CreedenceLives Wrote:
>
> Did you actually attend the concert in person in
> order to report that the show was mostly "crap" ?
>
> Or is this just your assessment of the setlist
> ?
>


were you at it, yourself?

if not, anyone who wasnt has the same right to be bored/enthused by it as each other.

I'm sure it was a great show - they usually are if you happen to be there and have decent seats - and its good that theyve brought the setlist up to 22 songs again (albeit probably temporarily) but I'd have thought that they'd have at least premiered something in New York like they usually do.


A lot of people were certain that there would be 'surprises' when the Stones got to New York. seemingly not.

get up stand up and the 19th nervous is imo
a surprise according the last setlists.


-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul
I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away

Get Up, stand up was played a few days ago though..its been a 'variable' with 'Night Time'although played less frequently to date

19th NB was only played at the club show so whilst its inclusion was something of a surprise, it wasnt a huge shock that it eventually came back into the set.

Get Up Stand Up was before MSG only played at The Phoenix club and Hartford.

How was 19th Nervous Breakdown? Did they do the new, slower version again?

[iorr.org]

I was at MSG show 9-13-03. THEY PLAYED GREAT. Sound wise it was perfect Guitars way up front. Woody was ripping thru songs,loud and raw from start to end. Not one smoke onstage during the whole show for Woody.

Highlights of the show

She's So Cold
Breakdown..a very cool alternate version
Back Of My Hand
All Down The Line (Woody was dead on)
Infamy
Bitch..guitars all the way. Keiths fingers must really be hurtin today
Brown Sugar Keith was ripsawing and Ronnie was right there

Geat show. The sound was great, Crystal clear, no low notes rumbling around.

Spoke with the soundman after the show, told him how the guitars were so up front and how good Ronnie sounded. He said thanks and said of course the guitars are up front....they are a guitar band. We talk about Ronnie for a few minutes and how well he has been playing. He said it was nice to "Have Woody back"

Milo, NYC
Juiced up and sloppy

Nice review, Milo. Thanks

yes - nice review Milo. Sounds like a good show. The lack of inclusion of any more new songs is getting very depressing, though. Like we said yesterday, if not at MSG, then when/where? Missed opportunity, IMO.

A rather disapointing set list.Infact too predictable.I know lots of people who were raving about the prospect of something interesting.There is too much hype over the Guarden.I have seen them there, but personally I ve seen better shows in Glasgow at the SEC.I am glad I am saving the pennies for BA and Rio.The set list might be similar but the audience will be WILD.And Rio is a great place to party in!

stargroover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A rather disapointing set list.Infact too
> predictable.I know lots of people who were raving
> about the prospect of something interesting.There
> is too much hype over the Guarden.I have seen them
> there, but personally I ve seen better shows in
> Glasgow at the SEC.I am glad I am saving the
> pennies for BA and Rio.The set list might be
> similar but the audience will be WILD.And Rio is a
> great place to party in!

I'm not as worldly a Stones fan as you but, the crowd at MSG was a blast. The greatest rock band in the greatest city, IMO.

I saw a review stating that Miss You was rocking??? Anyone who went to any show can comment on that?

IMO, the setlist length and number of songs played is all about TIME. Have you noticed each show runs 2 hours and ten minutes. Some might be a few minutes less, but I don't think there has been a show that has lasted more than 2 hours 10 min. Who knows whoever is clocking these shows when they consider the start time is. When the lights go out, video plays, or is it when Keith hits the first note of SMU?

Some of the numbers the Stones play on some nights are short, like Bitch, All Down the Line, Shattered, etc. in lieu of longer numbers like Out of Control, Midnght Rambler etc. For shows that have 21 or 22 tunes, they insert those shorter songs and leave out a OOC or MR. Conversely, when they play only 20 numbers they will include OOC or MR as one of the 20 or 21.

rockdoc8885... MR, sounds good - but why do you think they will dust it off?

