Rev - Excellent post. I think we're on a more harmonious level. I agree with virturally everything you're saying. I've seen two shows this tour (Giants and Philly). Yes there were some spotty moments...why Ronnie can't deliver the lead to Tumbling Dice I'll never know. But for the most part, I was blown away by the sound and energy the band put forth. I've actually given the whole homogenous setlist thing some thought and this is what I've come up with. The Stones have a certain image to uphold. I really think that they believe that they are delivering the the best possible product with the current setlist. I think that they realize that with their advancing ages, that there is a certain insecurity involved with rehearsing and performing somewhat lesser known tracks. Sway from Columbus is a perfect example. It was great to know that they played it, but it was a less than stellar effort. And if they added another 10-15 tracks to rehearse who's to say those songs would come off any better. I know that the Licks Tour seems to contradict my logic, but it's possible that they're just not physically and mentally up to rehearsing 100 songs this time. The other side of this is that I don't think that they're "mailing in" the standards. I think that they're saying "we're going to do these 40 songs and we're going to give it all we've got." Keith has played JJF tens of thousands of times, but when I saw him play this in NJ, I could swear he was playing like it was the last time he'd ever be allowed to strap on a guitar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-06 23:33 by dj.

dj:

Thanks. I like what you have to say as well. And yes, there are very real thrills in the show. How could there not be? At Fenway, I was grinning like a fool when they tore off "Satisfaction." As I've written many times before, part of what frustrates me is the feeling that they have a lot to offer and that the energy gets scattered. My assumption is that they--sometimes, but not always--fall victim to boredom that comes with doing a set that is about meeting conventional expectations. It seems like they're working for a crowd that they regard as being uninterested in actual music--as opposed to spectacle and event. Why wouldn't a sensitive soul like Ron Wood (who's got other problems, as well) get bored or distracted? Or feel foolish? Especially when he's not availing himself of Keith's "medicines."

But let's take your theory about them honing in on some kind of reliable Rolling Stones experience that they can deliver with confidence. Isn't what you're talking about a very profound form of decline? "We'll lean on the most recognizable material because we're not sure that we can sell XYZ song on a pure musical/performance level?" I think that such a scenario is exactly what a lot of us are fearing. I hope, hope, hope that's not true and that it's not how they are thinking. But boy, does the current show ever suggest that that is exactly the mindset.

(A quick note: I'm not one of those people who think that the Stones should be carrying a huge repertoire--only that the pacing and structure and feel of the show should be new and different than it has been in the past. And that it should incorporate a few monumental songs as well. Think, for example, of opening the 1994 show with "Not Fade Away" before launching into "Dice." Not inaccessible or obscure--just surprising and fresh.)

But back to the topic at hand. If the Stones are that fragile and concerned about delivering, then we are fools for shelling out at any of their price levels to watch them in a stadium. Better to trade music, share viewpoints, watch "Gimme Shelter" or whatever. Celebrate the best of the band, not participate in some market that is inflated largely by people who don't have a deep awareness or appreciation for the music.

I still believe in these guys, but I'm struggling...