Come on Stones....
the last gigs made me thought they were on the right way,
paying tribute to the new album, but yesterday setlist sucks again:
back to 20 songs...
the first 10 songs includes just one new tune....
all in all back to 3 new songs in total ( 2 + keiths Infamy)

How can you call this the Bigger bang tour...after being on the road for
3 months, this is a shame.
As a hardcorefan who pays respect for evrything the Stones do on stage I am totaly disapointed about the ignorance of the new album so far.

Hope things get better next year....but it is hard to believe.

Salar,

I think you're right. Most of the setlists up so far really suck. Why Sympathy, Start Me Up, HTW, IORR, JJF and Satisfaction? They play those songs every tour and I think the crowd wants to hear other songs. I hope they will change the setlist radically by the time they come to Europe.

Diederik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Salar,

> Why Sympathy, Start Me Up, HTW,
> IORR, JJF and Satisfaction? They play those songs
> every tour and I think the crowd wants to hear
> other songs.

Bullshit. Those are the songs that sell the tickets, not the hope that they might play Gomper. If you don't like it, quit being so obsessive and don't go to so many concerts. Better yet quit following and analyzing every setlist and it just might seem a little fresher by the time they come to your town.

If you're up on stage you would like to please the crowd and you would like to hearan echo and not only singing out to the blue of no response. The biggest crowd pleasers (although I agree they are worn out a little bit) are still Start me UP, Honky tonk Woman, Brown Sugar, Sympathy and Satisfaction. Even it's Only Rock and Roll does not receive the same response as Tumbling Dice though for myself they can skip it from time to time.
You see it is pretty obvious and even complicated to have a balance between unkown songs (which of course fans all know) and warhorses.
I think if you expect the least you get the most. What I really like this time is that they play the songs differently to the last tours. It reminds me a lot of 82/81 and again you can't compare...

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Diederik Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Salar,
>
> > Why Sympathy, Start Me Up, HTW,
> > IORR, JJF and Satisfaction? They play those
> songs
> > every tour and I think the crowd wants to
> hear
> > other songs.
>
> Bullshit. Those are the songs that sell the
> tickets, not the hope that they might play Gomper.
> If you don't like it, quit being so obsessive and
> don't go to so many concerts. Better yet quit
> following and analyzing every setlist and it just
> might seem a little fresher by the time they come
> to your town.

im not talking about the socalled warehorses..I know and I accept, they have to play them because 85 % of the crowd wants them.
I am talking about the total ignorance of the new album on this tour.
Playing 3 songs only is not what the Stones are talking about in interviews.
I hear what they say....but they don`t do what they say.

If playing ..let´s say 6-7 new tunes each gig....they still have 14-15 songs left for: ballads,obscures,middleclasshits, and the classics.
They still can play: BS,JJF,SMU,SF,IORR,TD,HTW,SFTD

Once again....after all that hype about the first new studio album in 8 years, after all that media hype since May this year, it seems rather ridiculous to see that the band is just playing
3 new songs after being on the road for more than 3 months.

This is not bashing the setlist...I am not talking about playing Gimme Shelter instaed of Tumbling dice ...setlist is a matter of taste..and we all have different ones.
BUT...this is the BIGGER BANG tour....without BIGGER BANG songs.

As much as they surprised me with this fantastic new album,
the more they make me feel disapointed about not playing it live on stage.

Those evil bastards. They cut one song.

Josh

i wonder why don't they trust their new songs.in '78 they gave 7-8 new songs
every show.why it's impossiblr to do this now ???
salar is right,the material is good enough to be played in front of the fans.
what about 6 or 7 bigger bangs ???
come on guys don't be afraid,we'd like to hear the new stuff

here we go again - a serious fan makes a legitimate gripe at what the Stones are putting out and what's the response? A criticism of the fan. Makes sense, eh? It's like the BushCo approach - criticize the critic, not debate the subject itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-23 18:09 by T&A.

Yeah its a great album and should be played live in its entirety but unfortunately its not going to happen. Its totally bombed in the U.S. and they don't have the confidence to pull something like that, especially when most people pay the big bucks just for the hits.

I agree they should be playing more from A Bigger Bang. Three songs is not enough. It should be a minimum of four every night and 5-6 on most nights. It is sad that they release their best album in forever and then don't play much of it live. 5-6 songs would still leave room for 14 or 15 others. Come on Stones, throw us hardcore fans a bone!

Bombed in the US? I have not heard anything bad about it, all good things and it is being played so much on the radio. Chart position and record sales are not an accurate way to say if the album has gone over well or not since we live in an age of technology where younger people are more likely to download it or copy it from someone, especially since younger people are the most influential to record sales.

And yes the set list is still horrible. Thought it was improving after the critics in LA bashed them for playing the same songs again on this tour but it seems they are back to the same set with one less song.

