Saddly it seems the stones are indeed the same as those singers and bands that play Las Vegas every night.
First of all in this tour they are the equivalent of a celine dion, or elvis at his worst, playing the same songs night after night, even with a new record out they are only doing 2 or 3 new numbers the rest is a greatests hits show, satisfaction, miss you, and so on.
This show basically is the same as their last licks tour.
On their Some girls tour they were playing 7 numbers from that album plus early rare stuff, but now it just the same shit night after night.
Even Paul Macartney in his tour does a few new tunes plus stuff that he never played live before and then does some of his greatest hits.
So whats the difference between the stones and celine "NONE" they both are after only one thing more money for their bank accounts.
lam sure that this will be their last tour cause after the ripp off that they have perpetuaded on their fans, if they decide to do another one it won't be easy to sell.
Another thing, to some of the idiots,and mentally impaired folks that use this board, if you don't agree with my opinion its fine, a least have the ability to explain and refute my arguments.
Thats my opinion.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

ROPENI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saddly it seems the stones are indeed the same as
> those singers and bands that play Las Vegas every
> night.
> First of all in this tour they are the equivalent
> of a celine dion, or elvis at his worst, playing
> the same songs night after night, even with a new
> record out they are only doing 2 or 3 new numbers
> the rest is a greatests hits show, satisfaction,
> miss you, and so on.
> This show basically is the same as their last
> licks tour.
> On their Some girls tour they were playing 7
> numbers from that album plus early rare stuff, but
> now it just the same shit night after night.
> Even Paul Macartney in his tour does a few new
> tunes plus stuff that he never played live before
> and then does some of his greatest hits.
> So whats the difference between the stones and
> celine "NONE" they both are after only one thing
> more money for their bank accounts.
> lam sure that this will be their last tour cause
> after the ripp off that they have perpetuaded on
> their fans, if they decide to do another one it
> won't be easy to sell.
> Another thing, to some of the idiots,and mentally
> impaired folks that use this board, if you don't
> agree with my opinion its fine, a least have the
> ability to explain and refute my arguments.
> Thats my opinion.
>
> "MANOLO, SHOOT THAT PIECE OF SHIT"


To me, going to a Rolling Stones concert, or any concert is an "entertainment choice"...

You can choose a 160 dollar concert, or a 160 fabulous prix fixe meal by a legendary chef or you can choose a little weekend getaway somewhere... or you can choose to take 160 bucks to the crap table or blackjack table and do some gambling...

Well they chef is going to cook the same thing nite after nite... the weekend getaway place is going to be the same place nite after nite... the crap table experience ("tumblin' dice") is gonna be the same thing nite after nite... AND YOU KNOW YOU ENJOY THEM !!

So it's no different just because the Stones play largely the same set... if you enjoy them you'll go back, just like you would to that crap table or that restaurant or that little getaway place... if you really like something you don't stop doing it because "its the same"

I'm not quite ready to say 'Rock's Vegas Act' yet...but I will say this tour is shaping up to be the 'Vegas Lounge' tour of their career. So far, it is the most predictable, boring setlist they have ever done in all their years of touring America. Easily.

RockR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not quite ready to say 'Rock's Vegas Act'
> yet...but I will say this tour is shaping up to be
> the 'Vegas Lounge' tour of their career. So far,
> it is the most predictable, boring setlist they
> have ever done in all their years of touring
> America. Easily.


Like every tour prior to Voodoo Lounge wasn't the same setlist every night? Please spare me.

stonesfan70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RockR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Like every tour prior to Voodoo Lounge wasn't the
> same setlist every night? Please spare me.


I don't care if it's the same setlist every night -- what I care about is if the setlist comprises an accurate representation of their career UP TO THAT POINT !!!
I agree -- the setlist every night was the same in, say, '75, '81, '89. But it was also over two hours, was more diverse in covering the Stones' career, and usually featured more new numbers as well. More thought went into the structure of the setlist so that people wanting a 'Hot Rocks'-style setlist AND people wanting to hear more new stuff were BOTH satisfied. This time, what we are getting is a hurried, rushed, Wayne Newton-style "hit 'em in the pocketbooks and flee" type of show. And, quite frankly, it's more than a little disappointing --it stinks. But if it changes as the tour progresses, I'll be the first to eat my words.

It would be fine by me if they play almost the same set list on every night of a tour,just as long as it was an interesting,creative set list that represented all periods of their career - along the lines of No Security or '81 to name a couple.

setlist is excellent. it spans their whole carreer up until now. trust me i saw two shows and it works.

I've seen four shows this tour and while with just a couple of adjustments/rotations this set list has potential,right now it falls a bit short.No songs never previously done on stage as every other tour they've done has included (other than new material and covers)and not quite enough rarities.Periods of their career are being overlooked.I am also hoping for some more new songs at some point.Balance is the key to this whole operation.

stonesfan70:

The issue isn't just varying the setlist night-to-night, the issue is that they have been leaning on the same exact batch of megahits through the entire post-"Steel Wheels" era. Better than half the set is songs that are played night after night, tour after tour. These days, even "rarities" like "Rambler," "Paint It, Black," and "Bitch" are songs that have been played on most of the past decade's tours.

A static setlist or a greatest hits show was OK in 1989, or maybe in 1994, but aren't you disappointed in the Stones and their inability/unwillingness to try and break out of the formula? The same ten or eleven songs every tour in shows that are always patterned the same way? Of course it's Vegas and I hate that. I hate that no matter how much fun it is to see "JJF," that it's just a ritual at this point...they're playing "The Rolling Stones" instead of stretching in any way our idea of what the Stones are.

This goes way beyond what songs any one person wants to hear--it's about believing in the Stones as a creative force. At a time when they're still making praiseworthy records, why have they become so stale in putting together a show? With their vitality and chops, imagine if they were doing shows they want to do--new tracks, old covers--and maybe five monster hits a night, on a rotating basis?

It's a copout to say that the sets they're delivering are the only ones that can please large audiences...it depresses me beyond belief to think that Mick and Keith feel imprisoned by the laziest expectations of the most casual fans. And they clearly do.

Whether I personally am in the audience on a given night, I don't like to see the Stones caught in a formula.

RockR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not quite ready to say 'Rock's Vegas Act'
> yet...but I will say this tour is shaping up to be
> the 'Vegas Lounge' tour of their career. So far,
> it is the most predictable, boring setlist they
> have ever done in all their years of touring
> America. Easily.


I've got a totally different take on this... there's nothing "lounge act" about the way the Stones are playin' their stuff this tour...

It's raw, toned-down, alot of edge and punctuaction... basic Stones delivered very powerfully, IMO...

That said, they will sound good in Vegas !

i dissagree about the stones becomming a vegas act.I have only seen them 2 times and after reading all the reports about the shows so far have been very positive and people have said its been the best show they have seen in years.

BB king is 80years old is he a vegas act?

what about kiss are they a vagas act?

i dont mind if they play the same set list I would be just happy to see them again

Dunno about The Stones becoming a Vegas act - the thought of a fat Mick Jagger (Elvis style) sounds gross.

However, they seem to have become more like a circus act, they are performing the same 'act' every night like Chimps. I presume they are playing the songs they think the paying public want to hear - the trouble with that theory is that it presumes the public at large;
a)Only have the hits albums
b)Only want to hear the hits
c)Can't relate to, or have no knowledge of, the more diverse 'b'' sides and or album tracks.
d)Don't mind paying grossly over inflated prices to see the same show as the last tour, just in case this is the last tour - bizarre....

Clearly, this is somewhat hard luck on the true fan base. It beggars belief that in this stage of the Stones carreer, they are out to get new fans - if you don't like or have never heard of the Rolling Stones by now, you never will.
I seem to remember back in the 80's David Bowie took his hits tour round the world, 'The Glass Spider' tour - after he'd finished the tour, he took the stage set into the desert and blew the thing apart, vowing never to play those damn songs again.....
I think The Rolling Stones should do the same...........

Picture the lads in 2030:
Mr. Watts, 91. Jagger, 87. Keef, 86.
Little boy Woody, 82. Session musician Darryl, 67,
only a sperm. I dont know ol´ Chuckies age (85?).
Will Lisa be up there?
Mike (he has taken his old nick name back) runs 20 miles a day.
The show is four hours. Keith only stays awake for 72 hours in a row.
They have great grandchildren. Some of their kids help run the
management since they have retired.

And on the Tell Me-board there are hords of people bashing their setlists...
Now & then ooool´ Baboon, 67, is bashing ´em too.
But he is pleased. Cause the Stones are still there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 12:47 by Baboon Bro.

Turd and the good Reverend's posts on this subject in this and other threads are right on the money....

Rev You are a 100% right,So are you turd
my faith has been restored about this board, there are good thinking people on it. AMEN.


"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

The Stones aren't a Vegas act, and they never will be. How can you even say that??? What's "Vegas" about them??? I fail to see the similarity between the Stones and Celine Dion. Lay off.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones aren't a Vegas act, and they never will
> be. How can you even say that??? What's "Vegas"
> about them???

1. their ticket prices
2. nostalgia-geared live-jukebox style setlists for fans who dont know more than a few songs of their back catalogue
3. the fact that they do actually play casino shows for high rollers and private shows for billionaires


wake up and smell the coffee. While the Stones are still a fine live act and still make good records, they are culturally a million miles away from the band they used to be.

The term 'Vegas' doesnt have to necessarily mean easy listening music a la Dean Martin or Celine Dion. Effectively, the Stones have pioneered a rock version of that category. As has Elton.

Reverend and Turd make good points, but allow me to play devil's advocate here. I've followed the setlists and reviews and I've seen one show so far (Giants Stadium). What if real message in the name of the new CD is that the boys are going out with a bang. This is it. The focus of this tour is to deliver their most popular songs with as much energy and vitality possible. Based on what I saw last Thursday...mission accomplished. What sticks in my mind about that show was seeing Keith in JJF, cemented in place, BASHING those chords like his life depended on it. If 20 other songs were rehearsed in order to diversify the setlist, isn't it possible that the quality of delivery of the warhorses would become a little watered down (a la Licks Tour)? When I hear "Vegas act", I picture the performer going through the motions and "mailing it in". I didn't see any of that in the show I attended. The boys simply delivered the goods in the songs they decided to play. I know there are those here who would rather hear under-rehearsed versions of "Sway", "Moonlight Mile" etc. Hey, maybe I would too. But I saw the best Stones show I've ever seen last week.

1.- You pay a lot to see the greatest rock act ever. Just like you get in free to see a garage band, just the other way around.

2.- Gotta please the majority of the crowd. They have done this since the day of John Paul Jones and you know it.

3.- They didn't become a Vegas act just because they did a song called Casino Boogie. A casino is just another venue. You know that too.


"Wake up and smell the coffee. While the Stones are still a fine live act and still make good records, they are culturally a million miles away from the band they used to be".

I already did Gaz. And I can see they're better now. I can see for miles. Yes they are a gazillion light years away from the band they used to be. But I'd rather see "Cool Old Jagger" than "Cock-scratching Water-throwing Drug Head Jagger". And so would you if you had to be 100% honest baby.

JumpingKentFlash

1 "the greatest rock act ever" is a meaningless expression, because its all personal opinion. Any act could use that as an excuse to fleece their fans, because there will be some of them who think theyre "the greatest". I'm sure there are Bon Jovi fans who think THEIR band is worth paying $450 to see. Personally, I think Springsteen and the E-Street Band are and always have been a better live band than the Stones, but Bruce's ticket prices are around $85 or so. I dont expect the Stones to give their show away for next to nothing and agree that quality doesnt come cheap - but no one will ever be able to justify to me paying $450 to watch live music, even if theyre playing in my front room.

2. I refer the honourable gentleman to my good friend the Reverend's post at 7.15 this morning regarding the band's lack of ambition as a live act and the low expectancies of their target audience. The case for the prosecution rests.

3. Playing casinos is not 'rock n roll' and I fail to see the relevance of Casion Boogie either. Back on the BTB tour, which was the last tour when mere mortals could reasonably afford to see the band without having to sell their first born and when tickets were $65 a pop, they played a show at the Hard Rock in Vegas where it cost $500 to get in. A sign of things to come. Last tour, they did a concert in the same place where tickets were $1100 and $550 or something similar. For a greatest hits style setlist too!

