look at previous tours. how many non hits were played. not many. any great band does the same.

>> but I dont want to hear them anymore show after show <<

Salar honey, that can be arranged very easily, and cheaply too!
seriously, and without singling out Salar or meaning to sound aggressive:
it's been clear since way before the tour started that the Stones are *not* encouraging anyone to attend multiple shows this time.
why not just go to one show and cherish it, and stop worrying about what they play when you aren't there?
i mean really: since it distresses you to read setlists for shows that have nothing to do with you, why do you keep doing it?


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

I wonder if there was this much complaining in 69,70,71,72,73,75,76,78,81,82,89,and 1990 when they played the same songs in the same order virtually EVERY night. What are people going to bitch about in 2 or 3 years if the Stones are no more?

they didn't play satisfaction in imst 99......who was at this show?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-14 19:11 by sater.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an endless and useless discussion made by
> selfish fans who can't understand how normal
> people look at the Stones.


I think iorr is not the forum to look "normal" at
the Stones. You should know.

But
> it would be an offense to the regular fan not to
> play their favorites. Like going to the Louvre and
> not seing Mona Lisa. And to Rome and finding out
> they had taken down Colloseum.

The Louvre and Rome have far more to show than those 2 things.
Come on.

If they play lots of hits at the shows it means 95% of the people attending these concerts will be more than satisfied. Hence, more songs like Brown Sugar, Satisfaction rather than songs like All Down The Line and This Place Is Empty. We want them to play well-known numbers and no boring and obscure material.
Pretty simple really and also an undisputed fact

Rank Outsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
We want
> them to play well-known numbers and no boring and
> obscure material.
> Pretty simple really and also an undisputed fact

Who is "we"? So you are a "normal" concert goer?

If I shove out 650 € + extras for 5 shows
I have the right to shout out for more obscure tracks,
Sympathy or Satisfaction to me IS boring instead.

Pretty simple really and also an undisputed fact.

DrPete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if there was this much complaining in
> 69,70,71,72,73,75,76,78,81,82,89,and 1990 when
> they played the same songs in the same order
> virtually EVERY night.


Well, if the internet had been on then we
would have complained too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-14 19:36 by TooTough.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> but I dont want to hear them anymore show
> after show <<
>
> Salar honey, that can be arranged very easily, and
> cheaply too!
> seriously, and without singling out Salar or
> meaning to sound aggressive:
> it's been clear since way before the tour started
> that the Stones are *not* encouraging anyone to
> attend multiple shows this time.
> why not just go to one show and cherish it, and
> stop worrying about what they play when you aren't
> there?
> i mean really: since it distresses you to read
> setlists for shows that have nothing to do with
> you, why do you keep doing it?
>
> "Music, to me, is the joy, right?"
> - Keith


You are missing my point, sweetheart.
Even if I just go to one show only this summer..
I know by NOW what songs will be playd.

The same 12 songs like each night plus 3 new ones plus 2 keith and 3 middleknown songs.

It is not about WHICH song they play....

I am talking about the relationship between the NEW songs and the SAME warehorses night by night.

Even in the warehorse section they play the same 10 songs out of 30 for example.
The autopilot is getting to much influence IMO.

To BV: you do not trust the crowd that much.

Today the quality of Stones songs is so high and they are performed so well showwise that you do not need the greatest Hits neccecarily to please the crowd.
but maybe this has something to do with the mentality of the fanbase.
Maybe the US fans are crying for the warehorses....by saying:
If I pay 200 bucks I want 20 greatest Hits...

but the european crowd maybe DIFFERENT..they can enjoy a Stonesshow even if they play more new and more seldom playd songs...remeber DS,SOM,OOC,BOMH, and less warehorses.

by the way..I never understand a crowd which is going to have beers while the band is playing...they , the US fans, want the spectacle in its entirety...wheras the europeans are more into the songs IMO....I know I will get hurt for this statement.

