Hound Dog: Maybe one should pace myself more? I've been going to the
Stones concerts since the seventies, but have skipped tours,
limited myself to a few shows tops for each I did attend.
I don't think any band could constantly turn our crank
with a quite different and exciting show every night.
Really, I know many of us hope for this sometimes,
myself included, but it really is obsessive and
unrealistic; it's okay to give yourself
and the boys a break!

For me, I often even prefer the live boots; I can watch them
over and over again, enjoying forever the ones I like,
skipping the ones I don't. And then there's the wealth
of studio and live recordings they've officially
released. There's always that to fall back on!

Of course, some fans may just tire of the band and
want to move on. With all due respect Hound Dog,
you may still be a newbie, and perhaps they
just really aren't your one big band. If so,
that's understandable, and I wish you
well in discovering them, whoever they
might turn out to be. But if you suspect
it may still be the Stones, then I'd suggest
you pace yourself a bit more to hang in for
the long haul. I don't think, years from now,
you'll find yourself disappointed!

I'm starting to think it has nothing to do with the "first-time fan" factor anymore. This band has been around for 40 years and has played more than 2,000 shows in more than 150 cities on virtually every continent. Anyone over the age of, say, 25 who's ever heard of the Stones has had ample opportunity to see them over the years, and probably already has. Besides, it's not like they've been playing nothing but small clubs and theaters in the boondocks for the past 20 years.

I'm really starting to think it's just a matter of them being complacent. I don't think they want to bother with playing any different tunes, because they've pretty much got the current ones down pat, which explains why there hasn't been any variation in the way they've sounded over the past couple of tours. To break out a new setlist would require re-learning lyrics and chords, and I don't think they're interested in making their remaining tour(s) a creative/learning experience.

So basically, I think it's comlacency, plain and simple. Go on stage, go through the motions, collect the money, and move on to the next town. Once we all come to terms with this reality and recognize it for what it is, we can adjust our expectations and we won't be let down.





-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

Bluespeyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm starting to think it has nothing to do with
> the "first-time fan" factor anymore. This band has
> been around for 40 years and has played more than
> 2,000 shows in more than 150 cities on virtually
> every continent. Anyone over the age of, say, 25
> who's ever heard of the Stones has had ample
> opportunity to see them over the years, and
> probably already has. Besides, it's not like
> they've been playing nothing but small clubs and
> theaters in the boondocks for the past 20 years.
>
> I'm really starting to think it's just a matter of
> them being complacent. I don't think they want to
> bother with playing any different tunes, because
> they've pretty much got the current ones down pat,
> which explains why there hasn't been any variation
> in the way they've sounded over the past couple of
> tours. To break out a new setlist would require
> re-learning lyrics and chords, and I don't think
> they're interested in making their remaining
> tour(s) a creative/learning experience.
>
> So basically, I think it's comlacency, plain and
> simple. Go on stage, go through the motions,
> collect the money, and move on to the next town.
> Once we all come to terms with this reality and
> recognize it for what it is, we can adjust our
> expectations and we won't be let down.
>
>
>
>

Bingo! We have the winning entry! (I've been saying this for awhile - but it's much better coming from someone else at this point).

Congratulations - you may pick up your grand prize at the next Rolling Stones show....

Yes, it is just so much easier for them to rake in the cash and still have some fun with the same old/same old. Re-working and re-inventing themselves even slightly would take alot of work that they do not seem energized enough to do. They have been doing the same arrangements (endings, solo sections, intros) since about 1989 for most of these songs. This partly has to do with using the same backing musicians since then. It's just easy to get into Toronto, run Tumbling Dice a few times just like before and be ready for the stadium. There is no spark of creativity there at all. I've never been so bored following my favorite band. It'd be so cool if they got new musicians to kick them into gear abit. Not likely to happen. It really suprises me how much of the 60's catalogue they ignore.

davido,
I know I am on the younger side for a Stones fan but I can't really call myself a newbie because I have been following the Stones every move since I was a little kid thanks to my cousin. I heard Still Life and Undercover than went on to collect everything they have put out and beyond (more than 500 cds and dvds). This has nothing to due with the band or their music, just disappointment overall in a tour that for its price should grant a little more to fans who are as passionate as us. Especially with a band that has put out such a great new album. If I ever get the chance to see them in a theater setting than I would all over it of coarse. I am just not going to be shelling out at least $150 to see them play You Got Me Rocking and Miss You again that sounds like crap and seems like a run through the motions with the whole stage and light bit.

