For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
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
Nah, I think it's a nice soul tune. Caricature of BOB? Try Almost Hear You Sigh (which is also great).
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
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
caschimannQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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.
Quote
Cristiano RadtkeQuote
caschimannQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Cristiano RadtkeQuote
caschimannQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
Stoneage
I'm not so sure about this polarization though. Either you're a whiner or a fanboy - isn't there something in between?
Quote
caschimannQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
caschimannQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
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....
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!
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.
Quote
35loveQuote
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
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!
Quote
georgie48Quote
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
DandelionPowderman
No.
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
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.