For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
stone66
Those who continually complain about set lists really are quite amusing.
For most people, a Stones concert is an occasion as opposed to an ongoing obsession. Most people don't hang on every note of every show wondering why the same show never changes. These are the songs the collective consciousness of pop culture has chosen to embrace, so these are the songs of the ages that are celebrated at shows. People aren't paying hundreds of dollars to hear 2 hours of B-sides and other more obscure filler. So naturally they're going to play their most celebrated songs, what would one expect?
I would even go so far as to say that the "set list complaint" is the fan forum equivalent of the "warhorse".
Quote
TheBlockbusterQuote
roller99
If the band had busted out Fingerprint File, Stray Cat Blue, or any other deep album track, they (and the mainstream media) would have reported "Stones played a bunch of never-before-heard material in Vegas last night".
It would be very naive to actually believe in what you're saying. If the Stones would bust out rare tracks the media would more of respond like ''The Stones are more musically relevant than in a long time''. It's not like they're are doomed to be a greatest hits act for the rest of their lives. I actually believe there would be more hype built around their concerts if the played more rare songs.
Quote
roller99Quote
TheBlockbusterQuote
roller99
If the band had busted out Fingerprint File, Stray Cat Blue, or any other deep album track, they (and the mainstream media) would have reported "Stones played a bunch of never-before-heard material in Vegas last night".
It would be very naive to actually believe in what you're saying. If the Stones would bust out rare tracks the media would more of respond like ''The Stones are more musically relevant than in a long time''. It's not like they're are doomed to be a greatest hits act for the rest of their lives. I actually believe there would be more hype built around their concerts if the played more rare songs.
No, that would satisfy your little elitist fantasy. Some deep album track from Gotas Head Soup doesn't make them relevant, touring on a new album does. And nobody is going to pay to see new material. They've been a greatest hits act for decades. They have teams of statisticians to tell them what songs they should play, but you know better?
When they retire after the 2017 tour, you'll wish they were here to play greatest hits.
Quote
alimenteQuote
stone66
Those who continually complain about set lists really are quite amusing.
For most people, a Stones concert is an occasion as opposed to an ongoing obsession. Most people don't hang on every note of every show wondering why the same show never changes. These are the songs the collective consciousness of pop culture has chosen to embrace, so these are the songs of the ages that are celebrated at shows. People aren't paying hundreds of dollars to hear 2 hours of B-sides and other more obscure filler. So naturally they're going to play their most celebrated songs, what would one expect?
I would even go so far as to say that the "set list complaint" is the fan forum equivalent of the "warhorse".
What you're describing is a musical about the Stones like so many before about ABBA, Buddy Holly or Queen, celebrating the music of long-disbanded bands or even dead artists with legendary status, right?
OK, in a musical I would expect nothing else than the most famous hits, but this is a Rolling Stones concert, and the band is still alive and kicking - or did I miss something?
Quote
HairballQuote
alimenteQuote
stone66
Those who continually complain about set lists really are quite amusing.
For most people, a Stones concert is an occasion as opposed to an ongoing obsession. Most people don't hang on every note of every show wondering why the same show never changes. These are the songs the collective consciousness of pop culture has chosen to embrace, so these are the songs of the ages that are celebrated at shows. People aren't paying hundreds of dollars to hear 2 hours of B-sides and other more obscure filler. So naturally they're going to play their most celebrated songs, what would one expect?
I would even go so far as to say that the "set list complaint" is the fan forum equivalent of the "warhorse".
What you're describing is a musical about the Stones like so many before about ABBA, Buddy Holly or Queen, celebrating the music of long-disbanded bands or even dead artists with legendary status, right?
OK, in a musical I would expect nothing else than the most famous hits, but this is a Rolling Stones concert, and the band is still alive and kicking - or did I miss something?