Rockman1 & virgil,
I total understand what you guys are sayin, stadium shows in general lose their lust. MSG last week had such a different feel and I was blown away by the sound of the guitars.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-20 02:14 by Hound Dog.

4 songs from ABB - they should do more
12 songs from ABB - they should do less, because I don't pay $450 to hear the new tunes
No Streets Of Love - oh what a mistake not playing the actual single
Streets Of Love in the set - probably the worst Stones song, why not Angie instead
Angie in the set - oh what a crap, always the warhorses, let's get Lady Jane
Lady jane in the set - it sounds bad, they are not able to play that anymore
No Happy in the set - Keith should do rockers like Happy
Happy in the set - Keith should play something different, let's say BTMMR
BTMMR in the set - Keith can't sing it anymore, it is cacophony, try a slower one instead
The Worst - oh what a boring song he should do a rocker instead
No Sway in the set - they should do that classic
Sway in the set - it's a crap with Ronnie on the solo, get back Mick Taylor or drop the song
Back of My Hand - it's cool Mick playing the guitar
Back Of My Hand - Mick looks strange with a guitar in his hand
Paint It Black in the set - another warhorse, I am fed up with that
Paint It Black not in the set - why don't they play more songs before 68

and on and on and on and on

always complaining and complaining

FARAWAY EYES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> always complaining and complaining
>


Faraway Eyes, you simply don't get the point. Of course, people have different opinions, some like a certain song, some don't. That's not the point here. The point is that the Stones basically perform an oldies show, a few new songs aside. Apart from a NOT EVEN HANDFUL (!!!!) songs from their new album theyrely on their biggest hits which have been played in almost the same arrangements since 1989. Considering the fact that there's simply no other band around with such a wealthy catalogue, playing the same old shit in 2005 that they've played on every tour since 1989 is a shame and tells a lot. A band who does so is creatively dead as a live act.

You don't get the point man!

They performed 4 @#$%& new song in the 1st month of the tour! And 2 weeks before album release!

They perform rarely played songs like She's So Cold, Shattered, Beast Of Burden.

They perform newer songs like Out Of Control, YGMR, The Worst..

The arrangements are not the same

Listen to JJF, or Beast Of Burden, or IORR, completely different sound and feel.
Symapathy detto. Maybe it is boring for you, but the arrangements differ.

SMU, BS, JJF, HTW, Satisfaction - I think these songs have to be in the setlist almost always. They are the trademarks of the Rolling Stones.
Although these are so-called warhorse I love them! And they are great tunes!

Anyway I am not interested in arguing with you. That's your opinion, fine!
We got a lot of different songs on LICKS. And this tour is different.

This has been one of the most interesting collection of thoughts and comments by true Stones fans. It is great to hear the opinions from those in their twenties, to us old guys in their forties. There is nothing like great guitar sounds from Keef & Ronnie coming at you in MSG, the same venue I saw the New Barbarians, Led Zep & the Who in the 70's. The Stones recreation of songs definitely puts you in that time warp - for me, it was Dance, Part 1 on the last tour...Songs that you don't expect come at you to remind you why you loved these guys in the first place!

I read a NY Times review of VL when that came out, where the author cringed at listening to the words of YGMR. He noted Jagger had lost much of his creative abilities with that one; but hearing that one over and over is puzzling. How about the simply beauty of She Smiled Sweetly, Out Of Time or Dandelion or Lady Jane? The band has limitations, from arthritis to drug abuse, so one can understand the simple set list.

So we can just hope for our favourites, more rarrities and a couple arena/club tickets! I know Mick reads some of these posts, and maybe they'll change their tune after the week's vacation.

PS: A flashback; Under My Thumb as the opener???

Retired_Dog if you go to every show then you have a right to complain, if not, why do you care? Complaining about something that you are not even a part of is just pointless. They can't play a lot of other stuff since they have to perform for 45,000-85,000 people each time.

