the stones were excellent. i've enjoyed every show i've ever seen them. but it's still not worth a ticket price over $200--period!

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theif in the Night: "I wouldn't say it is their
> worst tour.Their playing has been good,which is
> important but,I still say the set list in general
> has been poorly chosen".
>
> "Poorly chosen"? What do you mean? Do you mean
> "songs which i'am not dying for"? OK, i respect
> your preference, but it's only a personal
> preference. This is not a fact, only a matter of
> taste. Do you mean "no variety"? Then their worst
> tour could be every 70s tour or the 1981/82 tour!
> Less than 30-35 different songs played during the
> whole tours. On this tour? Already 44 different
> songs played. And these are numbers, facts, not
> personal preferences. That's the big differerence.

Yes, another big difference is that evey 70s concert although its the same songs is interesting and Ill pay lots of money for boots just to hear Keith sing (yes, sing) Happy slightly different or Mick speak French or say "Its sure hot as hell in here".

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stickydion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Theif in the Night: "I wouldn't say it is
> their
> > worst tour.Their playing has been good,which
> is
> > important but,I still say the set list in
> general
> > has been poorly chosen".
> >
> > "Poorly chosen"? What do you mean? Do you
> mean
> > "songs which i'am not dying for"? OK, i
> respect
> > your preference, but it's only a personal
> > preference. This is not a fact, only a matter
> of
> > taste. Do you mean "no variety"? Then their
> worst
> > tour could be every 70s tour or the 1981/82
> tour!
> > Less than 30-35 different songs played during
> the
> > whole tours. On this tour? Already 44
> different
> > songs played. And these are numbers, facts,
> not
> > personal preferences. That's the big
> differerence.
>
> Yes, another big difference is that evey 70s
> concert although its the same songs is interesting
> and Ill pay lots of money for boots just to hear
> Keith sing (yes, sing) Happy slightly different or
> Mick speak French or say "Its sure hot as hell in
> here".
>
>
>
> and Ay ay baby it hurts

I've said it before and I'll say it again: LA FORUM is lost in the past. I feel sorry for him/her, cause he/she sure miss a lot of GREAT perfomances these days.

Probably whined in the past as well.

Yeah, probably. That has to be the case here. I'm lost in the past. But the Stones, they play their new songs on tour and never play anything from the past. They are clearly not stuck in the past.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theif in the Night: "I wouldn't say it is their
> worst tour.Their playing has been good,which is
> important but,I still say the set list in general
> has been poorly chosen".
>
> "Poorly chosen"? What do you mean? Do you mean
> "songs which i'am not dying for"? OK, i respect
> your preference, but it's only a personal
> preference. This is not a fact, only a matter of
> taste. Do you mean "no variety"? Then their worst
> tour could be every 70s tour or the 1981/82 tour!
> Less than 30-35 different songs played during the
> whole tours. On this tour? Already 44 different
> songs played. And these are numbers, facts, not
> personal preferences. That's the big differerence.

I have read you write this over and over and it seems you miss the point. To compare set lists today to the past is impossible. Was there a half-ass song like You Got Me Rocking being played every night back then that some people loved and many hated? No. Were new songs hardly played? No. Was there a cover each night that the back up vocals and horns dominated? No. Were the band playing to a light show and movie screen so they had no room to improvise? No.

I can go on and on but what the point. stickydion, how many shows have you seen so far this tour? Don't you think if people can say you can say the show is bad unless you are there mean the opposite, how can you say its great if you were not there.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theif in the Night: "I wouldn't say it is their
> worst tour.Their playing has been good,which is
> important but,I still say the set list in general
> has been poorly chosen".
>
> "Poorly chosen"? What do you mean? Do you mean
> "songs which i'am not dying for"? OK, i respect
> your preference, but it's only a personal
> preference. This is not a fact, only a matter of
> taste. Do you mean "no variety"? Then their worst
> tour could be every 70s tour or the 1981/82 tour!
> Less than 30-35 different songs played during the
> whole tours. On this tour? Already 44 different
> songs played. And these are numbers, facts, not
> personal preferences. That's the big differerence.

What? You are going to compare a set list from 30 years ago when a band was young and pumping out classic songs. YGMR is a great choice this tour, they never play that and its such a popular song.. I am being sarcastic.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 05:02 by cirrhosis.

