65000 out of 70000 want to to hear the so-called "wArhorses". When i was going to their concerts --I would be dissapointed not to get JJF--BS HTW--and so on.

They could do 450 songs---but why they dont doing their classics???

Are you not realizing that mick and keith are over 60?---and Charlie??

sure, I would like to get "salt of the earth!---"SWAY"--"Shes a rainbow"
---but --then we need a 48 hours concert.

so--Stop critice everyday their setlist----Thats BORING

Completly agree Havo, but, it's sad, the so called "rolling stones fans" can be as boring as beatles fans.

Well said this is the point I have been trying to make all along when a band has a large catolog like they do you will always walk away saying what they did'nt play. Even if they played 40 songs a show we would still say the same.

Let's get mathamatically fair:

20 Songs - OK,

Warhorses (4 + 4 =8) JJF, BS, HTW, SMU, TD, MU, IORR, Satisfaction.(should only be 7 IMO. 1 on rotation status (maybe TD / MU)

New Bigger Bang (3 Songs) 2 Micks / 1 Keith

Rare Treats (3 Songs) Sway, As Tears Go By, Rotate "Loving Cup"/"Time Waits for No One"/"She Was Hot".

Crowd Favorites (7 Songs) "Gimme Shelter", "Bitch" or "She's So Cold", "Cloud" or "Paint it Black", "Happy", "Midnight Rambler", "Sympathy", "YCAGWYW"

Some of this is true but,they don't need to play twice as long to fit in some other songs.An example of this would be the 1997 set lists.They included Jumping Jack Flash etc. but,they also included rare songs and new songs - a pretty good mix & just about everyone was happy.I believe that they could still do something like that.In fact,they should.There is no excuse not to.

I totally agree TitN.'97 was a good mix as was the short '99 No Security tour.Set list was a real treat (and, definitely could be an example for this tour)

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well said this is the point I have been trying to
> make all along when a band has a large catolog
> like they do you will always walk away saying what
> they did'nt play. Even if they played 40 songs a
> show we would still say the same.


YOU would? I doubt that very much.

There werent that many complaints about hearing the same stuff for the millionth time prior to this tour. Believe it. How come all of a sudden the Stones have become a greatest hits act? That wasnt the case prior to 2005.

The main issue is the higher than ever before % of the show taken up by warhorses (none of which ever seem to get rotated)- and the comparatively few number of songs (compared to previous tours) that are 'fresh' or new.

Other artists have as huge a catalogue as the Stones do. (Dylan, Neil Young for example). I dont see the same 'complaints' from their fanbase when they leave out a few songs that are amongst their best known. THEIR audiences allow them to grow as artists and as a live act.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 03:54 by Gazza.

Gazza perfectly stated MEZ

Gazza, 100 % spot on !!!

go gazza! go gazza!

The Stones are fantastic!! Great setlist!! Faboulous warhorses!! Wonderful!!
Marvellous!! Phantasmagorial concerts!! Awesome singing!! Luscious guitar playing!!
Groundbreakingly original!! Faboulous group members!! Quixotic lyrics!! Bodacious
encores!! Superb!! Splendid oldies!! Brilliant solos!! Magnificent!! Hot live
recordings!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 09:18 by kuenzer.

I'm surprised that last post wasn't signed 'Bjornulf.'

The present setlists are fabulous. I wouldn't want 'em any other way. Period.MEZ


and Ay ay baby it hurts

Who cares? I love to hear the warhorses. Ask yourself what your fave song is. Many would say JJFlash, and yet they still complain about it being played. Where's the logic in that? The setlists are great. And I can't agree to the percentage measuring of the setlist (The ones saying that the percentage is now higher than ever). People who does that simply put way too much into it.

JumpingKentFlash

We all care way too much - hence our presence in this board!

put me in the trash!

Tin,

Look at Alfredo's Monterrey review.
Comprende????

Oily.

It's the Stones' luck that there are so many fans who are content with everything they do. I think that nobody on this board actually expects them to play only rarities and B-sides. But it is a bit disappointing that they only rely on the warhorses. With one or two rarely played rotating songs they could satisfy their long-time fans as well as those who came only for their biggest hits. Think of Can't you hear me knocking which was a real highlight during the last tour. Think of As tears go by or Sway during the current tour.
But as long as 'true' fans are willing to pay at least $ 450 to get all those warhorses again and the Stones have their record sales they can go on doing their oldies act. But then, I am no 'true' fan...

