For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RisingStone
It did happen on the 1978 Some Girls US exclusive tour. On most of the dates, the Stones played 8 out of the 10 songs from the new album, put together in the middle of the 19-song set rather than spread over and mixed up with other old songs.
I wonder how each member of the audience reacted to this on site. Anyone who was there?
Quote
Big AlQuote
RisingStone
It did happen on the 1978 Some Girls US exclusive tour. On most of the dates, the Stones played 8 out of the 10 songs from the new album, put together in the middle of the 19-song set rather than spread over and mixed up with other old songs.
I wonder how each member of the audience reacted to this on site. Anyone who was there?
The Stones were still a contemporary act, though. Miss You being a billboard #1, with Some Girls proving hugely successful, too. I don’t think they became a nostalgia-act until Steel Wheels. That tour changed everything.
Quote
guyrachel
On the upcoming tour of the same name, not necessarily the entire 17 tracks, but let’s say a heavy rotation…around 9-10 songs per night, so approximately 50% of the set… What would that do to ticket sales?
Assuming they also played Jumpin’ Jack Flash painted black, satisfaction, wild, horses, tumbling, dice, gimme, shelter, sympathy for the Devil, and/or another 9-10 hits/war horses songs… so the crowds always got what they wanted… But the fans really got that exciting bars of seeing them play, new music…
I imagine the attendant of the city of this veteran veteran acts playing. A heavy selection of brand-new music would provide a massive focus for the world problems to the media machines, and possibly, because of at least 50% of the seat being solid gold megahits… That the public also were able to get what they wanted… Comments welcome
Quote
illyad1960
As much as I like their music, the Stones have become stale to me. I find the setlists to be repetitive and lack imagination. Introducing a large number of songs from the new album would get my attention, especially if the music is good.
Quote
Big AlQuote
Big AlQuote
RisingStone
It did happen on the 1978 Some Girls US exclusive tour. On most of the dates, the Stones played 8 out of the 10 songs from the new album, put together in the middle of the 19-song set rather than spread over and mixed up with other old songs.
I wonder how each member of the audience reacted to this on site. Anyone who was there?
The Stones were still a contemporary act, though. Miss You being a billboard #1, with Some Girls proving hugely successful, too. I don’t think they became a nostalgia-act until Steel Wheels. That tour changed everything.
I should also add that many of those in attendance would’ve surely already bought the Some Girls album, or, at least, would’ve been familiar with the tracks played on the radio.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
The band thrives on energy from the crowd, especially Mick. New songs, too often, send people to the bathroom or beer line just the same as Keith's mini-set. The same thing sometimes happens with deep cuts or covers.
Cleveland 2002 was an arena show with a great setlist mixing hits and rarities. If you were there, you would have seen much of the arena sitting down when they played something that wasn't familiar from radio play or worse, moving across the rows to temporarily exit. During "Like a Rolling Stone" it was evident Mick was irritated with the audience's lack of enthusiasm at a great, great show.
As much as I'd love a show with unfamiliar songs and deep cuts, it just isn't likely. Finding an "Out of Time" that is well-received is akin to a needle in a hay stack. It isn't laziness or limitations of playing so much as a desire to keep the show moving that drives set list stagnation. Their audience is mainly a Greatest Hits audience only. We're the exceptions.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
The band thrives on energy from the crowd, especially Mick. New songs, too often, send people to the bathroom or beer line just the same as Keith's mini-set. The same thing sometimes happens with deep cuts or covers.
Cleveland 2002 was an arena show with a great setlist mixing hits and rarities. If you were there, you would have seen much of the arena sitting down when they played something that wasn't familiar from radio play or worse, moving across the rows to temporarily exit. During "Like a Rolling Stone" it was evident Mick was irritated with the audience's lack of enthusiasm at a great, great show.
As much as I'd love a show with unfamiliar songs and deep cuts, it just isn't likely. Finding an "Out of Time" that is well-received is akin to a needle in a hay stack. It isn't laziness or limitations of playing so much as a desire to keep the show moving that drives set list stagnation. Their audience is mainly a Greatest Hits audience only. We're the exceptions.
And motivation to create new music that ultimately won't be played is probably not high, which is at least partly why it takes 17-18 years to get an album of new material. It's too bad...like many here I'd be happy to sit through an entire show of new material, certainly of older deep cuts.
I guess that's the price you pay for a band with such and expansive catalogue. But maybe they're a victim of their own conservatism? I think of Springsteen, Dylan, McCartney. They play the hits but also the lesser known and it doesn't seem to matter to their fans.