Maybe the 'Vegas' jibe is lost in translation, Kent. In music terms, its a state of mind or attitude more than one of geography.

>But I'd rather see "Cool Old Jagger" than "Cock-scratching Water-throwing Drug Head Jagger". And so would you if you had to be 100% honest baby.

I dont see this attitude as being "cool" in the slightest because I prefer to see an artist reinvent themselves and continue to grow, although as a live performer, I think Mick is as great as he's ever been (maybe even better when you think about it, considering his age). However, things dont have to be as black and white as you paint it. How about a combination of the attitude of yesterday with the professionalism of today. I dont think thats unreasonable, mate.

"I dont expect the Stones to give their show away for next to nothing and agree that quality doesnt come cheap - but no one will ever be able to justify to me paying $450 to watch live music, even if theyre playing in my front room."

Then come to Europe (DK) and see them for more or less 75 USD ..... if they can be seen in Europe for 75 USD, then there is something wrong in the US market, that has nothing to do with Stones, but more with the promoter......

In Europe (DK) more or less all big bands (Stones, U2, Macca) go for the same ticket price!!!!!

As a curiosity I paid 35 USD to park 3 hours at Soldier Field...... The same parking I can do much less expensive in Europe (DK)......

And Denmark is considered to be a very expensive country, so .....

But back in the seventies it was 100% OK to have a greatest hits setlist??? No way. The setlists are more diverse today than back then. You see??? That's ambition. They made the setlist more diverse (Licks Tour is the ultimate example).

Why is the "Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band on the Planet" meaningless? OK, I know you probably agree that they are, but let me ask you one thing Gaz. Do you buy the cheapest shit coffee on the face of the earth or do you buy quality stuff??? Probably the quality stuff right??? You cannot dismiss the fact that some things are better than others. Like a ham made out of pesticides and all sort f chemicals is a crap-ham. The one made out of real mat is the quality ham. There's no dismissing the fact, in this example, that one ham is better than the other. OK, you could probably say that you might prefer the taste of the crappy ham, but that doesn't mean that it's better now does it??? So you see there's actually a proof that some things are better than others. I would say that, live-wise, The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen and maybe Paul McCartney are all quality hams (I couldn't think of any other (good) example) that are so good that they're to close to call. Another fact (And completely different thing) is that I prefer The Stones to all of these because their style of playing, and that they, in my opinion, are so far ahead of everyone else.

Playing casinos ain't rock 'n roll??? Well it can be. That depends on the band doesn't it??? If it's Celine Dion it ain't rock 'n roll, but if it's the Stones it's most certainly rock 'n roll. In the words best meaning.

Ticket prices. Don't get me wrong Gaz. I'm not defending the ticket prices, but they ARE market price for such a top quality band. Jagger said so himself. Springsteen doesn't charge much that's true. But as a "Down-By-The-People" man he can't afford that either. Either he would been looked upon as a sell out because of high ticket prices, or he keeps his image as the working class hero. The Stones were NEVER EVER working class heroes. They snitched money whenever they could. They still do that. And if people wants to pay top dollar for the ticket prices, and The Stones can actually see stadiums selling out all the time, why on earth should they lower it. Do you really in your wildest dreams think that they give a hoot about the hardcores like us that attend every concert on every tour??? Of course they don't. A fan is a fan. Maybe the casual fan goes to see one show and then it doesn't hurt as much economically. (Now this ain't directed at you Gaz) but some people really need to wake up and understand that The Stones doesn't give a @#$%& about them. (I know you probably know this already Gaz. If not then I'm sorry )

JumpingKentFlash

ROPENI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> if you don't
> agree with my opinion its fine, a least have the
> ability to explain and refute my arguments.


Okay, here goes:

> Saddly it seems the stones are indeed the same as
> those singers and bands that play Las Vegas every
> night.

