sladog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, I guess you would be asleep then at a Bruce
> show. On his last tour to support The Rising, he
> did about 5 or 6 songs from the new album. He
> played them with such energy and gusto that the
> crowd rocked to every one of them.


Exactly sladog. When Pink Floyd toured for The Division Bell (an album that I didn't like), they really played the new songs with enthusiasm. Thus, they had a nice mix of their "warhorses" and the newer material. Although I didn't care for the new stuff, I still appreciated the fact that they put so much energy into playing the songs from the new album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-20 16:51 by Splattered, All Over Manhattan.

>The "big on nostalgia" argument don't hold water much. If "they" are so big on nostalgia, what will happen if the Stones dig into their back catalogue further and present them with fascinating, never before heard pieces from the past? Odds are high that they're going to be EVEN BIGGER STILL on nostalgia and will go back home all excited about having yet more reasons to go out and buy that weird LP with the cake on the front...

By "big on nostalgia", I mean nostalgia that they're familiar with. (you cant, by definition, be nostalgic about something you dont remember or arent familiar with) The people I'm referring to are simply going to a concert to hear what they already know, not get educated into discovering something they don't, whether its new or old. They're too lazy to care - and the lack of US album sales of ABB when put in proportion to the amount of tickets the Stones have sold in that country merely validates that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-20 17:02 by Gazza.

Gazza - I agree with you - and I stated in my first post that we need to see more of the "middle" range classics like Under My Thumb, Stray Cat etc...
These are classics in the minds of many hard-core and "fair-weather" Stones followers.

Even a song like Tops...!

If we all think the Stones are the "greatest" then surely they can change up to 8 songs a night with classics I mention above ??

Esky

p.s. The Rising is an excellent album.

Esky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza - I agree with you - and I stated in my
> first post that we need to see more of the
> "middle" range classics like Under My Thumb, Stray
> Cat etc...
> These are classics in the minds of many hard-core
> and "fair-weather" Stones followers.


I think thats perfectly reasonable. To expect a large scale show laden with total obscurities and missing 'warhorses' isnt. Nobody is realistically asking for that that I can see.

The Stones have, I dunno, maybe 30-40 songs at least that I would guess that 90% in the audience would recognize quite easily. Maybe more. Wouldnt most people agree? Its certainly not 10-12.

And if you have THAT many well known songs, you can certainly rest or rotate some of the others from time to time.

Something else that I have noticed re: the setlists...

The "warhorses" themselves are not well served by the obviousness of the Stones' approach. That is to say, by making "Brown Sugar" (for example) a obligatory part of "The High-Priced Rolling Stones Concert Experience," they've actually diminished the value of the song. Even people hearing the tune live for the very first time instinctively realize that it's a pro forma part of the evening.

By making better than half the show a run of deadly obvious megahits, they lose any sense of thrill and dynamics. It all just hurtles along at one energy level--not the best way to show off some of the greatest songs in rock'n'roll history.

Now, imagine that some nights, "Brown Sugar" got played and others that "Satisfaction" or "IORR" went into its slot...if people heard, say five of the monster hits on a rotating basis, it would seem a thrill, not just a cynical payoff to a lazy audience.

Besides, when the Stones legitimately nail something, the crowd always reacts. At both Fenway and Charlottesville, "Nighttime" blew the place away, as did "Out of Control" in '97-'98, or "Not Fade Away" in '94-'95.

In places as big as 20,000 and up, showmanship is a must (and "Tops" probably isn't going to work). There isn't a doubt in my mind that if the Stones tore into "Around and Around" late in the show that they could electrify the place while making the ensuing performance of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" seem even more special.

Rev., that is gospell!!!

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think so. They have 40+ years of history
> to take care of. The songs that made less crowd
> reaction at Tampa tonight were "Rough Justice" and
> "Back Of My Hand". It might be an interesting
> experiment having half the show with new songs,
> but I am afraid the queues for buying beer would
> be a lot longer than they were at Tampa during the
> new songs.
>
> Why is it so hard to realize the facts? The big
> hits are the most popular songs. For 98% of the
> crowd. Even for me!
>
> Bjornulf

Maybe the solution might be for the band during the continuation of the world tour at some smaller venues of club size to announce special ABB concerts where NO other Stones songs would be played. If they have some unused material in the can, they might even say those magical words:" We're gonna do a new one". And maybe later on the same night do that trick for the second time.

And if this would leave time to spare, I would suggest the following: Let Mick and Keith choose one song from the other's solo albums for the band to play. And let each one of them nominate similarly one of their own songs also for the band to make a live version of.

Such concerts would probably not be for the 98 % (or for Bjornulf) to like. But for the remaining 1 or 2 % that would buy tickests for such an occasion, announced as such,it would be a memory to cherish. - And hopefully it would result in a magic concert album that even I might obtain later on. For, in 2005, ABB is a magic album!

> We're gonna do a new one

Like Brown Sugar in Altamont (on Mick Taylor's suggestion, if I'm right).

Strangely enough, they started the tour while the album was still not in the shops, and
they played _some_ of its songs nonetheless. So they don't seem to care too much
on the crowd's reaction. Which is notoriously fanatic when they hear Satisfaction
because they can much remember riff.

Conclusion: the Stones are just lazy. Hasn't She Was Hot been a major hit once? Is it impossible to play? And isn't One Hit a nice song? And first and foremost, going there and having all the beautiful (or as you say magic) new songs replaced by the ca. 1432nd 10min rendition of You Want Always What You Get would slightly reduce my enthusiasm.

Oh no, not you again!!!!

i don't understand their lack of promotion of their new album. i mean hell, that crapass eminem commercial is on 25 times a day promoting his greatest(i use that term loosely) hits cd coming out. They should be proud of this album and play more off it . I don't see any reason why it has not been promoted more via tv or radio or print even.

Roger457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not knocking the setlist from the current tour
> but I do believe the Stones have missed a golden
> opportunity. With a great album on the market
> they could be playing 8 or 9 songs off it each
> night and proving they truly believe in their new
> music and that they are still relevent artists in
> 2005.

You know the answer: they don't believe in their new material (and I don't either). I'm ok with the "warhorses" (even if I find that an impossible word) but there are so many people always crying for "Moonlight mile", "Sway" and "Time waits for no one" - should they play for 3 hours or what? No, they just listen and play. I haven't heard anyone asking for the new stuff or even for all the stuff released since the 1980s. No serious rock concert critic ever asked for that stuff. So they don't play it.

It's different with us forum aficionados of course, but who will ask us? I wouldn't have any problem with the Stones doing only songs from BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG plus maybe "Jumpin' jack flash" and "Gimme shelter". I would like to be there and I'd also like to have some bootlegs of such shows.

I think it's hard to decide for them: if the Stones play 10 new song every night it will be surely someone who will get annoyed to not hear Brown Sugar or Miss You, if they play only two songs from the new album peple keep askin' why...

Nope Gazza, I disagree with you when you say the ones who return, show after show come to hear warhorses! I can only speak for myself but I see many shows HOPING for a FEW GEMS! I should know the pattern by now though; the last 7 songs are basicly the same but the order changes, the first 9 songs will be where you're likely to get a couple of different tunes. Start me up kicks off the set, it seems either Satisfaction or Brown Sugar ends the set list. I keep going to see what will be premiered in the first 9 tunes. At the first Philly show, ANGIE and RAIN FALL DOWN were both premiers, for this tour. I just wish that within the first 9, we'd get 5 or 6 new ones each night! Guess we'll have to wait to see if they rehearse new tunes over the 4 week Holiday break.

I agree with Gazza about the ticket prices. The more you charge, the more the crowd controls the set list.