 that lasted not longer than an 18-song set in 2016 in Buenos Aires - 2:25h. It's all about how long you play a song and how much break time it takes. They could still pull of a full 22 song set in 2:15 for sure with many great songs in it as well as the well known songs.

I also don't know why they rely on such a stale song selection since 2012. They have to play the whole set again before they start anyway because they take long breaks. It would not be too difficult to mix the second half up a bit.

With all these points said, they could for sure pull of a 22-song-set like this for example:

Start Me Up
Shattered
Paint It Black
Heartbreaker
Slave
Just Your Fool
Memory Motel
Little Queenie
Can't Always Get
Miss You
Tumbling Dice
The Worst (Keith)
Little T&A (Keith)
Out Of Control
Midnight Rambler
Gimme Shelter
Honky Tonk Woman
Sympathy For The Devil
Jumping Jack Flash
It's Only Rock'n'Roll
Brown Sugar
Satisfaction (Encore)

That would be 90% of the songs they usually play and space for a few special gems too. But that complaining is at high level. That said, the show they are putting on nowadays is sure great for their age and all of that and I think nobody that leaves a Stones concert was really disappointed ever.

This looks like a 2hrs 45 minutes-show. Good setlist, though

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
liddas
The warhorses-heavy set list is justified because most of the people who attend shows are casual fans and want to listen to the same old same old greatest hits set.

I wonder what would have happened if every once in a while some time between 1989 and today they had done a no warhorses tour (or even mini tour), promoted as such.

Be it a "hidden gems" tour, or a tour heavily based on the then current album (say they played most of Bigger Bang on the Bigger Bang Tour).

Does anybody really think it would be a fiasco?

Fine enough, probably a full size stadium tour would be asking too much. But don't you think that a 15 concerts arena tour based on such a concept be an easy sell out?

C

Look what happened to U2 on the 1997 Tour. Half filled venues everywhere.

That was pretty much the idea of the 'No Security U.S. Tour' of 1999.

No "Miss You" and no "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction".

First time for "Some Girls" , "Moonlight Mile" , and "You Got the Silver" plus other songs that were rarely played live at that point in time. Even "Fool to Cry" and "I Got the Blues" were rotated in with "Moonlight Mile" , "Memory Motel" and "Shine a Light".

"Route 66" , "Imagination" , "Whip Comes Down" ,"Midnight Rambler" on the warhorse free b-stage. "Midnight Rambler" hadn't been performed in the U.S. in nearly 10 years at that point in time.


Guess what?? The ticket prices were taken to a new high and they sold.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
liddas
The warhorses-heavy set list is justified because most of the people who attend shows are casual fans and want to listen to the same old same old greatest hits set.

I wonder what would have happened if every once in a while some time between 1989 and today they had done a no warhorses tour (or even mini tour), promoted as such.

Be it a "hidden gems" tour, or a tour heavily based on the then current album (say they played most of Bigger Bang on the Bigger Bang Tour).

Does anybody really think it would be a fiasco?

Fine enough, probably a full size stadium tour would be asking too much. But don't you think that a 15 concerts arena tour based on such a concept be an easy sell out?

C

Look what happened to U2 on the 1997 Tour. Half filled venues everywhere.

That was pretty much the idea of the 'No Security U.S. Tour' of 1999.

No "Miss You" and no "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction".

First time for "Some Girls" , "Moonlight Mile" , and "You Got the Silver" plus other songs that were rarely played live at that point in time. Even "Fool to Cry" and "I Got the Blues" were rotated in with "Moonlight Mile" , "Memory Motel" and "Shine a Light".

"Route 66" , "Imagination" , "Whip Comes Down" ,"Midnight Rambler" on the warhorse free b-stage. "Midnight Rambler" hadn't been performed in the U.S. in nearly 10 years at that point in time.


Guess what?? The ticket prices were taken to a new high and they sold.

Yes. But what had happened if they had played eight songs off BTB and five of VL instead of these 70s stuff? Nobody had showed up to hear new songs at these prices. But even No Security could have been better if rehearsed tracks like One Hit (at least it was rehearsed in May), Knocking, Around And Around or Jump On Top Of Me. Towards the end it became boring, they repeated stuff like Memory Motel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-10 16:33 by Monsoon Ragoon.

I've only been fortunate enough to the see the Boys once in my life, but have all their live releases and all the DVDs. If there's one small complaint among us it would probably be if you go see them these days you gotta deal with a lot of warhorses. My fresh idea for a cool set list this year would be to have a mini suite in the middle of the show of the awesome slower 60's tracks. Imagine a 6-8 song mini set of:

Lady Jane
Tell Me
She's A Rainbow
Heart of Stone
Play with Fire
As Tears Go By
I'm Free
Mona
Time is On My Side



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-10 15:00 by Lynd8.