Frayed: You seem to have a great pair of binoculars...

- Seems to have been a plesant night, no one would have doubt it.
Great pics, wonderful reviews.

Myself is a typical type fan that would want some more surprises though;
as a middle-aged concert-rookie (yeah, yeah, virgin if you like)
I want to see something fresh too... I´m sure they do smokin versions of
all the warhorses, but they´re too many. I´ve followed several gigs thruout
the European nights givin up my sleep - luckily some of the most interesting shows; but, anyway... More from ABB and more 60´s & 70s stuff -
that´s my wish. Still I´m sure I would be pleased just by seeing & hearin them, and I´m satisfied to hear they picked up Get Up, Stand Up & that She´s So Cold
put so high up in the setlist. PIB is also a really good choice indeed.

I was at the show last night and this was my third show so far this tour and I have to say they played amazing last night and it was by far the best of the 3 shows I went to. 19th Nervous Breakdown was so cool and everyone seemed to love it and were singing along to it. I took a friend of mine who is a fan but nowhere near my level and he was blown of his feet. Paint it Black was nice treat and I was happy to see them do a more songs from the 60's. The guitars were so loud last night that I still can't hear right today. They played with so much energy I can't even put it into words. Good to see lots of people smoking the green stuff last night, it seemed to be everywhere.

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good to see lots of people smoking the
> green stuff last night, it seemed to be
> everywhere.
>
>

New Yorkers burning their hard-earn money? Man, they're crazier than I thought....

To all the people bitching about the set list ... I don't get it. Seems like a great setlist to me. Back of My Hand is back, 19th for only the second show of this tour (and the first one was seen by very few people at the club show), Bitch and All Down the Line are back, Get Up Stand Up for only the second time (non-club), and PAINT IT BLACK!

What I am really waiting for is when they play Sway, and someone says "Sway was great but the rest of the setlist sucked." It will happen, I guarantee it. Some people are never happy.

Its hard to get excited over the second part of the show except for ONNYA, very predictable and I hate to use the word boring, but it is. Whats so exciting about Paint it Black? That was maybe exciting in 1989. They can do much much better. On the first part of the show it looks great except for Tumbling Dice and You got me rocking (they have to loose those two) and why do they have to play the soul number??? They have enough great stuff of their own.

Well, Gurra; Not havin a clue on the impact or the
experience of a show in general or this one in particular
I say you tend to be a little too negative.
PIB will kick ass in 2005-06... See you at Göteborg,
lets have a beer and be a part of the smokin rock!!

i was there -- there was NOTHING boring about this show , the stones brought it 100% there were mistakes but they didnt detract from the show in the slightest!!

BECAUSE IM OLDKR

We thank thee, OldKr, O, you cool man.

I have to agree with the majority of folks on this list. This is a crap set list that isnt changing much. Also to those people who say "its not what they played but how they played it", you really should get your head examined after making such an inane statement. Fans matter, any artist will tell you that. Fan's opinion matter too in the realm of a live show. The artistic temperment is related to the writing and recording process. The live show is pur entertainment, its a kinetic ritual. You have every right to bitch and gripe about a greatest hits package when you are paying $450.00 dollars for a ticket. Its called feeling like you got your moneys worth. This tour is crap!

Agree 100%

Fuzz & Bersa, WRONG - look at any jazz musician - it IS HOW they play, & I don't know why you need to be so righteous about your opinion ("...need to get your head examined...")

fuzzbingz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree with the majority of folks on this
> list. This is a crap set list that isnt changing
> much. Also to those people who say "its not what
> they played but how they played it", you really
> should get your head examined after making such an
> inane statement. Fans matter, any artist will tell
> you that. Fan's opinion matter too in the realm of
> a live show.

YES, But what you forget is that there are "2 sets of fans": One set that is AT THE SHOW and another set that is at home on the couch "attending by setlist"...

Should all the fans that LOVED the show at MSG "get their heads examined" ?