As it is now, only the first half of the gig is exciting. This tour is even more directed against the casual 40 Licks buyer than the Licks tour itself. THE LAST HALF OF THE SET LIST HAVE TO GO!!! With the last half of the set being so predictable, there is no use of going to a Stones gig whatsoever!

Remember John Lennon or Dimebag Darrell? The hardcore fans and especially the obsessives are the last people they want to encourage or cater to. They would rather you just stayed home and they are probably right.

I ended up seeing more shows than planned and was very impressed at how much better all the hits sound this tour than on previous tours. Don't really have any setlist complaints. Don't really need a bootleg of every show either. They can play the exact same setlist every night til the end of next year for all I care.

i got my tickets to see the stones in Buenos Aires, i dont care what they play, im happy to see the stones for second time in my life, who cares what they play??????, im tired of this stupids topics...

I have to agree with DAN. I was very surprised about the freshness of the warhoreses especially Tumbling dice which I thought was played to nuts on Licks Tour and played since 72 or so on all tours. But it's really different. I still would say go there and listen to the guitars and don't moan all the time about Ronnie as he does a good job.

When Jagger decides the setlist the tickts are already sold.
What is he afraid of? About the fans at the venue who booe
him offstage? That would never happen. The Stones always
impress by playing and acting onstage, no matter what song.
They can easily blow the roof by substituting at least 3
warhorses (HTW, Satisfaction, Tumbling Dice) by Driving Too
Fast, Under The Radar, Look What the cat Dragged In.
E A S I L Y! The same thing happened in 1998 with Out Of
Control (why not that song as an encore?????) and Saint.

Again: The tickets are sold, the people want to see and hear
the Stones. If they really want to hear only the known radio
Stones stuff, then at least 10 warhorses are n o t enough for
those people.

You may say it bombed - but that's circular logic. If the Stones played more songs from A Bigger Bang, THEY WOULD SELL MORE COPIES. Because they are ignoring it, the public is ignoring it too.

SeNdEr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
who cares
> what they play??????, im tired of this stupids
> topics...


It´s not a stupid topic, it´s a quintessential topic for
the 05/06 Stones concert goer.

t&a wrote:

>here we go again - a serious fan makes a legitimate gripe at what the Stones are putting out and what's the response? A criticism of the fan. Makes sense, eh? It's like the BushCo approach - criticize the critic, not debate the subject itself



u r 100 percent correct. if anyone doesn't like something on this forum they get attacked personally. i recently tried an experiment. i made up a post about hating paul mccartney to see the response. i was practically threatened with violence. people here don't want to debate, they want to attack. i'm getting sick of all the personal attacks. we should all be ecstatic that the stones are on the road again. i know i am.

Just to add some salt'n'pepper to this thread, check out what Mr. Gazza says about the Dylan gigs in London (hope you don't mind, Gazza!):
------

Re: Dylan- 3 live debuts in London tonight! Clash cover!!(NSC)
Posted by: Gazza (IP Logged)
Date: November 23, 2005 02:30


I was at the first two London shows and they were incredible

both shows opened with a few bars of the late link wray's classic "Rumble"

Aside from that, of the 16 full length songs he played the first night, he only repeated FOUR the following night - and he threw in the first verse and chorus of London calling too

(tonights shows featured another 8 or 9 songs that werent played at EITHER of the first two nights. I think only about 2 songs were played at all 3 shows so far..now THATS mixing it up! And I dont think anyone complained at a few 'standards' being left out..)
--------------------

Comments??


[There'll be no wedding today...]

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may say it bombed - but that's circular logic.
> If the Stones played more songs from A Bigger
> Bang, THEY WOULD SELL MORE COPIES. Because they
> are ignoring it, the public is ignoring it too.


I really doubt it. Having sat in the $350 section in Fresno, the energy level dropped around me for Oh No Not You Again and just about died for Rain Fall Down. And the new songs were introduced almost apologetically. To be honest if the setlist was real heavy on new material I might have actually dropped some decent coin on tickets rather than hold out for the bargains.

Maybe they should a few theatre shows. "A Bigger Bang In A Smaller Place." Do the whole album and either take a break and do a mini set of older songs or just finish off with Start Me UP, BS, JJF GOODNIGHT. PRobably wont happen because there is no money there.

I had the onstage seats in San Diego and I saw how the crowd reacted to the hits. Place went nuts for Miss You etc with only polite response to the new songs.

bruno and what size was the venue of Dylan??
If you would like to attract 40'000 with 112 trucks it's a bit a different machine though.....

lodge:

I don't think many casual fans would be dissapointed if they replaced IORR with All Down The Line, or Miss You with Dance, or Tumbling Dice with Crazy Mama, or Sympathy with Slave, or You Got Me Rocking with Let Me Go, or Start Me Up with If You Can't Rock Me, sometimes...



