Doesn't Keith get bored singing those two songs night after night, week after week? I'm not complaining about it (I like both songs) but if I were Keith I would like to try to sing Little T&A, You got the silver,....

Didn't he do Infamy earlier in the tour?

I was hoping he was going to do that when I saw them--love that tune.

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Didn't he do Infamy earlier in the tour?

At every show in 2005.

infamy was great live....loved it...
i'm sure they get bored but they get a rush with the fans going wild...i'm sure thats the same thing that keeps an entertainer going!

It's funny, cause it seems that Infamy lends itself to a live perfrmance more
so then "This Place is Empty" especially in a larger venue.

I thot Worst/Infamy was a pretty decent pairing. TPIE/Happy is bathroom-break-stuff, especially with the way Happy is sounding these days.

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't Keith get bored singing those two songs
> night after night, week after week?

maybe so, but the paycheck might ease the pain

It's his choice what songs he plays.

turning a huge stadium - just for a moment - into an ultra intimate venue with nothing but your voice and an acoustic guitar ...
smile: so Keith Richards makes it look easy, does he? i'll be darned. :E



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

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's his choice what songs he plays.

Good point

Different crowd every night. The shows are not about what they play but where and who they play. Like a fooball team. They play the same game all the time. But still it is different. If you like to play ball it's great. And if you love to perform then the song is not the issue - the crowd is what it is all about. That is why it is really pointless to make comments on set lists. New crowd every night. New opportunities. New excitement.

Bjornulf

Having heard both live I can say that The Worst and Infamy were clearly far more enjoyable than TPIE and Happy. I really liked Infamy live. T&A or YGTS would be better, but Infamy worked for me.

I was just wondering if Keith doesn't want to challenge himself. I'm NOT complaining about the setlist. If I were Keith I'd want to do different things. It just seems boring to me to do the SAME songs every time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-22 20:25 by Harm.

its the joy of the music.....they love the blues and that can be very basic...
its what they love to do...

So if Happy is so boring why was 55,000 people in Buenos Aires jumping up and down and swinging their T-shirts just loving this song, while they were a lot more quiet on the new songs from ABB? It was like a rocket launch. The moment Happy was on 55,000 people were up in the air. Instantly. Happy is very popular indeed, even if some individuals don't like it for some reason. And

Bjornulf

the folks in Argentina are clearly just naturally happier, it seems

Did I say Happy was boring? It's one of my favourite songs of Keith.

Its the no variation of songs that is killing the fans and it will kill the Stones in the end. I do believe they must get bored? I mean where is Coming Down Again? Mother Little Helper? etc etc.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like a fooball team. They play the same game all
> the time. But still it is different. If you like
> to play ball it's great. And if you love to
> perform then the song is not the issue - the crowd
> is what it is all about. That is why it is really
> pointless to make comments on set lists. New crowd
> every night. New opportunities. New excitement.
>
> Bjornulf


Couldn't disagree more. No new opportunities. Its the same show each tour, a few times they mixed it up and were heading in the right direction. But Keith seems bored to death and so uninspired sometimes that you question what he is doing. How can making comments on set lists be pointless. I saw them 3 tours in a row in Mass and it was such a big disappointment that they barely changed the set list. They just seem to play what easy and safe so they can get a nice applause. I work in a company of over 200 people who all know I am a Stones fan and all give me a hard time about how uncreative they are with their song selection each tour. They joke and say to me that they can only remember how to play the same 30 songs or so. Mind you these people are also casual fans and have seen the Stones, they do point out that they wouldn't go and watch them play Miss You and You Got Me Rocking again. I don't blame them.

Let me ask you this BV, as a fellow Stones fan since the 60s, would you be fine with the Stones playing the same 20 songs every night for a whole tour? If so it seems like you are easy to please and don't care if others discover the huge catelog of great songs the Stones have. All I want is the Stones to be proud of their full body of work instead of continusly playing the same stuff over and over. Its one thing if you are a young band but when you have been around and have as many good songs as they have it just dissappointing that they can't be more creative about their live show.

AND NO this doesn't mean play all rarities, we know they have enough hits to mix it up a little.

the stones are setting records with their tix sales ..so the fans seem to be VERY HAPPY with what the stones are playing....what will kill the stones is not the set list but old age!

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They joke and say to me that they can only
> remember how to play the same 30 songs or so.

uh...it ain't a joke, unfortunately

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones are setting records with their tix
> sales ..so the fans seem to be VERY HAPPY with
> what the stones are playing....what will kill the
> stones is not the set list but old age!


I am from England but currently live in NY and with the Stones and the way corporate America is, at this point the Stones can make record sales without doing much. Compare it to the Yankees, yes they could sell out every game. But that doesn't mean the game will be good and the people in the seats are true Yankee fans.

With that said many of the Stones concerts today are filled with suits who take clients to the shows and so on. That is who the Stones play for, many of their true fans could be dissappointed and the Stones would have no clue and probably don't care cause the seats are filled.

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones are setting records with their tix
> sales ..so the fans seem to be VERY HAPPY with
> what the stones are playing....what will kill the
> stones is not the set list but old age!


I am from England but currently live in NY and with the Stones and the way corporate America is, at this point the Stones can make record sales without doing much. Compare it to the Yankees, yes they could sell out every game. But that doesn't mean the game will be good and the people in the seats are true Yankee fans.

With that said many of the Stones concerts today are filled with suits who take clients to the shows and so on. That is who the Stones play for, many of their true fans could be dissappointed and the Stones would have no clue and probably don't care cause the seats are filled.

the stones play for everyone...whether they have a suit or not.
rolling stones inc...are a big business....and it takes a lot of cash to put on a tour like the bigger bang...the funny part is that people have been bitching about ticket prices since the 1969 tour...and every tour since...the only ones really bitching on this tour has been the scalpers...because they can't buy stones tix for $50.00 and sell them to us for $300.00....

funny thing, most so-called true fans are the ones in the suits...and like the stones, most so-called fans now have the cash to get good tix's, without camping out! the old true fans now have the cash to pay for good seats...unlike the old days sleeping in a parking lot to get a tix now we go online and use our credit card...the stones do have cheaper seats, $50 to $65.00....

but for me the stones are sure giving their fans new or long term their monies worth...sometimes you pay for what you get....

"Hey, If I would have known it was this good, I would have done it before." (or something like that), Keith in Boston 1999 on You Got The Silver

Here it is: [s33.yousendit.com]

I thought my question was clear but apparently it turned out to become a post about the choice of the setlist again. Maybe I'll ask Keith one day.

Well Keith has probably been bored and stiff a number of times in his life but I doubt he's ever accomplished both at the same time while performing on stage.



ROCKMAN

During the '94-'03 era,he would always rotate songs and during that time I don't think he ever played the same two songs for three shows in a row with the exception of All About You/Wanna Hold You in '97.

Well it ain't new excitement everynight - only someone that hasn't been on stage alot could have said that.

I get bored singing my songs live and to break it up throw in covers from time to time because to keep an audience interested you have to be (or at least look) interested yourself.

I cannot possibly see how he avoids the boredom of playing the same two songs.
But he's obviously in his comfort zone so boredom maybe a small price to pay for lethargy.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

After all you must be aware that the Stones are just in for the money and do not play any more (even occasionally) for their pleasure. So they basically play their greatest-hits oldies act because it sells best.
Most of the fans on this board are right: It is not the question 'warhorses or not' but the sense of an unadventurous concert act.
Rio was a good example, with not even one new or unusual song (and I do not mean an obscure rarity but one of the classics which had not been performed beforehand).