There appears to be a lot of conflicting opinions about how well the Stones have played or performed during the present tour.
70% of people who have attended individual concerts have been expressing the opinion that the Stones sound is guitar based,sounds excellent and really rock & roll's.
60% of people after the concert are happy about the Stones performance but complain that the setlist has been dis-appointing. (as they wished to hear more unfamiliar songs or personal favourites.
Good lord to do this the Stones would have to play for at least 5/6 hours because as individuals we all have numerous songs by the band which are our favourites.
The Stones legacy of a multitude of excellent songs in some ways is now coming back to haunt them as they have too many to play to satisfy everyone.
What contrary individuals we human being's have become.
40% of people who have not attended concerts are happy to bleat and complain which is a human trait when we have been spoiled and become bored and pass the blame onto others.
Over familiarity tends to breed contemt and we are always looking for something new to give us a buzz.
There is of course the possibility that we do not appreciate what we have and this will not become fully apparent until it has been taken away from us.
Consider the concert world without the Rolling Stones for the last 43 years
and what a empty place it would have been without them.
There is nothing wrong with freedom of opinion or constructive critism
but those who write such posts would benefit much from self analysis of what actually makes them travel in that direction.



Ps - When people start to express opinions over BV/Stonesdoug loyalties the time has come for all real Stones fans to stand up like 'Street Fighting Men & Women'

At this point,I'll be happy with three songs that I have never seen or heard in concert before.They don't even have to be my personal favorites,just three out of 300 +,as long as they are not on my short list of Stones songs that I don't like.

Stones40, I salute you and second your comment:

"There is of course the possibility that we do not appreciate what we have and this will not become fully apparent until it has been taken away from us."

Never a truer statement (just that some don't know it yet).

To say "I'll be happy if" and "they don't even have to be...", then immediately adding a condition just negates everything that went before, so you are still likely to end up unhappy (just an example that happens to be there and nothing personal, Thief - I'm the first in the queue to say I would be happy if that happened, too - as if). BUT if the choice was between hearing, out of 20+ songs, three songs that I haven't heard live before and that are nowhere on my short list of songs I want to hear - and hearing NO songs AT ALL because they are not playing ANY MORE, there is just no contest. And realistically, that's the choice with a band whose members are in their 60s. I don't go to anyone's concert expecting that EVERY single song will be one that *I* personally would prefer them to be playing. That would be an unanticipated bonus on any night and I would consider myself to be damn lucky to be getting the icing on the cake if it was a band full of 20-year-olds, let alone men in their sixties (who are out-performing the 20-year olds, anyway). I've been to hundreds of music gigs and the 100% perfect setlist rarely EVER happens for ANYONE. But people still manage to enjoy it (mystery or what?....)

And think again about another comment from Stones40:

"There is nothing wrong with freedom of opinion or constructive critism
but those who write such posts would benefit much from self analysis of what actually makes them travel in that direction."

The posts he's talking about are not CONstructive but DEstructive and THAT'S why they are objectionable - **NOT** because of the criticism per se. It would be deadly if everyone had the same opinion. We all might agree with some of the points criticized and might not agree with others - but agreeing with a criticism doesn't mean we agree with how it is made.

thoughtful/insightful criticism can make great reading/discussions even if we don't agree with the views.
band-bashing and whining from people who don't seem to even *try* to consider anything from the artists' point of view is just a drag.
treating the Stones as if they were a no-name band that you've hired to play at a party is plain ridiculous.
(nota bene: even if you do hire a no-name band to play at a party, let them play what they feel good playing!
you'll get a *much* better performance that way than if you try to dictate a setlist to them.)
and when the band-bashing/whining gets chronic, it tells me a lot more about the people posting it than you probably want me to know.
(the Stones aren't what caused your distress, and bashing them isn't going to change it.)

now i'm going to turn up the music way loud and dance - let me hear you say ~*YEAH!*~
the joy wants to spread - that's what it's for.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith