Quote
Leonioid

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.,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

It looked rough, really rough... I hoped you were OK, glad you are and now have some time for some fun

Thank You buddy...

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

Quote
ROPENI
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?

It's comparing apples and oranges. I've seen them both a couple of times.
Bruce and the E Street Band don't use any visual aspects other than the video screens
that only serve to have people in the back some view of what is happening. This gives
them a lot of freedom to play whatever they want. Plus, even being Little Steven or
Max Weinberg or Nils Lofgren does not give any member of the E St Band any rights to
attract attention to themselves other than for their musical input.

The Stones provide a complete show, with visual effects fitting the songs played on stage.
Ronnie and Keith have an image of their own (clown or pirate) they have to take care of
while playing their instruments. It's all part of the complete show and well rehearsed.
And I think Mick would hate if if there were long improvised musical sessions with a
chance of failure. So sticking to the routine will provide an almost perfect show.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
marcovandereijk

Quote
ROPENI
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?

It's comparing apples and oranges. I've seen them both a couple of times.
Bruce and the E Street Band don't use any visual aspects other than the video screens
that only serve to have people in the back some view of what is happening. This gives
them a lot of freedom to play whatever they want. Plus, even being Little Steven or
Max Weinberg or Nils Lofgren does not give any member of the E St Band any rights to
attract attention to themselves other than for their musical input.

The Stones provide a complete show, with visual effects fitting the songs played on stage.
Ronnie and Keith have an image of their own (clown or pirate) they have to take care of
while playing their instruments. It's all part of the complete show and well rehearsed.
And I think Mick would hate if if there were long improvised musical sessions with a
chance of failure. So sticking to the routine will provide an almost perfect show.

Hi l do understand your points,but if l want to see a light show l go to the Planetarium,personally l don't want to pay $800,to see a couple of 70+s guitar players pretending to be 20 something and showing off without really playing,l have seen Bruce maybe 10 times including before he became "The Boss" and The Stones about 30 times up to 2005,and l have to say give me the music without fanfare to a glitter broadway show....

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

Quote
ab

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.

A dear friend of mine caught Bruce on Broadway a couple weeks ago. She managed to get decent priced seats that were less than $800.00 and told me that it was a great experience that she had no regrets paying for- in fact, the show-exceeded her expectations.

To be honest, I feel a bit tired of the discussions about set lists, just for one reason: “Both sides” have already conveyed their thoughts and arguments. Nothing new. Pure recycling. Anyway…

Regardless of what everyone likes or dislikes, the fact (No1) is that acts are enforcing different “policies” on the “set list issue”. I suppose we all know examples of any “category”.

Another fact (No 2) is that the Stones became an extremely successful live act, doing what they are doing. So, it surprises me that some people here are relating the slow sales for this tour with… everything they want to support…

If people were tired of hearing “JJF”, “PIB” and “Satisfaction” (BTW, I see the opposite attending Stones concerts…) and if this fantasy - factor could affect the sales, then I suppose we would already see “symptoms” of this “reluctance”, on the recent tours. Progressively, of course. But the Stones filled any venue they played, having amazing attendances. Sorry, but I can’t accept the theory that the audiences can suddenly realize that they need “Mrs Amanda Jones” instead of “JJF"…


We have discussed to death about factors which are making slower the sales for this tour (just see Gazza’s comments on Dublin gig). I don’t see how set lists could be among them.

BTW, what do you mean, ROPENI, saying “Bruce sells more tickets”? Of course he sells more, because the Stones, at their age, don’t do mammoth tours anymore. From 2012 to 2016, by 256 gigs, Bruce attracted 6.4 million people. From 2012 to 2017, only doing 104 gigs, the Stones attracted approx. 4 million people (nearly 4.5 m, Havana included), despite the high prices they charge. Do you really think the Stones are less successful than Bruce?

This video shows Bruce Springsteen has turned into a clown.....

[www.youtube.com]

