Well I have seen my heros 10 times, I am in my late 20s or I would have seen them many more times. Caught them 4 times so far this tour and before you read any further I would be classified more towards the side of "the Stones can't do anything wrong" rather than the overly critical sort of fan. However after seeing a few shows this tour I am pretty sure that last week at the Garden will be my last unless I ever get the chance to see them at a theater (which was promiced this tour) or they make some changes.

First I went to opening night at Fenway with a bunch of college friends. After the first three songs I was so disappointed and let down. Nothing new, one song I hated (YGMR), another that is overplayed (TD) and the most predictable opener. She's So Cold was the only surpirse and it was awesome. The band and guitars sounded great I must say, better than they have in years but the set list was just so predictable. Even friends of mine who just own 40 Licks were sort of wondering why they played the set they did. To me playing Satisfaction on the b-stage and not as an encore is not mixing it up. I also don't get people who say they have to play the hits, that has nothing to do with playing the same hits. Come on, they have so many recognizeable songs that could please all fans. I hear people say don't read set lists or what more do you want and I just don't get it. Why ignore so many great hits in favor of playing the same songs tour after tour. I actually heard people boo YGMR, couldn't beleive it.

People say don't judge the shows unless you were there. Well I was there and yes the whole show is a great party but the concert itself lacked something. And that is the element of surprise. Hardly any new songs played off a great album and then the same run through. I know some people will say neagtive things about my post but if you have ever seen my posts here over the years I am usually full of praise for the Stones but after 4 shows I can't help but feeling very let down and what kills me the most is it wouldn't take much for the Stones to do the right things but I am seriously wondering if they give a shit. It has nothing to do with going to more than one show either, because honestly after the first one at Fenway I thought it was a cheap shot at their fans after charging so much and giving us Lick part 2 with a new stage and new pair of pants on Mick.


PS- Doesn't help that Mick makes statements the press conference about theater shows, songs they've never done before and digging through the categlog.

AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A SHOW OF OBSCRURITIES like some people always say to these posts about the disappointing set.

Why did they do those votings for setlists at stones.com? I am sure there's no one, who still wants to hear Satisfaction!

I will attend the European shows next year, and I hope they will have rehearsed some better ones til then, for example more of the new ones. But perhaps they can't play them perfectly, yet.

crazymama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did they do those votings for setlists at
> stones.com? I am sure there's no one, who still
> wants to hear Satisfaction!
>
> I will attend the European shows next year, and I
> hope they will have rehearsed some better ones til
> then, for example more of the new ones. But
> perhaps they can't play them perfectly, yet.


This is true. I forgot about the voting for favorite set lists. Seemed like it was done for no reason or maybe they just wanted the top 20 songs? I think the show will be fun either way, but from a collectors stand point ...without any varied set lists it kind of makes it slightly boring.

I appreciate your honest post, Hound Dog.

I must admit that it summarizes pretty well my fears before this tour had begun. I already suffered the same feeling on the european Licks Tour: I went to a show with some friends (not hardcore fans, but most of them have the big four and some other albums, so they know who the Stones are and what they play) and they left the stadium a bit dissapointed with the setlist (and to a certain point, with a certain lack of energy: we call call it autopilot here in this forum). I must admit I had the same feeling as them.

As Gazza stated a few days ago (if it wasn't Gazza, I'm sorry) Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, Tattoo You, IORR, Exile, Let It Bleed are not "obscure albums" to 90% of audience, so maybe playing If You Can't Rock Me instead of the 1,000th version of IORR would be a nice surprise for a great part of the audience, and so on...





[There'll be no wedding today...]

And BTW, having the song played with (basicly) the same arrangements since 1989 doesn't help, neither...

Why don't play an acoustic Tumbling Dice or some surprises like that?

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Dale, I'm sorry to hear that you are feeling like that, but I can understand it!