AND, as for the "majority of fans", from the reviews of the actually ATTENDEES at MSG, the very vast majority loved the show...

Can you please point me to those reviews of ACTUAL ATTENDEES that say "I hated this crap show"... since you claim that's the opinion of the "majority of fans"


The artistic temperment is related to
> the writing and recording process. The live show
> is pur entertainment, its a kinetic ritual. You
> have every right to bitch and gripe about a
> greatest hits package when you are paying $450.00
> dollars for a ticket. Its called feeling like you
> got your moneys worth. This tour is crap!


Yes... but did YOU pay $450 for a ticket at MSG ? And please find me the quotes from the attendees in the front rows who did pay $450 and were disappointed...

BTW, that old kinnard about "450 dollar tickets" just isn't flying anymore. There are tons of fans on these boards that had GREAT SEATS with great sound, great sightlines, that paid either $100 or 160...

Just in case you doubt that, here's a review from a lady who paid 100 bucks for hers at MSG:

Scroll down to the 4th review on this page:

[p081.ezboard.com]

Also, the most I've paid is around 110 with all fees and have enjoyed the shows we attended immensely.

Fuzzbing, I don't mean to be hostile towards you and your eloquent opinions, just want to express an alternative view.

I 100% agree with you that when this tour and ticket policies were first announced I was pretty disgusted with the whole thing... another 100 bucks for the fan club and all that rot. BUT you really don't have to go that direction to get a great seat and enjoy the show... tickets are abundantly available in the 100 to 160 range that you will enjoy...; probably around what you have paid for prior tours, I suspect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-14 23:59 by CreedenceLives.

Thanks CCR for articulating & elaborating on my very thoughts when I didn't feel like bothering. BTW I don't know any friends (some have had great seats) who actually spent anywhere near $450 for tickets this tour.

Creedence and john r:

Congratulations to you both for having good (or great) experiences at more reasonable prices.

But are you doubting that the Stones are charging $450.00 plus substantial fees? Do you not believe that is happening? Have you not read the price schedules? "Cannard?!"

Just because you personally have not paid those prices does not mean that that's not what's being charged. At Fenway and MSG--to name two--very large portions of the venue were designated at this price. $450 plus was buying not "great," not "good," but merely adequate seating...

Now, fine. Nobody is forced to pay that--or indeed, any--price for attending. In principle, there's nothing wrong with seeing what the market will bear. And it would seem that the market is embracing this price structure. It's silly to huff and puff at the Stones for all this. The decision lies with each one of us as to whether the Stones are delivering something worth the money...

As to the question of the Stones' choices for the shows, I take the energy level and professionalism of my favorite band for granted. It's a given that, armed with an unparalleled catalogue, they will deliver a rousing show every night. That's why they stand as the most successful live act in history.

And after sixteen years of the current Stones era, I am disappointed that they have stepped back into the most obvious set choices possible. I count eleven of twenty-two songs last night that have been performed on EVERY tour since '89. (although "Satisfaction" and "Miss You" were rested in spring, '99). The "rarities" for the most part, have been songs like "Bitch," "Shattered" and "All Down The Line"--all of which have been in semi-regular rotation during that period.

Doesn't mean I don't love those songs as much as you guys. Sure doesn't mean I'm less of a fan. It doesn't mean that I disregard the quality of the performances. But I am sad to see a strong new record underrepresented. I am sad to see these guys who profess not to want to be an "oldies act" delivering shows that seem to pander to the most obvious expectations of the audiences. Vital artists challenge their audiences and find ways to present themselves in a fresh way...