It's easier for the Stones to "fill" stadiums when they're only going out on these mini-tours, but even then they cant seem to get true sellouts.
Can't imagine them having the same overall "success" they used to have when they would do tours that spanned a year or two. Now it's a matter of supply and demand, and when the demand isn't quite there they shorten the tour to 14 shows. Some people jump on it thinking it's some sort of exclusive situation ("only 14 shows"!), others don't want to miss out on the possibility of it being the last time, and then there are those who will see them wherever and whenever no matter what. And finally, there are those who are turned off by the outrageous prices only to see a regurgitated show that's been beaten to death and are unwilling to go. Looking at the last two arena shows in Las *Vegas 2016 (the only two shows not counting Desert Trip), and before the cancellation of the first show - there were plenty of unsold tickets for both shows. Entire sections were being price dropped. Then with the cancellation of the first show, there might have been some who had tickets for the first show and then went ahead and bought tickets for the second show - but even then there were tickets available at the box office the day of the show, and secondary markets were practically giving tickets away. It might have eventually "sold out" in the final hour prior to the show, but it was an uphill battle for them to sell as many tickets as they originally might have thought they could. Cant imagine what will happen if they do return to the US. While some of the smaller cities might sell well (depending on the price structure), doubt that many of the shows in the big markets will have the same success unless they drop prices drastically and/or change things up - if they can't sell out two arena shows in Las Vegas, that's a sign that the demand just isn't there any more. Whether it being too expensive, or the reluctance to see the same old show, or a combo of both is hard to say, but they'll need to make it extra special if they want it to be successful.

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

The talk of 'nostalgy act' vs. 'living and breathing band' is just romantical semantics these days, belonging to the vocabulary of the past, so 20th Century, not relevant any longer by any accounts. The Stones have outlived all that. Even Jagger doesn't seem to give a flying f..k about that any longer for PR purposes. His last cry for that in 2005, quoted here in this thread, sounded already then damn surreal and even corny.

The issue of so called 'war horses' has nothing to do with weak fingers or safe arrangements or artistic lazyness but a pragmatical one: which songs work best to create a best possible atmopshere for the band and audience to enjoy the event. The whole point of their existence is to provide such authentic, once-in-a-lifetime events of maximal satisfaction (sic) for each participiant. That's their selling point. That of the songs being familiar ones for the audience has a huge role there. Then we have Keith Richards talking about how he discovers something new every time he plays the riff of "Satisfaction" or "Jumpin' Jack Flash", etc. I don't think he much bullshits there: it must be a helluva feeling to hit those riffs and feel the audience of tens of thousands eating from your hand. To get that reaction, and be the effective agent in the middle of all that, must be not just thrilling but damn addictive. Like Mick once half-jokingly mentioned, that of them reducing their shows from stadiums to smaller locations, Keith would be the first one to protest... Without the 'war horses' they wouldn't be long there at those huge mass appeal happenings in creating people - and for themselves - those special mutual experiences but in somewhere we would find more artistic-minded people like Bobby Dylan or Neil Young traveling on. The Stones 'click' differently and offer different kind of experiences than those guys who have altogether a different relation and connection to their audiences. Bruce Springsteen is somewhere there in the middle of the road between those two extremes.

On with the show. It starts again tomorrow...

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball

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!

Well, brother Hairball, you seem to be missing my point;
you sound like eager to (and only open to, as it seems?!) brandmark Jagger’s words as “inconsquent ” …
whereas I’m pointing out the factor of “progressive insight” that may or might have been in play. And yès, I do think - if so - that ABB was a turning point in that.

Anyway –

The Stones’ songs have ALWAYS grown on stage. Warhorses ànd turds; fillers ànd killers; warths & all. It is, quite simply, the way they play. The way they make music. So that point is VERY valid.
And if you ONLY hear “click tracks” and sounds that are “in synch w/staging, lighting”, than you are définitely missing out on a lot of good shit – and then I do pitty you a bit (for in that case you must have that problem in other places too, I’m sure.)

But I simply conquer your qualification of ABB being “crappy” - ànd use that to make the point of 'why bother even playing them...'. That may very well be your opinion; but opinions are not facts, not arguments, they’re not reasoning. In fact: you need all these things to base your opinion on – and to make a point come across. Not vice versa.
Besides that, it sounds extremely inconsequent to my ears to call out for “care […] about being relevant and producing new material”, then immediately call the most recent album (because that was what I was talking about, and what you were reacting to…) “crappy songs”, then question Jagger’s “cocky atitude”, and finish it all of with a rant about an "oldies band […] milking the past catalogue for all it’s worth”.

…If you don’t like their new songs consider the latest Stones’ output below par: feel free to say so – but then don’t ask for more. Because it won’t get any better.

Regardless of their rather unimaginative setlist: the Stones are not an ‘oldies’ band. Because actual ‘oldies’ bands have nothing else on offer but their back catalogue, laced with nostalgia sentiments.
The Stones are a LIVE band. Their shows are, musically(!), still exciting. That’s why people go see them (over and over again). And I, occasionally, am one of those people. And there’s many of those. Fans ànd newbies. Simply because: who cares about the actual setlist, and whether or not there's a recent or just post-1995 or post-1981 song on it, if you know for a fact that some of the very best rock’n’roll tunes of al time are played?! And (still) in a quite blistering way, judging only by their most recent stint last year even, I have to add? What has thàt got to do with “milking” a “past catalogue for all it’s worth”…?! It's Live Rock'n'Roll.

