Creedence:

All that you say is true and consistent, I think, with what I wrote.

It's not dissimilar from choosing a high-end "event" meal. And again, the entire Stones experience--at whatever price--is a matter of choice.

That said, it seems like people perhaps have a point when they conclude that while the Stones' "service" remains excellent, "the menu" hasn't been updated in a long while and that "the place" seems to be resting on its laurels somewhat. A smooth, but uninspired experience?

Now, you and I may continue to love the old favorites, but after four decades, wouldn't it speak better of the band to be trying--and perhaps failing--to present a different show, rather than cynically delivering the same old thing?

I'm just sorry that they are so confined by what they apparently regard as an ironclad agreement with a dopey audience to repeat half the set night after night, tour after tour. And I say this as someone who continues to love their work and to marvel at their energy.

I was there. I smiled the whole time and felt high afterward. I didn't even want to go... and then bought tickets to the January 18th concert right after the show -- I guess that's the highest compliment you can pay. (I've seen them a number times before.)

But the setlist disappointed me. I think you expect to see a setlist like that at a stadium show. When you're at the Garden and it's the Stones 20th show ever there, you expect something out of the ordinary. The music was wonderful, but it was unremarkable. It reminded me of karaoke night at your favorite bar. I must say, I was in awe of Mick Jagger for being able to perform in his own shadow with so much dignity. Ron Wood is also a spectacle -- he reminded me of a child at a school play. He seemed to wander around the stage, often entertaining himself, goofing off people in the audience, trying to make Keith laugh. Utterly unprofessional one moment, utterly inspired the next. He cannot be accused of going through the motions. He was like a kid spinning in circles in the middle of the room. They were all very compelling and mesmerizing -- I couldn't take my eyes off of them. But I do think they could have spiced up the setlist for the New York audience -- Ruby Tuesday, Live With Me, Heartbreaker. I can think of a dozen songs that would have been flawless. There was nothing coherent about the show at all -- it was like watching your girlfriend wander back and forth from the jukebox playing the same songs every Saturday night. Always fun... but then you get tired and start looking at other girls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-15 02:11 by FridayThe11th.

Obviously only attendees can comment on how good a show was or wasn't - but anybody that can read can comment freely on a setlist. Comment: boring.

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


in fairness, he didnt. He said the setlist was "crap"

I'll go along with that. I think it is possible to have a great show and a crap setlist. It doesn't mean the performance was bad, just that the song selection was bad. You could still enjoy the show. Personally, if I could watch them play Jumping Jack Flash once a day every day for the rest of my life, I would be happy. They need to give some other warhorses a rest, though. If I never heard Honky Tonk Women again that would be ok with me.

I wouldn't say MSG was a crap setlist. I would say it was a good setlist, but not a great one. I would definitely like to see some more variety. It's coming - wait until Jan. after the tour break.

they played 4 new songs,give them a break,i agree get up stand up should of been she was hot,or dance little sister(a lost classic)and maybe drop 1 or 2 others for a song like sway,or slave,etc.but the performance was over the top.

john scialfa

rockdoc8885 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


Well...in Milwaukee, we got 20 songs but we didn't get EITHER OOC or MR, and we got 1 hour, 47 minutes - tops, that's it !! Lights went out 9:13 pm, final bow at 11 pm.

I´m gonna say something low & bluezy for once; me, the evergreen
sunshine of this site (aside with Kent, ablett, Rockman, Lorenz, Rutger, Fansince1964 & 'even' Gazza lately)....
- I´ve stopped to imagine they will do any major changes or feature any greater surprises! ... I think they are stucked
in their minds. Holding the Monkey Grip on some 20-25 songs is more than enuff.
Me, 41 y o, cant possibly know how a 62 y o approaches an existence with a rock ´n roll world tour with different venues each night...
Only new from 60´s is that nor they are only some three shows a week,
the there were twice or more.

Meaningless to complain though. I´m glad they are On.
They are an amazing bunch of rockers.
Stonehard rough-toughers. I would drop dead joining the
band for an hour, picture yourself doin jagger´s moves,
jumps & runs for two hours. Or Keiths friggin licks & stuff.

People,

I haven't missed a tour since 1981. MSG was my 16th Rolling Stones show, Sweet Sixteen. All I can tell you is this:


IT WAS THE BEST SHOW I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE. PERIOD.

As always, in my humble opinion,

Brush your teeth with rock and roll.

As I said before I was at the show and loved it, one of the best I have seen. But like everyone stated the set list was the only drag. While I won't complain much since I had such a good time lets just say that me and my friend and some around us sort of felt the show was over when they started busting out the long trail or greatest hits at the end. If you compare how the band plays Brown Sugar to say She's So Cold or Paint it Black you can almost tell they are tired of playing them by how they perform.

So why not give an encore of Get Off My Cloud or The Last Time. It sure seemed like a stadium set list to me. The highlights if you read anyone's reviews (even mainstream newspapers) are always the songs they don't play as often.

They are disspointing indeed, I do not think they have a clue a shitty their set list is.

This thread will never die, unless Bjornulf closes it.
As soon as we all agree upon anything; BersaGurra will
throw in something like this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-16 16:05 by Baboon Bro.

Baboon, I tell the truth you know it.

I also long for surprises.
But typing crappy setlist for the umpteenth time wouldnt change it,
would it? Some constructive ideas seems to be a better way?

Too bad there was not some sort of way to get this message across to the Stones that they need more variety and have written other songs and other big hits. Its sucks because they have a great album out and are playing so well. It really makes me feel down towards my favorite band.