J-J-Flash answers

(1) "I have read you write this over and over and it seems you miss the point."
Hmmmm... No, i don't write exactly the same because the number of the "different songs played" changes! Now is 44. I mention the clear numbers because they are showing how rediculous the "argument" about the variety is. So simple. I 'll mention it until i have a real answer.

(2) "To compare set lists today to the past is impossible."
If that's true, then why do some nostalgics mention the lists again and again talking about the "glory days" of the past?

(3) "Was there a half-ass song like You Got Me Rocking being played every night back then that some people loved and many hated?"
What? Do you think that everyone was loving songs like Hot Stuff (1976 tour), even Fingerprint File??? But that's a personal prefernence, not a "good" or "bad" list.

(4) "Were new songs hardly played? No.
Are you sure? I accept your "no" if we are talking about 1972 tour. Nine songs from Exile out of 17-19. But, during 1971 tour, only 4 from Sticky Fingers. On 1975 tour, 5 from IOOR album. On 1976 tour 5 from B&B. On 1978 tour 6 from SG. The Stones never loved the model of "an album list". I say "Fortunatelly"!

"stickydion, how many shows have you seen so far this tour? Don't you think if
people can say you can say the show is bad unless you are there mean the opposite, how can you say its great if you were not there."

J-J-F, i wrote it. I haven't seen the band performing on this tour yet (i am from Europe). My conclusions are coming from the boots and i am very happy hearing this stuff. Of course i wait for some concerts to make my conclusions final. I never said "you can't say the show is bad unless you are there". Just a remark: The huge majority of the guys who have seen the band live are satisfied or enthusiastics...

Sorry had to chime in because I am not sure what stickydijon is talking about...

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > J-J-Flash answers
>
> (1) "I have read you write this over and over and
> it seems you miss the point."
> Hmmmm... No, i don't write exactly the same
> because the number of the "different songs played"
> changes! Now is 44. I mention the clear numbers
> because they are showing how rediculous the
> "argument" about the variety is. So simple. I 'll
> mention it until i have a real answer.


Throwing out a number like that means very little when you go to 3 shows like Hartford and 2 at Fenway and they play total of maybe 23 songs, many of which were played in the same city the last time around.



> (3) "Was there a half-ass song like You Got Me
> Rocking being played every night back then that
> some people loved and many hated?"
> What? Do you think that everyone was loving songs
> like Hot Stuff (1976 tour), even Fingerprint
> File??? But that's a personal prefernence, not a
> "good" or "bad" list.


sticky- this makes little sense because the Stones didn't keep Hot Stuff or Fingerprint in their set list for 11 years and play them every night. In fact I don't think they played either of those songs for the next 20 years. And on top of that YGMR is not a new song like the two you mentioned above, its more than 10 years old.


> (4) "Were new songs hardly played? No.
> Are you sure? I accept your "no" if we are talking
> about 1972 tour. Nine songs from Exile out of
> 17-19. But, during 1971 tour, only 4 from Sticky
> Fingers. On 1975 tour, 5 from IOOR album. On 1976
> tour 5 from B&B. On 1978 tour 6 from SG. The
> Stones never loved the model of "an album list". I
> say "Fortunatelly"!


First of I wouldn't consider the 75 tour an IORR tour, they were working a new album when that came out while they were on the road. Although they did do a great job playing 6 songs from IORR despite having a new guitar player. In 78 they did 8 songs of their new album, that is pretty good to me. All of these things you are talking about as far as new songs don't seem to be as bad as only playing 3 songs some nights from an album that has 16 solid (IMO) songs.

stickydion,
Come on, these arguments you make don’t even defend yourself. Hound Dog touches on a lot of it but you even say the numbers yourself, they usually play more than 3 or 4 new songs. They played almost all of Some Girls on a very short tour in 78, we all know they played lots of Exile in 72 and 6 from Goats Head in a short period of time. On the 75-76 tout they did 11 songs from IORR and BB. I can keep going on but there is not really a tour where they didn’t feature more new songs than what they are doing now.

YGMR is far from new, but they still play it every night. With Fingerprint File and HS, they didn’t play them ever again or in HS not for many years later.

It funny how much you are defending the Stones when you are saying not to judge them unless you were at the show, but you have not been at a show yet… hmmm maybe you are saying you can judge the show without being there… Just busting your balls in a friendly manner.

