The two overriding characteristics of this tour (I think most rational fans would agree):

1) The mix is guitar-heavy

2) The setlist is safe as a baby roo in its pouch


I think these two things are not coincidental. I think the Stones made a laudible decision to pump up the guitars in the mix...but by doing so RW and KR would now be exposed. As a result, I think the Stones made the decision that if they were going to go back to a guitar-based presentation, they'd better be certain they could deliver. And, what do they deliver best? Altogether now: THE WARHORSES!

Intelligent responses about the theory (not the theorist) only, please....

That sounds like a good possibility but,if they look hard enough through the catalog,they should be able to find at least a couple of rarities that they can all handle.

A better theory, they want to fatten their retirement funds so they are charging top dollar, therefore play what the MAJORITY in the audience are willing to pay big bucks for - WARHORSES.

Another theory, they don't give two shits about their fans.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another theory, they don't give two shits about
> their fans.


Now, now. I said "intelligent" responses only. An intelligent response would have contained at least 3 shits in it - everyone knows that.

More people were interested in getting tickets to see them when their set lists had more variety.This may or may not be a coincidence but,it wasn't costing them sales or keeping people away or sending people running for the exits.

So basically you believe Ronnie and Keith cant pull it off? I dont think so but certainly your theory isnt 100% wrong.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two overriding characteristics of this tour (I
> think most rational fans would agree):
>
> 1) The mix is guitar-heavy
>
> 2) The setlist is safe as a baby roo in its pouch
>
>
> I think these two things are not coincidental. I
> think the Stones made a laudible decision to pump
> up the guitars in the mix...but by doing so RW and
> KR would now be exposed. As a result, I think the
> Stones made the decision that if they were going
> to go back to a guitar-based presentation, they'd
> better be certain they could deliver. And, what
> do they deliver best? Altogether now: THE
> WARHORSES!
>
> Intelligent responses about the theory (not the
> theorist) only, please....

Good theory and as long as they rock out there's nothing wrong with it.

stonestom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So basically you believe Ronnie and Keith cant
> pull it off? I dont think so but certainly your
> theory isnt 100% wrong.


Actually, my theory states that THEY aren't sure they can pull it off.

Yea I understand ya. But for some reason I dont see Keith thinking that. But again I wouldnt say its not possible. Keith knows some things he cant do.

I would agree somewhat with your theory T. But the problem is not so much the guitarists being able to play "obscure" material as it is that they would have to listen-to, re-learn and rehearse these songs. Which sounds a lot like work!

Karl

KSIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would agree somewhat with your theory T. But
> the problem is not so much the guitarists being
> able to play "obscure" material as it is that they
> would have to listen-to, re-learn and rehearse
> these songs. Which sounds a lot like work!
>
> Karl


yeah, true - my theory certainly contains mini-theories, as well! You're getting into the overall "laziness theory," which I subscribe to as well. I think some fans think the boys can just crank out a CYHMK at will - they can't. They started rehearsing that baby in '94...didn't work....tried it some more in '99...no go. Finally, they worked hard on it in '02 and it became a setlist staple. I don't think they want to bother with that type of effort anymore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-24 22:26 by T&A.

T&A Wrote:

> I think some fans think the boys can just
> crank out a CYHMK at will - they can't. They
> started rehearsing that baby in '94...didn't
> work....tried it some more in '99...no go.
> Finally, they worked hard on it in '02
and it still didnt work, better off sticking to the ones that do work.

Well, I'll argue the other side of the coin also and point out that they've played something like 41-42 songs this tour 7 or 8 of which they've not played live before. That's not all that bad.

I think that since 1989, the stadium show has been pretty much the same thing. It's a proven product, it draws millions in at ever-escalating prices. So, if you're the Stones you have to say "if it ain't broke, why fix it?". This topic goes round and round and round and always ends back up to "if you don't like it, don't go".

I'd rather talk about something else like...the trapeze scene at the end of Behind the Green Door. Anyone care to discuss?

Karl

Slick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T&A Wrote:
>
> > I think some fans think the boys can just
> > crank out a CYHMK at will - they can't. They
> > started rehearsing that baby in '94...didn't
> > work....tried it some more in '99...no go.
> > Finally, they worked hard on it in '02
> and it still didnt work, better off sticking to
> the ones that do work.


Precisely - which is exactly the basis of the theory.

I agree the points in this thread, just saw the Charlotte show, thinking about it all weekend. It was perfunctory. I've seen the Stones several times and I love the band. But compared to recent arena shows (Charlotte '99, all the Licks Tour arena shows) the set list wasn't very inspiring. Most in the audience had a great time so its cool.
One question ...why are the Stones not playing Gimme Shelter?
DR

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two overriding characteristics of this tour (I
> think most rational fans would agree):
>
> 1) The mix is guitar-heavy
>
> 2) The setlist is safe as a baby roo in its pouch
>
>
>

The blather just never stops... "taking no chances"... what "chances" should they, or do they need to take ?

They have a great discography, they're musicians, they're playing their songs...

Now we have this latest round of brilliance "the mix is guitar heavy"...

If you'll read back to the posts at the beginning of the ABB Tour, all the pundits on this board were making post after post HOPING that the guitars would be heavy in the sound this tour...

Now you're criticizing it.

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

Tsk, tsk Bayou - the request was to respond to the theory, not the theorist. Simple request. I'm not criticising the mix - don't know how you read that into my post.

It's a strong theory, T, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.


-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

I'd like to see a more varied setlist, but if you think about it they are playing quite a few songs the average Stones concert-goer wouldn't know: in St. Pete for example they played Rough Justice, Oh No Not You Again, Back Of My Hand, Infamy, The Worst, She's So Cold, Dead Flowers, Bitch, Night Time, You Got Me Rocking and Out of Control. That's 11 out of 20 songs. Why, I believe that's over half.

Cutting it down to nine warhorses is pretty good. How many are they supposed to play, four or five? Ye olde average concert-goer would be pretty pissed if he only knew 25% of the songs they played.