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

for half the crowd it'd suddenly be like 1965 all over again and there 12 year old girls in the audience of the ed sullivan show screaming themselves hoarse while ripping out fistfuls of there own hair and passing out

the other half will take a collective 1hr piss break

at the end one half will leave on stretchers those still able to walk will stumble around in a euphoric trance for days after

the other half who haven't left already will walkout b-tching about what a rip off it was that they didn't play miss you

It would work in smaller venues, i think. Where the crowd consists of core-fans, who actually know these new songs (because they bought the album). In a massive stadium show, the majority of visitors want to hear hitsongs and will be disappointed when half of the setlist is unknown to them. So yeah, they could do it, but they have to somehow announce it as such a show.. Otherwise people are going to complain.

It’d be a great concept for a theatre-sized venue, where the diehards can congregate. Stadiums and arenas however, are meant for hits and well-known numbers. The Stones, as a contemporary recording-act are for the minority. It isn’t 1972, of course. I’m not suggesting that they’re incapable of a renaissance. Who knows, but I doubt it.

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
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
Big Al

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?

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.

You would be lucky if they play 1 or2.They have been for 25years an oldies act. Nothing wrong with that since their oldies are better than everybody else’s newies



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-04 12:30 by Taylor1.

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

Effects would be:
1. very little effect on ticket sales (most people won't believe that they'll be doing 50% new songs)
2. huge effect on beer sales (during the new songs a lot of people will walk away and buy another beer
3. large effect on most concert goer's mood (cause most casual fans will get bored by new songs)
4. effects on the band: Jagger will decide to stop that bullsh*t after the first show (because he close observes the audience reactions and he won't like what he's seeing (see. 2+3)

I’m sure I would love this idea.

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
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.

I agree. Sadly! I have felt that staleness for a while. And while they can still play the old hits with a fair amount of vitality and energy, the fact remains I have heard them all countless times now. Of course I'm genuinely very pleased for all who enjoy attending an event that features a human jukebox rather than a creative musical force, but I have voted with my feet and will not attend in future.

Just one thing irritates me slightly. Those of us that yearn for greater variety and deep cuts are disparagingly dismissed as diehards, throwbacks and time travellers. I think that is quite unfair. We are entitled to hold the views we do without being condescended to. Were it not for our support and fanship down the years of genuine creativity for the band, The Stones would not now enjoy the adulation they receive. We bought the early albums, the vinyl singles and the EPs. We helped popularise those tracks now considered warhorses. After all, many of those tracks were never big hits until we helped bring them to wider attention. Street Fighting Man, Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler, You Can't Always Get What You Want. For a long time they were only known to those of us who bought the albums, flipped over the vinyl singles and requested they be played on the radio.

We were there from the beginning. And our love of the band has lasted the full sixty years.

Not sure if i would go to be honest.

Give me Out of Time, 19th Nervous, Rocks off, Fool to Cry, Bitch, Can't you hear me knocking etc any time over new songs.

I would assume its April 1st.

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
Big Al

Quote
Big Al

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?

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
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
treaclefingers

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.

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.

Your comments are spot-on good people. I have been really saddened to see the apathy shown by many people around me at concerts when The Stones play anything even slightly unfamiliar. One such track back in the early noughties was, amazingly, Street Fighting Man. At two of the concerts I attended in Europe back then there was a rapid and widespread rush to the bar when the track was played. Happily the band have continued to play it frequently, and now of course it is widely known.

The success of Out Of Time is a beautiful fluke. Sadly the chances of repeating anything like it, are, indeed, like finding a needle in a haystack. But us diehards will certainly enjoy the new album, whenever it appears.

I can't wait!

I agree that the belief everyone would go off to the toilet is not true. I think if they interspersed the greatest hits with new songs and deep cuts then there isn’t really time to go off for a restroom break, or a beer.
Someone said, and I believe correctly, that MJ watches the crowd closely, and I suspect is easily spooked, if they’re not responding, but I dearly wish they had the courage to explore their new music in a concert setting…. The match derided streets of love as a concert song was really exciting to watch… And listen to… I don’t think it’s such a bad Song… they’ve always had balance, but aim to hook and stir emotions…
Anyway, I think, perhaps there’s some truth in the fact that it shouldn’t be a stadium environment, but maybe it should be arenas and or theatres… I’d love them to do the fruit of the loom tour again… But I’m sure it’s a massive undertaking and investment for the band… With a much greater risk of losing lots of money… However, at this stage of the game, although I think they have to make the numbers balance… I think on this tour… With a new album, it’s less about the financial numbers and more about their legacy… And I mean their artistic legacy… As I’m sure that they will do well commercially, regardless if they were playing a lot more of the new material… I think it would even crease the level of interest from the press… And thereby create more interest and publicity for the tour et cetera

I think a western Stars film
Would work for the new album
In theaters

They should play the entire new album in its entirety for the next tour.
A few warhorses then the new album then an encore of warhorses.

@#$%& it, find out how committed they are to new music and test the fans.
If the album is any good, then the shows would be brilliant!

How about a series of shows whereby they perform the forthcoming album in its entirety, followed by a ‘Greatest Hits’ set. It definitely works for some acts, though those that manage to do this, generally have a core fan base that knows their discography outside of ‘Best-Of’s’ I don’t think the Stones can really do this. I think the present model is fine. All I’d, perhaps, hope for, is that they’ll have several of tracks in circulation throughout the tour. Hopefully, the album will be successful enough that they don’t feel the need to curtail the newer material. Four or five from the new album each show isn’t unreasonably. Perhaps they can mix it up a little, too.

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Big Al

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?

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.

those days were different. Nowadays most concert goes/casual fans are quite intolerant when they hear something that they don't know. Instead if listening they start talking, sit down or go to get another beer…

Quote
treaclefingers

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.

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]

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
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.

They still have to wait for Brian & Charlie to come back and that Bill re-joins.

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.

In a normal tour setting it is hardly conceivable that they'd play much of the new album, let alone in its entirety.

But maybe they could do a few shows a la, what do you call it, residency or so? Say, five shows or so in one place, each show with an emphasis on different songs, or albums.

Or a tour like 2002, with stadiums (mostly warhorses), arenas (mixture of new and old) and theatres (more new songs and more deep cuts, with a number of warhorses at the end).
I sure know which show I would choose to go to...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-04 20:14 by SomeGuy.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
treaclefingers

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.

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]

he plays in a league of his own and he has build up an audience that accepts whatever he does (while the Rolling Stones had fed their audience on greatest hits).

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?

they were selling records in huge numbers in 1978 and the average age of their concert attendees was probably about 18-25. That demographic buys new records.

That average now is about 3 times as old and for the most part those people barely know anything that isnt on a greatest hits record. They almost certainly wont be buying their next album.

Different era. Different music industry. Different audience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-04 21:23 by Gazza.