Again..as TT said already: it is possible to please the crowd, without playing so much of the same greatest Hits.....if they have the balls to perform them.
Sir Mick Jagger just does not want to take any risk(anymore)....but he always says he gives a shit to the crowds reaction...ha,ha..and what about SWAY ?

Now enough said...it is useless anyway.
Things won`t change..cause The Stones lost the power to play what they want.

Cheers

salar

salar Wrote:

To BV: you do not trust the crowd that much.



Hi Salar Schnookums (is this mandatory today?)

I would like to believe that is true, but last night the guy next to me who said he was a big fan was singing all the wrong words to GOOMC, and when Rambler started he said "COOL! Gimme Shelter".

So perhaps there is some truth to what BV says.

I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I still love Sympathy for the devil after hearing it a dozen times on tour. You guys should realize that the average fan spending $350+ also has another life..........


No one is paying that kind of money to hear soul survivor.....



Just the fact of life.

I agree. Play them stones cds and don't go to the gigs then. If you're complaining about setlists, that's the first sign of the fact that you're either getting too old to rock'n'roll or simply bored with your miserable life.

Bjornulf,

I would say that 'regular fans' and normal fans' would love more variety, BECAUSE they are fans.

The greatest hits/warhorses are for the casual 'fans' - to keep them happy. The people who go with the expectation of getting the few songs that they are familiar with.

It appears that the Stones are playing to keep these people and new attendees happy.

You have created a website which the more 'serious' fans read/contribute to. It is hardly surprising that such (I would say) 'regular' and 'normal' fans would like more variety.

Personally I think a great band with great songs should be able to play, say, 40% well known songs and the rest more varied. Other acts can do it.

Personally I think they are being lazy and playing safe. It surprises me that they don't get bored playing the same old gear.

Sure, you can't please all the people all of the time - but you can at least make an effort.

I think that the Boston setlist was an improvement and let's hope they continue to add different songs (even well known ones) and changing song positions.

tt my answer to the moaner is always the same
sure they could move their ass a little bit more on different songs
but they never have been that way
you sure know that until licks tour where they planned the 3 setlists, stones tour have always relied on fixed setlists with one or two switches
the only difference from ever is that once they used to play more new album songs (1981, 1978 in particular)
so you dream to reform the band you love (but apparently don't know very much)

anyway my very question to your and everyone's moan is that if they'd play a lot of obscure tunes they sure would play it bad, on autopilot, trying to follow the record like a live karaoke

with warhorses they don't do that so much. sure they follow a path (as you tightly said about SFTD for instance) but they let loose and, well, at least for me, it sure is a gas gas gas

can't even imagine a stones concert without bs or even smu (which was surprisingly the highlight of my last - and second - concert, paris 2003)

and here we come to the other point that you seem not to consider

i don't know if you are north american and/or wealthy

for me as european, and italian in particular, and with an average income it has been not so easy to see them live. so, next year it will be my third BS or JJF since 1989... and i tell you i will be disappointed if they don't play them

i am a hardcore fan but i think this is the same condition of most of the casual audience: i do prefer a smoking version of rambler than a karaoke version of winter

and, moreover, you really want to hear miss amanda jones live???!!

i agree with you about the arrangements of some songs and the fact that they don't take risks on that

this is the real point to me. They know some songs so well that they could effortlessly warp them into new ones (sometimes though they do it)

if i had to dream i would hope this:
that they choose 2/3 songs of your list and work on them so that by the time the tour begins they know them as they do BS
then that they play regularly 5/6 new songs, which they should know better than old obscure ones
then that they let loose on warhorses and try to arrange them differently
then i'd like that they basically play the same setlist every night and make their "show of attractions" into a more solid unit (though that would also mean: get rid of most of the crowd of players around)

for example: why two keyboardists to play ATGB? and why not play ATGB with 1 acoustic and 1 electric guitar and a hammond? Remember No Expectations from Olympia, i really like that

Its funny what "real fans" like, in my own band there is me and the guitar player who are complete Stones nuts, most weeks with rehearsals we end up playing a few Stones numbers to limber up before the originals, I was thinking what we like to jam around too would be the perfect core of a Stones live set.
We usually play

