I.O.R.R. is by far the best Stones-WEb-side . but whats going on in the last month??-- boring your moaning about their set-lists.
i dont know how many Concerts I saw since hyde-park 69.
just want to see them----and ever its just a great party. if they do 20--21 or 22 songs doesnt matter. If they do 9 or 12 "warhorses" doesnt matter!!
i want to see the best Rock-band of the world-LIVE!!!---and its grat to hear-B.S. S.M.U. H.T.W. and so on.

Internet is slowly destroying our universe, I tell ya!

I guess you are easy to please. For that much money I want to see more than a big stage and a band going through the motions of playing the same songs while ignoring their great catelog of songs.

I do agree. We all love the warhorses, that's why the Rolling Stones play well known numbers. Simple as that.

Partly it seems that Licks with its varying setlists & venues, and the internet and its instant access, spoils us. As I didn't join this site 'til later in 2003 (after seeing several US shows), never in 30 years have I known exactly what the Stones would play unless it was after a couple shows of the same tour. And the sets were pretty unvarying - give or take a couple of songs - until the last decade or so. It was great seeing them at Fenway (tour openers) & having no preconceptions. My only complaint is that they have not put more emphasis on the new Bigger Bang material, doing 4 (as last August) seems the minimum, then going to 5, 6, 7 as the tour progressed. Whereas in 1978, when Some Girls received saturation airplay (as did TY in '81 and even Steel Wheels in '89) and they played around 8 or 9 songs from it per show, ABB got virtually no airplay, so tho I might agree in this day and age that many new ones may not be viable, a meagre 3 new songs is certainly too few. Otherwise all the shows I've seen this time around have been a gas, gas, gas...

Thats the thing John R. I was at the first night at Fenway too and didn't have any idea what they would play. I was then shocked that they would open with Start Me Up, the most obvious choice, then into You Got Me Rocking and so on.. I couldn't beleive they wouldn't change it up a bit. Then when we got to the b-stage I was waiting for a surprise and we got Miss You, Satisfaction, ONNYA (which was awesome) then Honky Tonk. The only real surprises were Shes So Cold and Out Of Control, which were th highlights for me. Yes I love the warhorses but there are too many of them to play the same ones and You Got Me Rocking shouldn't be on that level.

It's not black&white, this setlist thing.

it's blackandblue

Even more boring is all of the moaning about any set list complaints.All of the set list apologists were just saying how great the Mexico & Las Vegas set lists were & that nobody should suggest any adjustments but now the set list has changed from those shows & they now say that the past few set lists are great and shouldn't be changed.So,what it amounts to is that anything and everything is fine by them & they will attack anyone who has an opinion on what should or shouldn't be played.

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Partly it seems that Licks with its varying
> setlists & venues, and the internet and its
> instant access, spoils us. As I didn't join this
> site 'til later in 2003 (after seeing several US
> shows), never in 30 years have I known exactly
> what the Stones would play unless it was after a
> couple shows of the same tour. And the sets were
> pretty unvarying - give or take a couple of songs
> - until the last decade or so. It was great seeing
> them at Fenway (tour openers) & having no
> preconceptions. My only complaint is that they
> have not put more emphasis on the new Bigger Bang
> material, doing 4 (as last August) seems the
> minimum, then going to 5, 6, 7 as the tour
> progressed. Whereas in 1978, when Some Girls
> received saturation airplay (as did TY in '81 and
> even Steel Wheels in '89) and they played around 8
> or 9 songs from it per show, ABB got virtually no
> airplay, so tho I might agree in this day and age
> that many new ones may not be viable, a meagre 3
> new songs is certainly too few. Otherwise all the
> shows I've seen this time around have been a gas,
> gas, gas...

Not only is 3 new songs not enough but,one song representing two decades('83-'02) is a bad decision in my opinion.Even if they had to stick with one song from that period,I would prefer something different.'63-'68 is usually not represented very well.I would like to see some different '70's numbers included.Too much of Exile remains never and/or very rarely performed.

First they are entertaining a much older crowd now. Its not like the 70's when the kids coming to see them were in a frenzy. Remember by the 78 tour they had only been around for about 15 years to the hardest core audience.

