bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you paint your car a new color every day? I
> think they keep it like that because it is
> working. And because they play new cities every
> time. More than 99% of the crowd see only one
> show. Why make it better for 1% and worse for 99%
> ???
>
> Bjornulf


that theory might work if they only had about 15-20 songs that their audience knew...

There's an interview with Keith and Mick up on rollingstones.com. Jagger said he's busy sorting out the arena shows at the moment because the stage is different and the setlist will be different. I'm going to both Philly arena shows. Can't wait. I'd love; Just My Imagination, Far Away Eyes, Dance, Get Off My cloud, Worried About You, Sway and Let Me Down Slow and Empty Without You.

Flairville for President!

Maybe Prime Minister over here, but I'm flattered none the less!!

> Do you paint your car a new color every day? I think they keep it like that because > it is working. And because they play new cities every time. More than 99% of the
> crowd see only one show. Why make it better for 1% and worse for 99% ???

What does this actualy mean compared to Licks? A lot of bad shows for 99% ??

WE ALL SHOULD EXPECT AND GET VARIED SET LISTS FOR WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR TICKETS AND DON'T SAY WE DON'T DESERVE IT WITH A CATALOG OF SONGS AS DEEP AS THEY HAVE! THEY'VE PREACTICED OVER 140 SONGS, IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK TO THROW US A BONE AND GIVE EACH NIGHT 4 DIFFERENT SONGS!

flairville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe Prime Minister over here, but I'm flattered
> none the less!!

Yeah, but we NEED a new president over here (oops, sorry - not supposed to go there)...

I know, I know!! They're doing soundcheck at Detroit now, they've just done All Down The Line, which should make everyone happy! (Credit; shidoobee)

The stadium shows have meticulously planned staging, effects and lighting that are difficult to vary from night to night. I would think that they could play whatever they wanted on the B-Stage, tho.

drbryant hit the nail right on the head! However, I hope that at least a couple of new songs make their way into the set list by the time they roll into Toronto on Sept.26.

Frigging lazy!

Well, being downunder we get the lads about every decade or so. ANY setlist therefore is fantastic.

However, as we all live in this "instant gratification day and age" with instant news on setlists via the internet and this newsgroup for example. Just KNOWING in advance what they played a few nights before we (that's YOU in the US I am talking about here!) go and see them instantly provides us with a form of letdown. There's just no surprise.

If we all STOPPED posting the setlists, or stopped reading about them, effectivley taking us back to the 70's in terms of informational gathering, we'd all get surprised every night!!!

BINGO - we'd love the setlist!

Where they play 2 nights on the trot however, with the wealth of material they have at their disposal, they should be able to vary it more, but then they can't coz the light show is (apparently) tied to some of the music tracks (hence Charlie "falling over" during Sympathy the other night), so the spectacle dictates the music...

Rgds
Rod

For the next year and a half are I we going to have to listen to all this whining over set lists. No matter what the Band does, there a group that just keeps bitching. Enjoy the @#$%& shows.

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

SeNdEr wrote: "because they are 62 years old"

Do you think so? Look at the lists of 70s and of 1981/82. They deny you...

It will change when there're in Europe!

> The stadium shows have meticulously planned staging, effects and lighting that > are difficult to vary from night to night. I would think that they could play > whatever they wanted on the B-Stage, tho.

Wow, the Stones lost in their million dollar equipment? I still wonder how they could during Licks?

I agree with BV. It's nice to hear idfferent songs, but most of the poeple go once then a few % twice and then we are in the minority.
that's the way.
We have been really spoiled during Licks Tour and now we expect the same.
I am happy if they change two or three songs once in a while.
And as mentioned they may change more in Europe or Down Under. But we expect to much, because we know to much.

I think the Stones made a rod for their own back on the Licks tour, now every time they play, people are expecting them to play a diverse selection of material at each gig.

Nearly every major rock band that tours, usually play a pretty standard set list on every date, but, just like the Stnes are doing now, chop and change the occassional tune.

Everyone that is whining about the set list just reminds me of spoilt children that can't get their own way. quit bitchin.

this theory that this 'changing setlists' thing began with the Licks tour is nonsense

The main reason for the amount of different songs on that tour was the fact that in about 11 or 12 cities they played three different types of venues, which usually worked out at around 50 different songs being played over three shows.

They played 78 different songs on that tour in 117 shows. However, on the BTB/No Security tour( which consisted of several more shows admittedly but which hardly had any theatre shows and which kept a similar structure of songs between each show, regardless of whether it was stadiums or arenas) they still managed to play 76 different songs

Theyve been conscious since 1989 of the fact that they have a sizeable proportion of their audience who go to more than one show and have varied setlists accordingly. They have gone on record as saying that.

I dont think the stadium setlists will change too much from show to show. However, they havent played any arenas yet and I would like to think that when they do they'll vary things around significantly

If they dont, then to defend what is a sudden lack of imagination and inspiration on the band's part by making the irrelevant excuse that this wasnt the case 30 years ago plus the argument about hardly anyone in the audience wanting changes (something which the band themselves have acknowledged is NOT the case on past tours) is incomprehensible and sycophantic in the extreme.

RoddyD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so the spectacle dictates the music...

Well, it could not have been articulated in a better way, Roddy. I would take this even further, not restricting it to technical details (light show tied to loop tracks and the like), and this coincides with what BV mentioned:

The Stones are big. Huge. They attract many people, but only a handful are diehards. To maintain this superstar status, they simply cannot afford to disappoint the majority of the crowds by playing relatively obscure songs. Disappointed concert-goers usually spread their negative impression to others. If the majority of the crowds are happy because a lot of warhorses (=songs they know) were played, they'll spread these good news to others ("...go out and see them next time"). Their ongoing success as a live band is based heavily on the warhoses. And there's always this struggle to be more successful than last time around, to make it bigger and bigger.