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares? I love to hear the warhorses. Ask
> yourself what your fave song is. Many would say
> JJFlash, and yet they still complain about it
> being played. Where's the logic in that?

I think you miss the point - again. No one in their right mind would suggest they should play a show to thousands of people without these songs being in it. They're an essential part of any Stones show and in some cases, some of the greatest rock songs ever written. The issue is that they play ALL of these songs EVERY night and many of them have been played to death (JJ Flash IMO ISNT one of them). There are at least 8-10 songs in every show which never get rested.

The Stones have probably about 20 songs or more that EVERYONE in their audience should be expected to know (if they dont, they shouldnt be there). They could keep the same number of warhorses as they do now - but just rotate a few of them each night to keep the show fresh and leave some element of surprise. As it stands now, once you hear the opening chords of Miss You, you could go home knowing what the last hour of the show will be. The only degree of surprise is whether Start Me Up appears on the b-stage or in the final run through at the end.

To give an example :
Satisfaction, JJ Flash, Sympathy, HT Women, Brown sugar, Tumbling Dice, Miss You, Start Me Up, IORR, YCAGWYW - 10 'classics' that get played at practically every show

10 more classics (all of which are on 40 Licks) that everyone should know and which at any time could swap with any of the songs listed above :

Its all over now, The last time, Paint it Black, Get off of my cloud, Street fighting man, Gimme Shelter, Angie, Lets spend the night together, Ruby Tuesday Bitch

There you go. An alternate 'warhorses' set, several songs of which have been played on this tour (7 out of 10 I think)

Rotate 3-4 songs from ABB each night (theyve played, what, 6 on this tour to date? shouldnt be difficult) and Keith's 2 songs set could be swapped around every night (he did this without any problem in 1999 and on Licks) and you effectively have 15 songs comprising classic hits, Keiths set and new songs that could EASILY be rotated and I doubt anyone would reasonably complain

And that still leaves about a quarter of the show to feature 'deep album' tracks that WERENT on 40 Licks (Midnight Rambler) or minor hits that were (Beast of Burden, Wild Horses, etc) which they could vary as much or as little as they pleased


Seriously.Its easily done. All they need to do is rotate a few big hits and make a couple of minor other 'tweaks' regarding new songs and Keith's set - which just basically means playing songs already performed this in tour in more regular rotation

The
> setlists are great. And I can't agree to the
> percentage measuring of the setlist (The ones
> saying that the percentage is now higher than
> ever). People who does that simply put way too
> much into it.

Only because it happens to be true. its been covered in depth a few weeks ago by breaking down the show with the number of warhorses, album tracks, songs new to the shpw/not played in ages and new songs. This tour is far more 'hits' orientated than any previously. Fact.

The shows are very good but a LOT of songs sound tired and overplayed and the 'warhorses' part of the set could do with being shaken up. They could easily do that with a bit of rotation and there would still be enough recognizable hits to please everyone.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 15:08 by Gazza.

Most people who complain expect another LICKS tour, when they played different shows in the same city, arena, club, stadium. But this is a stadium tour. If you don't like the most famous Stones songs then I think you have seen too many shows or may be you simply don't enjoy the Stones anymore. Time to take a rest then may be. And please do not envy others who can still enjoy the Stones live.

Bjornulf

MOST PEOPLE, even after all these years, who attend a Stones concert have never seen them before. You can't have the majority of your audience leave the venue dissapointed.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOST PEOPLE, even after all these years, who
> attend a Stones concert have never seen them
> before. You can't have the majority of your
> audience leave the venue dissapointed.


WRONG. Not a chance. It's probably no more than 20%

"R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOST PEOPLE, even after all these years, who
> attend a Stones concert have never seen them
> before. You can't have the majority of your
> audience leave the venue dissapointed.


WRONG. Not a chance. It's probably no more than 20%"

Nah. I'm pretty sure I'm right. Jagger has alluded to as much in interviews. Even if it's half, the "warhorse rule" would still be applicable. Most folks who've been to a show before are fairweather fans. Those of us who haunt these fan-sites enjoy a skewed sense of reality while most folks just want to hear "Tumbling Dice."

