I believe they did Rocks Off in Baton Rouge and then not thereafter?

Without going into all the set lists, I do recall they played Cherry Oh Baby one night at MSG. We were all a little amazed since Black and Blue was still a year from release and no one really knew that song. We kind of looked around at others in the audience and said "What the hell was that?"

HBK

I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

Keith sang Sure the One You Need on a couple occasions which was then dropped???

"Luxury" was performed a handful of times and "Dance Little Sister" 2 or 3 times ; "Sympathy for the Devil" only in New York City and Los Angeles (Inglewood) ; "Rocks Off" only in Baton Rouge. "Heartbreaker" in the middle of the tour but not at the first or last concerts.

Quote
mtaylor
I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

If I had to choose,I would actually prefer the old method of not varying the set list much during the tour but making a different set list from PRIOR tours.

For example,don't play "Bitch" every other show they perform in Chicago just because they didn't play it in .... let's say Oakland earlier in the tour.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
"Luxury" was performed a handful of times and "Dance Little Sister" 2 or 3 times ; "Sympathy for the Devil" only in New York City and Los Angeles (Inglewood) ; "Rocks Off" only in Baton Rouge. "Heartbreaker" in the middle of the tour but not at the first or last concerts.

It is too bad they dropped Luxury and Dance Little Sister from the setlist.

Quote
mtaylor
I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

Good point. In the pre-internet days nobody knew what the setlist had been at earlier shows unless you maybe saw it in a newspaper, but a lot of casual fans didn't bother doing that.

Thanks for the replies. I forgot about Luxury!

Sure the one you need is interesting.

I think Cherry Oh Baby is on a 75 Tour NY boot as well.

"The Missing Jewels" four cd boxed set is a good place to start for the '75 tour. Then you could just add a few other releases to your collection and pretty much have the '75 tour covered.

* [vivalesbootlegs.blogspot.com] *

( Link to info on "The Missing Jewels" boxed set )

Most Stones tours have had a pretty solid setlist, maybe changing a couple tunes here and there. Recent tours have attempted some variety by means of the fan vote and swapping something like JJF from the opening slot to the end, etc. Basically the same songs overall...

Thanks "Winning Ugly" for the tour boot link!

Quote
timmyj3
Thanks for the replies. I forgot about Luxury!

Sure the one you need is interesting.

I think Cherry Oh Baby is on a 75 Tour NY boot as well.

Have a look at this site (it's not 10000 % correct every time, but I don't care):

[www.setlist.fm]

A great guide concerning setlist and statistics (not just stones).

I used to have a boot of the very first 1975 show in Baton Rouge. Luxury and Dance Little Sister were great. I'd be happy to have something like DLS in place of TD on Love You Live; not crazy with that version - they've done it so much better at other shows.

I would think mixing up the set list would be something more for the band than the audience. It has to get a bit old playing the same songs in the same order every night.

I think in a perfect world, a band has no particular reason to have a different setlist on LA than they do in NY. In fact, a band should have no particular reason to have a different set list in shows played in any two cities that are far apart. I do think it would be nice if a band could consciously play slightly different shows in the same city - knowing full well that many fans would be attending duplicate shows. In the 'old days' when a show would come to your city it would be unlikely for someone to know the precise setlists of all the previous shows prior to a band arrival in your hometown. So why would anyone care? In fact, in the 'old days' we didn't care - because we likely didn't know. In fact, it would be annoying to learn that some fantastic wonderful rarely played song was played in a location and it remained unplayed in your own city. This can be and is frustrating. I agree, that one reason that a band might want to mix it up a bit would be for their own amusement. The absolute best reason that I can think of for a band to play multiple songs on a tour only once or twice would be if they would release a live album of those songs. Now why don't the Rolling Stones do this? I would love to have a live document of all the songs played on a tour that focused on all of the singleton plays during a tour. Wouldn't that be great for real fans? It would be for me.

Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName
I think in a perfect world, a band has no particular reason to have a different setlist on LA than they do in NY. In fact, a band should have no particular reason to have a different set list in shows played in any two cities that are far apart. I do think it would be nice if a band could consciously play slightly different shows in the same city - knowing full well that many fans would be attending duplicate shows. In the 'old days' when a show would come to your city it would be unlikely for someone to know the precise setlists of all the previous shows prior to a band arrival in your hometown. So why would anyone care? In fact, in the 'old days' we didn't care - because we likely didn't know. In fact, it would be annoying to learn that some fantastic wonderful rarely played song was played in a location and it remained unplayed in your own city. This can be and is frustrating. I agree, that one reason that a band might want to mix it up a bit would be for their own amusement. The absolute best reason that I can think of for a band to play multiple songs on a tour only once or twice would be if they would release a live album of those songs. Now why don't the Rolling Stones do this? I would love to have a live document of all the songs played on a tour that focused on all of the singleton plays during a tour. Wouldn't that be great for real fans? It would be for me.