Respectable
Gimme Shelter
Beast of Burden
Last Time
Around and Around
Star Star
When the Whip Comes Down

maumau Wrote:

why two keyboardists to play ATGB?
> and why not play ATGB with 1 acoustic and 1
> electric guitar and a hammond? Remember No
> Expectations from Olympia, i really like that


OH MY GOD! HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE ANYTHING ABOUT THE STONES? YOU MUST BE A BAD FAN!!!!! GO TO HELL, FAKE-STONES FAN

bloody hypocrite.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> i mean really: since it distresses you to read
> setlists for shows that have nothing to do with
> you, why do you keep doing it?

Every Stones show has got something to do with me. It´s my band.

Montrealsuperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one is paying that kind of money to hear soul
> survivor.....
>

> Just the fact of life.


Soul Survivor is worth far more than any of you
setlist-cheerers could ever pay.

ISleptWithLisaFischer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCKK both you guys, dude they have completly re
> worked the set and all you bastards doing is
> fuckinn complain... dont go then, more room for
> us, you wanna here all thoes songs put in a cd,
> holyy moly

I´m sorry for you. You haven´t understood what this is about.
I never attacked any of you personally. But it´s easy to see that
you don´t have any remarks about the CONTENT of my original post.
All you can do is to insult people because you have no arguments
about the matter.

>dude they have completly re
> worked the set

What planet are you on? Maybe the order, but not the songs.
Check the archives.

Every one calm down.........

I agree that Soul Survivor is a great tune, but unfortunately the vast majority of people coughing up $350+ (excluding my wife and I) have heard of it.

Just the facts of life...........

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ISleptWithLisaFischer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FUCKK both you guys, dude they have completly
> re
> > worked the set and all you bastards doing is
> > fuckinn complain... dont go then, more room
> for
> > us, you wanna here all thoes songs put in a
> cd,
> > holyy moly
>
> I´m sorry for you. You haven´t understood what
> this is about.
> I never attacked any of you personally. But it´s
> easy to see that
> you don´t have any remarks about the CONTENT of my
> original post.
> All you can do is to insult people because you
> have no arguments
> about the matter.
>
> >dude they have completly re
> > worked the set
>
> What planet are you on? Maybe the order, but not
> the songs.
> Check the archives.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Barcelona, Paris, München, Berlin, Köln!!
>

1 agree with tootough. he has a right to complain about the setlist. it's been going on since the tour started. it won't change anything, though.

Too Tough, don't call the people who disagree with you "setlist cheerers".
I'm quite a Stones chereer. But I don't lose contact with reality.
The Stones play for tens of thousands of people there. Fortunatelly, they're wise enough to know what most of them want to hear. And even some hardcore fans want hits and get exiceted about them, imagine.
I can't get no, no, no, no - you should love this, Too Tough, it suits you. And you should stop embarrassing yourself on this thread.

(Sure I love less known songs. But unless they do clubs, this setlist is as it should be, more or less. That's an "indisputable fact.")

maumau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stones tour have always
> relied on fixed setlists with one or two switches
> the only difference from ever is that once they
> used to play more new album songs (1981, 1978 in
> particular)

Yes, but until 1982 it was R&R, based on guitars,
drums, bass and singing. Every night was @#$%& different.


> i don't know if you are north american and/or
> wealthy

German, not really wealthy, but I sold my guitar and
amplifier for the tickets/flights etc. (I would have
sold it anyway, I just had no time to learn it;-)


> for me as european, and italian in particular, and
> with an average income it has been not so easy to
> see them live. so, next year it will be my third
> BS or JJF since 1989... and i tell you i will be
> disappointed if they don't play them

I will be disappointed if I get them 5 times, always
on the same spot of the setlist. And I know it´s gonna happen.