My impression from the shows I've been to is, that 95% of the audience wants to hear the hits like BS, JJF, TD, YGMR, IORR, etc. and I think that the same 95% of the audience only goes to one show. But I understand that the thrill cannot be the same if you go to more than 2 shows, if you get to hear the same songs all the time. It's pity, from what I've heard the sound is great, if they only mixed up the setlist I think we would have the best shows. I actually don't mind if they play BS et al, but I just cannot understand why they don't play more of A Bigger Bang. I just don't get that.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

I'm goin to 3 shows in a week
DC VA NC I think these will be the begining of the new setlist!
When they played Albany for the 1st time in 40 years they pulled out Rambler, Live with Me.
They haven't played in Virginia since Hampton 81, and they always have great nights in North Carolina. Raliegh - Durham hasn't seem them since 89.
I hoping for the best week of the tour!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 21:34 by Donkey Girl Scout.

That's incredible to see that the arrangements are so similar from one tour to the next. Most of their songs can be played in so many different ways.

crazymama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did they do those votings for setlists at
> stones.com? I am sure there's no one, who still
> wants to hear Satisfaction!


I still love Satisfaction, and would be disappointed if I attended a show that they didn't play it.

You also have to realize that at every show, there are people who have never had to opportunity see the band before, and may never have the opportunity to do so again. So for them to just stop playing a song like Satisfaction all together would be a huge let down for many people. Not everyone who attends a Stones show is a diehard who's seen them every tour and posts on sites like this.

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I have seen my heros 10 times, I am in my
> late 20s or I would have seen them many more
> times. Caught them 4 times so far this tour and
> before you read any further I would be classified
> more towards the side of "the Stones can't do
> anything wrong" rather than the overly critical
> sort of fan. However after seeing a few shows this
> tour I am pretty sure that last week at the Garden
> will be my last unless I ever get the chance to
> see them at a theater (which was promiced this
> tour) or they make some changes.
>
I suspect the vast majority of the Stones fan base consists of:

1) People who are "hooked on the basics" AND
2) First time attendees...

The "hard-core" people wanting to thumb through the dusties and find obscure old gems probably represents way less than 10% of their audience.

Not to say that these tours should be all about business.

FWIW, even though you hate YGMR, it's being consistently written up by attendees as being played very well this tour. Read the shidoobee reviews of the Albany gig, for example.

As for Satisfaction on the b-stage, it went over tremendously in Chicago stadium venue... one of 2 highlights of a very popular show. It was kind of like "all that noise coming from that small stage"...

One suggestion that's been made over and over to people is to maybe reconsider if you need to attend a dozen shows each tour, when perhaps 1 or 2 would do.

I think that main problem is that the choice of songs, not really how the set list isn't switched around much. They can play songs like JJF, SMU, BS every night but throw some variety in there. Or if they can't manage to remember too many songs one tour then give a song like IORR a break for the whole tour and instead play Get Off My Cloud. Average fans would still recognize it and hardcore fans would like it just as much. 19 Nervous Breakdown at MSG was one of the coolest things I ever saw them do live. I liked how Paint it Black was thrown into the end of the set at MSG and the crowd seemed to as well. Why not do more of that. And they almost completely ignore their pre-1968 songs with exception of Satisfaction and an ocasional other. I think it sort of hard to judge how the crowd feels and their overall reaction at the end of songs because everyone cheers and go nuts because its the Stones. I think the crowd would love Saint of Me over the overkilled You Got Me Rocking. It just seems like a waste that the Stones have so many great songs and stick to the same 20 or 30 every tour. Look at the track list for Hot Rocks, one of their most known almums. Look at how many songs on that would be a surprise to hear them do live. And these are tracks that everyone and their mother knows. And yes my mother is a Stones fan.

Then there are people like us that want to hear a song like Had It With You or Pretty Beat Up. There is no chance they would ever do that, never. But what if they did and some casual fan was like, what was that tune, then goes out and buys Dirty Work or something else they never would have gotten. Again I am starting to dream.

