Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: ROPENI ()
Date: May 15, 2018 02:34

Not to start any wars,just would like to get your opinions. Here the excuse given most of the time is that The Stones must play basically the same set in every show with approx 90% made up of the "warhorses",because most of the audience doesn't really know anything else of their catalog except for the said "warhorses"and if they were to play lets say 50% of deep tracks or newer stuff people would stop going to their concerts,and yet Bruce probably sell more tickets to his shows and his sets are constantly changing and yes he may play BTR,Rosalita,etc,But he also plays lots of other stuff that are not to the level of popularity that those songs are,and yet his fans keep coming to the shows,and selling out just about everywhere he plays...Any Takers?

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

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Date: May 15, 2018 02:42

Is Bruce Springsteen charging $500 for a ticket?
I think the Stones have many more millions of casual fans - fans that see a Rolling Stones concert as an event. Nowadays young people don't even own music, they stream it. The Stones play the songs they know the audience knows. I would love to see them play a concert with zero 'warhorses' (OK, they can throw in Gimme Shelter and YCAGWYW and Star Me Up) But that just isn't going to happen.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 03:13

ive never really understood the theory that most stones fans have only heard of the warhorses and apart from that wouldnt be familiar with other songs. songs like its only rock and roll, miss you, tumbling dice only became warhorses because the band played them to death.these are not even the best songs on their respective albums. if they had chosen if you cant rock me, some girls and loving cup instead they would have become the warhorses instead.

it wasnt that in the 70,s when hits like the last time, have you seen your mother baby, its all over now, not fade away, got dumped for hot stuff, hand of fate, fingerprint file and star star. how many casual fans would that have confused, if they think your average stones fan has only heard about 20 songs then they have misunderstood their audience.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: ROPENI ()
Date: May 15, 2018 03:29

Quote
buttons67
ive never really understood the theory that most stones fans have only heard of the warhorses and apart from that wouldnt be familiar with other songs. songs like its only rock and roll, miss you, tumbling dice only became warhorses because the band played them to death.these are not even the best songs on their respective albums. if they had chosen if you cant rock me, some girls and loving cup instead they would have become the warhorses instead.

it wasnt that in the 70,s when hits like the last time, have you seen your mother baby, its all over now, not fade away, got dumped for hot stuff, hand of fate, fingerprint file and star star. how many casual fans would that have confused, if they think your average stones fan has only heard about 20 songs then they have misunderstood their audience.
Well, they probably have,cause what would be the reason to keep playing the same sets over and over?,l mean will people ask for refunds if they don't play "Miss You"?,we all get exited because in rehearsals they play all these really great stuff,but come concert time is the same set as always,yes they may play one or two songs that they don't play too often,but after the first few shows they go back to the "standards",maybe that is one of the reasons that they are having a hard time selling tickets this time around,people are tired of hearing BS,SFTD,etc,for the one thousand time,anyway lets hope for the best this time ..

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: May 15, 2018 03:34

Quote
buttons67
if they think your average stones fan has only heard about 20 songs then they have misunderstood their audience.


From Mick, 2005:


"If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits. People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer. If everyone else in the band had said, We can't be bothered, no one listens to our new records, fair enough. There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, @#$%&".

But then then he contradicts himself in 2013:

"It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage.
They glumly look at you. 'OK, it will be over in a minute'. It's not a good excuse, but it's the truth and has to be said."

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

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 03:42

The fan bases are just different. Springsteen fans grew up with marathon 3-4 hour shows with wildly varying set lists. It's become ingrained into his fanbase to be thrown curveballs night to night...they crave and expect it. I've been to shows where I didn't even know half the songs, and still had a blast.

Stones fans...it's a different vibe, especially post '89. The audience has a lot of VIPs and corporate comps, and wealthy people "just out to be seen"...the Stones are guilty of cultivating crowds composed of people like this through their pricing and ticketing practices.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: DEmerson ()
Date: May 15, 2018 03:45

Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName
Is Bruce Springsteen charging $500 for a ticket?

$800 for Bruce on Broadway!

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: ab ()
Date: May 15, 2018 03:53

Quote
DEmerson
Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName
Is Bruce Springsteen charging $500 for a ticket?

$800 for Bruce on Broadway!

In 940-seat room. Bruce on Broadway is the closest most of us will to having him play in a living room.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 04:02

the thing with the stones is, they still have a lot of very well known songs that they seldom or never do.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Date: May 15, 2018 04:07

Quote
DEmerson
Quote
HopeYouGuessMyName
Is Bruce Springsteen charging $500 for a ticket?

$800 for Bruce on Broadway!

And how much would the ROLLING STONES charge on Broadway. It would be a bit more than $800.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: DEmerson ()
Date: May 15, 2018 04:19

And he’s certainly having no problem selling those Tix.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: May 15, 2018 05:47

Quote
buttons67
ive never really understood the theory that most stones fans have only heard of the warhorses and apart from that wouldnt be familiar with other songs. songs like its only rock and roll, miss you, tumbling dice only became warhorses because the band played them to death.these are not even the best songs on their respective albums. if they had chosen if you cant rock me, some girls and loving cup instead they would have become the warhorses instead.

it wasnt that in the 70,s when hits like the last time, have you seen your mother baby, its all over now, not fade away, got dumped for hot stuff, hand of fate, fingerprint file and star star. how many casual fans would that have confused, if they think your average stones fan has only heard about 20 songs then they have misunderstood their audience.