As a visual artist whose still alive and well, it would be lazy of me to continue to show some of my 'greatest hits' from the past (or copies of them) in galleries around the world. Any living artist, be they successful or not, usually strives on creating something new as part of the process and unleashing it on the public. Unless you are dead, what's the point of having old work continuously making the rounds? I could make thousands of reproductions and display them in gift shops around the world, but that's not what being a productive living artist is all about imo. It would be lazy and unproductive, and alot of respect one might have garnered in their career would probably be lost amongst many - the legacy would be tainted. Sure there might be some who enjoy the 'golden oldies' who may have never seen them, but I wouldn't find very much satisfaction in living in the past resting on laurels of days long gone by. If there happened to be some early works of mine that have never seen the light of day, it might be a different story and I'd be happy to share them, but otherwise showing the same old stuff over and over again would be boring - not only for myself, but for many people who would like to see something that they haven't before.
It's obvious the Stones are only in it for the money at this point playing their greatest hits, otherwise they'd play a show made up of 90% new or rarely heard tunes in smaller venues at reasonable prices. They would get much more respect from most fans as living, creative, productive musicians. But as it stands their biggest fans are the bankers and promoters who are raking in the dough as the band continues to rehash and regurgitate the same product over and over again in a diluted form from the greatness it once was.
Quote
HairballQuote
alimenteQuote
stone66
Those who continually complain about set lists really are quite amusing.
For most people, a Stones concert is an occasion as opposed to an ongoing obsession. Most people don't hang on every note of every show wondering why the same show never changes. These are the songs the collective consciousness of pop culture has chosen to embrace, so these are the songs of the ages that are celebrated at shows. People aren't paying hundreds of dollars to hear 2 hours of B-sides and other more obscure filler. So naturally they're going to play their most celebrated songs, what would one expect?
I would even go so far as to say that the "set list complaint" is the fan forum equivalent of the "warhorse".
What you're describing is a musical about the Stones like so many before about ABBA, Buddy Holly or Queen, celebrating the music of long-disbanded bands or even dead artists with legendary status, right?
OK, in a musical I would expect nothing else than the most famous hits, but this is a Rolling Stones concert, and the band is still alive and kicking - or did I miss something?
As a visual artist whose still alive and well, it would be lazy of me to continue to show some of my 'greatest hits' from the past (or copies of them) in galleries around the world. Any living artist, be they successful or not, usually strives on creating something new as part of the process and unleashing it on the public. Unless you are dead, what's the point of having old work continuously making the rounds? I could make thousands of reproductions and display them in gift shops around the world, but that's not what being a productive living artist is all about imo. It would be lazy and unproductive, and alot of respect one might have garnered in their career would probably be lost amongst many - the legacy would be tainted. Sure there might be some who enjoy the 'golden oldies' who may have never seen them, but I wouldn't find very much satisfaction in living in the past resting on laurels of days long gone by. If there happened to be some early works of mine that have never seen the light of day, it might be a different story and I'd be happy to share them, but otherwise showing the same old stuff over and over again would be boring - not only for myself, but for many people who would like to see something that they haven't before.
It's obvious the Stones are only in it for the money at this point playing their greatest hits, otherwise they'd play a show made up of 90% new or rarely heard tunes in smaller venues at reasonable prices. They would get much more respect from most fans as living, creative, productive musicians. But as it stands their biggest fans are the bankers and promoters who are raking in the dough as the band continues to rehash and regurgitate the same product over and over again in a diluted form from the greatness it once was.
Quote
maumauQuote
HairballQuote
alimenteQuote
stone66
Those who continually complain about set lists really are quite amusing.
For most people, a Stones concert is an occasion as opposed to an ongoing obsession. Most people don't hang on every note of every show wondering why the same show never changes. These are the songs the collective consciousness of pop culture has chosen to embrace, so these are the songs of the ages that are celebrated at shows. People aren't paying hundreds of dollars to hear 2 hours of B-sides and other more obscure filler. So naturally they're going to play their most celebrated songs, what would one expect?