Now they are playing to crowds who have been listening for over 40 years. When you have seen them multiple times on a long list of tours, people expect to hear a little more than a run of anthems.

Tickets are not 7.50 anymore. Mick has this fear that no one will be happy if they play the more obscure and deep cuts off records. People wanna hear the hits.

Its the women want to hear the hits. Most (not all) women are content with hearing the hits and seeing them. A lot of men are more serious about the music. Scrap the stadiums and play shows in arenas and theatres for multiple nights.

Dear Havo,

You are boring.

Sincerely,

Me.

it's all in good fun, far as I'm concerned. If the original post had some kind of agenda or intent of curtailing the behaviors of anyone here, it will certainly have anything but that. just knowing I have the power to "annoy" is intoxicating....

Indeed. The fact that so much of it is light hearted seems lost on some.

Interesting that almost all of the recent threads about setlists seem to be started by people "moaning about moaners" (not to mention the quite nonsensical lumping of everyone with even any minor - and usually well argued - critique of the band or shows at all into the same category)

If anything, its those with no criticisms at all who seem to be the folks with the most angst and frustration

Now THATS ironic, Alanis....

don't ya think?

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

> If anything, its those with no criticisms at all
> who seem to be the folks with the most angst and
> frustration

Words of wisdom!

I say burn the set lists and set the band free.....sart the next show with Star F#cker and go where the train takes you

"Its the women want to hear the hits. Most (not all) women are content with hearing the hits and seeing them. A lot of men are more serious about the music"

that's ridicolous

"Scrap the stadiums and play shows in arenas and theatres for multiple nights."

i agree with this, and hopefully the slower ticket sales this time will oblige them to do so. The risk is: they stop playing stadiums > they stop period.

"If anything, its those with no criticisms at all who seem to be the folks with the most angst and frustration"

i don't agree at all with this. First because not everyone that is happy with the shows have "no criticism at all" about the band or the shows themselves. Second because those of them you can charge with "excessive enthusiasm" or "unconditioned love" about the band in general (the word fanatic is telling per se). While some "critics" seem to have just a fixation about setlists as it were the most serious thing about the creativity of the band. They sure are telling in both negative and positive way about the shape of the band but, imo, should not be taken that seriously (a part from those who are used to attend ten show in a row and have problems with being started up for the eleventh time).
As I see it, frustration of the "always happy ones", those that follow with OMG!, Awesome!, F... I wish I was there as the set is listed on the boards, comes mostly as a reaction against the "always bitter ones". In fact you pointed at the moaning against the moaners.
And of course there's a difference, not always detected by the happy ones, between a "always bitter moaner" and someone who don't buy everything.
However, if I should face an "in and out" choice between those two extremes, I will stand with the "always happy ones", if anything for ethimological reason of the word "fan"

PS

maumau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
a fixation about
> setlists as it were the most serious thing about
> the creativity of the band.

instead: it is the only thing you can discuss about if you have not seen a show

>We all love the warhorses

Manhatten, how can you say "we all" ? Did you ask all? At least you didn't ask me and I don't wanna see the warhorses (at least not if they f$ck up the greatest riffs of rock history regularly). I want to see something different knowing that it's fiction on the other hand. But I'm NOT KEEN on warhorses.

What is wrong with the most famous songs the Stones ever made? That is what most people want to hear. There are hundreds of reviews on IORR from this tour confirming this fact. And they are made by hard core fans who actually bother to write a review. The others i.e. 95% just want to hear the big hits.

I would say congratulations to those fdew of you who have got an overdose of Stones and who don't like to hear Satisfaction anymore. They are doing it better than ever and you are trying to replace it. Replace your old wife (you have seen her too much) with a younger version. Replace your old car with s sports model. Replace Satisfaction with Winter, and you will be more happy, but your wife, your old car, and the rest of the crowd will be not so happy.

Bjornulf

People have been mentioning that if they are going to pay X amount of money, then they do not want to see them playing all of the old favourites. but what you have to consider is all the other people that have paid their good money and would not like to sit for two hours listening to songs that they haven't heard of.

I think they have the perfect balance. a nice combination of more obscure tunes throughout the first half of the set, followed by the dynamics of the small stage and a run through of hits to please the majority of the crowd towards the end.