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most people who complain expect another LICKS
> tour, when they played different shows in the same
> city, arena, club, stadium. But this is a stadium
> tour.

is it? Most of the shows played in the US on this tour have been arenas - not stadiums

Unlike Licks, theres no significant difference in the type of show played in a stadium from that in an arena, so surely the same standard applies in both types of venues

>If you don't like the most famous Stones songs then I think you have seen too many shows or may be you simply don't enjoy the Stones anymore. Time to take a rest then may be. And please do not envy others who can still enjoy the Stones live.

who says we dont like them?? I described them as some of the greatest rock songs ever written..how much more enthusiastic a recommendation do you need? The Stones dont have ONLY 10 or so GREAT songs that everyone knows. Dont you think it reasonable that they could rotate maybe 2-3 of those ten per night from a slection of about 20?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 15:46 by Gazza.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOST PEOPLE, even after all these years, who
> attend a Stones concert have never seen them
> before.

Unless you live somewhere like South America or China, thats absolute nonsense. Wheres this 'new audience' coming from? Theyve played in the US in 7 out of the last ten years.

You can't have the majority of your
> audience leave the venue dissapointed.

If you assume that the average Stones audience only owns 40 Licks and must therefore be spoon fed selections from that album and nothing else, then you have a patronising stereotype of the band's fanbase.

Look at the 'alternatives' for warhorses I posted above and tell me with a straight face that those people wouldnt be satisfied with ANY 10 permutations out of that 20 each show.

And furthermore, the 'majority of the audience' werent leaving 'disappointed' on previous tours when the band took a few more chances. If they were, they wouldnt have come back.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 15:44 by Gazza.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "R Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > MOST PEOPLE, even after all these years, who
>
> > attend a Stones concert have never seen them
>
> > before. You can't have the majority of your
>
> > audience leave the venue dissapointed.
>
>
> WRONG. Not a chance. It's probably no more than
> 20%"
>
> Nah. I'm pretty sure I'm right. Jagger has alluded
> to as much in interviews. Even if it's half, the
> "warhorse rule" would still be applicable. Most
> folks who've been to a show before are fairweather
> fans. Those of us who haunt these fan-sites enjoy
> a skewed sense of reality while most folks just
> want to hear "Tumbling Dice."


They might not be like us, but to say theyre first timers is equally ludicrous.

The Stones simply dont have the fanbase anymore to take on board millions of new fans each tour. Not at these ticket prices, and also not by the ages of the average audience member

VL = stadium tour but,it still had more fresh material than this tour has had.

OK. To be more precise... This is a stadium tour when they some times play in arena size venues because they can not sell out a big stadium in those places, like Albany. Or Las Vegas. There are a few arena shows on this tour but I would assume most of you understand the concept of this tour is different than of the Fruit Of The loom tour. When they first play a stadium in Foxboro Boston or any other city, and then play an arena in the very same sity, being Boston or Rotterdam, then they do know more than 5% of the crowd saw the other shows.

On this tour I am sure - 100% sure - that a maximum of 5% have seen more than one show. And I have proof. Just go to the B-stage while they start playing Miss You. That place is EMPTY! Why? Because nobody knows what is going to happen. Then as the stage is starting to move people start flocking around the B-stage. If say 50% went to many shows then I would expect total chaos by the B-stage before Keith had finished his songs.

The only real arena shows on this tour have been Hollywood Bowl LA, MSG NYC and Garden Boston, where we all know they changed the set lists quite a lot. Because they were real arena shows. And believe me, the Hard Rock Hotel Joint is not a club show as long as they play a stadium set list for VIP people.

Just ask around. At the show. 19 out of 20 have never seen them before. On this tour. Never.

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
Just ask around. At the show. 19 out of 20 have
> never seen them before. On this tour. Never.

hard to believe- but i'll have to take your word, as i have no evidence
to the contrary.

Bjornulf - I'd agree that most people (the vast majority) only go to one show per tour - but no way are a majority of people seeing the Stones for the first time ever. Theres no way theyve picked up THAT size of a new audience in three years.

Maybe it was just the concerts I went to but,I saw quite a few people wearing tour merchandise from the Steel Wheels,Voodoo Lounge,Bridges,No Security,or Licks tours.Also,it seems like every concert I go to I hear someone calling for something they're not going to play.