I would even go so far as to say that the "set list complaint" is the fan forum equivalent of the "warhorse".
What you're describing is a musical about the Stones like so many before about ABBA, Buddy Holly or Queen, celebrating the music of long-disbanded bands or even dead artists with legendary status, right?
OK, in a musical I would expect nothing else than the most famous hits, but this is a Rolling Stones concert, and the band is still alive and kicking - or did I miss something?
As a visual artist whose still alive and well, it would be lazy of me to continue to show some of my 'greatest hits' from the past (or copies of them) in galleries around the world. Any living artist, be they successful or not, usually strives on creating something new as part of the process and unleashing it on the public. Unless you are dead, what's the point of having old work continuously making the rounds? I could make thousands of reproductions and display them in gift shops around the world, but that's not what being a productive living artist is all about imo. It would be lazy and unproductive, and alot of respect one might have garnered in their career would probably be lost amongst many - the legacy would be tainted. Sure there might be some who enjoy the 'golden oldies' who may have never seen them, but I wouldn't find very much satisfaction in living in the past resting on laurels of days long gone by. If there happened to be some early works of mine that have never seen the light of day, it might be a different story and I'd be happy to share them, but otherwise showing the same old stuff over and over again would be boring - not only for myself, but for many people who would like to see something that they haven't before.
It's obvious the Stones are only in it for the money at this point playing their greatest hits, otherwise they'd play a show made up of 90% new or rarely heard tunes in smaller venues at reasonable prices. They would get much more respect from most fans as living, creative, productive musicians. But as it stands their biggest fans are the bankers and promoters who are raking in the dough as the band continues to rehash and regurgitate the same product over and over again in a diluted form from the greatness it once was.
honestly I'd agree with all this, if only I had the detachment of a non-fan.
being a stones fan is a peculiar situation where u want more and different and new but when keith hits the chords of brown sugar you surrender and thrill and you feel your ass moving. not much different from love
u feel it or not, and also u can not feel it anymore at one point. it happens. not happened to me yet
and I am not banker
love the stones
Quote
Woz
> jesus fckng christ,look at that picture of jagger and look at that crowd.and your asking why is it a disgrace? <
They got paid to rehearse for a gig in front of 75,000. That's waaaaaaay different than bands like Kansas playing for realtors because it's the only gig that they CAN get.
You come across as rather bitter Lem.
Quote
lem motlowQuote
Woz
> jesus fckng christ,look at that picture of jagger and look at that crowd.and your asking why is it a disgrace? <
They got paid to rehearse for a gig in front of 75,000. That's waaaaaaay different than bands like Kansas playing for realtors because it's the only gig that they CAN get.
You come across as rather bitter Lem.
disgusted is the word you're looking for.the one thing the stones owned was the live show,no matter how many records the beatles or madonna sold there was always little doubt who the greatest live act in the world was.
to see them reduced to playing birthday parties and conventions for corporate america is just sad.
i usually back mick on most things but at some point you gotta start thinking about what the band has become and not chase every dollar thats waved in your face.
and you're right woz,it is different because that's the only gig those other bands can get,i respect them more because they probably need the money.
the stones have sold roughly 1.5 billion dollars in concert tickets since steel wheels and they're doing convention work in vegas? the rolling stones playing to a crowd of people politely clapping in suits and ties?c'mon mick really?
Quote
Hairball
.........................................
It's obvious the Stones are only in it for the money at this point playing their greatest hits, otherwise they'd play a show made up of 90% new or rarely heard tunes in smaller venues at reasonable prices. They would get much more respect from most fans as living, creative, productive musicians. But as it stands their biggest fans are the bankers and promoters who are raking in the dough as the band continues to rehash and regurgitate the same product over and over again in a diluted form from the greatness it once was.
