Naw man, I ain't pissed at all - disappointed with Mick/Stones - yeah, but not pissed. If I don't like the set lists, extreme prices ,or pain in the ass, giant hassle venues I just don't go to the show - it's simple. Yeah, my last Stones concert was 1999 where they did do many new ones (ones that they never played live in the USA before - "Moonlight Mile", "Some Girls", "You Got the Silver", "Shine a Light" and then songs they hadn't done for ages or very rarely - "Live With Me" "Memory Motel", a much improved from '89 "Paint it Black", "Respectable", "Route 66", "Whip", "Imagination", a great "Midnight Rambler" on the B stage, not to mention Great versions of "Saint of Me" and "Out of Control". All of those songs were heard/seen (I'm leaving all the warhorses out which weren't ALL played EVERY night like they are now) just by going to 2 back to back shows on the short "No Security" US tour. Since then I've followed the Tours through info on IORR, DVD's, and CD"S (legit and boots). The Live Licks tour seemed really interesting but you can basically get a great overview from the DVD Four Flicks set.Besides missing "She Smiled Sweetly" (which I have a CD boot of) and the played much too fast "Stray Cat Blues" in Paris the DVD's are excellent.So to sum up , add up all those songs I mentioned above from 2 shows in '99 then take 2 back to back '05 /'06 shows MSG or Hollywood Bowl and add up how many new or rarely played songs you get. The number's a lot lower then past tours which shows they're either nervous about not playing ALL the warhorses at EVERY show or have just lost interest and want to make maximum money. Either way I'll wait for the DVD's and CD's. I've seen them plenty of times. On those past tours you DID get at least 10 new ones on every tour - look at the massive change in set lists between '72 / '75 / '78 /'81 / '89 Amazing variety. Not anymore.... Also, ask yourself. Do you REALLY think Jagger isn't TOTALLY sick of JJF for example. He's had to sing it at every gig since 1968 - he's gotta hate it by now. I'm sure he PERSONALLY enjoys singing "Night Time" alot more then any of the warhorses he thinks he has to do at every show.

1cdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> If what you want is 6 or 7 new songs EVERY night
> and those to be rarities then they need several
> days between shows to rehearse those new tunes in
> order to play them onstage. Not likely to happen
> on a world tour.


Huh? What do you think they do in the 5-6 weeks prior to a tour? Play cards?


Let's be realistic. Have the
> Stones in all of their touring history ever played
> 6 or 7 new songs/rarites each night?

yes..loads of times...I could rhyme them off if you want me to. How long have you got?

>
> By and large the
> most negativity that I have seen/heard regarding
> the ABB tour and the Licks tour tends to come from
> folks that have not attended any of the shows.


simply not true (and for those that havent attended the shows and are being negative - isnt it reasonable to assume that they didnt like what theyd read/heard about the shows early on and/or that they disliked the ticket prices etc and then CHOSE not to go simply BECAUSE it didnt excite them?)

Personally, I doubt I could be as stubborn as that because I still think the shows are enjoyable enough and - if I play the game right - I can still afoord them, but I respect anyone who chooses to stay away on principle because it just doesnt move them anymore.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-07 15:44 by Gazza.

kuenzer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not saying the Stones shows are bad or not
> enjoyable. I am just saying they could easily do
> better. They could rotate their selection of
> ABB-songs, for instance. Why not? Lazy? Afraid of
> the audience reaction?? No longer as flexible as
> in earlier years (as T&A suggests)?
>


In a nutshell. (add a rotation of the warhorses too by realising that there are many more than 10 of them and you have all bases covered)

I don't understand why people think that the set list is all important. My view is that I'd rather see the Stones rocking out a Stadium or arena and playing the best that they can than to spend their efforts playing rarities. Sure, it's nice to get one or two rarities per show - and LV got those (BoB and LSTNT). They also played Midnight Rambler and this is the mark of a good set list! It would have been a nice surprise to get Sway or CYHMK, but it wouldn't be a surprise or a rarity if they played it every night - right? All in all, I'd say that the LV audience got a good setlist.

I didn't see this show (I'm waiting until Europe) but the people who have seen them on this tour say that they are recharged with energy and are producing the best rock n roll shows for years. This is important to me more than what songs they play.

The Stones are a rock n roll band and they don't give a *** about the fanatical set wishlists of a few "song collectors". As long as the Stones enjoy playing the songs and the crowd enjoys the show then everyone is happy.

Also, think back to the 72 / 73 shows which are regarded as being the Stones at their live peak. How much variation in setlist did you see then from night to night? Hardly any - only when they stuck in the odd one off of the new album.

We, as Stones fans, are so lucky. They actually do vary their set quite alot (8 songs between 2 LV shows). Not many bands do this much for their fans.


Sorry if this rant is a bit long but nothing winds me up more than these anorac wearing song collectors! It's all about the show - have a few drinks, smoke a joint, jump around and sing at the top of your voices. Don't just sit there writing down notes on the setlist and performance!

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all about the show - have a few
> drinks, smoke a joint, jump around and sing at the
> top of your voices. Don't just sit there writing
> down notes on the setlist and performance!
>

i think this is a good point

> I don't understand why people think that the set list is all important.

or

> We, as Stones fans, are so lucky. They actually do vary their set quite alot (8 songs between 2 LV shows). Not many bands do this much for their fans.

?

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why people think that the set
> list is all important. My view is that I'd rather
> see the Stones rocking out a Stadium or arena and
> playing the best that they can than to spend their
> efforts playing rarities. Sure, it's nice to get
> one or two rarities per show - and LV got those
> (BoB and LSTNT). They also played Midnight
> Rambler and this is the mark of a good set list!
> It would have been a nice surprise to get Sway or
> CYHMK, but it wouldn't be a surprise or a rarity
> if they played it every night - right? All in
> all, I'd say that the LV audience got a good
> setlist.
>
> I didn't see this show (I'm waiting until Europe)
> but the people who have seen them on this tour say
> that they are recharged with energy and are
> producing the best rock n roll shows for years.
> This is important to me more than what songs they
> play.
>
> The Stones are a rock n roll band and they don't
> give a *** about the fanatical set wishlists of a
> few "song collectors". As long as the Stones
> enjoy playing the songs and the crowd enjoys the
> show then everyone is happy.
>
> Also, think back to the 72 / 73 shows which are
> regarded as being the Stones at their live peak.
> How much variation in setlist did you see then
> from night to night? Hardly any - only when they
> stuck in the odd one off of the new album.
>
> We, as Stones fans, are so lucky. They actually
> do vary their set quite alot (8 songs between 2 LV
> shows). Not many bands do this much for their
> fans.
>
>
> Sorry if this rant is a bit long but nothing winds
> me up more than these anorac wearing song
> collectors! It's all about the show - have a few
> drinks, smoke a joint, jump around and sing at the
> top of your voices. Don't just sit there writing
> down notes on the setlist and performance!
>


Its not as simple as that. I think we can pretty much all enjoy the shows OK and obviously its reasonable that the most important people are those paying their money and not those of us sitting by our computers. Anyone who pretends otherwise is an ásshole.

Personally I've never done what you imply in your last sentence. I'm too busy doing most or all of the other things you mention that we SHOULD be doing in the sentence preceding it! Even on this board or Rocks Off, I rarely review a show I was at in any depth because I'm too busy getting "into" it as opposed to analysing it.

And for the millionth bloody time - no one is seriously suggesting the Stones drop a huge amount of their best known songs in a large scale show and play obscurities. Anyone that does is being unreasonable. They can rotate a few from a LARGE selection of warhorses to keep it fresh and exciting both for themselves and everyone else. Perm ten out of any twenty of the best known songs on 40 Licks and you'll keep even the biggest cynic happy as well as the casual once in a lifetime fan. Problem is its the SAME warhorses year in year out. The Stones have more great and recognizable songs than practically anyone - but HALF of the show on EVERY tour consist of the exact same ten songs or so. A waste IMO.

We're all fans. Dont we all want our favourite band to keep improving? To keep 'growing 'as a performing act? To keep the shows fresh and exciting? It simply has to be about more than 'just being grateful theyre still there' or settling for a nostalgia greatest hits spectacle. It WASNT the case on previous tours, and the band themselves have always defended themselves (accurately prior to now) by saying theyd never do a nostalgia show. Its still a very good show by anyone else's standards - at times its a great one - but theres always room for improvement and its natural to expect a band known as the greatest ropck n roll band in the world to remain ambitious. They set the standard after all.

and for the record, they didnt 'stick in' the odd new song off a new album in 1972/73. They built the show around those new songs. On the 72 tour, they regularly played 6 songs from the new album (40% of the show) and sometimes more...in 1973 it was about 4 songs per show..and the 'hits' werent warhorses, but recent singles that were relatively fresh to their audience. With hardly any exceptions, the 1972/73 shows consisted of no material that was older than 1968.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-07 18:35 by Gazza.

this topic can be deleted now

rocksoffKR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this topic can be deleted now


this topic will continue into perpetuity - LONG LIVE THIS TOPIC!

So am I right in making the further assumption that supporters of the current setlist would not like to hear a fairly regular body of songs made up largely from the band's last four or five excellent albums?

After all, that's what they did in the early 70s, and it was so good that the setlist never had to be changed. We had a whole tour to get into it.

Or are you worried on behalf of the band, that they might not attract a big enough crowd of casual fans to their stadium/ball park extravaganzas?

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
It's all about the show - have a few
> drinks, smoke a joint, jump around and sing at the
> top of your voices. Don't just sit there writing
> down notes on the setlist and performance!
>

Anyone attending the club/theatre shows on the Licks tour will testify that jumping up and down was more profound without any need for a warhorse heavy setlist.

sjs12 - Please read what Gazza wrote so he doesn't have to keep saying this over and over. How can you say the set list is not important. And the fact that you call Lets Spend the Night Together and Beast of Burden rarities is funny. These are both well known hit songs.

Your mention of the 1972/73 tour is so far off, again please read what Gazza wrote.

And lastly, I am not sitting and writing notes but when I get ready to see shows on a new tour and hear the same thing as last tour and hardly anything from the new album, I am pissed. Out of the entire set of songs for the first two shows I went to this tour I saw a total of 4 songs played that I didn't see last time around. The only difference was Start Me Up was in a different spot as well as other songs. For a band with hundred of songs this is a joke and it turns off many long time followers of the band. Personally I am done with their shows until they show me they give a shit.

This was a super show. Trust me, I would much rather be at the show than be behind my computer screen complaining. If just got back from Vegas and beleive me, this was a weekend I will not soon forget.

I talked to many fans after the show, in the bars thereafter and in the casino the next day. Not one complaint even though most of the crowd was out of towners who paid up to $1000 per ticket.

The Stones play for the fans at the show, not anonymous set list complainers on the internet.


(in my respectfult opinion)

i'm not anonymous....i'm almost uninamous, in fact.

I agree Montrealsuperfan. God bless and long live the f*&^%$# Rolling Stones!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-07 19:31 by StonesPrincess.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1cdog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > If what you want is 6 or 7 new songs EVERY
> night
> > and those to be rarities then they need
> several
> > days between shows to rehearse those new
> tunes in
> > order to play them onstage. Not likely to
> happen
> > on a world tour.
>
>
> Huh? What do you think they do in the 5-6 weeks
> prior to a tour? Play cards?
>
>
> Let's be realistic. Have the
> > Stones in all of their touring history ever
> played
> > 6 or 7 new songs/rarites each night?
>
> yes..loads of times...I could rhyme them off if
> you want me to. How long have you got?
>
> >
> > By and large the
> > most negativity that I have seen/heard
> regarding
> > the ABB tour and the Licks tour tends to come
> from
> > folks that have not attended any of the
> shows.
>
>
> simply not true (and for those that havent
> attended the shows and are being negative - isnt
> it reasonable to assume that they didnt like what
> theyd read/heard about the shows early on and/or
> that they disliked the ticket prices etc and then
> CHOSE not to go simply BECAUSE it didnt excite
> them?)
>
> Personally, I doubt I could be as stubborn as that
> because I still think the shows are enjoyable
> enough and - if I play the game right - I can
> still afoord them, but I respect anyone who
> chooses to stay away on principle because it just
> doesnt move them anymore.
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/07/06 15:44 by
> Gazza.


