It's not just the length of shows,but the number of songs.
I'm sure the Stones will be down to 19 by the time they hit Europe,just like the last time.
Macca plays 36 numbers on his current tour,which means he's keeping everyone happy.
Probably similar with Bruce ?

sc uk

Bruce would play about 24-25 per show in a 3 hour performance, obviously a couple more if it runs past that

Agree totally not one of them other people put as much energy into a show like the stones.

i know there are a lot of macca/beatles haters here - but you do have to admire and marvel at a guy 64 years old putting out 36 songs per nite. that's impressive.

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree totally not one of them other people put as
> much energy into a show like the stones.


As I stated earlier, why do you expect Paul McCartney to put as much energy running around in a show as Mick? You cannot compare the 2 because it's entirely different.

Mick is, other than for a couple songs per show, strictly a vocalist, thus all he has is a mic, which he is able to carry around with him wherever he wanders on the stage. There's no disputing he does a fantastic job with that.

Paul on the other hand plays bass, guitar or piano on every song he plays (which is actually 37 per show, not 36) and he stands behind a mic on a stand. The majority of the songs he plays have a lot of singing and not a large amount of instrumental breaks. He has to stand behind the mic and not dance around like Mick out of neccessity, not because he does not have the energy that Mick has. When Paul does play on a song that has long instrumental sections, he does go around the stage with as much energy as Keith or Ronnie.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-07 01:58 by Halup.

Yeah, 2 hours is about all I can handle no matter who's playing. It just seems right, not too short and not too long.

I agree Stones89... but just a point at what the rest of the BIG rock acts are doing... 2 hours is good BUT the same setlist with the exception of ONE oldie... well IMHO there is a great catalog that would make for a better show than the one they are putting on on this tour. ESPECIALLY with Micks voice sounding like it did in the 60.... get off my cloud on this tour is Mick 30 or 40 years ago. How about 3 older 60's songs thats 6 out of twenty add the 5-6 warhorses and you still have room for the B2B or VDL or Some girls..etc... its not difficult with a little thought and effort nobody would be left out... but some are being left out now... the fans who were there during the mid 60's... how about some respect for the fans who carried you so you can make the money your now making.... thats the point! Bruce and Mecca NEVER forgot them.

3 older ones and 3 new ones= the 6 Iam talking about.

i don't care what songs the stones played someone would complain..
they tried doing sway and it was reported that most in the crowd had no clue or care about the song...so it seems that most of the paying fans are very happy to hear what the stones are playing... the stones are getting 2x's the tickets prices that bruce and paul are charging and every review i read is that you are more than getting your monies worth....the stones are better than ever..
again, the fans after the show are very excited about this tour.....
and it will be the biggest and best tour in 05/06...

p.s. eric, did you see them this year?
sorry to beat a dead horse, but the stones offer their fans the best sound, lights, stage, a great b-stage so even more fans can get up close to see them and the very best music by the very best band in rock history....what more do you want? jaggers blood...

No no blood.. and yes they are still good but not great. It could be great with some creativity with the setlist... hey, we all love them BUT come on... you can give more and still be done in 2 hours. No blood.... just do what you used to do and mix it up like you used to. You see its the Stones that changed not us.

All the criticism is fair, and I love Macca (and Mecca too!) but I tell you -- I would rather see the Stones on a ragged night than Macca on the hottest night of his tour.

You don't just pay for the show time. You pay for quality, dude! McCartney is a silly old peice of crap. U2 is an out of hand garage band. The Stones are living legends and make the best rock 'n' roll on the planet.

Besides, they're nearing 65 and they put up a way more energetic performance then any of the artist you named. Just be glad they're still out there.

Obviously you're all talking about Bruce from years ago....

He has just wound up a tour (solo/acoustic/piano) that I'd hardly say he would have lost ONE pound an evening on! Just standing there....or sitting there...

Still he played between 24 and 27 songs per night, and show ran for about 2 - 2.5 hrs, but nowhere near 3 hours...

...and as much as I LOVE the Stones, Bruce is, either solo as his last tour was, or with the band as the 2 tours before that were, mind-blowing live. I'll take him anytime...he connects emotionally as well as primally (the Stones have no "emotional connection"...they're 'just' a good-time band!)...

...and AT LEAST Springsteen shakes up, REALLY SHAKES UP, the setlists!

Rod
Perth
Australia

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

IF THEY STONES PLAYED LIKE MACCA, CLOSE TO 3 HRS...YOU GUYS WOULD BE SO HAPPY. INSTEAD THEY ARE LIMITING THEMSELVES TO ONLY 2 HOURS.

TOO LITTLE AND NO VALUE FOR MY MONEY


MACCA SAID IT IN AN INTERIVEW " CONCERT TIX ARE EXPENSIVE NOWADAYS, SO I TRY TO GIVE FANS VALUE FOR MONEY"


AND THAT'S THEY WAY IT SHOUDL BE.


IF I PAY 450.....THE STONES BETTER PLAY BEAST OF BURDEN AND PLAY MORE THAN 2 HOURS!!!!!!!

If you STOPPED screaming in your posts I might (MIGHT) read them, but as soon as I see you with your infernal CAPS LOCK ON, I just ignore the context of what you say......

Think about THAT....IF you want us to read what you're saying......STOP YELLING at us ALL THE TIME...............