The issue for all the "whiners" and "complainers" is that we have high standards for the Stones--including that they surprise us a bit. I think I can speak for all the frustrated fans when I say that we WANT to be more enthusiastic about this tour than currently seems warranted.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Creedence and john r:
>
> Congratulations to you both for having good (or
> great) experiences at more reasonable prices.
>
> But are you doubting that the Stones are charging
> $450.00 plus substantial fees? Do you not believe
> that is happening? Have you not read the price
> schedules? "Cannard?!"
>
> Just because you personally have not paid those
> prices does not mean that that's not what's being
> charged. At Fenway and MSG--to name two--very
> large portions of the venue were designated at
> this price. $450 plus was buying not "great," not
> "good," but merely adequate seating...
>
I know that Ticketmaster is offering tickets at 350 & 450, sure, but you don't have to pay that much to get a great seat.

How much is dinner at that new super-high-end sushi place in New York ? Like around 300 or 400 I think. And Thomas Keller's place (Per Se) probably starts at around 160 or so, PLUS wine PLUS tax, tips, the whole schmiel... So when it's said and done, the "best meal" in New York is prolly around 300 / 400 per person also. Ditto Charlie Trotter in Chicago, fully loaded with wine,tips & tax.

So that's what I compare a FRONT ROW SEAT at a Stones gig to... a memorable classic meal, and they're priced about the same in that 300-450 range.

But I don't have to pay that to get a good seat.

Those who figure that they'd rather see the Stones up close at MSG and pay a high price rather than dining at Per Se are just making a "choice in entertainment", I feel... spend 350 bucks on a memorable classic concert rather than 350 bucks on a memorable classic meal.

But again, they don't have to pay those prices. There's any number of great restaurants in New York that won't cost you 350 or more, just like there's good seats at a Stones gig that won't cost that much either.

CreedenceLives Wrote:
> YES, But what you forget is that there are "2 sets
> of fans": One set that is AT THE SHOW and another
> set that is at home on the couch "attending by
> setlist"...

youre over obsessing the "attending by setlist" quip by T&A which was obviously made tongue-in-cheek. At the end of the day, you're also "attending by setlist" for every show you havent been at yourself, so raving about something you havent seen is no different to someone bitching about a show they werent at

Those fans who arent there WILL be at some point in the next few months. Only reason they havent seen the shows yet is down to geography.

Many of said group of fans have also heard the shows already, so thats another 'set of fans'aside from the two you referred to earlier...and whilst listening to a show on a CD isnt the same as being there, it still gives you a good perspective on what its like (I'm sure not too many of us were at Brussels in '73, Oakland in '69 or Fort worth in '78 but we still can judge how good they were by our own ears). Listening to the concerts so far, I'm certainly not as excited by the freshness of the new shows as I was last tour. To me, theres no new ground being struck so far whereas the last few tours have seen them raise the bar from the one that preceded it. They're playing well enough, but ...to me, something's missing in terms of excitement. Thats my personal opinion.

You're right about having a different perspective when youve seen a show to someone who hasnt. However, that isnt always an advantage. It takes a lot when youve paid $450 a ticket to admit that something wasnt that exciting after all. No one likes to admit they feel shortchanged, after all.

I can safely tell you now that if I paid that amount of money for a ticket to a concert and the setlists were similarly unambitious as these (and MSG last night was about the best one so far) , I'd be somewhat underwhelmed, regardless of how well the band played. (thank Christ that being a cheapskate, I "only" paid $179 for MSG in January and passed on the more expensive ones..)

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CreedenceLives Wrote:
> > YES, But what you forget is that there are "2
> sets
> > of fans": One set that is AT THE SHOW and
> another
> > set that is at home on the couch "attending
> by
> > setlist"...
>
> youre over obsessing the "attending by setlist"
> quip by T&A which was obviously made
> tongue-in-cheek. At the end of the day, you're
> also "attending by setlist" for every show you
> havent been at yourself, so raving about something
> you havent seen is no different to someone
> bitching about a show they werent at

There's a big difference... I'm not personally "raving" about it, I'm just referring to the reviews I've read from actual attendees who ARE raving about the show.

If you're aware of some negative reviews by actual attendees, I'd like to read them.

Meanwhile, I'm questioning someone who wasn't at the show calling it "crap"...