Because unlike 40 years ago, the people who have the albums and the people who buy the concert tickets are 2 totally different demographics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-15 05:48 by Dan.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: May 15, 2018 09:58

Hey Ropeni!! Nice to see you!
Good to see your are OK and back posting, I wondered


I have nothing worth posting on this topic... but... anyway... good to see ya man.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: May 15, 2018 11:27

Bruce, and his band, are more able musicians. They can change half of the setlist between shows. They can adapt within short notice. The Rolling Stones can't.
And Bruce and his band are a bit younger too. Sure, they are old, but they haven't hit geriatric old yet.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Date: May 15, 2018 11:36

Quote
Stoneage
Bruce, and his band, are more able musicians. They can change half of the setlist between shows. They can adapt within short notice. The Rolling Stones can't.
And Bruce and his band are a bit younger too. Sure, they are old, but they haven't hit geriatric old yet.

It's easy to assume this, but I'm leaning more toward the idea that Mick needs to be comfortable - make sure the show is streamlined (he sees the show in bulks, parts, with lighting, cues etc etc).

The Stones have showed again and again that they are perfectly able to play obscure numbers in rehearsals. I won't forget the Oslo-rehearsals when they jammed on You Gotta Move, with Taylor at the helm, Some Girls + many more.

It's about the show and what Mick think fits in there, I guess...

Monkey Man, the blues numbers and The Worst sounded excellent yesterday. 5 songs that could be included right there.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: BOW2007 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 12:22

The Stones were young in 81/82, alaost everyday same setlist.
All the tours from 81 have almost always same setlist.
Except for the clubshows in 1995 and 2002/2003.

How come artists as The Cure and David Bowie can change halve of the setlist from day to day.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: May 15, 2018 12:28

Remember though, in the old days setlists didn't travel on the internet (because it didn't exist...). And going to multiple shows is, and were, still a rare occupation.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: franzk ()
Date: May 15, 2018 12:31

Quote
keefriff99
The fan bases are just different. Springsteen fans grew up with marathon 3-4 hour shows with wildly varying set lists. It's become ingrained into his fanbase to be thrown curveballs night to night...they crave and expect it. I've been to shows where I didn't even know half the songs, and still had a blast.

Stones fans...it's a different vibe, especially post '89. The audience has a lot of VIPs and corporate comps, and wealthy people "just out to be seen"...the Stones are guilty of cultivating crowds composed of people like this through their pricing and ticketing practices.

But Springsteen setlists weren't always that varied. As far as I remember on some tours (like Tunnel Of Love) he played mostly the same set every night. (and now he's doing the same set on Broadway, but that's a different thing). Also his shows were not always that long. Most of the shows on Magic and Working On A Dream Tours were shorter than 3h. I think it was in the recent years when he started varying his shows, playing more requests, obscure tracks and longer shows. Many of his shows in 2016 were 3,5-4h. And tickets were usually expensive. Except for 2017/2018 Rolling Stones shows I usually paid more for BS than RS.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: BOW2007 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 12:37

But the Magic and Working On A Dream Tours had varied setlists. I have different boots from these tours.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: ouroux58 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 13:24

The probleme is not really the same list. Since the start of era 2 in 1969, they played the same tracks list during a same tour.
BUT, in the past, every new tour started with a new album and they played lot of new songs. Now without a new album, songs become war horses. Just my opinion!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-15 14:52 by ouroux58.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: liddas ()
Date: May 15, 2018 13:28

I know it will never happen, but I truly would love to see how tickets would sell if a tour were promoted as a "rarities" or "no warhorses" tour.

C

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: May 15, 2018 13:31

You're right, Ouroux. That is the main thing. They used to tour behind albums. And then they usually did an album a year. So, the material was fresher then. Of course.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: vertigojoe ()
Date: May 15, 2018 13:35

Everyone blames Mick but I think it’s a lot more to do with Keith’s limitations.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: BOW2007 ()
Date: May 15, 2018 13:41

In 1978, Some Girls tour they played almost the whole album live.
After that tour they played a few songs from new albums on tour.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: The Worst. ()
Date: May 15, 2018 13:57

Quote
Hairball
Quote
buttons67
if they think your average stones fan has only heard about 20 songs then they have misunderstood their audience.


From Mick, 2005:


"If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record. It shows you are an actual functioning rock band. I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits. People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer. If everyone else in the band had said, We can't be bothered, no one listens to our new records, fair enough. There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band. We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out. Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, @#$%&".

But then then he contradicts himself in 2013:

"It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage.
They glumly look at you. 'OK, it will be over in a minute'. It's not a good excuse, but it's the truth and has to be said."

Maybe that 2013 quote is based on what they experienced in 2005!
I remember MSG 2005 when people lined up to get out every exit after Mick said they were going to do a couple of new songs. After a while they came back with nachos, pizza, hot dogs, popcorn, beer, soft drinks etc. During Back of My Hand (the highlight for me), most (at least in my section) were sitting, talking, eating, drinking - not paying much attention. But they all stood up and got into the show when old classics were played.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Date: May 15, 2018 14:08

Quote
vertigojoe
Everyone blames Mick but I think it’s a lot more to do with Keith’s limitations.

Many of the other songs are easier to play than the warhorses. And they manage to pull off the obscure ones in rehearsals. So I'd say it has nothing to do with one band member's skills or abilities.

If Keith couldn't play simple songs as Tell Me, She Said Yeah, It's Not Easy or Child Of The Moon (all of these are more than welcomed additions to the setlist, imo) he would have hung his guitar on the wall and called it quits.

He played Monkey Man flawlessly yesterday, and those opening chords and the riffs later in the song are more intricate than one might think.

Then again, there is also the possibility that Mick AND Keith agree on the warhorses being their best songs - the songs they love to play the most...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-15 14:09 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: RoughJusticeOnYa ()
Date: May 15, 2018 15:12

Quote
Hairball


From Mick, 2005:

"If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record."

But then then he contradicts himself in 2013:

"It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage."

Not completely contradictory -
what happened between tose two quotes, the 'missing link' so to speak, is called "A Bigger Bang" - and the lukewarm reception it got amongst the fans (a.o. here).

Hence, as the 'ABB' tour continued, they played fewer and fewer tracks of it.

Too bad, imo; because some of those songs would have been great live if they had been given the opportunity to 'grow'.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: ROPENI ()
Date: May 16, 2018 03:46

Quote
Leonioid
Hey Ropeni!! Nice to see you!
Good to see your are OK and back posting, I wondered


I have nothing worth posting on this topic... but... anyway... good to see ya man.
Hi Leonioid,still alive and well.smiling smiley,the last few months have been very hard here in Puerto Rico,l did not have much time for social media of any kind, but things are looking up,so l am back,you have a great evening...Roland

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

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: May 16, 2018 05:01

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
Quote
Hairball


From Mick, 2005:

"If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record."

But then then he contradicts himself in 2013:

"It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage."

Not completely contradictory -
what happened between tose two quotes, the 'missing link' so to speak, is called "A Bigger Bang" - and the lukewarm reception it got amongst the fans (a.o. here).

Hence, as the 'ABB' tour continued, they played fewer and fewer tracks of it.

Too bad, imo; because some of those songs would have been great live if they had been given the opportunity to 'grow'.

If that's not being contradictory, then maybe he's just getting too old to care anymore about being relevant and producing new material.
As for songs "growing", how can crappy songs grow when everything is played in synch w/staging, lighting, click tracks, etc.?
Has Doom and Gloom "grown" as a song after being played multiple times? Always sounds the same to me give or take a few screw-ups from Keith and/or Ronnie.

But to your point, the 'missing link' you mention is really the parts of both quotes you edited out.
So to break it down (from 2005)

-If we go out on tour, we gotta do a record.
-It shows you are an actual functioning rock band.
-I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.
-People say, I much prefer to hear "Brown Sugar" than some new song. Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer.
-If everyone else in the band had said, We can't be bothered, no one listens to our new records, fair enough.
-There's no harm in (touring behind a greatest hits CD) occasionally but we didn't want to do it again so soon. You become like an oldies band.
-We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it - it's not like we're just eking out.
-Rock fans tend to be conservative. Ah, I much prefer "Brown Sugar". Yeah, well, but listen to THIS, @#$%&".


They've toured behind many new albums in the past, and many times the new material isn't received as warmly as he/they would like.
But then all of the sudden (in 2013) he has a change of heart because songs from ABB didn't go over well?

From 2013:

-It would be nice to have a new album, but people don't like the new album when you play it on stage.
- They glumly look at you. 'OK, it will be over in a minute'. It's not a good excuse, but it's the truth and has to be said.


What happened to the cocky attitude where he says "I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits" and "I don't give a shit what you prefer" and "We put new stuff out because we still can. We have lots of it"?
Was the poor reception to ABB so damaging to his ego that he now basically says there's no use in putting out a new album and playing some of it live because people won't like it? And is he comfortable now being considered an "oldies band"? Because that's basically what they are. Again, they've toured with many new albums and many times the new material isn't received as warmly as he/they would like. Sounds like he's either completely contradicted himself, or has thrown in the towel and is milking the past catalogue for all it's worth - which is obviously a fantastic back catalogue!

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-16 05:08 by Hairball.

Re: Stones warhorses VS Bruce's
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: May 16, 2018 09:30

Quote
ROPENI
Quote
Leonioid
Hey Ropeni!! Nice to see you!
Good to see your are OK and back posting, I wondered


I have nothing worth posting on this topic... but... anyway... good to see ya man.
Hi Leonioid,still alive and well.smiling smiley,the last few months have been very hard here in Puerto Rico,l did not have much time for social media of any kind, but things are looking up,so l am back,you have a great evening...Roland
smileys with beer It looked rough, really rough... I hoped you were OK, glad you are and now have some time for some fun

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1954
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home