Gazza, geeez please read the post again. How the heck would you know or portend to know who I have talked to that has thrown off or put down the current tour? My comment was folks that "I have seen or heard."

It is everyone's right to like or dislike the set list. Me, I'm just happy that there is another tour and that I get to see them again.

And as for the guys playing cards during rehearsals.....maybe.....

So do I have a right to say something here since I went to shows and was let down in a big way. Seems like I don't and will still get classified still under the category of reading set lists on the computer and not being there.

I have been to almost every tour since back in the day. To me they are doing just what they have to and coasting for the most part. They need to go see Dylan, Neil Young or even someone like Bruce Springsteen (who I don't like at all). Those guys and many more like the Black Crows know how to put some effort in to making an interesting show.

Montrealsuperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was a super show. Trust me, I would much
> rather be at the show than be behind my
> computer screen complaining. If just got back from
> Vegas and beleive me, this was a weekend I will
> not soon forget.
>
> I talked to many fans after the show, in the bars
> thereafter and in the casino the next day. Not one
> complaint even though most of the crowd was out of
> towners who paid up to $1000 per ticket.
>
> The Stones play for the fans at the show, not
> anonymous set list complainers on the internet.
>
>
> (in my respectfult opinion)

AMEN!!!!!!!!

1cdog Wrote:
>
>
> Gazza, geeez please read the post again. How the
> heck would you know or portend to know who I have
> talked to that has thrown off or put down the
> current tour? My comment was folks that "I have
> seen or heard."


LOL...ok mate...I assumed you meant folks "on here" because that subject of people panning shows but who havent been to any themselves has actually been discussed on here. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
>
> It is everyone's right to like or dislike the set
> list. Me, I'm just happy that there is another
> tour and that I get to see them again.

me too.
>
> And as for the guys playing cards during
> rehearsals.....maybe.....

you noticed it too?

Would somebody please bring back the Hair Implant thread.......

MAVERICK where are you when we need ya....?

Montrealsuperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The Stones play for the fans at the show, not
> anonymous set list complainers on the internet.
>

So who the hell is Montrealsuperfan when he is out?

Apart from being anonymous that is...

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sjs12 - Please read what Gazza wrote so he doesn't
> have to keep saying this over and over. How can
> you say the set list is not important. And the
> fact that you call Lets Spend the Night Together
> and Beast of Burden rarities is funny. These are
> both well known hit songs.

Beat of Burden and LSTNT are rarities for this tour. The fact that you don't realise this is hilarious! I know that they are well known hit songs, but they are not warhorses.

> Your mention of the 1972/73 tour is so far off,
> again please read what Gazza wrote.

I have read what he said and largely agree with it - as far as it goes. However, it would be misleading to take it out of context. There is a huge difference between concentrating a large proportion of a show on your new album and constantly harking back to come up with new rare stuff to play all the time. What I originally said is that the 72/73 show did not have a totally different set list every night. They largely played the same songs night after night (although they played them differently each night) and didn't feel the need to find an obscure song from the first album in order to please the anoracs. Any unusual stuff that they did put in was generally when they were trying out a new song (e.g. 100 years ago). I would dearly love to see 5 or 6 songs from the A Bigger Bang per gig and, if that is what Gazza was trying to say, then I will back him on this crusade. However, I read Gazza's message as saying that he wants a substantial number of different songs every night.

> And lastly, I am not sitting and writing notes but
> when I get ready to see shows on a new tour and
> hear the same thing as last tour and hardly
> anything from the new album, I am pissed. Out of
> the entire set of songs for the first two shows I
> went to this tour I saw a total of 4 songs played
> that I didn't see last time around. The only
> difference was Start Me Up was in a different spot
> as well as other songs. For a band with hundred of
> songs this is a joke and it turns off many long
> time followers of the band. Personally I am done
> with their shows until they show me they give a
> shit.


Looking at the LV set list, there are 6 songs which I didn't see on the last tour.

Anyway, I'm not saying that it's not nice to be surprised with unusual tracks every now again. I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect them. Surely a good set list is a good set list whether or not it is different from the preceding gig's. If you enjoy seeing the Stones then you'll go. If you don't enjoy gigs without seeing rare stuff then you won't go.

