Only 20 songs in Tampa and Charlotte.

Is this to be expected from now until the end of the year?

Don't be surprised with 19 songs set soon, just like Europe 2003.
The days of 22+ songs setlist are long gone.

they should be playing 6 new ones by now,...like in 1994.....

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

At $450 a ticket:

22 songs = $20.41 per
21 songs = $21.43 per
20 songs = $22.05 per
19 songs = $23.04 per

If you sense a shorter show, buy 1 less beer. You get a better deal!


Karl

PS: Hold your pee-pee, even better!

MUST HAVE BEER

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

lunar!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MUST HAVE BEER
>

that's a dam good point, Lunar!

at $7 a beer:

21 songs $0.30 per
22 songs $0.16 per (cause you get another beer)

Karl

Go to a garth brooks show and he will probably play 100 country songs for you at 25 dollars. If you are only in it for the money.

Bjornulf

BV why are you so pro Stones at any comment? Do they pay you?

johang, i don`t think that`s a fair question. have you already been to some shows at this current tour? of course it would be fine to have 26 songs like gone tours, also it would be fine.... but hey, they`re still rolling and i think, that`s the point we`ve to be thankful for.

I think BV is pretty hilarious if you ask me. He's allowed to critizise acts like Macca and Garth Brooks, but if anybody will have negative remarks about the Stones he gets totally unreasonable because in his mind the boys are immaculate. Sometimes I get the feeling BV is a defense lawyer on the Stones payrole.

Sometimes I wonder for who BV is doing all this work for. He often must ask himself that question probably.

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At $450 a ticket:
>
> 22 songs = $20.41 per
> 21 songs = $21.43 per
> 20 songs = $22.05 per
> 19 songs = $23.04 per
>
> If you sense a shorter show, buy 1 less beer. You
> get a better deal!
>
>
> Karl
>
> PS: Hold your pee-pee, even better!

22 songs = 5.4 per beer

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to a garth brooks show and he will probably
> play 100 country songs for you at 25 dollars. If
> you are only in it for the money.
>
> Bjornulf


You are missing the point, Bjornulf.
If the Stones decide to play just 20 songs or even just 19 songs each show I could live with it, well more or less...
BUT:
what makes me angry is the point that the Stones vary the number of songs from show to show...that seems not fair.
They started the tour 2 months ago ant the offered shows from 22 songs down to 19.
They play one show with 21 songs...the next 2 with 20 songs than back to 22..down to 20..up to 21 and so on.

I ask myself: What is the reason ?
2 songs more....come on boys..we are talking about 10 minutes or something...
it means nothing for the band..BUT it means so much, almost evrything,
for the fans.
It is not, as if they do not have the power or the ability to deliver 22 songs each night.
IMO the Stones of 2005 should play like that:
Each show not less than 22 songs.....due to the great song catalouge they have.
Each show not less than 2 hours......cause they have a day off after every gig and finaly, it has a very deep psychological influence, by saying that the Rolling Stones these days still can deliver an 2 hour+ show.
If you say they play less than 2 hours, critics may say:
" Ah...here we are, they are loosing power..they even can not deliver the 2 hour margin."

All these points are not that important at all.....and I know that the main point is the quality of the songs not the number of songs, but hey:
it costs them nothing...and brings them more respect from fanside.

By the way....each show should contain MR.....cause that is what the Stones
are about...and gives the younger fans an impressive view to Stones musical roots...but this is another story...which has been mentioned in another threat.

salar

"At $450 a ticket:

22 songs = $20.41 per
21 songs = $21.43 per
20 songs = $22.05 per
19 songs = $23.04 per

If you sense a shorter show, buy 1 less beer. You get a better deal!


Karl

PS: Hold your pee-pee, even better! "

The least people pay 450 USD per show.
In Europe the average price is 75 USD
That makes it:
22 songs = $3.30 per
21 songs = $3.45 per
20 songs = $3.63 per
19 songs = $3.82 per

Average price in Europe 75 US dollars? you must be kidding. Wait another two months and you'll see how unreal this statement is. I bet 120 to 130 Euros (=160 US dollars) is much more realistic for an average ticket for 2006.This does not include the UK prices because they will be a lot higher for what reason ever. But still, I agree with you, countrvkonk,it will be a lot cheaper than in the US.

