Quote
Hairball
Not sure what this guy is talking about...
Wouldn't performing a setlist that consists of old songs - 95% of which were recorded recorded over 35 years ago - be considered resting on their laurels?
When the newest tune they play is a recent cover of blues oldie, followed by an original from the '80's...aren't they resting on their laurels?
If a majority of what they played was from the last ten years or so he may have a point, but any band that relies almost solely on their oldies is a band that is resting on their laurels.

Let's face it. The material after 1981 is mainly crap compared with Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St, Some Girls, Tattoo You. We like much of it, but we know it's not in the same league as the 1968-72 stuff.
Casual fans don't know/like most of it. That's why they don't play the newer songs. My problem is not that they only play old songs, but meanwhile (almost) only warhorses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-01-11 13:08 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
Hairball
Not sure what this guy is talking about...
Wouldn't performing a setlist that consists of old songs - 95% of which were recorded recorded over 35 years ago - be considered resting on their laurels?
When the newest tune they play is a recent cover of blues oldie, followed by an original from the '80's...aren't they resting on their laurels?
If a majority of what they played was from the last ten years or so he may have a point, but any band that relies almost solely on their oldies is a band that is resting on their laurels.

Let's face it. The material after 1981 is mainly crap compared with Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St, Some Girls, Tattoo You. We like much of it, but we know it's not in the same league as the 1968-72 stuff.
Casual fans don't know/like most of it. That's why they don't play the newer songs. My problem is not that they only play old songs, but meanwhile (almost) only warhorses.

Tie You Up
Harlem Shuffle
Terrifying
Moon Is Up
How Can I Stop
Laugh, I Nearly Died
Keys To Your Love

Not necessarily music for «the masses», but very good songs just the same - and totally doable for our boys in concert. At least the die-hards in the pit would appreciate these tunes

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
Hairball
Not sure what this guy is talking about...
Wouldn't performing a setlist that consists of old songs - 95% of which were recorded recorded over 35 years ago - be considered resting on their laurels?
When the newest tune they play is a recent cover of blues oldie, followed by an original from the '80's...aren't they resting on their laurels?
If a majority of what they played was from the last ten years or so he may have a point, but any band that relies almost solely on their oldies is a band that is resting on their laurels.

Let's face it. The material after 1981 is mainly crap compared with Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St, Some Girls, Tattoo You. We like much of it, but we know it's not in the same league as the 1968-72 stuff.
Casual fans don't know/like most of it. That's why they don't play the newer songs. My problem is not that they only play old songs, but meanwhile (almost) only warhorses.

Tie You Up
Harlem Shuffle
Terrifying
Moon Is Up
How Can I Stop
Laugh, I Nearly Died
Keys To Your Love

Not necessarily music for «the masses», but very good songs just the same - and totally doable for our boys in concert. At least the die-hards in the pit would appreciate these tunes

MAINLY crap COMPARED with the classic. Of course for me it's good crap incl. some classic songs. But most classic tunes were done until 1978.

I just wouldn't count Keys To Your Love as a good song. Sounds like a caricature of Beast Of Burden.

Nah, I think it's a nice soul tune. Caricature of BOB? Try Almost Hear You Sigh (which is also great).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nah, I think it's a nice soul tune. Caricature of BOB? Try Almost Hear You Sigh (which is also great).

The falsetto is horribly IMHO. Otherwise it would be an okay ballad.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nah, I think it's a nice soul tune. Caricature of BOB? Try Almost Hear You Sigh (which is also great).

The falsetto is horribly IMHO. Otherwise it would be an okay ballad.

As an ardent Curtis Mayfield and Don Covay-fan, I just love the falsetto on such soul-tunes

"Ev'rytin' awrite in the Travel section?! Got plenty to drink, haven't ya...??"

Quote
caschimann

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Sure, Dandelion. They are still performing and making an effort. But my point is that they are resting their setlists on songs 40 years old or more. Which is quite understandable.

Yep, but resting on one's laurels is about being content, and not bothering to make any effort anymore.

It's not as easy as saying «they don't take chances», because they do - every day, at this age. They even bother to try out songs they haven't played since 1973 in front of 90.000 people. Looks like making an effort to me

In this context, resting on their laurels would be not to play at all, knowing that lots of ££££ will drip into their accounts anyhow..

Well Powderman I admire your patience with all these never giving up seltlist-worriers. No disresepct to them.
I always had the romantic vision that this will stop one day and those pals can jump over their shaddow in a zone where they just relax and enjoy what is there to relax and enjoy in the 2.15 hour time those loveley warhorses are on stage.
Which is much - as You and I and Millions other know.

It will probably only stop when the Stones stop playing and touring.

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
caschimann

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Sure, Dandelion. They are still performing and making an effort. But my point is that they are resting their setlists on songs 40 years old or more. Which is quite understandable.