J-J-Flash , see the setlists from every tour and COUNT THE NEW SONGS CORRECTLY, please. See how many "last album" songs they were playing every night.

After counting correctly, please read my post again having your eyes open: I am defending what i hear on the boots. I never wrote "not to judge them unless you were at the show". Yours words, not mine. Just your imagination...

Sorry, but Hound Dog see just one tree, not the whole forest!

(a) On this tour you can listen a few different songs after A FEW concerts. But for example in 1981/82 you had to see A LOT of concerts to hear a few different songs. That's the clear difference between "44 different songs during the first leg of the tour" and "33 different songs during the whole tour".

(b) OK, i like I Go Wild (and many others from 80s or 90s) much more than YGMR. But i have to admit that during the B2B Tour and Licks Tour a lot of people enjoyed it. Don't forget, only the "warhorses" are loved by the 95% of the audiences! But i suppose you abhor the idea of a "21 warhorses" setlist... See, on this board some guys are saying that Shattered or She So Cold are waste of time. Just personal preferences.

(c) I think the songs from ABB could be 5, not more. But, come on, if the Stones were playing only 4 songs from Sticky Fingers every night in 1971 you tell me now that is ...tragedy the number of 3-4 tracks from ABB, because this (marvellous) record has 16 songs???

I have been on every tour now since 1982 and I hate to say it must be the worst. I did not bother going to 40 licks, so I cant be judge on that.

C'mon they used to change line ups, songs, produce new songs featured in shows even before relased on LP, change the wya the songs are played never stiff and boring, a spontanous feel of contact with their audience (no "good to be here bla bla bla" shite), they changed the whole show never mind the stage etc etc etc.

When I see a bad copy of a cnocert on dvd from the 70s I get moved by them. They had charm if you like.

I dont have to read reports from those concerts and I dont care what songs they plyed cause it was always interesting to see and ehar them perform. You are never really sure of what will happen on a boot from '75.

The past has charm because it makes us nostalgic but that doesn't mean this tour is worse than the tours of the past! Bad was of rationalizing! Each tour has to be judged on it's own merits. We are in the middle of a kick-ass Stones tour and STILL folks can't just ENJOY IT!

maybe they would enjoy it even MORE if they played songs from the NEW album and
not for the millionth and first time YCAGWYW

compare the set list from 1963

[www.frayed.org]

lots of stuff, no warhorses, no boredom, girls screaming

<On 1978 tour 6 from SG>

Miss You
When The Whip Comes Down
Imagination
Lies
Far Away Eyes
Respectable
Beast Of Burden
Shattered

8 in my book

So is it?

What is the conclusion?



- Doxa

P.S. I like the argumentation here. Go on!

Thanks DandelionPowderman,
obviously I must have been closing my eyes when I was counting. stickydion, you are exactly the kind of person here I am talking about. I guess I can't judge their new tour after going to six shows because I am critical but you can because your views are positive and you have not seen them yet. I guess I have to write this out for you because you are too stupid to understand me.. Look below, the only tour that you can say they didn't play a great deal of their new album could be 71 but they did not do nearly as many gigs or long shows. Unless you are joking look at what Hound Dog says, none of your points are justified and FACE IT the Stones usually play more from their new albums when touring behind them. Have some balls and form an opinion. Look below those are facts, I would show you the new songs played from other tours but you said I am wrong about these ones I mentioned before so here it is.

8 Songs from 1978 tour nightly

Miss You
When The Whip Comes Down
Imagination
Lies
Far Away Eyes
Respectable
Beast Of Burden
Shattered

72 = 8
Tumbling
Happy
Rip This Joint
Rocks Off
Sweet Virginia
Lovin Cup (at the start)
All Down The Line
Torn & Frayed (at the start)
Sweet Black Angel (once)

73
Angie
Heartbreaker
Silver Train
Dancing
@#$%&
100 Years

75/76 = 11 new songs
If YOu Can't Rock Me
IORR
Dance Little Sister
Luxury
Aint to Proud
Fingerprint File
Hot Stuff
Hey Negrita
Hand of Fate
Fool To Cry
Cherry Oh Baby

81 = 6 songs a night
SMU
Hang Fire
Limousine
Waiting on a Friend
Neighbors
Little T&A
Top (at the start)




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-02 16:43 by J-J-Flash.