[There'll be no wedding today...]

lodge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bruno and what size was the venue of Dylan??
> If you would like to attract 40'000 with 112
> trucks it's a bit a different machine though.....


He wouldn´t give a damn, he is convinced
of his own material and doesn´t want to get bored hmself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-23 21:06 by TooTough.

lodge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bruno and what size was the venue of Dylan??
> If you would like to attract 40'000 with 112
> trucks it's a bit a different machine though.....


to add to what TooTough says immediately above (which I agree with 100%), the way round THAT problem, Lodge, is to not be a slave to the momey-machine that dictates the show being that kind of 'spectacle' and concentrate more on the music.

Makes for a more interesting show. I bet the band would enjoy it too.

Dan,

That's really depressing. Why are people so foolish? Oh No Not You Again is a barnburner!

Yeah Oh No Not You Again is one of my 3 favorite live songs this tour. I guess they were so discouraged they didn't play it last night.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nikkibong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> I had the onstage seats in San Diego and I saw how
> the crowd reacted to the hits. Place went nuts for
> Miss You etc with only polite response to the new
> songs.
>

But this is exactly the point most people misunderstand.
They may react like you said: "with only polite response"....but that does not mean they do not like the song...
that does not mean they did not enjoy that new song...they just did not knew it.

I have watched the reaction to new songs during the last 3 tours and I often see the crowd giving lout polite applause....and they loved it...without getting enthusiastic like they get during the warehorses.

So lets play them Stones.

Unlike this time around, I can't say I really liked the new songs on the BTB tour!

Also, I sorta snuck into the Hollywood Bowl during Rain Fall Down and the concession areas were packed with bored looking people milling around and getting in the beer lines. A little disappointed but made it easier to get lost in the crowd.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
i recently tried an experiment. i made
> up a post about hating paul mccartney to see the
> response.

No, JJ, you implicitly stated that McCartney should have been assassinated, that Mark David Chapman shot the wrong Beatle. That goes far beyond hating McCartney the person, or McCartney's music and it goes far beyond positing an argument of any kind that can be respected. And while I appreciate your explanation that you were only joking, that doesn't mean people should provide license for such expressions.

Ironically, your experiment was precisely an example of what T&A is talking about: you were all for attacking the person, McCartney, in that statement rather than offer an argument about your dislike of his music. Rhetorically speaking, it's called an ad hominen logical fallacy: attacking the person, in an effort to defeat an argument. Calling for someone's murder couldn't be a much clearer example of attacking the person, not the argument.

On the setlist topic. I would love to see more variety and to see the band take more risks (who wasn't happy with the knowledge that they played Sway, regardless of how well they executed the playing of the song?), but at the same time my expectations for this tour were set when I saw the list of cities that they were going to: this isn't the Licks tour where they play 3 nights in Chicago, 3 in Boston,3 in NY, 3 in Paris, or London, etc., in three different settings with three different setlists and audiences to cater to.

No, this is a (largely) stadium tour (in spirit) that's taking the band to the proverbial sticks: they're playing one-nighters in Moncton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Albany, Hershey, Calgary, Fresno, and Salt Lake City, among other smaller markets, that for the most part weren't on the Licks tour, and they're catering to those local markets (fans) with a hits-heavy warhorse setlist that doesn't need to change that much to get the job done. It's the stones equivilent of of franchising the band, almost like taking a Broadway musical to the 'burbs after a successful run in New York.


As for the ABB component of the setlist, I also agree that it'd be great to hear 5-6 songs from it every night. However, people too quickly forget that the Stones aren't touring to promote the album; rather, they made the album to justify the tour. They're set to make 100 Million pounds each from this tour (from what I've heard) and the album sales won't come close to that kind of revenue for the four band members, so I'm not expecting them to be pushing the album through the playlist. So we should expect 3-4 songs in a setlist, tops.

All in all, they're right on course for what they seem to be attempting: they're introducing numbers that can surprise and delight even the most knowlegeable fan, for example: Sway, All Down The Line, Get Off Of My Cloud, It Won't Take Long, She's So Cold, Dead Flowers, As Tears Go By, Sweet Virginia, and Ruby Tuesday; and they're playing the hits that folks in Portland and Calgary and other cities haven't had the chance to hear in quite some time.

In brief, I think Mick said it best when he said . . .

You can't always get what you want, but . . . sometimes . . . you get what you need.


p.s. on a personal note, on the Chapman reference part of the pain in reading that the first time comes from recalling how devastating a loss that was. Lennon didn't kill himself with drugs, or drive into a wall, and he seemed poised to make a creative comeback after a substantial hiatus, so to recall that event in so callous a way is, to me a very sad thing. I understand that you didn't mean to be cold or hurtful, but somethings (like the death of our heroes) are very sensitive things.

Cheers