Yep, but resting on one's laurels is about being content, and not bothering to make any effort anymore.

It's not as easy as saying «they don't take chances», because they do - every day, at this age. They even bother to try out songs they haven't played since 1973 in front of 90.000 people. Looks like making an effort to me

In this context, resting on their laurels would be not to play at all, knowing that lots of ££££ will drip into their accounts anyhow..

Well Powderman I admire your patience with all these never giving up seltlist-worriers. No disresepct to them.
I always had the romantic vision that this will stop one day and those pals can jump over their shaddow in a zone where they just relax and enjoy what is there to relax and enjoy in the 2.15 hour time those loveley warhorses are on stage.
Which is much - as You and I and Millions other know.

It will probably only stop when the Stones stop playing and touring.

Don't be so sure. Whining keeps us together, or something...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
caschimann

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Sure, Dandelion. They are still performing and making an effort. But my point is that they are resting their setlists on songs 40 years old or more. Which is quite understandable.

Yep, but resting on one's laurels is about being content, and not bothering to make any effort anymore.

It's not as easy as saying «they don't take chances», because they do - every day, at this age. They even bother to try out songs they haven't played since 1973 in front of 90.000 people. Looks like making an effort to me

In this context, resting on their laurels would be not to play at all, knowing that lots of ££££ will drip into their accounts anyhow..

Well Powderman I admire your patience with all these never giving up seltlist-worriers. No disresepct to them.
I always had the romantic vision that this will stop one day and those pals can jump over their shaddow in a zone where they just relax and enjoy what is there to relax and enjoy in the 2.15 hour time those loveley warhorses are on stage.
Which is much - as You and I and Millions other know.

It will probably only stop when the Stones stop playing and touring.

Don't be so sure. Whining keeps us together, or something...

Families that whine together, stay together.

I'm not so sure about this polarization though. Either you're a whiner or a fanboy - isn't there something in between?

Quote
Stoneage
I'm not so sure about this polarization though. Either you're a whiner or a fanboy - isn't there something in between?

Even a fan boy may whine, so I guess it's more complex than that (as I suspect you know perfectly well )...

There is a balance in there somewhere, but like politics there's also extremes (the left and the right).
On one hand you have the constant bashers who are almost troll-like and never have anything good to say. They're mean-spirited and nasty 100% of the time, appearing on occasion to rile feathers. They either go back into hibernation or are banned from the site. On the other hand you have the fanboys (or fangirls) who will never say one thing critical and seemingly have no opinion other than "they're the greatest rock and roll band in the world"...period. They will even come to the defense of the band and go after someones throat if something is said that goes against their extreme belief that the band is "perfect" in every way. There are a small handful of the extremes on either side, but like politics I tend to stay in the middle...critiquing or praising, and simply voicing an opinion whether it's good, bad, ugly...left, right, center...or upside down, right side up, etc. When it comes to factual data such as who played on what and on what date, etc., I happily welcome corrections if I misstate anything - that's how I learn. But when it comes to personal opinions, everyone should have the right to express how they feel.

As far as "resting on laurels", my original post was strictly pointing out the fact that they rely on nearly the same setlists of songs every tour - most of which are over 40 years old. Yes there's the occasional surprise (Dancing with Mr. D or a cover of the Beatles Come Together, etc.), but those are few and far between considering their massive catalogue. It doesn't bother me and I have even defended the warhorses in the past (they're mostly all great songs!), but for the writer to say they don't rest on their laurels is a bit of a stretch imo. If he would have said, "other than their setlists, they don't rest on their laurels" it would have been more accurate. But then there's the fact that there hasn't been a new album of originals for over 13 years....

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
caschimann

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Sure, Dandelion. They are still performing and making an effort. But my point is that they are resting their setlists on songs 40 years old or more. Which is quite understandable.

Yep, but resting on one's laurels is about being content, and not bothering to make any effort anymore.

It's not as easy as saying «they don't take chances», because they do - every day, at this age. They even bother to try out songs they haven't played since 1973 in front of 90.000 people. Looks like making an effort to me

In this context, resting on their laurels would be not to play at all, knowing that lots of ££££ will drip into their accounts anyhow..

Well Powderman I admire your patience with all these never giving up seltlist-worriers. No disresepct to them.
I always had the romantic vision that this will stop one day and those pals can jump over their shaddow in a zone where they just relax and enjoy what is there to relax and enjoy in the 2.15 hour time those loveley warhorses are on stage.
Which is much - as You and I and Millions other know.

Indeed! + the great feeling that arises when they start playing an obscure number all of a sudden!

It was lovely hearing Play With Fire, Under My Thumb, Dancing With Mr D, Shine A Light, Just Your Fool and Ride 'Em On Down on this tour

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
caschimann

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Sure, Dandelion. They are still performing and making an effort. But my point is that they are resting their setlists on songs 40 years old or more. Which is quite understandable.

Yep, but resting on one's laurels is about being content, and not bothering to make any effort anymore.

It's not as easy as saying «they don't take chances», because they do - every day, at this age. They even bother to try out songs they haven't played since 1973 in front of 90.000 people. Looks like making an effort to me

In this context, resting on their laurels would be not to play at all, knowing that lots of ££££ will drip into their accounts anyhow..

Well Powderman I admire your patience with all these never giving up seltlist-worriers. No disresepct to them.
I always had the romantic vision that this will stop one day and those pals can jump over their shaddow in a zone where they just relax and enjoy what is there to relax and enjoy in the 2.15 hour time those loveley warhorses are on stage.
Which is much - as You and I and Millions other know.

Indeed! + the great feeling that arises when they start playing an obscure number all of a sudden!

It was lovely hearing Play With Fire, Under My Thumb, Dancing With Mr D, Shine A Light, Just Your Fool and Ride 'Em On Down on this tour

Exactly! Sometimes one single obscure or rared played song can make that concert something special.

Quote
Hairball
There is a balance in there somewhere, but like politics there's also extremes (the left and the right).
On one hand you have the constant bashers who are almost troll-like and never have anything good to say. They're mean-spirited and nasty 100% of the time, appearing on occasion to rile feathers. They either go back into hibernation or are banned from the site. On the other hand you have the fanboys (or fangirls) who will never say one thing critical and seemingly have no opinion other than "they're the greatest rock and roll band in the world"...period. They will even come to the defense of the band and go after someones throat if something is said that goes against their extreme belief that the band is "perfect" in every way. There are a small handful of the extremes on either side, but like politics I tend to stay in the middle...critiquing or praising, and simply voicing an opinion whether it's good, bad, ugly...left, right, center...or upside down, right side up, etc. When it comes to factual data such as who played on what and on what date, etc., I happily welcome corrections if I misstate anything - that's how I learn. But when it comes to personal opinions, everyone should have the right to express how they feel.

As far as "resting on laurels", my original post was strictly pointing out the fact that they rely on nearly the same setlists of songs every tour - most of which are over 40 years old. Yes there's the occasional surprise (Dancing with Mr. D or a cover of the Beatles Come Together, etc.), but those are few and far between considering their massive catalogue. It doesn't bother me and I have even defended the warhorses in the past (they're mostly all great songs!), but for the writer to say they don't rest on their laurels is a bit of a stretch imo. If he would have said, "other than their setlists, they don't rest on their laurels" it would have been more accurate. But then there's the fact that there hasn't been a new album of originals for over 13 years....

Ive never met one of those on iorr.org. Why would anybody bother to post here if not a fan?

Good question Redhotcarpet, and it might have been a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but they've been known to exist...they come and go like thieves in the night!
They either get banned or hide their heads in the sand until they're reawakened.

"It was lovely hearing Play With Fire, Under My Thumb, Dancing With Mr D, Shine A Light, Just Your Fool and Ride 'Em On Down on this tour"

Yes, and it would be really lovely if they played all those in a single show vs. stretching it out over a 14 show tour (as I previously said it's few and far between),
but I suppose that's asking and/or expecting a bit much from the old timers this late in the game.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

All those songs (save SAL) was played in the first show I attended.

Then I stand corrected and that was a reasonably nice setlist!
Aside from the blues covers at that show though, the newest original was the nearly 20 year old Out of Control, followed by Slipping Away which is nearly 30 years old.
The rest were oldies but goodies, with a majority of them being the tried and true warhorses. Still wonder why they dropped Play With Fire - thought it should have been a keeper!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
Then I stand corrected and that was a reasonably nice setlist!
Aside from the blues covers at that show though, the newest original was the nearly 20 year old Out of Control, followed by Slipping Away which is nearly 30 years old.
The rest were oldies but goodies, with a majority of them being the tried and true warhorses. Still wonder why they dropped Play With Fire - thought it should have been a keeper!

Always loved Play With Fire, both studio and live versions. I remember back in 2007 taking the London Tube to visit Abbey Road getting off at St. Johns Wood thinking, Wow! They named this tube station after lyrics in a Rolling Stones song!

Quote
Hairball
Good question Redhotcarpet, and it might have been a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but they've been known to exist...they come and go like thieves in the night!
They either get banned or hide their heads in the sand until they're reawakened.

"It was lovely hearing Play With Fire, Under My Thumb, Dancing With Mr D, Shine A Light, Just Your Fool and Ride 'Em On Down on this tour"

Yes, and it would be really lovely if they played all those in a single show vs. stretching it out over a 14 show tour (as I previously said it's few and far between),
but I suppose that's asking and/or expecting a bit much from the old timers this late in the game.