They're superstars and want to defend this status. So, yes, in a way the spectacle dictates the music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-01 15:24 by retired_dog.

But the thruth is: The Stones could change 3-4 songs every night and STILL play all the warhorses for the masses.
That way even those who wants different songs each night would be (somewhat) pleased.

I think the Stones should play some different material. The Licks tour was kind off a look back on the previous 40 years. It was cool to hear a show full of their biggest hits, but now they can change it a bit. Take the 81/82. They played some long lost oldies like Time Is On My Side, and loads of new songs like Neighbours, Black Limousine, Waiting On A Friend, Little T&A, Hang Fire and (new for then) Start Me Up. And then they kicked in some warhorses too. That's still the best tour for me.

in my onstage box there were 7 people ,we all asked each other how many times ya saw the stones ? here's the answer # 1= more than 30 times... # 2 = 26 times...# 3 = 24 times... # 4 = 14 times...# 5 = 10 times...# 6 & 7 were virgins...seems 2 me the majority of the fans seen them many many times ,,thats why they should change the setlist up just a little ,,3 or 4 songs a show including Stadiums ,,they can do it no problem

>The Stones are big. Huge. They attract many people, but only a handful are diehards. To maintain this superstar status, they simply cannot afford to disappoint the majority of the crowds by playing relatively obscure songs. Disappointed concert-goers usually spread their negative impression to others. If the majority of the crowds are happy because a lot of warhorses (=songs they know) were played, they'll spread these good news to others ("...go out and see them next time"). Their ongoing success as a live band is based heavily on the warhoses. And there's always this struggle to be more successful than last time around, to make it bigger and bigger



The Stones have enough "warhorses" that everyone knows to be able to afford to rotate some of them, however. Filling over half a show with the same ones every night is creatively a step backwards

Those 'relatively obscure songs' are featured on albums that have invariably sold between 2 and 10 million copies. How obscure is something of "Tattoo you" or "Some girls" for example when those albums have sold over 8 million records each?

Almost anyone who has wanted to see the Stones by now has had the opportunity to do so over the last ten years. I doubt theres that many 'first timers' in an average audience these days and at these prices - certainly less a percentage than the amount of people who go to several shows.

The are not playing multiple show in cities this tour.
There are a few. But not like Licks. This to me, after seeing them every tour since SW, is a stripped down show.
And with those On Stage tickets, it's cool and all, but it kinda of limits what you can do on it. (ex. Inflatables, bigger screen)
I wonder if they limited Chuck advice on the setlist

Making a 2 or 3 songs rotation, at least in the cities with multiple shows in the same venue could also be a way for them to have more fun (or work ?) on stage.

I think it may be frustrating for a fan to see that the show next to the one he saw was totally different and to think that the other setlist would've been more in accordance to his taste, and from this point of view a stable setlist seems to be fair for all the fans. (not like Bob Dylan setlists)

But still, IMO a few changes (even regular changes) would keep the curiosity to a higher level


[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

>> certainly less a percentage than the number of people who go to several shows. <<

hm. i would think the prices would discourage a lot of people from attending multiple shows - i even have a theory that that's part of the point of them. seems to me that Stones Inc have been emitting pretty clear signals that this isn't a tour where everyone's "supposed to" go to multiple shows - unless of course it truly grooves you, like back in the day when people who followed the band around did that because they *wanted* to witness them working working working those numbers. and to be honest, that sounds a lot righter to me than following them around and complaining.




"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

of course the prices discourage people from attending multiple shows

But they (and I) still do, nonetheless

I cant see how you can see that they're actively trying to discourage people from doing so - the prices are high due to avarice, nothing else (and they were high on the last tour too and they were aware of people following them around THEN, which, with respect, contradicts your point, I think)

Complaining? I've followed them around lots of countries over many years and I've pretty much enjoyed every show to some degree or another. If we didnt, we wouldnt continue to do it. So, I dont think thats complaining. Anyone who pays their hard earned cash to attend any public event has as much right to say what they dislike about the experience as they have about expressing their enjoyment of it

i didn't say you were complaining, Gazza.
i see there are lots of people who attend multiple shows because it grooves them - that's great. i also see a lot of people who don't seem to get off on it, and yet persist in attending multiple shows and whining about it. (and i do differentiate between thoughtful criticism and whining - well, sometimes, anyway!)
as for the "message" i perceive coming from Stones Inc this time: it's just my theory, you don't have to subscribe to it. but: right, on the Licks tour they were not discouraging multiple repeaters; in fact they made a Big Deal right from the get-go about the different set lists in different venues, "album theme nights" and so on. that's quite different from this tour.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-01 18:19 by with sssoul.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you paint your car a new color every day? I
> think they keep it like that because it is
> working. And because they play new cities every
> time. More than 99% of the crowd see only one
> show. Why make it better for 1% and worse for 99%
> ???
>
> Bjornulf

Well, I don't compare this band's set lists with the colours of a car. Anyway I don't demand anything at all. I consider the set lists entirely up to themselves. But as this a forum, I hold forth what I would have liked.

By the way, I would have much more favoured a fixed set list if had featured only songs from e.g. the three latest studio albums (including the new one) and had been based primarily on the new one. Completely unrealistic, of course, I know that for sure, but what I would have sincerely preferred. You won't remember, of course, but I was one to tell you likewise face-to-face before one concert of the last tour.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-01 18:54 by Witness.