I’ll have my deep cuts at home, if they don’t wanna play them.
(I've seen plenty of those anyway.)
And if they never release or play a brand new song ever again? Then I’ll feel sorry about that, because I don’t consider anything post-Tattoo You as a really great achievement, but I do like what they’ve brought us on “Voodoo Lounge” and (a bit of) “Bridges” and (even!) “Licks” and (definitely!) “Bang”.

…Why don’t you give that last one another spin?

Excellent post, RoughJusticeOnYa

That's quite a long winded reply RoughJusticeOnYa that has hints of being condescending with a small dose of personal insults - but I'll steer clear of all that for the sake of civility.

"I do pitty you a bit (for in that case you must have that problem in other places too, I’m sure".

Ummm ok...moving right along....


If you can genuinely hear an evolution of Doom and Gloom since the first time it was played to the last, then more power to you. The same goes for any number of their "recent" songs - those being from A Bigger Bang. The fact is the way the shows are set up is the songs really have no room to "grow". There's Chuck at the helm counting the songs off, there's the lighting, the visuals, the screens - all of which are in synch for the most part. It's not quite as structured as say a Roger Waters concert, but there's defnitely limitation as to how much room there is to veer off track. Sure there's an occasional difference in a lick hear or there (mainly because of a screw up), but surely you're not talking about improvising and evolving and "growing" in the same way some other artists perform their music. Has Mick ever changed lyrics or the way he sings certain recent songs in an attempt to make them "grow"? I don't think so as the main goal from him and the rest of the band is to replicate as closely as possible to the original recordings. This goes along with Mick's philosophy from 2013 of "why do anything new - the crowd get bored", so to veer to far off the original track would go against that. Most in attendance are content with hearing replicas, and they usually don't want them given a new finish, so Mick and company obliges.

As for ABB, I did (and still do) enjoy a couple of tunes from it, but for the most part it's my least favorite album from them since Tattoo You. And none of it grew any better when it was played live.

As for your comment "If you don’t like their new songs consider the latest Stones’ output below par: feel free to say so – but then don’t ask for more. Because it won’t get any better".

I beg to differ as there's always hope. With the covers album they were able to get back to the roots and work together as a team, and even though they're just blues covers, the results shined bright for the most part in comparison to their last several studio albums of originals. Given that, there's a chance that some of that good vibe can carry over to some new originals, and the next thinbg you know there's a great new Stones album! Never say never as there's always a glimmer of hope when it comes to the Stones.


As for your statement: "who cares about the actual setlist, and whether or not there's a recent or just post-1995 or post-1981 song on it, if you know for a fact that some of the very best rock’n’roll tunes of al time are played?! And (still) in a quite blistering way, judging only by their most recent stint last year even, I have to add? What has thàt got to do with “milking” a “past catalogue for all it’s worth”…?! It's Live Rock'n'Roll"


Are you serious? Many people care and don't go to their shows because of it. It's an oldies nostalgia act - no other way to look at it.
At the same time, many still find joy in that and more power to them. If they ever come back to the US, I'll see them if they're close enough and if I can get in for under $100, but I'll go in knowing they're an oldies nostalgia act who are hanging by a thread performing their classic material a few levels below of what they once were able to.

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

Quote
laertisflash
Excellent post, RoughJusticeOnYa

Of course The Rolling Stones is a nostalgia act. To argue against that would only be foolish. And of course the 1112:th live version of JJFlash or Satisfaction sounds about the same as the 1856:th.
No doubt about that. But I guess there are a number of reasons people still go to the concerts. Like meeting up with friends, enjoying the atmosphere, having a reason to travel, see a new city,
and their favorite band for, maybe, the last time. Those reasons are as valid as any other.

Quote
Stoneage
Of course The Rolling Stones is a nostalgia act. To argue against that would only be foolish. And of course the 1112:th live version of JJFlash or Satisfaction sounds about the same as the 1856:th.
No doubt about that. But I guess there are a number of reasons people still go to the concerts. Like meeting up with friends, enjoying the atmosphere

having a reason to travel, see a new city,
and their favorite band for, maybe, the last time. Those reasons are as valid as any other.

Indeed this is the truth of the matter - great post.

