gotta say, some of those truck-stop hookers are really showing their age.

yeah, douchebag crowd, but mick did empty their pockets of $4 million american for a rehearsal. you're just pissed cause it wasn't you there. i think the Fonda taught mick a club show for the general public is just too much hassle (tickets, ect).

Yes the Stones need to play the hits, please the masses, etc but cant they just tone it down to maybe 6/7 numbers and then knock our socks off with some other cuts...they don't even have to be deep cuts...their catalogue is vast and folks would absolutely love it. Its perplexing really....haven't been one to moan too much about this but its really hard not to at this point. Come on boys....get out on a limb with the rest of the world and open up that playbook!

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with to why they would avoid the deep cuts is the fear of Keith not remembering the chords, and it's not as easy to remember songs for Mick and Charlie either these days I presume. The ambitious attempt at playing 10 rare songs could end up in a messy trainwreck disaster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 02:36 by TheBlockbuster.

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
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?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 04:50 by alimente.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-07 13:00 by jambay.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
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
roller99

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
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.

Completely agree with this. I remember a live thread from one of the Zip Code concerts where there was a lot of complaints about the setlists (the usual stuff) and I wrote something like this. It's very easy to follow their concerts at home by reading what's on internet and thinking how lame or repetitive the setlists are, but that's another thing when you're actually at that concert.

Quote
alimente

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".

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.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
alimente

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".

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 cant resist

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 07:48 by maumau.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
alimente

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".

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.

From an artist's point of view that's a very respectful statement. But you've got to remember that when there's an exhibition of a very well known artist, most people want to see the most famous works of art, not the artist's "b-sides".

Quote
maumau

Quote
Hairball

Quote
alimente

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".

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

Gotta admit that's a sensation that's difficult to resist!
Generally speaking though, the thrill of seeing them live is somewhat gone for me.
Happened last tour when I saw only one show whereas prior to that I saw multiple shows every tour since 1981.
Mick Taylor joining them was a saving grace and I saw six shows that tour, but unfortunately that was a short-lived anomaly.
The outrageous Vegas prices this time around makes it particularly unsatisfying - particularly when it's bound to be 99% the same as it was last year.
This will be the fist time since 1981 that I didn't buy a ticket for a *Stones show, and evidently I'm not the only one as neither Vegas show has sold out with tickets dropping left and right as we speak.

*I will see them twice at Desert Trip (which made the decision of not buying Vegas tickets easier), but will not be expecting anything earth shattering.
Really looking forward to seeing Neil Young again as his setlists and shows always have something new, something different, something challenging, and always on the edge.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 08:12 by Hairball.

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.

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
lem motlow

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.

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?

They've done these corporate gigs for decades, though.

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.

It is not the only possible explanation, though. To present at least one alternative motive, it could be for the adoration.

Satisfaction at the Bellagio
[www.youtube.com]

Quote
lem motlow

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.

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?

It is indeed a bit hard to stomach that the greatest RnR band that ever lived would stoop down to this. I suppose it comes down to "a buck is a buck" or "if people throw $4 million at me it means I'm still great", etc...and gets rationalized as "if we didn't do this tickets for the fans would be a lot more expensive", right...It's "show business", it's Vegas, it's Fat Elvis...it's just that in the 60s the Stones seemed to have higher artistic ambitions.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
roller99

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
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.

How an audience audience reacts to live music can't entirely be measured out with statistics, that's foolish to believe.

They haven't been a greatest hits act non stop, the licks tour was ambitious and their most critically acclaimed tour by fans and media the last 15 years.

And yes playing rare material makes them more relevant, cause people could then tell they still care. Springsteen and Neil Youngs feels more relevant today just by playing more rare songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 10:48 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
The Joker
They should have played Far Away Eyes

[youtu.be]

I agree. The missed a huge opportunity to play it to educated audiance.

... She'd be off with the nearest truck driver she could find..

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
Jumpin' Jack Flash: [www.instagram.com]

Chuck very high in the mix !

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 11:40 by powerage78.

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
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.

Maybe he was bored with it too, and you know what? We're all going to miss them soon when they stop

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...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

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...

I pretty much feel the same, last time I saw them was Vienna 2014 - the show straight after Paris.

I WOULD loved to have seen them in South America mid you, but that's only because the spectacle would have been more about the crowds than what was happening on/coming off the stage ...... sorry and sad to be saying so, but there it is. Ah well ..... maybe they'll do something of interest yet before they hang it up ? If not, then not ! I can live with it ....

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 13:29 by paulywaul.

However, to such an audience it must have been a missed opportunity not to play "Far Away Eyes". I have not got my boots with studio outtakes here. But was not the original title "Truck Driver Blues"? The Stones could even have used the original lyrics that they had to(?) change, probably due to reasons of traffic security, about crossing several streets in a careless fashion. I don't remember the words.

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.

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.

They should have let the truckers in. They might have actually enjoyed it. The crowd in these pictures looks alternately amused, bemused and confused. You're right about them being relatively young .... maybe too young to fully appreciate what it is that they're seeing and hearing. Oh, well. These kinds of things are always wasted on the people who actually get to experience them anyway. One man's thrill of a lifetime is another man's pleasant evening of "entertainment."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-05 16:38 by tatters.

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
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.

Well said. Pains me to agree with you but you hit the nail on the head.

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.

Four Seasons Hotel where they have stayed in the past is sold out Oct 25 & 26- only dates in October sold out