CreedenceLives Wrote:


>
> The "hard-core" people wanting to thumb through
> the dusties and find obscure old gems probably
> represents way less than 10% of their audience.

> One suggestion that's been made over and over to
> people is to maybe reconsider if you need to
> attend a dozen shows each tour, when perhaps 1 or
> 2 would do.


Not talking about obscurities, they have more big hits than the same ones every tour. I can list about 20 that they rarely do which are on the radio all the time and on various greatest hits albums.

If I only went to one show this tour, I would have still been disappointed because it was almost the same thing I saw last tour and the ones before.

it is interesting!

i was at both fenway and i think there were a lot of real surprises. I attended 50+ shows since Urban Jungle, and they could deliver some real rarities for me...
She's so cold - last played 81/82
4 brand new songs, including Mick's slide in Back Of My Hand, and a killer version of ONNYA on the B stage
Heartbreaker - not a warhorse, and a great song, they could play it every night
Beast of Burden & Shattered - they haven't played it so much in the last tours, BOB was played regularly on Voodoo for instance
Out Of Control - I've been waiting for this song since BtB tour to hear it again. And it was super!
Night Time Is Right Time - an excellent choice for cover song
YCAGWYW - when they do 2 encores, it is the perfect choice for the 1st one IMHO

And i think it is not true that they hadn't changed the arrangements.

JJ flash sounds so fresh, Keef does a wonderful job as always, no horns, a real rocker
Brown Sugar: have you heard drumming of Charlie? it is awesome, and sounds new!
IORR - a perfect encore choice, no horns, just pure rock'n'roll. I loved that long version, with keef's never ending licks...
Satisfaction: I don't know, I've always loved it, and it was cool to see them perform it on the B stage!

I was in hartford as well, and they played All Down The Line, Ruby Tuesday and Get Up Stand Up - everybody seemed to love it in the crowd!

Alot can be said about this topic. I've been to over 60 Stones shows since '72; love them to death (yeah, fanatic) for many years, and enjoyed their under-par albums. Ironically they should realize something from the Black Crowes or Bob Dylan and just perform whatever songs they happen to be into. Turn it into a New Barbarians show, complete with Ronnie doing a song or two.

Unfortunately, it's all about Mick's control; playing to the press. In reality, if they played like a blues band from the 60's, with heart and passion, they would smoke and in a delayed reaction, the press would finally give them the title they are seeking. I only went to one Lick's show, because I lucked out w/ a Roseland ticket. I wouldn't go to any others, due to the predictable set list.

That's why so far I've only bought tickets to the MSG '06 show. The Stones just need to loosen up; play an entire album side of Between the Buttons if they want to, and let us enjoy our favourite band. I'd ask for Bush Doctor in liue of Get Up, Stand Up though; Keith should know the guitar part!

Forever a Fan

I'm glad to hear that so many people are done with Stones shows, because if enough people make that decision, they'll have to drop their ticket prices and/or start playing smaller venues, which I am all for! Go away, fair weather fans, and good riddance!

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that main problem is that the choice of
> songs, not really how the set list isn't switched
> around much. They can play songs like JJF, SMU, BS
> every night but throw some variety in there.

I'm all for VARIETY... but the songs this tour they should GET RID OF for my liking are: Shattered, Rough Justice, The Worst, Infamy... also not crazy about She's So Cold.

Here's what they're playing right now that's pretty hot: SMU, YGMR, TD, BOMH, BITCH, Night Time, Miss You, ONNYA, Satisfaction, HTW, SFTD, PIB, MR, JJF, BS, YCAGWYW, IORR, and Ruby Tuesday.

That's 18 incredible songs. Add ONE NEW ONE, plus 2 from Keith (NOT the worst or Infamy), and you have a 21 song set.

I think it's the Shattereds and Rough Justice and The Worst, etc. that's making these shows less than stellar in SOME PEOPLES EYES.