I saw Manu Chao once in the Milky Way in Amsterdam summer 2003. He was on stage for more than 5 hours! He started at 9 o'clock and finished after 5 hours around 2. Exiting.

I think using more than one ! at the end of a sentence is childish.

another example for long shows are bon jovi.

the band played always over 2 hours und nearly 3 hours without a break. for example munich 2003 180 minutes powerful rock and nearly 30 tracks.

and u2 played only 115-125 hours (because bono have talked about the problems of the world). hey, it's a rock-concert, then no politics please.

RoddyD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously you're all talking about Bruce from
> years ago....


yeah..two

>
> He has just wound up a tour (solo/acoustic/piano)
> that I'd hardly say he would have lost ONE pound
> an evening on! Just standing there....or sitting
> there...
>

I thought that was quite obvious and hardly needed said, but anyway

rest of your post is right on...

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't just pay for the show time. You pay for
> quality, dude! McCartney is a silly old peice of
> crap. U2 is an out of hand garage band. The Stones
> are living legends and make the best rock 'n' roll
> on the planet.
>

pointless argument if youre just going to use the "my band's better than your band" angle - the whole point is giving the audience who have paid in value for money

everything you've said above about the quality of the 3 acts youve mentioned is purely down to personal taste, not fact

Gerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> another example for long shows are bon jovi.
>
> the band played always over 2 hours und nearly 3
> hours without a break. for example munich 2003 180
> minutes powerful rock and nearly 30 tracks.

as much as I hate them, thats pretty good
>
> and u2 played only 115-125 hours (because bono
> have talked about the problems of the world). hey,
> it's a rock-concert, then no politics please.

nonsense. A U2 show has always been about more than "just a rock concert". Everyone who goes to one knows what theyre getting - plus its an integral part of the show..youre making it sound like a huge part of the show is like that. It isnt.

Quality, not quantity. I saw the Jefferson Airplane at the Fillmore East in NYC in May 1968...they started playing at about 9:00 PM, and when they were done and I walked outside, the sun was coming up.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> nonsense. A U2 show has always been about more
> than "just a rock concert". Everyone who goes to
> one knows what theyre getting - plus its an
> integral part of the show..youre making it sound
> like a huge part of the show is like that. It
> isnt.
>

the "elevation"-tour was much better than the "vertigo-tour" this year. and this year it was very bad to hear the "jesus-look-a-like"-comments of bono. just my two cents.

ferrante9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!
>
> IF THEY STONES PLAYED LIKE MACCA, CLOSE TO 3
> HRS...YOU GUYS WOULD BE SO HAPPY. INSTEAD THEY
> ARE LIMITING THEMSELVES TO ONLY 2 HOURS.
>
> TOO LITTLE AND NO VALUE FOR MY MONEY
>
>
> MACCA SAID IT IN AN INTERIVEW " CONCERT TIX ARE
> EXPENSIVE NOWADAYS, SO I TRY TO GIVE FANS VALUE
> FOR MONEY"
>
>
> AND THAT'S THEY WAY IT SHOUDL BE.
>
>
> IF I PAY 450.....THE STONES BETTER PLAY BEAST OF
> BURDEN AND PLAY MORE THAN 2 HOURS!!!!!!!

This time Ferrante nailed it...anyway, I think that a live concert by the Stones just can't be topped by anyone, anyhow.

I never understand this talk of concert experience in terms of quantities, for example, number of minutes or songs played. I could anytime pick up an hour and 20 minutes show from the 72/73 tour with that never-changing set list than three hour marathon by Bruce Springsteen or the one by Stones from 1989 on with their relatively changing set lists with casual surprises. I can not understand where on earth people will get the energy to really enjoy and take part to the happening that runs over some two hours. Dylan shows with their 15 numbers are quite ideal. But the point of complaining that the Stones do 22 instead of 23 is unreal for me. Does that really matter? Neither I don't much fancy for hearing a rare number - it's nice, but not obligatory. Rock show ain't any stamp collecting. For what matters is the quality and energy of the performance, to experience The Greatest Rock&Roll Band In The World as worth of its title in quality, no matter how many minutes it lasts, or how many numbers they play. Play whatever you want and as long as you want, but do it well!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-07 14:21 by Doxa.

..and do it affordably while youre at it...

Exactly, Gazza, exactly..

- Doxa

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BornOnTheBayou Wrote:
>
>
>
> Springsteen puts on a helluva
> > concert but he doesn't dance around the way
> Jagger
> > does, either, nor does Bono.
>
> Springsteen doesnt put a lot of energy into a
> show???? Not sure where youve been for the last 30
> years. He sweats off pounds in every show

Indeed he does, but let's see if he's jumping up on pianos at Micks age (62 plus)....

"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

Gerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> another example for long shows are bon jovi.
>
> the band played always over 2 hours und nearly 3
> hours without a break. for example munich 2003 180
> minutes powerful rock and nearly 30 tracks.
>

Yes, I saw the Bon Jovi setlist from their recent gig at Mohegan Sun and it was awesome... and a 4-song encore if I remember correctly... I hope to see them this tour.

I first saw Bon Jovi as an unknown band when they toured with the Moody Blues in the early 80's... even then you could tell this band was gonna be special.

But again, how are you going to compare Bon Jovi, who are probably only in their early 40's to the Stones for energy ???... of course they're gonna have more stamina.


"It's just that demon life has got me in it's sway..."

I saw Carlos Santana, and I think his show lasted 2.5 to 3 hours.