tatters - you're a little premature in your evaluation of this tour, though. I would fully anticipate at least 8-10 of the ABB songs to make it to the stage on this tour....not all in a single show, though. My hunch would be that at some point ABB songs will occupy probably 6 slots in the set - with a few of them being nightly staples and the others on a rotation basis. However, your points are still well-taken...much as others will no doubt dismiss them....

Tatters, I don't think it is very "rock'n'roll" just to play them same old songs. It's the antithesis of the spirit of R&R really. And as you rightly say, that spirit was most in evidence in '69 ( + the few years following) and in 1978.

Risk and danger - confidence in your new or rarer songs and your ability to play them without worrying about crowd-pleasing - that's the true spirit.

You and T&A seem to really be in agreement.

"If you don't like it then you don't like us and if you don't like us then you don't like R&R".

Wrong. We like them when they are being R&R, which is more the case when they are not playing the safe warhorse game. That's just Showbiz.

I would like to see them do a 24-song set that would include eight songs from the new album, eight rare oldies, and eight warhorses. That would please everyone, die-hards and tourists alike, wouldn't it? And it would keep the boys on their toes.

Make no mistake. I want Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby. Hell, I even want the B-SIDE of Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL..my disgust (as ever) is aimed more at the
> non-fans and corporate @#$%& who we genuine fans
> are forced to share the same air as at a Stones
> concert and the fact that the band actually feel
> obliged to tailor a show towards these "blow-ins"

If it wasn't for "non-fans" (and I don't think it's fair to characterize ANYONE willing to shell out for Stones tix as a "non-fan," BTW) and "corporate @#$%&," there wouldn't be a sufficient financial incentive for the Stones to tour at all, anymore. At the very least, they wouldn't perform nearly as frequently as they do now, because catering to small audiences of "genuine fans" such as yourself just ain't worth it to a bunch of multimillionaires.

That would leave folks like you with only old albums and bootlegs to listen to, and nothing new to complain about. So, get off your Goddamned high horse and thank the "non-fans" and "corporate @#$%&" for all they've done for you!

Driving Your Plane? YES!

Am in general agreement really, would prefer something like an 8:10:6 ratio and one which allows for warhorse rotation.

If we can finalise a contract next week, then we'll send it to the Stones for signing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-26 11:00 by Four Stone Walls.

Treesnake2000 Wrote:
> If it wasn't for "non-fans" (and I don't think
> it's fair to characterize ANYONE willing to shell
> out for Stones tix as a "non-fan," BTW) and
> "corporate @#$%&," there wouldn't be a
> sufficient financial incentive for the Stones to
> tour at all, anymore. At the very least, they
> wouldn't perform nearly as frequently as they do
> now, because catering to small audiences of
> "genuine fans" such as yourself just ain't worth
> it to a bunch of multimillionaires.
>
> That would leave folks like you with only old
> albums and bootlegs to listen to, and nothing new
> to complain about. So, get off your Goddamned
> high horse and thank the "non-fans" and "corporate
> @#$%&" for all they've done for you!



Two words to that, Treesnake - "ball" and "ox" (even though you missed the fact that part of my post was a bit tongue in cheek)

Genuine fans do indeed shell out a lot for Stones tickets. I'm one of them. As are you, I'm sure. Theres a lot however for whom it means nothing and its just another big name to tick off their list of artists that theyve seen which is evidenced by how lame some of the audiences are (even in the most expensive seats) and how they dont react to songs that arent a 'warhorse'. I dont see that so much at shows by other artists where most of their fans actually KNOW a wide variety of the artists' material, which leaves the performer some freedom to play what they like.

"Corporate" fans bring NOTHING to a Stones show in my experience and theyre given preference in ticket availability and are there at the expense of genuine fans who cant get a sniff of the seats their fat, lazy asses are occupying for as long as the show lasts. I've been to indoor shows where everyone I know had to jump through hoops to acquire tickets only to be seated behind people who were there on a corporate junket, who sat for the entire show, didnt applaud and who couldnt care less whether it was the Rolling stones, Garth Brooks or two monkeys playing a ukelele through their arses onstage. They absolutely KILLED the atmosphere for everyone around them. Is THAT the sort of audience YOU want at a Stones gig? If so, youre welcome to them!