They are more or less spot-on of those 18 songs I listed that they're playing in regular rotation. Say they find

1) Two Great Songs for Keith rather than 2 yawners

2) Out of the "Great 18", use the following as "rotators", the rest permanent. Rotators would be: A) Ruby Tuesday... maybe rotate it with a "sweet" song like Wild Horses or Sweet Virginia Paint it Black, MR... rotate one of them a nite with another "edgy" song like Gimme Shelter

Theres just these little setlist "tweaks" that could definitely drive the show up a notch...

But still I think they're better looking at the YAWNERS and marginal songs they're playing, not the warhorses, for rotation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 22:04 by CreedenceLives.

Rockman1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alot can be said about this topic. I've been to
> over 60 Stones shows since '72; love them to death
> (yeah, fanatic) for many years, and enjoyed their
> under-par albums. Ironically they should realize
> something from the Black Crowes or Bob Dylan and
> just perform whatever songs they happen to be
> into. Turn it into a New Barbarians show,
> complete with Ronnie doing a song or two.

Yes BUT:

1) Look at the venues Dylan is playing to.... 5,000 here, 5,000 there. Much smaller draw he is playing his new stuff that a fan like me doesn't recognize. Honestly not sure I'll ever go to another Dylan show

2) The VAST MAJORITY of their audience wants these major classics.

I'd love to hear the kind of show you're talking about, but I don't see it filling stadiums for long.


>
> Unfortunately, it's all about Mick's control;
> playing to the press.

AND to the vast majority of the available audience, I believe.


In reality, if they played
> like a blues band from the 60's, with heart and
> passion, they would smoke and in a delayed
> reaction, the press would finally give them the
> title they are seeking.

Would Charlie Watts really want to do this... an extensive tour of smokey back rooms ? At their age one big motivation for these guys has to be money.



I only went to one Lick's
> show, because I lucked out w/ a Roseland ticket.
> I wouldn't go to any others, due to the
> predictable set list.

Did you ever miss some great gigs !! No two were alike, that was the tour to see for the kinds of "variety shows" you're saying you'd like.


>
> That's why so far I've only bought tickets to the
> MSG '06 show. The Stones just need to loosen up;
> play an entire album side of Between the Buttons
> if they want to, and let us enjoy our favourite
> band. I'd ask for Bush Doctor in liue of Get Up,
> Stand Up though; Keith should know the guitar
> part!
>
> Forever a Fan

We fans have to realize that it's the vast majority of the audience that pays the bills. That paunchy middle-aged guy and his son who's coming for the first time... and they want to rock out to Honky Tonk Women...

Here's my idea from a prior post: Don't rotate OUT the warhorses... rather rotate out some of these YAWNERS like The Worst and Infamy and Shattered and Rough Justice...

I think AC/DC is in a similar situation to the Stones. I pretty much know what their setlist will be, since it's almost the same on every tour. Throw in a few new songs, the rest "war horses" with maybe two or three songs they don't play often.
It's an impossible job trying to satisfy every fan. 95% of the crowd probably only want to hear greatest hits, while it's the 5% diehards that want to hear something else. Unfortunately, you have to cater to the majority. Diehards don't want to hear Satisfaction or Tumbling Dice yet others would be disappointed if they didn't play it. A no win situation for the band?

'Nmaillot' said, "That's incredible to see that the arrangements are so similar from one tour to the next. Most of their songs can be played in so many different ways".


Very true - but wouldn't it be nice for a change to hear some of the older songs played with their original arrangements, as per the records, instead of the newer versions of today, which sometimes are really messy with improvised solos and different drumming etc.
For instance, I don't think the Stones have ever played JJf with the original begining as on the single.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 22:26 by turd.

I agree with this post 100 percent. Could you imagine if the Stones came on for an encore and did Get Off My Cloud, the place would go nuts and everyone would sing along. Or if they opened with Mother's Little Helper and Mick came out and said "what a drag it is getting old." Put the ego aside for a second and do something for the fans that you have never done.