Wrong in so many ways but let me hit on one obvious difference: that they're on the road, so you have to give them something (however small) for not parking it in a city like Branson or Vegas and making the fans trek to them for every show. They're playing in Ottawa, Moncton, Albany, Hershey, and Portland, for feck's sake, it's not like they're going home every night. So let's start with that level of distinction: they are OUT there doing it, and they'll probably be in Latin America and Europe and Asia before they're done with this one; Celine ain't up to it nor was Elvis. Elvis had an excuse, Celine is just a greedy bitch.


> First of all in this tour they are the equivalent
> of a celine dion, or elvis at his worst, playing
> the same songs night after night, even with a new
> record out they are only doing 2 or 3 new numbers
> the rest is a greatests hits show, satisfaction,
> miss you, and so on.

2 or 3? Let's pick their most recent show (Albany) to test that number:

1 Rough Justice
2 Back of My Hand
3 Night Time is the Right Time
4 Oh No, Not You Again,
5 Infamy, and
6 She's So Cold hasn't been played in about 20 years--to put that in context, 20 years is longer than Celine's whole career.

So that's six songs, or 28% of the material that they performed (nearly a third of the show) that we might reasonably call "new." So revise your estimate upwards. By the way, tell me where they only did 2 new numbers? If you want to bitch, at least don't blatently lie when you do.

> This show basically is the same as their last
> licks tour.

Yup, have to agree with you there, it's Licks II, which just happens to be the most ambitious concert tour of the Stones or of any rock band in the history or the genre (just my opinion). You got a problem with that? Then The Stones can't help ya.


> On their Some girls tour they were playing 7
> numbers from that album plus early rare stuff, but
> now it just the same shit night after night.
> Even Paul Macartney in his tour does a few new
> tunes plus stuff that he never played live before
> and then does some of his greatest hits.
> So whats the difference between the stones and
> celine "NONE"

The problem with the argument directly above is that a) you first compare the Stones to the Stones of nearly 30 years ago (Some Girls era), then b) you compare them to McCartney, and then c) you draw a comparison between the Stones and Celine Dion based upon your earlier comparisons drawn between a) themselves and b) McCartney.

This is what we might call a sophistic argument.

It's like one saying a) bush had better policies in his first term (comparing bush to his earlier performance). b) bush's father was a better president (comparing bush to another president), so c) bush is worse than Celine Dion (while Dion makes a good benchmark for "badness," comparing bush to someone who has nothing to do with the earlier comparisons is meaningless--and that would be sophistic). What does the comparison a) and b) have to do with your conclusion c) "So whats the difference between the stones and celine "NONE"? You make no logical sense here, as elsewhere.


> lam sure that this will be their last tour cause
> after the ripp off that they have perpetuaded on
> their fans, if they decide to do another one it
> won't be easy to sell.

Yeah that WOULD be true, except fans actually have the choice to go or not go, what's more most seasoned fans all know the odds are of the Stones performing songs like Sway, Moonlight Mile, or Memo From Turner (on the one hand) and songs like JJF, HTW, and SFD (on the other hand).
It's not like the Stones are government sponsored or unavoidable.

If you don't like what you've seen or heard about the shows, then here's a thought: don't feckin' go.

Pretty simple, right?

And if others agree with you then the Stones are left holding the bag, but if millions and millions of fans actually pay their money to see the band then I can best conclude that the fans don't agree with you, and this is particularly true if some of these fans saw one of the Licks concerts and know what they're likely to see.

Just do me one favour and don't bitch about the Stones not touring again if they don't happen to tour again after this one.









Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 18:19 by camper88.

I do wish the Rolling Stones would add a few more songs to the set list. A 25 song show would be great. The ticket prices alone would warrant a longer show. With that being said the current shows are high energy, loud guitars, and dynamic performances by a 60 something band. Jagger works his ass off every night and Richards....well he is still Keef. Ronnie will never play like Mick Taylor, or like he did 30 years ago...but he does a good job. The two shows I saw, Fenway & Moncton, were outstanding. Just my two cents.

