Who is this guy? Is there anyone out there who has thought of paying this guy off to write better set lists?Maybe if he was able to sneak a couple of rarities in that the band has rehearsed without going overboard,they might follow what was written.

Post of the day!!

Enough about the set list...they play for there fans !! most people are not going to 10-20- shows a tour . god bless you if you are Robert Bagel or the Jappenese couple that go to everyshow.....enjoy it ...

It is not about seeing 20 shows per tour.It is about seeing a set list that accurately represents their whole career while not becoming too repetitive except where necessary (JJF etc.).Take a look at the '81 set list for example.Why do people not understand this?If they played for their fans - people who like their albums,they would play more album tracks and not You Got Me Rocking at 95% of shows since '94.

anyway it's a woman who does it.

What's so great about the '81 set list? And whatever it is, could it be done similarly with 6 more albums of material?

It represented their career pretty well + many new songs.While it would be difficult to do it now with all of the material released since then,they could at least make a good effort in that direction.The Virginia concert on Thursday featured two songs from the past 22 years.What if in '75 they played 2 songs from the seventies and 20 songs from the early sixties?They didn't want to do it then.Why are they doing it now?I recognize that the early '70's material is pretty strong but,I think they have quite a few quality songs made after '81.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It represented their career pretty well + many new
> songs.While it would be difficult to do it now
> with all of the material released since then,they
> could at least make a good effort in that
> direction.The Virginia concert on Thursday
> featured two songs from the past 22 years.What if
> in '75 they played 2 songs from the seventies and
> 20 songs from the early sixties?They didn't want
> to do it then.Why are they doing it now?I
> recognize that the early '70's material is pretty
> strong but,I think they have quite a few quality
> songs made after '81.


AND they rushed through them without going on for half an hour like nowadays(stuff like Jumping Jack Flash) so they can play 25 instead of a mere 20.
I love that setlist too. It's full of warhorses but in a way it really rocks.

Its not really full of warhorses, actually

Half the show was taken from their three most recent albums (the two most recent of which they were touring behind for the first time)

Of the rest of the songs,they played a couple of unreleased covers and of the old stuff they played Let It Bleed for the first time and Lets spend the night together, Ruby Tuesday and Time Is on My Side which hadnt been played since the mid '60's. (Ok, LSTNT was played at El Mocambo (and maybe Knebworth) but thats about it)

Quite a few 'warhorses' were omitted. Sympathy, Street Fighting Man (apart froma couple of times), Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler - nothing from IORR or Black and Blue and GHS also almost entirely overlooked.

It literally was a mix of old, new, borrowed and blue - and in some cases, almost forgotten

The set list was 10 times better in 81, the perfect mix of everything. Its almost odd to think that on some nights the Stones won't do anything pre-1968 besides Satisfaction. It also strange how they play such a weak song like You Got Me Rocking every night and every tour since it was released. Its got to be laziness. Listen to the crowd at MSG or Fenway when YGMR starts. dead quiet.

wrong,ygmr,got the garden crowd rockin.

john scialfa

>>It also strange how they play such a weak song like You Got Me Rocking every night and every tour since it was released. Its got to be laziness.<<

Weak song? Don't think so. It also happens to be a favorite among the band, with Charlie Watts once commenting that he doesn't particularly like rock, but he always liked that particular number. In terms of comparative audience silence, one could sadly make that argument for about anything they play post-Tattoo.

"You look like a leper dressed as Sergeant Pepper"

The original post here about paying off the person who writes the set list on the glass is a great suggestion. On more than one occasion the Stones forgot their own set list and started or performed the wrong song. Probably if Keith walked up and saw "Prodigal Son" on the glass he'd lauch right into it. That would be the coup of the century for the diehard fans. LOL

The Guy Who Writes The Set List On The Glass - yeah, who is he?
has he ever made mistakes?
could Charlie always identify his writing?
has Keith ever bumped into the glass?
how is the drums sound in between those glass walls?

these are the important questions - not another whining about the setlist itself.

Yeah, so the 'glass' version is different but the printed versions at the sound and lighting desk is the same. Then they all start playing different songs at the same time or don't have the right guitar ready.

I remember seeing somewhere (possibly FF doc?) a bit of film where there is a sudden panic because the setlist hasn't been written on the glass yet!

GR - could that be what happened recently when Keef ripped into IORR but Mick started on Satisfaction?

There was also confusion in New York when Mick announced the wrong song.