It sounds like you enjoy complaining about them more than listening to them. Maybe find a new up and coming rock band to enjoy.

Unless the Stones are your life, it would be best if you stopped going to the shows and maybe go out, get drunk and try and get laid.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


I still come back to the fact that if you accept 100% of the "score" of this board, it still doesn't reflect the "average" fans taste... not even close... I think the average concert attendee is much more of a "setlist agnostic" than the critical hard-core fans on here...

The idea that their ticket sales would drop if they added a song or two never played before is ridiculous because,look at the facts : Voodoo Lounge was the most successful tour of all time for any musician(s) and it included songs such as Monkey Man - never previously performed on stage ;
Shine A Light - never previously performed on stage ;
many songs off of the Voodoo Lounge album ;
Memory Motel - only previously done at the two '77 concerts ;
many rarities
This is just off the top of my head.Name a tour up until this one,and I will name songs never done on stage before.Then look at their total # of tickets sold.If they didn't feel like they have to end every show with nine consecutive warhorses,they could put less played or never played numbers between some warhorses.In that case,people waiting for warhorses would appreciate them more than if they keep doing so many in a row.It is not true that casual fans will go to the vendors during many of the songs not being played,only slow songs have trouble keeping the interest of people with short attention spans.I say limit the slow songs at any given concert if that is what's needed to fit in at least songs from greatest hits albums like Heart Of Stone,Dance Little Sister,Rip This Joint,Hot Stuff,Hang Fire,Waiting On A Friend - more than five times every 23 or 24 years, & Mixed Emotions for examples.People who go just to be there can deal with maybe two slow songs per concert.There are plenty of other songs,a little obscure or very obscure that would have made it on to 95% of other bands' best of albums.These songs definitely would not bore casual fans,especially if they came up with a well thought out set list that was also well balanced.I believe that Jagger once said that he "couldn't wait to play She Was Hot on the road".I guess he could have,if they ever play it in concert at all.Nobody can convince me that I'm Going Down from Metamorphosis would start mass complaints or stampedes to the bathroom.All they have to do is strategically place such songs somewhere in some set lists or all set lists.

People who post contradictary thoughts have never explained how or why they disagree with my specific points.I think I see all sides of the issue.

Well, it's Markdog's opinion that I have no right to complain unless I'm going to all shows. Seeing it this way, then this board should be an exclusive resort for people who do nothing else than praising the Stones. I have always praised the Stones, always defended them against unfounded criticism. The Stones, after all, are my favourite band. However, it's my point of view that this board is a place to express opinions. If the Stones themselves give reason to express only positive things, fine with me. They released a fine new album, so concerning ABB praise where praise is due. But it is my opinion that the current setlists are a little bit unimaginative. There's no surprise effect, She's So Cold aside, a song which was not played since 1982. Apart from not-even-a-handful of new songs from ABB, She's So Cold and the covers like Night Time or Get Up Stand Up it's the same procedure as every year. And that's a bit disappointing. That's what I feel. Do I have to keep my mouth shut just because I'm currently not happy with my favourite band's live act ? I usually see 10-20 shows every tour, but I ask myself if it's really worth this time - a question I never even thought of on previous tours. A question that shocks me, believe me.

I wish you lot would all stop maoaning - whatever the boys play they will not please you whingers... you should be happy that they are still playing at all!
We are lucky that the greatest band of all time is still playing live and making new records.. If you don't like what they do you can bugger off and watch Coldplay or someone else - we won't miss moaners like you...

"It's Only Rock N Roll But We Love It"

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I usually see 10-20 shows every tour,
> but I ask myself if it's really worth this time -
> a question I never even thought of on previous
> tours. A question that shocks me, believe me.
>

Four out of five doctors would say that seeing 20 shows on a tour is a bit excessive, unless you're a roadie or a key grip or something. Sorry, but that's just too many. 5 or 6 is a healthy target, keeps you near your family for most of the year, and doesn't require you to drive for more than six hours at a strech or to speak in a foreign language that just isn't you.

On the other hand, 20 shows would be pretty cool. Wish i had the time, money, and opportunity.

The Stones are not the Grateful Dead. They don't vary set lists and play songs in alternative ways (Even the Licks Tour - different show in different venus - was virtually the same set list in a different venue). They are now are corporate sales and marketing machine. The vast majority of the audience go to one show...they have certain expectations...the warhorses - so the stones give them what they want. That's where the big money is.

