I know there has been a lot of complaining here on this board about the stale setlists. There is some merit to the argument and unfortunately the Stones have begun to pair down the length of their show. They started with 22 numbers in Boston and have lately been playing only 20 and only 3 or 4 from ABB.

With that said, let's look at the Stones "competitors" on the road at this time. How many of you have seen multiple shows or read the setlists of some of the big acts touring this year? U2, playing a solid 23 numbers (usually) per night puts on a respectable show with 8-9 numbers from their latest release. I personally don't like the "new" album and therefore did not attend a U2 show this time out. Every show has nearly the same song selection and the same order and will usually make subtle changes to the setlist in the middle of the set. SOUND FAMILIAR! Aerosmith, a Stones copycat and a much younger version, can only handle playing 16 songs per night and 85-90% of their set list is identical every night.

My point here is the Stones are the greatest live act ever. Period. Enjoy the shows, but understand very few acts change their setlist from one night to the next. Most establish an order for songs and stick with it the entire tour (Bruce Springsteen excepting). What's worse is many of these bands will play the same songs in the same order the next time they go out on tour. At least the Stones always change their opener and usually their closer and throw one or two of the warhorses usually reserved for the end into the middle of the show. May I suggest anyone who wants to have a peak at how the set list is drawn up to consult with the interview of Mick done by Jann Wenner from Rolling Stone mag back in '95. Mick puts a lot of thought into their set list, particularly evidenced by the selections played during the Voodoo Lounge Tour.

I just saw Aerosmith two nights ago in Albany,NY. They rocked and yes it was mostly all the old songs. They were just incredible!!!

>Aerosmith, a Stones copycat and a much younger version, can only handle playing 16 songs per night and 85-90% of their set list is identical every night.>

On their current tour Aerosmith's co-headlining with Lenny Kravitz, right? That's why they don't play as many songs as usual.

DYLAN

Good thread. Other than Springsteen or Dylan, are other major artists changing their setlists much these days?

I only know Dylan (110 songs played in 2005)/Springsteen (130 in 2005)/Black Crowes and Gov't Mule. That's for me the most interesting artists in 2005 also.

U2 and Aerosmith also charge less for tickets.

i'd hardly call Aerosmith 'much younger'

they're hardly spring chickens

mind u, if they play a set that doesn't include anything after 1985 i might even go and see them again myself

i'm not sure comparisons with u2 and aerosmith on the setlist deal are valid - the Stones have FAR MORE songs that even casual fans know and know well. Far more - and that's the basic premise of the "setlist caring" that I subscribe to.

I would say that Aerosmith and U2 are the biggest "threat" to the Rolling Stones when comparing BANDS, not solo artists like Madonna, Elton or Paul. But I think Aerosmith and U2 are reasonable bands to compare the Stones to b/c both bands still get huge amounts of ppl to come to their shows, buy their albums, and both bands are intensely famous (Steven Tyler and Bono are probably 2 of the biggest music stars in the world that most anyone knows).

I did notice that Aerosmith's setlists are smaller this tour but I agree with RnT that this is due to Lenny Kravitz and his opening act spot. It's not a co-headlining tour, but I'm sure he gets a nice time slot.

Also, I wanted to note that the Joe Perry song during their set is the single off his recent solo album. I think that's really cool that the band is willing to let Joe play one of his solo songs during the set. I've always wished that the Stones would let Mick do God Gave Me Everything or Everybody Get High, oh well, Keith is too much of a dick to let that happen.

jumpinjackgreg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Lenny Kravitz and his opening act spot. It's not a
> co-headlining tour, but I'm sure he gets a nice
> time slot.
>

I must admit that I'm a little surprised to hear that Lenny Kravitz is opening for Aerosmith. I do not doubt that Aerosmith are the more popular act, but still, Lenny Kravitz is certainly quite popular. I know the Stones can get practically ANYONE to open for them, but Aerosmith?

-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-23 00:53 by cirrhosis.

oh, so the setlist bitching is running rampant!

believe it or not, among the Dylan fan community, we bitch about his setlists because he's never pulled out the likes of Buick 6, or Sad-eyd Lady....so, it's just part of being a good fan, really.....

Does anyone actually know a good Aerosmith message board? Been searching for one. They are excellent in every way. I hate to see them encroaching on the Stones legacy, but I think they just may be.

Please let me know about the message board!