Quote
lem motlowQuote
Woz
> jesus fckng christ,look at that picture of jagger and look at that crowd.and your asking why is it a disgrace? <
They got paid to rehearse for a gig in front of 75,000. That's waaaaaaay different than bands like Kansas playing for realtors because it's the only gig that they CAN get.
You come across as rather bitter Lem.
disgusted is the word you're looking for.the one thing the stones owned was the live show,no matter how many records the beatles or madonna sold there was always little doubt who the greatest live act in the world was.
to see them reduced to playing birthday parties and conventions for corporate america is just sad.
i usually back mick on most things but at some point you gotta start thinking about what the band has become and not chase every dollar thats waved in your face.
and you're right woz,it is different because that's the only gig those other bands can get,i respect them more because they probably need the money.
the stones have sold roughly 1.5 billion dollars in concert tickets since steel wheels and they're doing convention work in vegas? the rolling stones playing to a crowd of people politely clapping in suits and ties?c'mon mick really?
Quote
roller99Quote
TheBlockbusterQuote
roller99
If the band had busted out Fingerprint File, Stray Cat Blue, or any other deep album track, they (and the mainstream media) would have reported "Stones played a bunch of never-before-heard material in Vegas last night".
It would be very naive to actually believe in what you're saying. If the Stones would bust out rare tracks the media would more of respond like ''The Stones are more musically relevant than in a long time''. It's not like they're are doomed to be a greatest hits act for the rest of their lives. I actually believe there would be more hype built around their concerts if the played more rare songs.
No, that would satisfy your little elitist fantasy. Some deep album track from Gotas Head Soup doesn't make them relevant, touring on a new album does. And nobody is going to pay to see new material. They've been a greatest hits act for decades. They have teams of statisticians to tell them what songs they should play, but you know better?
When they retire after the 2017 tour, you'll wish they were here to play greatest hits.
Quote
EJM
It's a pity they are going straight in to the high profile "competition" of the desert trip after Only one live show. Keith usually takes a few outings these days before the rust is knocked off, even after only a few months break and on the ( admittedly tiny ) clips shown he does not look as good as he did in the South American shows.
Quote
gotdablouse
Are we really going to be missing shows like that Bellagio thing ?
Honestly if Paris 2014 is the last time I see them I'll be ok with it, like Mick once said "It can't last forever obviously" and after seeing what they did to Keith's solo on OOC from Havana I couldn't even bring myself to go see the movie...
Quote
timmyj3
Everybody ripping on that crowd is unkind to say the least. Freightliner is owned by Mercedes and has roughly $30 billion US sales. First off, there are NO truckers there as the news article stated. Dealers, sales, corporate staff and spouses only.
This crowd is probably younger than the average age of this board and most shows. Just an FYI. Its not 1973 Brussels for any of us anymore.
Just be glad the Stones are rocking and these lucky folks got to see them.
Well said. Pains me to agree with you but you hit the nail on the head.Quote
wonderboy
Just lame. Playing to corporate suits in Vegas for money. Maybe this is what they've been for a long time, but it's jarring to see it so plainly.
And not to be all political, but the fact that this company feels it has $4 million to burn on something like this shows that too much money is in unproductive hands.
And we wonder why young kids don't dig rock and roll if this is what they see.
Quote
DEmerson
Change of pace from the Vegas show last night. I was looking at possible Boston locations for the rumored small/private/corporate show. I'm not sure where the Oct. 25th date came from (but that's what I have seen as potential). A quick run down of places in Boston that could potentially host such an event, narrows things down quite a bit. Elvis Costello plays the Orpheum (where the Stones did play on the 40 Licks tour) that night. The Wang Center (4,000 plus) has a play opening that night. The Wilbur Theater and the House of Blues (which maybe made the most sense) both have shows booked. Which really only sort of leaves The Paradise (small - maybe 1,000) and across the street from the Wang is a place called Royale which is open. I live in Boston and got my ear to the ground...but not going to get my hopes up too high.