I've only seen every tour since B2B, so I'm not an expert by any means...but I got the least "rush" from this show.

Maybe that's 'cuz it was my 8th time and the excitement is waning. I really can't make a judgment.

If the setlists were a bit more risky, maybe it could've been more intense, but it was just a feeling of "same ol' same ol'" when I saw them.

<72 = 8
Tumbling
Happy
Rip This Joint
Rocks Off
Sweet Virginia
Lovin Cup (at the start)
All Down The Line
Torn & Frayed (at the start)
Sweet Black Angel (once)>

Ventilator Blues (once in Vancouver).

stickydion,
They could play the same 22 songs a night this tour if they were creative about it. I don't care about the numbers because unless you go to all the shows you are not going to catch those 44 songs you mentioned. Every tour they have done new things. 2,000 Lights Years -88, Not Fade Away - 94, 95- all kinds of great old tunes. 97 Sister morphine, and so on.... They don't need to play 22 different songs each night but give us at least one surprise or something different from the previous tour.

And by the way, I would take the 1981 tour set every night as I am sure many people would. Ok, now I am waiting for my verbal beating from you because I am critical.

Hound Dog Wrote:
> And by the way, I would take the 1981 tour set
> every night as I am sure many people would. Ok,
> now I am waiting for my verbal beating from you
> because I am critical.


the '81 setlist, while comparatively stagnant compared to later tours (but more diverse compared to previous ones) was pretty good because it contained several songs played on a regular or nightly basis which had not been performed live by the band for several tours, in many cases well over a decade (under my thumb, lets spend the night together - apart from a couple of one offs - time is on my side, let it bleed (never played live before) plus the fact that as they were playing about 6 off Tattoo You and 2 off ER each show (albums that they were touring behind for the 1st time). about a third of the show consisted of new songs never performed before, a third was oldies that hadnt been performed before or for many years (including the 2 covers) and a third that was what we know call warhorses (they even managed to drop a few, like IORR, SF man, Sympathy, etc). The balance between old, new, borrowed and almost forgotten was excellent even if its not musically a personal favourite tour of mine

Whilst the setlists didnt vary to the degree we'd expect today, it was musically quite an ambitious and diverse selection of songs

the playing on this tour based on what i've heard sounds solid enough. I cant complain about it from that aspect. However, theres very little of the songs prior to ABB that havent been played to death on the last few tours. Whilst they toss in a "19th nervous breakdown" or "Ruby tuesday" once in a while, basically the only 'regular' choice that they've dug deep to bring back into the shows has been "Shes so cold".

The musical highlight of the shows I've heard so far has been the 'cover' part of the show, especially Night Time and Mr Pitiful. It's fresh,interesting and great fun. However, a band with the rich back catalogue like the Stones have should be trying a few more of their own lost 'nuggets' to spice things up more.

yes, it's Naggers United vs. Satisfaction Rebels again

at the moment it's 6 (new songs) : 27 (times Satisfaction on this tour so far)

Listen to 1981 and then to what you have heard from this tour. I wasnt there in 1982 but I love every moment of it and it rocks so hard I cant believe my ears. Would you say that about this tour? That it rocks like hell? Pure Rock n roll and a fresh feeling of spontanous rock by the greatest band on earth? I doubt it.

Personally I hate the covers.
If I want covers I can get them at the local WMC.
Are the covers supposed to be an indication of their great taste?
How long until they do a complete Blues Brothers show?
What then Rocky Horror Show?

But I always have the option of taking a leak :-)

Oily.

Point being, Oily that while the covers may be an acquired taste it shows they're at least taking a few chances by playing something 'different'

They dropped 'Sway' and wont do other songs - which theyve written themselves - because not enough people in the audience apparently know them

however, more people in an average Stones audience would surely be familiar with a song from Sticky Fingers than they would with a Ray Charles cover, dont ya think? So, the 'play what the audience know' mentality doesnt add up...

kuenzer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, it's Naggers United vs. Satisfaction Rebels
> again
>
> at the moment it's 6 (new songs) : 27 (times
> Satisfaction on this tour so far)


read the post again then

I said the shows sound fine musically and there are certainly some good concepts in it

However, theres always room for improvement in everything. Even a Stones concert. They know that themselves, I would imagine. Its not like theyre some kind of 'sacred cow'