Aerosmith?!?!?!
yuck!
not even close.



the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-23 00:54 by cirrhosis.

"I must admit that I'm a little surprised to hear that Lenny Kravitz is opening for Aerosmith. I do not doubt that Aerosmith are the more popular act, but still, Lenny Kravitz is certainly quite popular."

Lenny can't get arrested anymore at least here in the states. He was, is and always has been more hype (or should I say tripe) than substance.

Still Aerosmith needed a "big name" (even if it is a has-been) to justify the $125 they are charging for good seats! I paid $5-$6 several times "back in the day." Aerosmith does have a high falutin' high tech stage this time out. They gotta pay for that somehow.

No comparison on the set lists.

With an Aerosmith set list you might get 10 new songs everynight, . . . but they're Areosmith songs, so . . . who cares?


Okay that's probably a bit harsh, but give me a JJF, SFTD, or GS any day over any mix of half a dozen Aerosmith rarities or best-of songs.

I like Aerosmith's stuff from the '70s. They were trying to be Stones clones and, while of course they weren't as good as the originals, they put out some pretty fantastic rock 'n' roll back then.

Since they've had a few songs I've liked and a whole bunch I've hated: Love In An Elevator, Janie's Got A Gun, Don't Want To Miss A Thing, all those ballads from the early '90s that sound alike (Crazy, Amazing, Amazingly Crazy, Crazily Amazing, whatever). They have really fallen very far from their heyday if you ask me, much more so than contemporaries like the Stones, Plant, Dylan, Springsteen, Petty, Young, etc.

Why compare the Stones set lists to bands like that. Or should I say bands that suck. Most of the live acts I would go see today change their set lists on a pretty regular basis.. Dylan, Gov. Mule, Black Crows, Allman Bros.

And bands that I would recently see but are not around anymore such as Phish or the Dead played different songs every night even ignoring their hits.

Point is the Stones have way too many great songs they ignore and this includes hits. Think about how many hits the Stones have that they have never played live or are treated as rarities. its incredible... to name a few

She Was Hot, Mothers little Helper, Emotional Rescue, Time is On my Side, Under My Thumb, Have You Seen Your Mother, The Last Time, and so on.

Aerosmith kicks ass live, seen them a dozen times and even though they are second to the Stones IMO, they are well worth seeing. And it should give Keith something to think about, as mentioned by JUMPINJACKKENT, that they allow Joe Perry to do one of his solo tunes! I'd love to see Mick to a mini-set of his solo songs like SWEET THING, EVENING GOWN, BLUE, LUCKY DAY, GOD GAVE ME EVERYTHING, WIRED ALL NIGHT and HIDE AWAY. I know this will never happen and to be fair, I'd even rather hear 2 songs from Keith from his Winos or New Barbarian days than the same boring songs he plays EVERY NIGHT! Even 2 from Talk is Cheap. ANYTHING except what he is currently playing. I got off track! As Stones fans it really isn't necessary to put down ALL of the competition; we all know who's #1 so it's pointless to bash Paul, Bono and Aerosmith!

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
! I'd love to see Mick to a
> mini-set of his solo songs like SWEET THING,
> EVENING GOWN, BLUE, LUCKY DAY, GOD GAVE ME
> EVERYTHING, WIRED ALL NIGHT and HIDE AWAY. I know
>
Can you really picture the rest of the stones playing anybody s solo carier
songs?i d really like to hear stuff from keith s main offender but not like that...it would be odd..

I agree with Debra on the fact that it's pointless to bash Paul, Bono and Aerosmith. These are amazing artists with immense talent. And why do we care? B/c we are afraid they come close to knocking the Stones off the throne. Who cares? Let them rock. The Stones sure don't care. Do you really think that Keith Richards sits in a chair in his mansion and grumples "God I'm so afraid that Aerosmith or U2 might be better than us!" Yeah right. They are all good in their own right.

Like Aerosmith, but their sappy ballads blow. Stones have the edge here in the ballad department.

I saw Aerosmith with Lenny Kravitz last month at the Meadowlands Arena in East Rutherford, N.J. Ticket cost $32 for the balcony. The place was about only 2/3 full. Lenny was real, real limp. Aerosmith had no energy whatsoever. It is worth $32 just to see Keith stroll to the front of the stage before hitting a single note. I thought Lenny would rock, because you hear his fast songs and say, hey, he's pretty good....neither he nor Aerosmith proved it when it counted.