Yeah that'd be cool as a mini-set after Keith's 2(-3) songs.... But I would just keep Tell Me, Heart, As Tears, Play and Time. Simply the best originals....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-10 15:06 by MadMax.

Nice idea but we know it will never happen. Plus, that's too many slow songs in a row.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

In the case you'd like to fall asleep during a concert: damn good idea!

They did this in London at the O2. Wouldn't mind that little 60s mini set again

I Wanna Be Your Man
Get Off Of My Cloud
It's All Over Now
Paint It Black
Gimme Shelter
Wild Horses (recorded in 1969)

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
liddas
The warhorses-heavy set list is justified because most of the people who attend shows are casual fans and want to listen to the same old same old greatest hits set.

I wonder what would have happened if every once in a while some time between 1989 and today they had done a no warhorses tour (or even mini tour), promoted as such.

Be it a "hidden gems" tour, or a tour heavily based on the then current album (say they played most of Bigger Bang on the Bigger Bang Tour).

Does anybody really think it would be a fiasco?

Fine enough, probably a full size stadium tour would be asking too much. But don't you think that a 15 concerts arena tour based on such a concept be an easy sell out?

C

Look what happened to U2 on the 1997 Tour. Half filled venues everywhere.

That was pretty much the idea of the 'No Security U.S. Tour' of 1999.

No "Miss You" and no "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction".

First time for "Some Girls" , "Moonlight Mile" , and "You Got the Silver" plus other songs that were rarely played live at that point in time. Even "Fool to Cry" and "I Got the Blues" were rotated in with "Moonlight Mile" , "Memory Motel" and "Shine a Light".

"Route 66" , "Imagination" , "Whip Comes Down" ,"Midnight Rambler" on the warhorse free b-stage. "Midnight Rambler" hadn't been performed in the U.S. in nearly 10 years at that point in time.


Guess what?? The ticket prices were taken to a new high and they sold.

Yes. But what had happened if they had played eight songs off BTB and five of VL instead of these 70s stuff? Nobody had showed up to hear new songs at these prices. But even No Security could have been better if rehearsed tracks like One Hit (at least it was rehearsed in May), Knocking, Around And Around or Jump On Top Of Me. Towards the end it became boring, they repeated stuff like Memory Motel.

I guess that it could have been a little bit better but,I am grateful (especially in hindsight) for what it was. "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" probably was not ready yet .... or they were holding it back for the next tour.

The last few weeks of every Stones tour could be considered predictable although the three performances of "I Got the Blues" were in late March and early April if I am not mistaken.

Anyway,there were many nights with four songs from "Bridges to Babylon" and one from "Voodoo Lounge" in with the older songs.

Another thing that would never happen, but that could be so interesting is to dig back into untapped albums.
"Buttons" we have talked about several times; but what about "Dirty Work"? To do a few sets based on "Dirty Work", and "Bigger Bang" albums. Maybe throw in some Side 2 off "Undercover" in too.
But that could be a way to revolutionize the bad rap that albums has. Even on layman's TV shows, they call it the "worst" Stones album."Fight",Winning Ugly", "Dirty Work", and yes: "Back to Zero". Reworked for the stage.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Another thing that would never happen, but that could be so interesting is to dig back into untapped albums.
"Buttons" we have talked about several times; but what about "Dirty Work"? To do a few sets based on "Dirty Work", and "Bigger Bang" albums. Maybe throw in some Side 2 off "Undercover" in too.
But that could be a way to revolutionize the bad rap that albums has. Even on layman's TV shows, they call it the "worst" Stones album."Fight",Winning Ugly", "Dirty Work", and yes: "Back to Zero". Reworked for the stage.

The song Dirty Work is a classic Stones tune, just a little "more heavy metal" than usual. It's better than Flip The Switch or Sparks Will Fly each of which was played over 100 times. Totally underrated. Had It With You would be compared with Bitch had it been released 10 years earlier. Lots of great songs, but not very stadium-friendly. I don't think they will ever play a DW song again, maybe Harlem Shuffle, which was rehearsed a lot in 2005. Could be a good replacement for Tumbling Dice or Miss You by the way. Anyway I can't see them doing Back To Zero or Feel On Baby, not even in a New York club gig. People would go pissing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-10 18:18 by Monsoon Ragoon.