> i am a hardcore fan but i think this is the same
> condition of most of the casual audience: i do
> prefer a smoking version of rambler than a karaoke
> version of winter

Rambler always works, because they improvise, it´s raw R&R&B.
But there is no point against Winter- come on! I´s prefer Winter
anytime instead of Angie (another ridden-to-death-warhorse).

> and, moreover, you really want to hear miss amanda
> jones live???!!

Why NOT? Give it a try! Followed by The Lantern.

There is always hope.

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Montrealsuperfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No one is paying that kind of money to hear
> soul survivor.....
> Just the fact of life.

> Soul Survivor is worth far more than any of you
> setlist-cheerers could ever pay.
--------
> Barcelona, Paris, München, Berlin, Köln!!

Yeah,TT....right in the face of the cheerers. Go on, man.

salar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah,TT....right in the face of the cheerers. Go
> on, man.

It´s not my intention to insult anyone.

My main gripe is that shows are 1 or 2 songs too short.

How many shows have they done 22 songs? I was at MSG for 22, any other sites?

I'd like Rough Justice and one more warhorse back in it...

country honk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, two new songs in Boston and we have had
> almost 50 songs in this tour so far.....
>
> Why all this complaints.....
>
> We will probably have 1 or 2 new songs on
> sunday.....
>
> More than most other bands do......
>
> Sure by the end of this tour they hav reached over
> 60 songs.....


I think its 48 songs so far which while not a bad statistic, isnt more than most other bands, although youre probably right about the 60 songs + by the end of thr tour

That statistic of 48 songs is a bit misleading however. There are about 12-15 songs which get played at practically EVERY show, and thats a huge percentage of what is now a 20-song setlist (and from past experience, THAT 20-song total will probably be less by the time they get to Europe). Therefore a large proportion of those 48 songs have only been played very rarely. Theres not a lot of rotation between the 'warhorses' and the number of ABB songs seems to be getting less.

and to those who say that the reason some express disappointment is because of the variety of the Licks tour, then why shouldnt they? If a band can raise the bar to new levels with such varied shows on that tour, why not hope or expect for them to do something similar on this one? By not trying to be ambitious, its a step backwards

Still, 4 tour debuts in the first 2 shows of 2006 is definitely a step in the right direction. Hopefully it'll continue.

Too Tough, if the setlists they are playing distress you so much, why do you even bother to continue to read them? And why go to another show? I can understand not being happy with the selist, but you just seem so incredibly angry and bitter about it. If something annoyed me that much, I would stay as far away from it as possible because I don't like feeling annoyed, bitter and angry.

Or maybe that is what you are getting out of the experience, an excuse to complain because you enjoy being the poor victimized fan and venting about it? Give me a break!

I think anyone who is unhappy with the setlist at the Boston show is suffering from unrealistic expectations. They played Let's Spend the Night Together and Respectable, two songs that hadn't been played yet on this tour. How many debuts would it take to make some people happy? Four? Ten? All 20 songs, perhaps?

In addition, Keith has changed up his set and is finally playing one rocker and one ballad like so many have requested. We got As Tears Go By, a rarely played live song that everyone raves about, and Midnight Rambler, which seems to be near the top of just about everyone's request list.

The only legitimate complaint about this setlist is they did only three songs from the new album. I'd be happy with five, that would mean 25% of the setlist would be from ABB. Other than that, this is about the best setlist we can realistically expect and a pretty damn good one in my opinion. Any setlist that contains two debuts is a reason to cheer because you know that is not going to happen at every show.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too Tough,
why do you even bother to
> continue to read them? And why go to another show?

2 rather stupid questions.

> I can understand not being happy with the selist,

You can´t understand me and can understand me?


> but you just seem so incredibly angry and bitter
> about it. If something annoyed me that much, I
> would stay as far away from it as possible because
> I don't like feeling annoyed, bitter and angry.

Being angry are the wrong words, I´m just disappointed
that they sell the same things again and again and again
though they have so much to offer.
And the point is: they could sell a n y t h i n g, even the
obscure things. It´s more than 40 years and 40 songs.