‘She’s A Rainbow’

Quote
35love

Quote
Hairball
Good question Redhotcarpet, and it might have been a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but they've been known to exist...they come and go like thieves in the night!
They either get banned or hide their heads in the sand until they're reawakened.

"It was lovely hearing Play With Fire, Under My Thumb, Dancing With Mr D, Shine A Light, Just Your Fool and Ride 'Em On Down on this tour"

Yes, and it would be really lovely if they played all those in a single show vs. stretching it out over a 14 show tour (as I previously said it's few and far between),
but I suppose that's asking and/or expecting a bit much from the old timers this late in the game.

‘She’s A Rainbow’

Lucky you! I didn't get that one

Excellent article, indeed.

And, once again, when people "out there" express and explain their deep respect for the Stones and for what the band does deliver nowadays (not for "sweet memories" only), then some fans, here, are getting upset...

Quote
Hairball
Then I stand corrected and that was a reasonably nice setlist!
Aside from the blues covers at that show though, the newest original was the nearly 20 year old Out of Control, followed by Slipping Away which is nearly 30 years old.
The rest were oldies but goodies, with a majority of them being the tried and true warhorses. Still wonder why they dropped Play With Fire - thought it should have been a keeper!

I don't think they dropped it, Hairball. With the Stones there is something like "a special song for (a) special person(s) on (be it very rare) occasions". They take you by surprise! And if that happens, you're not "just" on the clouds, no, you feel like floating freely in the Universe!

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Hairball
Then I stand corrected and that was a reasonably nice setlist!
Aside from the blues covers at that show though, the newest original was the nearly 20 year old Out of Control, followed by Slipping Away which is nearly 30 years old.
The rest were oldies but goodies, with a majority of them being the tried and true warhorses. Still wonder why they dropped Play With Fire - thought it should have been a keeper!

I don't think they dropped it, Hairball. With the Stones there is something like "a special song for (a) special person(s) on (be it very rare) occasions". They take you by surprise! And if that happens, you're not "just" on the clouds, no, you feel like floating freely in the Universe!

Lol...

Based on memory though, and I could be wrong, but it seems some of the tours start with something "special" in the setlist in the first show (or two), and then it disappears. I Wanna Be Your Man for example...wasn't that dropped after they played it once during 50 and Counting? That said, looking at the San Diego opener setlist for '15, I don't see anything really "special" other than Moonlight Mile, but I believe it stayed in the setlist at least for awhile? There was also All Down the Line which I suppose could be considered "special", but I'm pretty sure I've seen them play that many times in the past- probably mostly during the Licks tour, and not sure if it was kept in the Zip Code tour after San Diego. Maybe I'm confusing them dropping a "special" song with the fact that they simply shorten the setlist as in the recent No Filter tour which I think started with 22 and eventually settled at 20....or something like that.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

georgie48 -good observation and comment. Like Lady Jane (London 2012) I felt lucky to be able to witness these great songs played, and they were done very well too, which makes it more mysterious why they're one-offs. Don't know why they do this in particular, maybe they really do care about us hard core fans after all and try to placate us in rare occasion.

<Wanna Be Your Man for example...wasn't that dropped after they played it once during 50 and Counting?>

No.

Now looking at setlist.com (and IORR tour page), I see they played I Wanna Be Your Man only three times in 2012- twice in London and then once again at Barclays Center, but then was abandoned for the following two Prudential Center shows a week later. When the tour re-started in May the following year, it was a complete no show...might have thought it could have been played at the Echoplex club show, but no.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
DandelionPowderman


No.

Not dropped after one appearance, but after three or four.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
Hairball
Not sure what this guy is talking about...
Wouldn't performing a setlist that consists of old songs - 95% of which were recorded recorded over 35 years ago - be considered resting on their laurels?
When the newest tune they play is a recent cover of blues oldie, followed by an original from the '80's...aren't they resting on their laurels?
If a majority of what they played was from the last ten years or so he may have a point, but any band that relies almost solely on their oldies is a band that is resting on their laurels.

Let's face it. The material after 1981 is mainly crap compared with Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St, Some Girls, Tattoo You. We like much of it, but we know it's not in the same league as the 1968-72 stuff.
Casual fans don't know/like most of it. That's why they don't play the newer songs. My problem is not that they only play old songs, but meanwhile (almost) only warhorses.

True enough. Imagine if it was the opposite - that their setlists were made up 95% of original tunes from the last 35+ years. For many bands, playing their more current material from the latter half of their careers (however long that may be) might be a good thing, but for the Stones it would almost be a slap in the face to many in attendance hoping to hear the true classics. For that reason, I applaud them for playing what they realize is their best, but on the other hand it shows they're pretty much relying on and living in the past just as a majority of those in attendance are. There's lots of nostalgia to experience at a Stones show, and there has been for quite awhile...that's what sells tickets.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......