If johang was right I would never run this web site. If fact he would not have the pleasure to attach me personally here. And he would notmeven be able to see the set list on IORR. But the fact is I still run it despite of stupid and insulting comments like the one coming from johang. You know you can accuse people for a bribe when you are drunk and get your face punched, and you can do it in public and get sued for it. I don't hurt people but I can tell them what I think about them when they say such foolish things. For me, it is just pathetic when people accuse me for such things.

And if I ever close down IORR, it will be because of people like johang, who can't accept that some people do actually love the stones, whether they play 2 or 3 hours or 20 or 25 songs.

I have the right to say that the quality of the show is not by quantity but by quality. Every time. I was at the Charlotte show. Did any of you who complain about short or boring set lists actually go to the Charlotte show? I don't think so. At least I did not get your reviews telling us how boring and short the show was. If you don't document your opinions then they are not worth much. You see my review up there. Plain and simple. Does it look like it was a boring show?

I would much rather have the Stones playing with full energy for 2 hours on 20 songs than having 2-3 songs extra when they are actually dead and gone. And believe me, it might actually be the case for the crowd before the band.

So you may say you hate the short set lists as many times as you like, but as long as you don't make it with your real name and with a review of the show telling why it was bad, it is just plaing old fashioned moaning because you were not there.

Bjornulf

right on bjornulf......the stones still do it better than anyone. whether its 10 songs or 25....jagger, richards, wood and watts are giving us 100% for every show. and they are playing like they were 20 again... funny, no band out today plays or even can sell tickets like the stones..and they are 60+..
we all want them to be 30 again..and we want them to play for 5 or 6 hours...ha..
plus i want them to play at my home so i don't have to leave my warm home..ha
but i want them and i'm very excited to report that they are giving their fans 100% with so much energy that they are making us feel young again....thats a rock show...so if you didn't see them yet...well stop griping....you will love them...and i want to just say thank you to the stones for giving me my monies worth!
and thank you, bjornulf for setting people straight and getting excited about the greatest rock and roll band of ALL TIME...let it rock!

throw us a bone once in awhile, bv, and say something less than positive about the Stones and maybe you'd convince us. The continuing shrinking setlist is NOT a positive thing - can't believe you wouldn't agree with that.

Of course we'd all like to see 22 songs (or 23, or 24 ...), but I look at it this way: there is no way on God's green earth that I and/or 99% of the people on this board could run around a gigantic stage for two hours while singing the way Mick does. And he is 62 freakin' years old! There are plenty of us in our 20s and 30s who couldn't do it. I'm 35 and I would probably keel over dead by the fifth or sixth song. And I am in decent shape, just not "Mick Jagger shape."

Give the man a break! Two hours is probably the longest he can manage, and that is damn good. Some of you try running around for two hours, and then have someone tell you "come on, what's ten more minutes?" It's an eternity if you are dead tired and just finished a two hour workout!

ONNYA:

I agree with your points - to which I would say, if you can't deliver the goods, don't try to sell them.

I also agree with bjornulf. It strikes me that many (not all) of those who whine about the shows haven't been to a show for the last few years or, based on some of the comments, for several decades.Go to a show and enjoy yourself instead of hunching over a computer and trying to think up a pithy, cynical comment about musicians and "the state of music today," as if this thread hasn't been torn and frayed for a couple of centuries (remember how good Beethoven was before he sold out, man? He shoulda stayed true like Amadeus, dude). On a related note, it seems that the human taste buds are most receptive to beer around 10:30 AM CDT and it seems like a good day to test that theory. Cheers.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ONNYA:
>
> I agree with your points - to which I would say,
> if you can't deliver the goods, don't try to sell
> them.