Lastly, on the subject of taking chances, I saw them take a chance with Loving Cup on the last tour and, I have to admit, I'd rather they had played something that they could actually, well, play. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, and I'm not saying that the shouldn't take chances, but it can halt the momentum of a gig by having a dud number in there. This never happened in the 72/73 period as far as I know, although it happened very often during the Licks show. From reports I've seen (and I'll be the judge of this when I see them), they have improved their game. Could it be because they are concentrating on the core of standard songs which they get to know inside out and can start groving better?

I play in a band and can testify that over time you get to play songs much better. The first few times you play a song you are always learning your way. I'm not sure that the Stones can afford this luxery at the prices they charge. For club gigs, they can, but not for Stadium shows.

Lastly, I reiterate that I'm not against the odd rarity being in the set. I'd love to see them do Sway. However, I don't EXPECT them to taylor a setlist specifically to me. AT the end of the day, the Stones need to play what they want to - if they don't do 10 different songs every night doesn't mean that they don't care about their fans.

I guess we have different meanings of the word rarity. When something like Beast of Burden is played I just don't call it a rarity because people seem to think we want to hear a show full of songs like Citadel. When people are just trying to make the point that the Stones have enough recognizeable hits that they play well to play some different ones from tour to tour and won't leave people wondering what they just played.

I am sorry you feel that they can't play Loving Cup, I thought they did a great job with it, better than when they played it in 69 or 72. I am not even sure of what you are trying to say with some of your points but when you refer to them playing the same set in 72 I don't see what you are trying to get at. All of the material back then was all new songs, some brand new. When was the last time the Stones did something from Bridges to Babylon. Out of all their albums in the past 25 years, they played nothing from 3 of them and just a few from the others. They must think that what they write these days sucks. And Mick was just trying to be cool when he said he doesn't care if people don't want to hear new songs or they don't want to become a greatest hits/nostalgia act.

sjs12 wrote:
"Lastly, on the subject of taking chances, I saw them take a chance with Loving Cup on the last tour and, I have to admit, I'd rather they had played something that they could actually, well, play."

Does this mean you think they only have about 30 songs they can play well?

sjs12 wrote: "If you don't enjoy gigs without seeing rare stuff then you won't go. "

AGAIN, its not about seeing them play only rare stuff.. I give up. I feel your pain now Gazza.

I was thinking of going. It would have cost me $2,000 with airfare etc. I saw them in Seattle. Thanks God I stayed home!!! The only thing that was any different would have been Midnight Rambler, which is great but man they need to smarten up. The Forum yesterday was somewhat better, but not much. The only hope for this tour left is Radio Hall, but I do not expect much from that now.

SO it has been settled. We ALL love the music, but the shows can become somewhat boring for the concert repeaters like myself when 80% of the show seems like a complete do-over. On to the NEXT very very important topic in the grand scheme of ALL things

Montrealsuperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was a super show. Trust me, I would much
> rather be at the show than be behind my
> computer screen complaining. If just got back from
> Vegas and beleive me, this was a weekend I will
> not soon forget.
>
> I talked to many fans after the show, in the bars
> thereafter and in the casino the next day. Not one
> complaint even though most of the crowd was out of
> towners who paid up to $1000 per ticket.
>
> The Stones play for the fans at the show, not
> anonymous set list complainers on the internet.
>
>
> (in my respectfult opinion)

People don't complain about the set list to complain about the set list.They do it because they have been to shows and would like to go to more shows and be able to hear something different from what they heard on the past tours and not 80% the same songs over again no matter what happens.

Where are all of the people who thought the Vegas set list was so great?Which set list would you rather get at your next show - the L.V. set list or the L.A. set list?

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where are all of the people who thought the Vegas
> set list was so great?Which set list would you
> rather get at your next show - the L.V. set list
> or the L.A. set list?

hello thief, i am superstones fan, but, due to the fact that i am italian and not wealthy enough to afford stones super tour travels i had the chance to see them only twice in 15 years. So if my next show (milan 22/6) will have the LV setlist i will be treated with 10 songs i have not see them play live yet, if it is the Forum's it will be 11. Think about it