And fúck this shit about the fact we should be 'thanking' these corporate people for all theyre doing in making it worth the band's while in touring. If thats what motivates any band to tour when they dont need the money anyway, then you and they are entirely missing the point about what rock n roll is supposed to be about. The Stones could make a bomb without this shit anyway and you know it.

"Folks like me" actually dont live in the past so I fail to see where your analogy about old albums and bootlegs come from - I'd prefer the Stones to have new material to play and not feel obliged to play the same old hits for people too lazy and disrespectful to listen to their music in the first place. Its the 'non fans' who live in the past because they go to a show expecting and demanding the same nostalgia-fest of the same songs from one tour to the next. The band as a result dont grow as performing artists as much as they should do.

Ask yourself who put the Rolling Stones where they are...the people who "bought their old albums" who you're casually dismissing or is it the "neo-fan" blow-ins who go to the shows on a corporate junket they havent paid for, who maybe know about ten songs and who probably WONT buy their new record.




Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-26 20:33 by Gazza.

If you are a great fan what does it matter if you are Whoppi Goldberg or Jack? If they are fans Im sure they are wondering where are the different tunes? However I know a lot of people who think they are fans but they are not really and everytime I play them a diffeernt tune like Sway or King Bee they say WOW. Stones can do it they should not be money covards it may back fire on them.

Gazza Wrote:

> If thats what motivates any band to tour
> when they dont need the money anyway, then you and
> they are entirely missing the point about what
> rock n roll is supposed to be about. The Stones
> could make a bomb without this shit anyway and you
> know it.

It's absurd to equate the current Stones tour with "what rock n roll is supposed to be about." We all know that they're out for the money, which wouldn't be nearly as much as it is without casual fans and corporate types buying expensive tickets. That was my point.

Listen, I have NO PROBLEM with their being out on the road because of the money; they still put on an excellent show. But you really ARE living in the past if you think that the rock n roll spirit is what keeps the Stones churning out new material and touring year after year. Do you really think that if it weren't for casual and corporate fans, the Stones would be playing intimate, eclectic club shows to their dwindling "real fans," a la Creedence Clearwater Revisisted, or something? NO! Having been the GRnRBITW, they'd be sitting in their mansions, counting their money. The lure of a massive payday, the likes of which not even multimillionaires can ignore, is what gets them out on the road.

That being the case, I think it is arrogant and ignorant to disparage such a large percentage of this tour's audience as not being real fans and not appreciating the music enough to merit admission. As I said, if they weren't footing the bill, you wouldn't have any Stones releases or concerts to go to at all!

Bottom line: I know that when I was at Fenway on Sunday, there were a couple of families around me who had scrounged together the nearly $800 that four good seats cost, who wanted to hear (and wanted their children to hear) the warhorses. They were definitely casual fans out for the experience of seeing the Stones; they had a great time, and they paid a very high price for it. Your holier-than-thou attitude towards people like this is simply repulsive.

LOL

Your angst over all this is hilarious.

"Casual fans" covers a pretty broad spectrum of people, the ones youve quoted taking their families to a show I have no problem with. Its great those people can turn their kids onto the Stones. Its just a shame that anyone has to pay so much money for a family night out. Lucky them they can afford it.

The ones who dont give a damn who theyre there to see is a different matter.

And I stand by 100% what I said earlier about the corporate audiences, based on my own personal experience of them.

To say the Stones couldnt fill large venues without them is nonsensical. If the band charged $100 a ticket (or less as any normal act would) they could fill every stadium on the planet, and in fact be playing bigger ones than theyre playing now. They'd also have a younger audience who have been effectively priced out of their concerts since 1998 and who theyve missed out passing their musical legacy on to as a result.

i'm with gazza on this ... and i wouldn't relish having to be on the end of any argument against him (i've met the guy - great guy to go to war with...)

cut SFM, put TD in and i agree.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To say the Stones couldnt fill large venues
> without them is nonsensical. If the band charged
> $100 a ticket (or less as any normal act would)
> they could fill every stadium on the planet, and
> in fact be playing bigger ones than theyre playing
> now.