The reality is - the percentage of people who go to multiple gigs as in more than 2 on a tour....or more than 2 in a week is small. They are not catering to you I'm afraid to say. They have moved on from the "old" fans, in terms of set lists and pricing. Its a different audience now....corporate rockers who go there to be seen and take up the front rows and who can at a push recognise Brown Sugar from Satisfaction.

So don't go to multiple shows, you will be disapointed - I guarantee it - save your money then you won't be here whining about the set list and that you have just spent $4K plus expenses to see 10 shows in a month. Go see one show every 2-3 years when they tour - you may get one or two new songs - but you won't suffer from the law of "diminishing returns" and may find yourself having fun again

"Hound Dog", i must say that you put it very well and i agree with you!

Still, i think i have to agree with "Keefed" too!!

So, my conclusion is;
Whatever they do, they can´t make us all happy.

I´m going to see them in Europe next year, and my hopes are that they will play more songs from ABB because then the album has been out for nearly a year.

On the other hand - How many songs from "Exile" did they play in -72,-73???

"You have the sun, you have the moon, you have the air to breathe, you´ve got The Rolling Stones"

firesoldier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> On the other hand - How many songs from "Exile"
> did they play in -72,-73???

Ten in 1972..six of them played every show, the other four a couple of times only

On the '73 European tour when they were touring behind Goats Head Soup, they still usually played at least four off Exile and at least three off GHS - although on the opening night, they did five off each album



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-20 13:47 by Gazza.

Yeah Hound Dog, I see your point,
but I don't think I'd fork over big
bucks for any band live. Concerts,
in a large setting are not really
musical, they are events, and after
you've been to a few, the thrill
wears off anyway.

As for the Stones, the ticket prices they
charge are criminal, my only real complaint
these days. I wouldn't pay $450 for a floor
seat no matter what they play, but probably
wouldn't pay that to see the second
coming of Jesus Christ playing a drum.....

Still tho, very very very few bands do unique
sets every night. Most now do as the Stones
are finally doing, a safe prescribed
setlist of hits and a few new
numbers from the albums
they are plugging. So
I don't think it's fair
really to centre the boys out
for this..........................

Just my opinion, folks can do as they please;
love the band or leave them, it's really
up to you. I suspect there will be a turnover
now. Is a good time. Will be a fresh batch of fans
from the new hit album and tour, and I suppose
in ten years or so it will happen again,
as it has been since the sixties. Some of us will
always remain. Others will lose interest and
move on. I remember some mega collectors and fans
from back in the day who have long given up on
the hobbie or even just the band, will even
claim they've "grown up" now, but not me! :-)

You´re never too old to dig the Stones or any rock band IMO.
The old guys who says that they´ve grown up is simply not allowed to listen to rock music because of the mrs ;-)

Sorry to hear that Dale. I don't know. I guess more songs from ABB would be great, but I can guarantee you that I'd go to every warhorses-only show for the rest of their career if I could afford it. And I'd still come out happy and bathed in sweat. The element of surprise isn't all that important to me, but it's still nice to have.

JumpingKentFlash

Check out the late 60's/ early 70's setlists,
they were always very static too/ didn't
change much.......................
Most bands do this on tour.

It's tru. Tey're not bringing anything new to the party. The new album is great but the shows are rote. Swap out the stage trappings and you have Voodoo, BTB or Licks. All too predictable.

Star & welded,

Seems like you guys missed the point of this post. Its not that we are lucky to still have them around, they are lucky to still have us around. With ticket prices they are charging its rather ballsy to give us the same tour again with a couple of new songs. Especially with the most comments about the tour saying "the guitars were up front in the mix." Is that supposed to be a treat for us or something. I don't get it.

And having Mick simply mislead us about the tour (theaters, songs they never did and all that). Just seems like another way of showing they just want our money and don't care about the fans who follow them around. I have a bunch of friends from the US that bought tickets to several arena shows hoping to hear different tunes because of Mick saying this. Now they are just trying to sell their tickets.

"corporate rockers who go there to be seen and take up the front rows and who can at a push recognise Brown Sugar from Satisfaction."