I don't agree with 95 percent of the audience wants to hear Tumbling Dice, did you see anyone that reviewed the show in Albany complain about them skipping this. They have bigger hits that I am sure many people don't get to hear but wanted to. A friend of mine who went to the Boston show said before that he hopes they play The Last Time and I said don't get your hopes up. He said why not and I explained to him that they always stick with the same hits.

"I'm all for VARIETY... but the songs this tour they should GET RID OF for my liking are: Shattered, Rough Justice, The Worst, Infamy... also not crazy about She's So Cold."

This was stated above and I must say that these were the highlights of the show for me, well not really Imfamy because Mick's harmonica spot was missing but She's So Cold was great...

CreedenceLives Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suspect the vast majority of the Stones fan base
> consists of:
>
> 1) People who are "hooked on the basics" AND
> 2) First time attendees...
>
> The "hard-core" people wanting to thumb through
> the dusties and find obscure old gems probably
> represents way less than 10% of their audience.


Creedence, I'd agree with you that most fans expect and know little more than a greatest hits set, but I cant see how you can believe that the majority of people going to Stones shows in 2005 are "first time attendees".

I think its quite obvious that most of their audience have seen them before. If theyre touring every 2-3 years, theyre not going to have a significantly new (and young) audience each time as by now most people who want to see a Stones concert have had ample opportunity to do so.

And surely if most are first-timers then that, by definition, would imply that most of the people who saw them last time or on previous tours havent come back to see them this time. Thats simply not the case. If those fans werent coming back, the Stones simply wouldnt be playing to the size of audiences that are coming to see them

> Look at the venues Dylan is playing to.... 5,000 here, 5,000 there. Much smaller draw he is playing his new stuff that a fan like me doesn't recognize. Honestly not sure I'll ever go to another Dylan show


Dylan plays over 100 shows a year and deliberately plays out of the way places that he hasnt been to before. He also plays large arenas in major cities too, but its quite clear that the music comes before anything else. And I cant see how he's playing 'his new stuff that a fan like (you) doesnt recognize'. Bob's last album was four years ago. It was one of the biggest sellers of his career and won a few Grammys as did the one before it. I cant imagine any Dylan fan not knowing those songs....besides, most of his show still leans heavily on his '60's back catalogue, so its not top heavy with 'new songs'. he does play what he wants to play, however and doesnt play more than a few (maybe 3-4) of the 10-12 songs that most people not familiar with his shows would probably consider his best known songs. Thankfully he rotates them around from year to year

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CreedenceLives Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Look at the venues Dylan is playing to....
> 5,000 here, 5,000 there. Much smaller draw he is
> playing his new stuff that a fan like me doesn't
> recognize. Honestly not sure I'll ever go to
> another Dylan show
>
>
> Dylan plays over 100 shows a year and deliberately
> plays out of the way places that he hasnt been to
> before. He also plays large arenas in major cities
> too, but its quite clear that the music comes
> before anything else. And I cant see how he's
> playing 'his new stuff that a fan like (you)
> doesnt recognize'. Bob's last album was four years
> ago. It was one of the biggest sellers of his
> career and won a few Grammys as did the one before
> it. I cant imagine any Dylan fan not knowing those
> songs....besides, most of his show still leans
> heavily on his '60's back catalogue, so its not
> top heavy with 'new songs'. he does play what he
> wants to play, however and doesnt play more than a
> few (maybe 3-4) of the 10-12 songs that most
> people not familiar with his shows would probably
> consider his best known songs. Thankfully he
> rotates them around from year to year

I'm real old school, Dylan-wise. My tastes go back to Highway 61, Freewheelin', Nashville Skyline & those days. The last Dylan albums I really liked were Blood on the Tracks and Desire and that's almost 30 years ago... also love the '66 Albert Hall Gig and the Real Live tape. Don't really care for that "Rolling Thunder" tour bootleg.