Great idea but I have to wonder how such a live album would turn out. Unfortunately, the Stones are kind of on autopilot at this point. When they do attempt a song they rarely play, you can hear some trepidation and lack of confidence in their approach. It might go over OK in the exciting context of a show, but would it hold up to scrutiny in our living rooms? Therefore, it's a safe bet that any future live albums will be primarily, "The Rolling Stones Present Their Greatest Hits Live For The Gazillionth Time!" I wish it were otherwise but given their recent spate of live albums - not including archives from the vault - I see a pattern. We all do. The Stones have been releasing albums from the Warhorse Ranch for quite a while. Maybe No Security was the exception.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-09 23:09 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Waters was asked about the songs he wants to play at Coachella. He answered: the songs the audience wants to hear, that is Pink Floyd songs and maybe 2 from my own solo albums. The audience wants greatest hits!!!

Quote
mtaylor
Waters was asked about the songs he wants to play at Coachella. He answered: the songs the audience wants to hear, that is Pink Floyd songs and maybe 2 from my own solo albums. The audience wants greatest hits!!!

When it comes to the Stones,believe it or not,they have had more than 12 hits.

The songs that they play all of the time now are not all of their greatest hits.

"It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)" ..... look at its chart positions.

"Sympathy for the Devil" released as a single when?? About a decade after the album was released ??

"Midnight Rambler",although actually a great song,was not even a single.

"Gimme Shelter" .... not originally a single either as far as I know.

"You Got Me Rocking" is just sub-par by Stones standards and by its chart position(s) but,at least they don't play it as much as they did circa 1994-through-2005/2006/2007 .

"Like a Rolling Stone" is rearing its ugly head once again more often than it should.

If "Miss You" sounded the way that it sounds now,I doubt that it would have been as popular as it was.

We shouldn't overlook the fact that there are certain songs the band just loves to play...

When I saw Cleveland they played "Luxury" which was rare apparently. They dropped "Sympathy'" however.

Quote
rbk
When I saw Cleveland they played "Luxury" which was rare apparently. They dropped "Sympathy'" however.

This is precisely what I was talking about earlier... As a fan of virtually everything the Stones have recorded over the years, I go to shows and always hope to hear something unexpected, something never or rarely played before - and yet, as much as the string of 'warhorses' that close up a concert are both exhilarating and 'boring' at the same time - I personally would never get tired of hearing 'Sympathy' (and I certainly would not have traded it for Luxury if I was given the choice) It is clear, THE ROLLING STONES, will never be able to satisfy ALL their fans. They are stuck between a Rock and Hard Place.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
mtaylor
I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

Good point. In the pre-internet days nobody knew what the setlist had been at earlier shows unless you maybe saw it in a newspaper, but a lot of casual fans didn't bother doing that.

I had a friend in college who used to take a piece of paper and pen with him to concerts to write down the songs played...

I thought that was the silliest thing I ever heard.

Times were so much simpler pre-internet!

Quote
HalfNanker

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
mtaylor
I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

Good point. In the pre-internet days nobody knew what the setlist had been at earlier shows unless you maybe saw it in a newspaper, but a lot of casual fans didn't bother doing that.

I had a friend in college who used to take a piece of paper and pen with him to concerts to write down the songs played...

I thought that was the silliest thing I ever heard.

Times were so much simpler pre-internet!

I am pretty sure that it was not just your friend who did this.... I did it too!

Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName

Quote
HalfNanker

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
mtaylor
I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

Good point. In the pre-internet days nobody knew what the setlist had been at earlier shows unless you maybe saw it in a newspaper, but a lot of casual fans didn't bother doing that.

I had a friend in college who used to take a piece of paper and pen with him to concerts to write down the songs played...

I thought that was the silliest thing I ever heard.

Times were so much simpler pre-internet!

I am pretty sure that it was not just your friend who did this.... I did it too!

I still do it. Especially if it's a print at home ticket. I write the setlist on the back of it.

Quote
MingSubu

Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName

Quote
HalfNanker

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
mtaylor
I guess it is a more recent trend that they (all bands) have to change set list every night.

Then we can sit and comment on the Internet and tell our opinion, how boring they are.

Despite considering that at least 95% of the audience in one city just sees the one and only concert, then they have to change all songs every night so that the Internet audience has something to comment on!!!!!

Good point. In the pre-internet days nobody knew what the setlist had been at earlier shows unless you maybe saw it in a newspaper, but a lot of casual fans didn't bother doing that.

I had a friend in college who used to take a piece of paper and pen with him to concerts to write down the songs played...

I thought that was the silliest thing I ever heard.

Times were so much simpler pre-internet!

I am pretty sure that it was not just your friend who did this.... I did it too!

I still do it. Especially if it's a print at home ticket. I write the setlist on the back of it.

I looked in the newspaper the next day and cut out the review and setlist and stuck it in the tour programme.