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THIS!!
Again they can please everyone with mixing up the hits, you don't think people would recognize songs like Paint It Black or Get Off My Cloud one night in place of Tumbling Dice or Miss You. People have a right to be disappointed and post their opinions and its seems like most people I have talked to are disappointed and some of these people are just casual fans who only saw the Stones once last tour, and they said "this tour was the same thing, why don't they play something different since they have so many hits."

JJF - I'm not sure I missed the point, but my comment is that the Stones have moved away from the real fans. My age dictates I got into them in 81...have been to all tours since then except Licks...I chose not to buy a £50 ticket plus booking fees to sit at the back of Twickenham. Could not afford the others to get a bit closer. I felt let down that between the B2B Tour and Licks I was "overnight" priced out of the market regardless of my support over 20+years and the financial contribution I had made to their lives of luxury.

What I was hearing (though obviously not seeing first hand) was that those front sections of seats were not being distributed fairly (as in first come first served) to the normal fans who chose to spend the money. The $100 membership to me is a disgusting rip off of fans. The priority sales to AMEX and other such corporations seems to me to be giving over to "corporate rockers" who do go to be seen there and talk on their mobiles during the show to their colleagues saying how close they are to Jagger.

But I digress - back to setlists. The Stones have always stuck to a similar list. As I said - Even Licks was suprisingly static considering the sales pitch. The Stones are possibly the best rock act at marketing themselves. They give us enough to want more, 20 songs, they play to the largest market dynamics - give them a good time and they will keep coming back paying $500 next time. The real fans either break the bank or move away - not needed. Those who want to hear the rare or new stuff - tolerated but can be disappointed as they are either fanatical enough to keep returning or will leave. They look after their highest profit fanbase which is the people who generally do not post on forums like this as they are happy with what they get, or not "that" interested in the Stones...they go once to each tour....buy expensive seats...buy merchandise...and are happy for just under 2 hours entertainment (as that about as much as "they" fans and band can stand). They are undemanding customers - but they are loyal and profitable.

To address the point of changing even 2 songs...it would loose momentum of the show to their target market audience if they stray too far from the "golden oldies" - all shows tend to dip when new stuff is played - and I would bet the majority of each Stones show does not own ABB...let alone know it well - so they give a nod to it each night but stick with the winning formula.

So they play to their strongest target market. That is why fans who invest a lot of money to see multiple shows will always be disapointed - they are the true fans - financially, musically who want to hear rare an new stuff, but they will not be satisfied as they are ultimately an expendable minority audience. But jagger offers hope at the start of each tour to ensure you buy your tickets, but ultimately if you don't go because of set-lists, price or whatever you (and I) are not a loss to them - there are other less demanding "fans" to take our place.

Jimmie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You´re never too old to dig the Stones or any rock
> band IMO.
> The old guys who says that they´ve grown up is
> simply not allowed to listen to rock music because
> of the mrs............................. my favorite quote on this thread.....balls in purse = spiritual death



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-20 17:47 by Leonard Keringer.

I think "No Security" was the last of the great tours.

I'm surprised there is so much negativity towards the Licks tour in hindsight. I thought it was brilliantly diverse. Yes, we all got the warhorses night after night, but still, I saw 5 shows and was never once let down.

Even after seeing one show on this tour, I was a bit bored.

I agree about the No Security Tour.All of the arenas,to the best of my knowledge,were full.Compare Miluakee '05 to Miluakee '99.More empty seats in 'o5.
More non mega-hits in '99.I find it hard to believe that throwing in a few non big hits will cause them to lose ticket sales to anyone if they are chosen carefully.They won't be able to keep playing the same songs for too long.They will drive themselves crazy and be forced to try something different.To those who are now saying the Licks Tour shows were all the same,THEY PLAYED 78 DIFFERENT SONGS.Each show had between 19 and 23 songs.The math doesn't work out.That is almost 4 entirely different concerts worth of songs.After the tour started winding down in the U.S.,the arena shows started looking more like the stadium shows but,not the same.

Hound Dog is so right and this 95-99% of fans only want to hear warhoreses is simply not true. Maybe now when they have a week off someone should go and slap their fingers and tell them to get better.