I just don't recognize a great deal of songs in his recent gigs and his voice is WORSE THAN EVER... I mean unintelligible.

I saw him around 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, really great gig, playin' alot of classics, singing well by his standards... I'd go for a show like that today but not his current line-up.

I agree with you that he does have an incredible discography and is probably trying to play a little something for everyone, just think that his very best stuff was from the early 60's to mid 70s.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-19 23:37 by CreedenceLives.

Oddly enough, I thought that 1991 was the nadir of Dylan's career as a live artist, both in terms of his own performances and the band that he had.

No disagreement about his best period, but he's certainly playing plenty of songs from that era in concert even today.

Apples and oranges with Dylan shows, I guess. Personally, I LIKE the fact that he rearranges his old songs from one year to the next. It keeps them fresh and it never ceases to amaze me how many ways he can breathe new life into a song he's been playing for 30-40 years. I never heard Like a Rolling Stone performed as brilliantly as it was when he played it in Glasgow last year. He even acknowledged it himself when he told the audience that he'd played it over a thousand times and until now NO audience had ever been able to sing it with him like they did.

today's cliche: "Familiarity breeds contempt"....brilliant stuff

Hound Dog as a veteren of 40 shows plus since 75 I could not agree more. Ive seen four shows so far this tour. I think for the most part they have been great but i am cancelling three road trips unless they change it up big time. So I will be blunt. F&%K em they owe the people more for the $$ that they are getting.

P.S Shattered is the song that should be dropped and erased from everyones memory for ever. It sucks.

I do think "The Setlist Whiners" are winning the argument about the '05 setlist over "The Satisfied Customers." It's becoming a rout, in fact.

Looking at it slightly differently, if the Stones were doing a set that consisted of say, 3 more from ABB, 3 other slots with rotating rarely played back catalogue songs and 6 less static warhorses.....I can barely imagine that ANYONE would be complaining on this board. Not a one.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if the Stones
> were doing a set that consisted of say, 3 more
> from ABB, 3 other slots with rotating rarely
> played back catalogue songs and 6 less static
> warhorses.....I can barely imagine that ANYONE
> would be complaining on this board. Not a one.


T&A,

I do believe you're right, but I won't count on nobody complaining: where's Sway, for example. you can expect to hear that until it become a warhorse.

getting rid of rough justice?that new song rocked the garden,thats what they need more of,all they have to do is 1 more new song,(there all great)and throw in 2 lost classics.she was hot,and mothers little helper,wii cure it all.but they scorched at the garden,flawless performance.

john scialfa

backstreetboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but they scorched at
> the garden,flawless performance.
>
>

Flawless? The Stones? Never....it wouldn't BE the Stones without a shitload of flaws....

From the loyal fans point of view, we would rather not see the Stones in football stadiums anymore. It's amazing concerts even made it there, considering they're the worst possible place for good accoustics. I often find myself detatched from the show, watching the band on a large monitor. Keith once remarked how those damm Eastern winds took his guitar chops from the Meadowlands down the road a few miles...I would rather pay top dollar and see them in a venue the size of a basketball arena or smaller. I've been fortunate to sit front rows for a few "football" shows, and would prefer a lower 100 level at MSG.

As far as the Stones playing in just "smokey back rooms", I have a feeling they'll be near there, health permitting, for the next tour. MSG for 9 nights, LA Forum 8 nights, Boston for two weeks, with the follow thru on scattered club dates. The fans deserve to see them in intimate settings, and the band probably prefers not playing the usual barns.

I know I missed variety of shows on the Licks tour. Variety should be more than just seeing Ronnie nail the solo vs flubs it on SMU. Some old bootlegs are sad; to have to turn Chuck up and have back-up singers up front was their only option. I am very happy and hopefull he stays clean & sober, and has the freedom to play how he wants without Mick's watchful eye, or Keith's resentfull snear...Over the years, we only wanted our guys to play their hearts out, the best they can, on smack or not. This band feels like a distant family; and we love them!