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I dont expect the Stones to give their show away
> for next to nothing and agree that quality doesnt
> come cheap - but no one will ever be able to
> justify to me paying $450 to watch live music,
> even if theyre playing in my front room."
>
> Then come to Europe (DK) and see them for more or
> less 75 USD ..... if they can be seen in Europe
> for 75 USD, then there is something wrong in the
> US market, that has nothing to do with Stones, but
> more with the promoter......


uh..I live in Europe, already mate!!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> country honk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "I dont expect the Stones to give their show
> away
> > for next to nothing and agree that quality
> doesnt
> > come cheap - but no one will ever be able to
> > justify to me paying $450 to watch live
> music,
> > even if theyre playing in my front room."
> >
> > Then come to Europe (DK) and see them for
> more or
> > less 75 USD ..... if they can be seen in
> Europe
> > for 75 USD, then there is something wrong in
> the
> > US market, that has nothing to do with
> Stones, but
> > more with the promoter......
>
>
> uh..I live in Europe, already mate!!

Well then, you should have little problem getting there. (jk)

JKF:

Re: Seventies Setlists.

If the Stones put together a setlist today that accurately paralleled the 1972 list, they'd be playing 95% of the show off the last four records with maybe an old Chuck Berry cover thrown in...do you understand that? The "Greatest Hits" concept is a little different when the hits in question are from your most recent records!

And back then, it seems that there were plenty of people who didn't think that "Exile" was all that and who wished they were doing "Satisfaction," "It's All Over Now," "Get Off My Cloud," "Little Red Rooster" etc. The Stones pretty much dropped that entire era of tunes when they went out and did "Beggar's" and "Let It Bleed" onstage in '69--and then added "SF" and "Exile" material in '72. (I'm being quite the American here--don't know the European tour lists as well...)

Jettisoning basically all the songs that had made their reputation? That was bold--that was forward momentum. The '69 and '72 lists are examples of a radical reinvention.

And while no one expects them to do the same at this point, it would be so much more exciting if they just cut the rote warhorse quota even to five. As hot as the first night at Fenway was, the impact of, say, "Honky Tonk" is blunted when it's presented as part of an obligatory run...that is very sad to see.

I've seen it so many times: when the Stones play hot, people get into it. Period. The "jukebox" effect that Gazza mentioned is just overkill.

Wishlist: "She Was Hot," "Little Red Rooster," "Mona," "Around & Around," "Hip Shake," "Country Honk," "Slave," "Luxury," "Silver Train," "Mean Disposition," "Had It With You," "You Can't Catch Me" and so on...

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is the "Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band on the
> Planet" meaningless? OK, I know you probably agree
> that they are, but let me ask you one thing Gaz.
> Do you buy the cheapest shit coffee on the face of
> the earth or do you buy quality stuff??? Probably
> the quality stuff right???

no..I buy the cheapest shit. LOL... I like coffee but I'm not obsessiveor passionate about it (unlike music)..I had a Starbucks on the way home from work today and thats about as top of the range as I go!


You cannot dismiss the
> fact that some things are better than others. Like
> a ham made out of pesticides and all sort f
> chemicals is a crap-ham. The one made out of real
> mat is the quality ham. There's no dismissing the
> fact, in this example, that one ham is better than
> the other. OK, you could probably say that you
> might prefer the taste of the crappy ham, but that
> doesn't mean that it's better now does it??? So
> you see there's actually a proof that some things
> are better than others. I would say that,
> live-wise, The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen
> and maybe Paul McCartney are all quality hams (I
> couldn't think of any other (good) example) that
> are so good that they're to close to call. Another
> fact (And completely different thing) is that I
> prefer The Stones to all of these because their
> style of playing, and that they, in my opinion,
> are so far ahead of everyone else.

well, I dont think that high prices equates to quality, whilst I accept that its reasonable for a band of a high reputation to charge higher prices than a bar band. I'd consider Dylan in the same category as the above acts and possibly more so in terms of being a legend, although obviously the market for Bob would be less than the above three, but he chooses to keep his ticket prices reasonable...as does Springsteen. It can be done..its a question of ego and greed more than 'quality'. The Stones could easily do these shows charging a third of what they're charging and STILL make a fortune (they could also then play the shows in even bigger stadiums too).

Unfortunately they seem more driven by an ego thing to be the biggest grossing act in the world each year and to make each tour more of a bigger deal money wise than the previous one. At this stage, it doesnt matter. Theyve long ago proved theyre the biggest and most successful act on the planet and bands like U2 could tour from now until 2030 and not top that.