Where on your ticket does it promise a two hour and ten minute show? If it says that, then i agree that they are selling goods they can't deliver. But of course they never promised that, and in fact two hours is a reasonable length for a rock show. Who is around now who is playing longer than that? Yes, Paul McCartney, but he just stands there the whole show so it doesn't count. Anybody else playing more than two hours these days?

check the stats - show is coming in at 1:50 routinely...and dropping. 2 hours is pretty much the standard at every rock show these days. my point remains. I'm merely echoing you, ONNYA - you're the one telling me they don't have the stamina. your serve.

i'd just like to know what chooses it for them. Are they getting tired as the tour rolls on? Are they dropping a number or two fomr the rotation because they feel it is not working>

Anyone out there have any insight on how they choose the set for anight. Supposedly Chuck has some say; i cant imagine, though, he wants a shorter show. Good bad or indifferent, when they choose the songs, thy ahvae to realize the number and when it is less, there must a discussion of some sort. I guess we'll never be privy to that (until Chuck is out of the "band" and writes his "I was the 6th Stone" memoir.


Despite all the complaining in here, i am psyched i got a ticket the other day for MSG (the 20th) and i know for the third time in NYC this tour i will not be disappointed (unless, of course i score a ticket for the 18th, then it will be the fourth).

But, now reality sets in and i am off with the kids to see Wallace and Grommit (sp?) Anyone know if the sneak any Stones stuff into the background?? me and three kids under 9 in a theater for two hours--i'll take a 20 song Stones hsow any time!!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> check the stats - show is coming in at 1:50
> routinely...and dropping. 2 hours is pretty much
> the standard at every rock show these days. my
> point remains. I'm merely echoing you, ONNYA -
> you're the one telling me they don't have the
> stamina. your serve.

Charlotte 10/21: 1 hour, 50 minutes (110 minutes)
Tampa, 10/19: 1 hour, 55 minutes (115 minutes)
Miami, 10/17: 2 hours (120 minutes)
Atlanta, 10/15: 1 hour, 55 minutes (115 minutes)
Philly, 10/12: 2 hours, 5 minutes (125 minutes)


The show is not routinely coming in at 1 hour, 50 minutes, it has done that exactly once, in the last show. The average time for the last five shows is 117 minutes, three minutes short of two hours.

what a bunch of arseholes, sitting calculating the music2money ratio. Unbelievable. The Stones rock and they never needed nerdy arseholes like you guys. Im flying from Scotland to Missouri at the end of Jan to see them and I bet none of you @#$%& bed wetters will be there. I'll be sure to tell you all if we get 20 songs or 19. Want me to use my stopwatch!!

I don't know, but they can make "medley" on the shows.
What about an acoustic set each night?
Why not a medley with songs as No Expectations/Prodigal Son/Wild Horses/Far Away Eyes and many more acoustic numbers?
They can make many more songs on the shows, but not playing the whole songs. They can play a medley of 8-9 minutes with 3 songs, this can be the most incredible part of the show.

So someone's found something else to gripe about. What a complete bunch of ungrateful whingers and that's putting it VERY politely. How about setting up your own board where you can moan away among yourselves to your hearts' content and throw insults where they are deserved - i.e., at each other. It's all extremely simple - just don't go to any concerts and instead spend your money wherever else you think you're going to get better value or whatever and perhaps even ENJOY yourselves. No one's going to miss you, that's for sure.

> I was at the Charlotte show. Did any of you
> who complain about short or boring set lists
> actually go to the Charlotte show?


Bjornulf, I was there and, yes, I do complain for only 20 songs. Durham and Atlanta were great with 21. They did not even play 2 hours in Charlotte. They are not really giving their fans their moneys worth if you ask me. Yes, it was a great show. I really enjoyed it however I do feel a bit cheated with only 20....ESPECIALLY the last show before they are off a week. Now, had they played longer songs...took their time on songs I would not complain but when Mick sings the same verse of Ruby Tuesday ("she just can't be chained...") for all 3 verses and then they cut a song, I am critical of that and rightly so.

Bjornulf, I also think that some folks raised a great point...even though I am huge Stones fan, I am smart enough and not blinded to offer criticism when it is due. I think you really do a disservice to people by not taking the blinders off and giving a fair and accurate assesment of them whether it be a show, album or video. It is ok to be critical when it is warranted.

you tell 'em, sladog. somebody's got stick up for us arseholes and whingers!