I must admit all this bitching gets me down, can't really understand it. guess they just have the viewpoint that the glass is always half empty...

People complained relentlessly during the Licks tour just as they have with this tour.
It boggles the mind the amount of repatative complaining around these parts, but that said, starting a thread that moans about moaners is hardly the answer to them slowly going away.

kyle m

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

I always thought that a board was there for discussion and not for the 1,000. statment about how great the Stones are. Therefore you cannot critizise someone who moans about the setlists.
Having not seen a concert I also regard them as pretty unadventurous given their status as the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world and their excessive ticket prices. During the Licks tour they played a great variety of songs highlighted by Can't you hear me knocking. Other bands of their age still vary their setlists much more.
But I guess as long as enough fans are willing to pay up to 450 $ just to see the warhorses again everything will be alright.

saltoftheearth the point is that everything you've just said, has been said to death on this forum.
You obviously didn't haunt these parts during the Licks tour.
The endless set whinging was incredible.

And as for "1000 statements on how great the Stones are" - this site verbally bitchslaps them just as often as praising them.

"Other bands of their age still vary their setlists much more."
True but who cares?

If the setlists bug people that much that they need to continually post and post and post again about it, they must have little else in their lives.

If not for the Internet, must of us here would not know what the setlists were for the mostpart and therefore not give a damn really what it was until they were to see the band themselves.

It's just been said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and said and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and MT is better than RW and phuckin blah......

kyle m

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-24 11:23 by monkey man.

I admire your most inventive posts as opposed to my most repetitive ones but in my opinion a thread is also something like a poll. So if there is such a MT against RW discussion after all those years it is not for the individual post but it indicates what an important musician MT actually was. I cannot help - and I repeat it - that no live recording still send a shiver down my spine like the Brussels 1973 one although I do enjoy other recordings like Hampton 1981 or Atlantic City 1989 (and others). And I am very grateful for those fans who posted lots of songs which I had the opportunity to listen to for the first time.

Anyway I never bashed Ronnie because that seems really ridiculous. Can you forgive me if I dream about getting MT on board and touring with five original RS members during one of their last tours if not their last one?

By the way your 'Get a life'-statement doesn't apply to me. I always said that I am no die-hard Stones fan and therefore have lots of other music to enjoy. And for the other parts of my life I cannot really complain about a lack of work or apprehension. The discussion on this board which I really appreciate is surely no attempt to fill an otherwise empty life.

Amswer me just ONE simple question.

Why are the club/theatre setlists so popular?

bv: "What is wrong with the most famous songs the Stones ever made?"

Nothing, except when, 40 years on, they cannot recreate it anymore with the spirit or in the style in which it was created. Plus when they hammer on that same nail tours and shows after shows. The fact that 95% of the casual fans love it is irrelevant to the 5% who don't. And the fact that some of those hardcore peoples probably do need to "get a life", as someone else suggested, is also irrelevant to everybody (that all spend it more or less on this and other boards).

BTW, my wife and I will have been together for some 27 years this year, and she still goes to RS shows with me. And, although she is a bit more enthusiastic than me about these events, she WILL take Worried About You any old time over Satisfaction! And THAT's the kind of place I want my "old car" to take me! ;O)

"The fact that 95% of the casual fans love it is irrelevant to the 5% who don't."

I can imagine thats top of the Stones list.... sod the 95% public and worry about so called 'hardcore' fans......

Complete tush!

People here take their time to make valid points about the problems with their show's set lists and then people treat them like they are just wrong with your opinion. Comparing the Stones songs to your wife or a sports car is plain dumb. And I think most people would answer yes when you ask them if they can trade their car in for a nice sports car, so even that point makes no sense.

Someone mentioned the first half of the show being obscurities, that is such BS. Look at the set lists, maybe you will find one obscurity in the first half, two if you are lucky. But I don't know how many times I have to say this, the Stones have tons of hits that almost anyone at their shows would know, so why play the same ones tour after tour after tour. Can't they drop Start Me Up, Miss You or You Got ME Rocking for a few shows.

BV, read all the reviews from the newspapers that was just sent out on Skippy's Sticky Fingers Journal, there is not one review that doesn't mention how the Stones lack a creative set list. They all say the performance was good, but just about every one of them talks about the set list in a bad way.... That is a fact.