Let's be clear: I didn't say they COULDN'T; I said they WOULDN'T. If the Stones can sell out stadiums with most of the tickets at $160 or $450, they would NEVER charge only $100 per ticket. And if that's all they could charge anymore, then they wouldn't bother touring. Again, I see nothing wrong with this; it's just market forces at work.

And another thing: the people sitting around me at Fenway were in the same financial situation as I was; like me, they could afford $160 tickets, but JUST BARELY, and certainly not more than once per tour. And they damned well deserved to hear SMU, HTW, BS, SFTD, TD, IORR, and JJF for their money, not Citadel or whatever crap only "true fans" appreciate (crap in their view, not mine). Some were sitting, some were making out (snogging, to you), and some were smoking too much weed to have any idea of what was going on. But all deserved to be there, and if their demeanor spoiled the atmosphere for any hard-core fans, well, fcuk 'em.

"And another thing: the people sitting around me at Fenway were in the same financial situation as I was; like me, they could afford $160 tickets, but JUST BARELY, and certainly not more than once per tour. And they damned well deserved to hear SMU, HTW, BS, SFTD, TD, IORR, and JJF for their money"

damned well deserved to hear SMU, HTW, BS, SFTD, TD, IORR, and JJF for their money...

damned well deserved to hear SMU, HTW, BS, SFTD, TD, IORR, and JJF for their money...


- Come on! I dont know why I come to think of Keith ol´ proverb (on Astrology):

"I´m a Sagittarian. ´alf Man,´alf ´orse, with the right to shit on the street".





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-27 00:04 by Baboon Bro.

"Your holier-than-thou attitude towards people like us is simply repulsive". ;-)

(BTW, I HATE "Citadel" with a passion. I like "exile on main street" though - you know, that all-time classic album that most Stones fans dont actually own, and which because of that, the band hardly play many songs from?)


$160 is about my price level too. Just about. "Hard core" or not, I'd never pay $450 for a ticket as a matter of principle. Even for a theatre show.

Think you misread what I meant about filling stadiums. They play smaller stadiums for the most part now but charge higher prices. They would find it difficult to increasingly sell out 80,000 seater stadiums at the prices they charge now, but could do so if they dropped the prices (the extra crowds would make up for the smaller prices, if you see what I mean). Unfortunately the pricing structure excludes a lot of fans who would genuinely love to see them and would appreciate the shows simply because its out of their price range.

Gazza Wrote:

> (BTW, I HATE "Citadel" with a passion. I like
> "exile on main street" though - you know, that
> all-time classic album that most Stones fans dont
> actually own, and which because of that, the band
> hardly play many songs from?)

Well, except for on the Licks tour.

What I wouldn't give to have seen Loving Cup or Torn and Frayed live; unfortunately, I was at a stadium show...

The Treesnake logic is blinding:
~
"They pay an awful lot of cash for the tix,
therefore they have the right to be flooded by warhorses"...

Or: "And they damned well deserved to hear SMU, HTW, BS, SFTD, TD, IORR, and JJF for their money" (quoted from above)




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-27 00:06 by Baboon Bro.

Torn & Frayed is my fave song on Exile, but I dont think they did it justice, though (think it only got played a couple of times, though)

Loving Cup was excellent though. I was delighted they dug deep for that one and played it a few shows I was at.

They ended up doing the same few songs though. However it was an improvement after having ignored almost all of the album for three decades

I LOVE CITADEL!

I think it was Torn and Frayed that I saw at one the Wembleys. Not very good. Sloppy really.

I just signed up for the Sirius three-day trial, and Citadel was the first song I heard! Better than I remember, actually (I don't own HSMR)!

Four Stone Walls: the reason that most fans in attendance at Stones are willing to shell out big money is precisely to hear the warhorses; considering that, the logic is fine.

Torn & Frayed on the Licks outings was, well, torn and frayed. I can see why they gave up on, shall we say....

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I LOVE CITADEL!
>
> I think it was Torn and Frayed that I saw at one
> the Wembleys. Not very good. Sloppy really.


they didnt do it in Europe. It was only played twice - at the Toronto and Chicago club shows.