Whatever, I'm just enthusiastically going to enjoy that new album.
Quote
crholmstromQuote
Big AlQuote
Big AlQuote
RisingStone
It did happen on the 1978 Some Girls US exclusive tour. On most of the dates, the Stones played 8 out of the 10 songs from the new album, put together in the middle of the 19-song set rather than spread over and mixed up with other old songs.
I wonder how each member of the audience reacted to this on site. Anyone who was there?
The Stones were still a contemporary act, though. Miss You being a billboard #1, with Some Girls proving hugely successful, too. I don’t think they became a nostalgia-act until Steel Wheels. That tour changed everything.
I should also add that many of those in attendance would’ve surely already bought the Some Girls album, or, at least, would’ve been familiar with the tracks played on the radio.
The Some Girls album was already huge by the time the tour started & a majority of the tracks were well known. Miss You was the song of the summer that year. @ the stadium show I saw in Boulder, all of the new material was very well received. It was a short tour & the band was playing great especially Keith.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
The band thrives on energy from the crowd, especially Mick. New songs, too often, send people to the bathroom or beer line just the same as Keith's mini-set. The same thing sometimes happens with deep cuts or covers.
Cleveland 2002 was an arena show with a great setlist mixing hits and rarities. If you were there, you would have seen much of the arena sitting down when they played something that wasn't familiar from radio play or worse, moving across the rows to temporarily exit. During "Like a Rolling Stone" it was evident Mick was irritated with the audience's lack of enthusiasm at a great, great show.
As much as I'd love a show with unfamiliar songs and deep cuts, it just isn't likely. Finding an "Out of Time" that is well-received is akin to a needle in a hay stack. It isn't laziness or limitations of playing so much as a desire to keep the show moving that drives set list stagnation. Their audience is mainly a Greatest Hits audience only. We're the exceptions.
And motivation to create new music that ultimately won't be played is probably not high, which is at least partly why it takes 17-18 years to get an album of new material. It's too bad...like many here I'd be happy to sit through an entire show of new material, certainly of older deep cuts.
I guess that's the price you pay for a band with such and expansive catalogue. But maybe they're a victim of their own conservatism? I think of Springsteen, Dylan, McCartney. They play the hits but also the lesser known and it doesn't seem to matter to their fans.
Whatever, I'm just enthusiastically going to enjoy that new album.
Quote
ironbelly
I am still waiting when they will keep the promise to play Their Satanic Majesties Request entirely. Mick made announcements for that event a couple of times. Still no outcome.
YES ID LOVE THIS. Massive underground venue with lots of psychedelic projections… It would be really awesome.Quote
ironbelly
I am still waiting when they will keep the promise to play Their Satanic Majesties Request entirely. Mick made announcements for that event a couple of times. Still no outcome.
Quote
NashvilleBluesQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rocky Dijon
The band thrives on energy from the crowd, especially Mick. New songs, too often, send people to the bathroom or beer line just the same as Keith's mini-set. The same thing sometimes happens with deep cuts or covers.
Cleveland 2002 was an arena show with a great setlist mixing hits and rarities. If you were there, you would have seen much of the arena sitting down when they played something that wasn't familiar from radio play or worse, moving across the rows to temporarily exit. During "Like a Rolling Stone" it was evident Mick was irritated with the audience's lack of enthusiasm at a great, great show.
As much as I'd love a show with unfamiliar songs and deep cuts, it just isn't likely. Finding an "Out of Time" that is well-received is akin to a needle in a hay stack. It isn't laziness or limitations of playing so much as a desire to keep the show moving that drives set list stagnation. Their audience is mainly a Greatest Hits audience only. We're the exceptions.
And motivation to create new music that ultimately won't be played is probably not high, which is at least partly why it takes 17-18 years to get an album of new material. It's too bad...like many here I'd be happy to sit through an entire show of new material, certainly of older deep cuts.
I guess that's the price you pay for a band with such and expansive catalogue. But maybe they're a victim of their own conservatism? I think of Springsteen, Dylan, McCartney. They play the hits but also the lesser known and it doesn't seem to matter to their fans.
Whatever, I'm just enthusiastically going to enjoy that new album.
I'd argue Dylan plays no hits...
[www.setlist.fm]
Quote
RisingStone
It did happen on the 1978 Some Girls US exclusive tour. On most of the dates, the Stones played 8 out of the 10 songs from the new album, put together in the middle of the 19-song set rather than spread over and mixed up with other old songs.
I wonder how each member of the audience reacted to this on site. Anyone who was there?