Everyone has differing opinions and that's what makes this forum interesting. You have the cheerleaders who will never say a bad thing about their band. Then there's those who thought the Stones were finished when Mick Taylor left the band - there's even some who think it was over when Brian left! Then there's those who fall somewhere in between the above extremes. And there's an infinite number of sub-categories of what it means to be a fan of the band, and thankfully so. Meanwhile, looking forward to watching a live stream of tomorrows show and a few of the following ones - will be interesting to witness some of the songs "grow" right before my eyes!!!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-17 00:05 by Hairball.

loose bedspring!

Quote
mtaylor
This video shows Bruce Springsteen has turned into a clown.....

[www.youtube.com]

Well, to each his own.
Moments of improvisation, like shown here, are part of the fun I get from going to a
Springsteen show. I can understand others have different opinions, that's why it is good
that there's more than just one artist we can choose to see.

In a couple of weeks I will be seeing Roger Waters. That will be a completely different
kind of show. I hope to enjoy that one too.
Sometimes I enjoy a beer, other times I drink wine. I might even drink soda now and then.
I don't feel the need to compare those drinks. I just enjoy them for what they are.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-17 12:31 by marcovandereijk.

The Stones trained and educated this kind of audience over many years.
Nobody must wonder about it by now.Its their own fault.

Many music/Stones lovers just don't go to their gigs anymore cause they know what to expect.They filled their places over years with a Vegas audience with good bucks.

In the 60's it was 15 min.
In the 70's they were too stoned to do more varying shows.
81/82 and 89/90 were like huge comeback tours with the big hits.
And after that they've been too lazy most of the time.(Licks tour wasn't too bad!)
Now they are really old.

Another reason is they are not that great musicians and have to rely on the core members.Dylan,Who,Bruce,etc. all brought in new, better and younger player.

But primarily they are just too lazy and have other aims on their tours than giving people(and themselves?) an interesting evening with a nice surprising setlist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-17 13:48 by CousinC.

Quote
CousinC
The Stones trained and educated this kind of audience over many years.
Nobody must wonder about it by now.Its their own fault.

Many music/Stones lovers just don't go to their gigs anymore cause they know what to expect.They filled their places over years with a Vegas audience with good bucks.

In the 60's it was 15 min.
In the 70's they were too stoned to do more varying shows.
81/82 and 89/90 were like huge comeback tours with the big hits.
And after that they've been too lazy most of the time.(Licks tour wasn't too bad!)
Now they are really old.

Another reason is they are not that great musicians and have to rely on the core members.Dylan,Who,Bruce,etc. all brought in new, better and younger player.

But primarily they are just too lazy and have other aims on their tours than giving people(and themselves?) an interesting evening with a nice surprising setlist.

Excellent observations...some tough love here, but it's the truth.

Just one quibble...the E Street Band is still pretty much all original members...almost all of them are in their 60s. Only Jake (Clarence's nephew) is younger. Even Charles Giordano (who replaced Dan Federici when he passed) is 63.

Bruce doesn't have many "warhorses" really. Big hits such as Hungry Heart, The River and BITUSA are not always played. You can expect to hear:

Born To Run
Dancing In The Dark
Tenth Avenue (played because it is about the history of the band)
The Rising

The Darlington County/Working On The Highway duo are played more often than the diehards like, because they bring all the casual fans back from the bars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-17 15:20 by nobodyimportant.

Does it really matter?

Bruce's warhorse policy does not make me want to buy a ticket to see his show.

Stones are able to sell me multiple tickets regardless their warhorse policy.

I guess this means I am a Stones fan and not a BS fan.

C

Quote
mtaylor
This video shows Bruce Springsteen has turned into a clown.....

[www.youtube.com]

What a ridiculous statement. They made a rocking version on the spot at that show, and it’s awesome. Really playing up to the Caribbean sounds of Chuck Berry. I don’t get why someone CAN’T like this. It’s awesome to watch, and he did the same song when I saw him two years ago.

Fun fact: Bruce gets the horn melody wrong. What he’s singing is the vocal melody line. It works nonetheless.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
mtaylor
This video shows Bruce Springsteen has turned into a clown.....

[www.youtube.com]

What a ridiculous statement. They made a rocking version on the spot at that show, and it’s awesome. Really playing up to the Caribbean sounds of Chuck Berry. I don’t get why someone CAN’T like this. It’s awesome to watch, and he did the same song when I saw him two years ago.

Fun fact: Bruce gets the horn melody wrong. What he’s singing is the vocal melody line. It works nonetheless.

Some people here irrationally hate Bruce. You won't be able to talk any sense into them.

Bruce and Dylan change their sets around, Stones and Petty when he was alive don't. At this point I have heard just about all of the Sones songs that I wanted hear live. hell, they even did Under the Boardwalk.