My logic-aiming dealt with the fast that if people are prepared
to pay that much, they would care to hear some more than the usual stuff.
The quality, ebergy & intensity would be guiding stars.
My fav´s on Exile are RO, ADTL & Loving Cup. After Shine A Light.
Citadel is wonderful... And why 2,000 Light Years isnt played more live
goes beyond my comprehension.

Treesnake,

The people who shell out big money to see warhorses (and not the more diverse stuff) - I don't think they are fans.

See all Gazas points.

Gaza,

Must have been Loving Cup then - it was THAT forgettable!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tatters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Satisfaction
> > JJFlash
> > Street Fighting Man
> > Sympathy
> > Honky Tonk
> > Gimmie Shelter
> > Midnight Rambler
> > Brown Sugar
> >
> > The other warhorses need to be played on a
> > rotating basis. Play TD one night then drop
> it the
> > next and play IORR in its place. Make room in
> the
> > set for something else! Shit, I wouldn't even
> mind
> > losing one or two of the above mentioned
> eight if
> > they would play something INTERESTING in its
> > place.
> >
> > SURPRISE US!!!
>
>
> Dont agree that theres ANY song that MUST be
> played every night. Other major artists dont
> necessarily do that, and their shows dont suffer
> for it because they can change things around and
> keep it fresh
>
> This band has been around 43 years, have released
> almost 350 different songs, many of them
> justifiably regarded as classics, have played to
> more people than any band in history and sold a
> couple of hundred million records....
>
> yet they still feel obliged to devote half a show
> to songs that theyve played to death BECAUSE there
> is a sizeable section of the people who come to
> see them who are too LAZY to look beyond the
> greatest hits section of their back catalogue
>
> Theres something wrong with this picture.
>
> I dont buy this argument that many people in the
> audience are seeing the band for the first time
> and so they (justifiably if it were true) expect a
> greatest hits show.
>
> The band's demographic is getting older and, with
> the prices they charge for tickets, are obviously
> reasonably affluent. They've toured regularly for
> the last decade and a half. Pretty much everyone
> in that time who's wanted to see them has had
> ample oppurtunity to do so, if they can afford
> it.
>
> I doubt that many people going to this tour are
> first timers. Therefore, the audiences are mostly
> consisted of people who went to see them on
> previous tours and enjoyed it sufficiently to come
> back for more.
>
> If the shows were obviously so enjoyable, why cant
> these people bother their asses to buy some of
> their albums in the ensuing 2-3 years since they
> last saw them and get to know their back catalogue
> a bit? Why should the band feel obliged to cater
> for part-time fans? Why should the setlists become
> less interesting for the rest of us as a result?
> Surely the Stones themselves would rather play a
> song that they havent flogged to death over the
> years than something like Honky Tonk Women or
> IORR?
>
>
> Time the band let their art speak for itself and
> basically say "never mind this 'play something we
> know' mentality - the onus is on the audience to
> "know what we play".
>
>
>
If was for their back catalogue i would not be a fan of the greatest rock and roll band and they would strugle all these years touring...

Gazza -

Get into the real world. I admire your idealism, but there's no way an audience will stand for that. Hell, they don't even 'stand' for Infamy, The Worst or anything else that ISN'T a warhorse. The aisles fill, the crowd sits, the chatter starts up. So, YES, those ARE the people who are going to these shows. Sad but true.

Our 'dream' setlists of Sway, Slave, Country Honk, Gunface, Jigsaw Puzzle and Gomper would reult in the lowest ticket sales of any Stones tour, no additional shows and the worst press they've ever seen with the likes of "Stones finally don't have it." or "Stones no longer a draw." And no one (especially them) wants them to go out in a whimper. Nor will they then start this romantic notion of playing clubs and small theatres because no one wants to see them play the obscure stuff except us 'true' fans.

They pepper their sets with new ones and rare ones and stick to the meat and potatoes that gets 10 - 16 year-olds (the industries market these days) going with their parents and shouting along to Satisfaction and Tumbling Dice.

Do you really think there's going to be some kid in the back of an Escalade going "Hey Dad! Do you have that CD with "Feel On Baby" on it? That was a cool song!" Besides the fact that his Dad would probably say 'That's from that crappy album they put out when I was in college, here, listen to 40 Licks, it has all their good songs on it, and we got it free at Starbucks with a latte."

J

T&A:

Wake up.