Each of the last two tours, the informed opinion in advance would be that the shows would be smaller and stadium shows were passe. In the end, each time theyve succumbed to the thirst to make as much money as possible (more so the case on this tour than the last one). On this tour, theyve gone back on plans to play theatre shows just so they could make more money.

The Stones dont have any long term competition for this biggest grossing act of all time tag. So why should they bother obsessing over it so much to the extent where it almost solely determines the size of places they play, the prices they rfeel 'obliged' to charge and as a result the sort of setlists they feel obliged to play because many of the huge audiences paying massive prices feel that they HAVE to hear a greatest hits show. (I maintain that if these people were charged normal prices, they wouldnt feel so disappointed at not hearing all their favourite hits and as a result the Stones would feel less obliged to play them and therefore feel free to play whatever the @#$%& they want to play - with the end result that theyd grow and develop as a band)

The Stones are the greatest band of all time. They have a back catalogue of about 350 released songs that is possibly unparallelled and unmatched by almost any artist in history (with the possible exception of Dylan). They have earned the right after 43 years of massive success and great music to play whatever the hell they want on a stage, not feel obliged to fill over half a show with the same songs year in, year out like theyre some kind of request act or jukebox for the lazy. I dont seriously believe that, hand on heart, they prefer playing songs theyve played to death (regardless of the fact that so many people like hearing them) to songs that they rarely get the chance to play. Unfortunately, the way theyve tailored their shows has resulted in them getting a type of audience which doesnt allow them to grow as a performing and evolving live act. Theyre still unquestionably a fantastic live band, but when you take away the spectacular visuals, they're not breaking any new ground or doing stuff they havent already done to death. So, its a two way street I suppose.

My greatest wish for this band is for them to forget about the ego trip of being the biggest grossing act this year and every year, dont feel obliged to just tour when theyve a new product to release (or vice versa) and just do something along the lines of what Dylan does and what the Dead have done for years (even though I'm not a Dead fan, I respect them on a different level) - ie, go out 3-4 times every year for about a month on the road each time (thats not too taxing for guys in their 60's and doesnt keep them away from home for long), playing about 60-70 shows a year, in venues no bigger than arenas or sheds, playing whatever they like to fans who appreciate their music and cutting down the ticket prices...they'll have no problem selling tickets and wont have to rely on this corporate crap which seems to dictate so much of everything these days including an increasingly large percentage of their audience.

In the end, they'll have the freedom to play what they like, and they'll have lots of fans like you or me who'll be happy to spend a week or two on the road following them around every year and loving every minute of it.

In short, be driven more by their art and their pride in their own music as well as the love of performing instead of being driven by ego and money and tailoring a show for the masses. They dont NEED that at this stage in their lives, surely and if its done anything for them aside from make them more money than they'll ever need its been to their artistic detriment

nice post, Gazza.

I really don't understand the folks that defend to the death what the Stones are putting out (or not) this tour. It's a big bore. You can go on and on about how "great" they are playing - I got news for you - the band didn't suddenly get better on stage in their 60's.

It most certainly IS a Vegas-type act these days. If you don't wanna admit it - that's fine - "denial" can be a very tranquil existence.

I look forward to the 4 shows I'm slated to see - but mostly for the carnival atmosphere and the partying I'll be doing with my buds. It's an excuse to have fun. But the show itself will not be the featured attraction.

I'm disappointed if not actually surprised that they are virtually ignoring the new album - but I'm more disappointed that they have demonstrated an utter lack of respect for their legions of fans by mailing in these shows.

I would agree with this theory of Gazza's-
Charlie Watts said as much recently when interviewed by 'Q' magazine, that his main reason for going back on the road was for the money - he said Mick and Keith were the same, but they would never admit it. Charlie went on to say that he liked money and touring was the only way he could get his mits on it......(perhaps he could flog a few of his stallions when times get hard....)

Mick said the ticket prices were calculated by market forces (like the price of fish !!) - hmmmm, not sure I would agree with that.
There is an arrogance coming from band this time round, I've never noticed it before.

Perhaps they should've called the album and tour, 'A BIGGER BUCK'.