Rock 'n roll IS show business (emphasis on business).

Where have you been?

And if the Stones are so heartless and lazy -- how many other acts of their caliber did what they did on the Licks Tour around the world playing small venues?/And exactly how many new/rare songs did they debut on THAT tour??

J

uh..I'm not suggesting they play a stadium show full of rarities (that stuff is fine in a theatre, but would be madness in a stadium)

nor am I suggesting they drop their greatest hits en masse. Rotating them would be a good idea, though.

The setlists in Boston were indeed peppered with new songs (and a good amount considering the album isnt out yet) but not "rare" ones as you suggest. There was next to nothing there that wasnt a single.

Actually, I recall some great reviews on the No Security and Licks tours which praised them for digging deeper into their back catalogue than before and dropping several of the songs that had been played to death.. setlists of these songs wouldnt affect ticket sales really - because the tickets are pretty much all sold before the tour starts anyway.

What I'm suggesting is that more people who actually GO to Rolling Stones concerts and obviously think nothing of paying a few hundred dollars to do so actually take the time (and the somewhat smaller financial investment) to know more of their material than the same 10-12 greatest hits that the band always seem to be obliged to play to keep them happy. I honestly dont think thats much to ask of one's audience. Theres a world of difference between knowing the songs from, say, "Some Girls", "Beggars Banquet" or "Sticky Fingers" than being anal and ridiculous and expecting a setlist loaded with obscurities like "Feel on baby" or the like. I dont consider "Moonlight Mile", "Far Away Eyes" or "Worried About You" as obscure rarities - because they come from the three biggest selling studio albums of the band's career.

If these people come back tour after tour, they obviously like the shows. I dont know about you, but if I went to see a concert by a band whose music I only knew a little of and ended up thinking the show was excellent, it would motivate me to go out and buy more of their material to see what I've been missing. When I saw that artist next time I would have some new favourite songs that I would hope the artist might play. Isnt that normal?

The Stones are the biggest concert draw of all time yet theyre far from being one of the biggest selling recording artists of all time. The fact that a lot of people come back to see them from one tour to the next yet dont go out and buy as many of their albums (be it a new release or old ones) is a statistic that is very puzzling and also a damning indictment of a sizeable amount of their audience. The logic of paying hundreds of dollars to see a concert, plus all the extra expense that a night out at a show entails - and then spending half the gig sitting down or going to the bar or toilet, is something I find incredible (as well as disrespectful)

the band have surely earned the right after all these years to play whatever the hell they like onstage. Whether you think they actually DO play what they want to play or whether they play what they feel OBLIGED to is a matter of opinion. Personally, I feel it's the latter. I dont feel that the greatest rock n roll band of all time should be a jukebox to cater for anyone's requests (mine included) but I think they'd get a kick if their audience could get into more songs than the usual 'standards'..

Finally, the Stones market is not in any way geared towards 10-16 year olds (nor would I expect it to be). It does exclude a young and therefore less affluent fanbase though. Those kids arent the "industry market" because they dont have the money to be such

TD has been played almost every show since 72

Have you ever been to a show where the artist refused to play warhorses, and favored new material instead?

George Harrison did it in '74. He didn't play many Beatle numbers (and then would mess with them: "While My Guitar Gently SMILES!") or even his more popular solo stuff (Actually lectured the audience when someone shouted out a request for "Bangla Desh") in order to play music from his new album, Dark Horse.

The tour was a disaster.

I saw Van Morrison in '85. Again, the guy ignored his hits (the ones they play on the radio to get you to go) and everybody just sat through new material, hoping he'd encore with Brown Eyed Girl.

Was he being a great Artist--or a jerk??

The Stones don't have that kind of tunnelvision--and they like the audience reaction--so they play warhorses. I myself liked it when they played Some Girls at the Pond a few years back (although it wasn't a great version) but it didn't get a huge response from the crowd. And that's the title track to their biggest seller!

i loved harrison's 74 tour,,& the highlight of the show for me was Hari's on tour express ,,the opener,,Incredible slide guitar,, off of the then New album dark horse,,,Jagger said on 89 tour in Philly opening nite"'if it wasn't for the new 1s,,,there wouldn't b any old 1s