Yeah but the same message over and over......


we get the point.

No, you don't get the point yet, ablett.
The 95% who happen to love Satisfaction Y2K... They wouldn't love anything else from the whole catalogue? They just couldn't possibly go "Yeah, THAT ONE I had completely forgotten about... That little "5% geek" in the cheaper seats might have been right after all... Way to go... Rock on!!" ?
That is the point!

saltoftheearth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Other bands of
> their age still vary their setlists much more.

Maybe I am too cynical here but I think that this has less to do with creativity than with size. There's no band/artist bigger than the stones now (maybe U2 is the only comparable one). If you want to stay that big you want to fill stadiums so your market is wide and undifferentiated. You do that for the money of course, but there's also a good attitude in that you consider the newcomers, people that have not yet witnessed once in person the rite of JJF or sang YCAGWYW. So i think it is the size of the "company" that in some ways dictates the setlist. I have recently seen John Cale and then Lou Reed both have chosen or found themselves to be "smaller". They don't vary that much the setlist from town to town, but they just don't care that much about what the casual fan would like to listen because there are not many of them. So John Cale fill it with his new album and Lou Reed dig his 80's catalog. Anyway, they charge a lot for shows of 1h30. Different sizes, different markets, different approach to the setlist.


> 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.

That's the point. Considering how slow the ticket sales have been this time we can guess: A) this is going to be their last tour, they HAVE TO change size and re-think the way they put on their show. If they choose the second option it is very likely we will get different shows for the rest of their artistic life

to me (a die hard fan that have seen them only twice) warhorses are not a big problem. Yet I would like them to play more new songs and shuffle the second half of the show. My proposal (Chuck, if you are around, take note) is that they add some more warhorses...but they split them all in 2 different sets played on and off. So 14 warhorses instead of 10 but 7 per night and not 10. Simple as that. That will leave more room for new songs and catalog.

Anyway, considering their size and their choices, I think the first half of the average ABB Tour setlist has been very good for choices, variety and shuffling...

the rest is...the actual sound of the band!! I will post my review after the concert this summer. Rio (the mother of the warhorses concert) has been effing great!...at least in MHO

cheers

Odd-beat.... I don't think the '95%' analyise things to quite that degree, more likely to go to a gig for a good time!!!!! Which is oviously gonna include the Stones most famous hits?

Which real Stones fan does not want to hear more hardly played songs like:
Winter - She was hot - Slave - and more songs from ABB etc.? But:
- Mick plays safe
- Keith does not care
- Ronnie and Keith can hardly deliver anymore

We have had this again and again. Some one yesterday said if we don't reply to a thread it will quickly die out. Leaving us with more positive Stones related topics. And now I myself have made this thread longer. Naughty me. Rock on the Rolling Stones.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Odd-beat.... I don't think the '95%' analyise
> things to quite that degree, more likely to go to
> a gig for a good time!!!!! Which is oviously gonna
> include the Stones most famous hits?


think you still miss the point - which Ive made previously and which maumau has echoed above

No one is going to a large scale stadium show expecting hardly any 'hits' and plenty of obscurities. Pacing-wise, a show like that in front of about 50,000 people simply wouldnt work. Its perfectly reasonable to expect a show which has a sizeable collection of their best known songs. It wouldnt be a Stones show WITHOUT several of those songs we all know and love.

However, the Stones have enough recognizable songs to 'rotate' a lot of the warhorses. There's a high % of the show which doesnt change at all, and even dropping 2-3 of those songs from one night to the next for other equally well known songs wouldnt leave anyone shortchanged. Its only a minor tweak from what theyre doing now, and well within their abilities.

I also continue to find it hard to grasp the notion that "95%" of an audience will ONLY know and want to hear the band's greatest hits. If thats true, its a statistic unique to the Stones and doesnt say much for the mentality of their average concert goer. This is a band that has sold over a quarter of a BILLION records. I cant buy into this idea that so many of the people who go to see them are THAT clueless and ignorant about anything that isnt on 40 Licks. Can you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-24 17:51 by Gazza.

I think I hear some spoiled fans here.

> Nothing, except when, 40 years on, they cannot recreate
> it anymore with the spirit or in the style in which it was created

When was the last time you saw them live?



Bjornulf

Which is exactly why they owe it too the longtime fan base to play more arena and theatre shows. Screw that promoter guarantee sh*t. Give the groupies the stadiums and play JJF, SMU, BS, etc... all night for them. But include the smaller venues for the hardcore base and open the damn catalogue.

Announce it beforehand mix the set for the smaller venues, charge more if you have too. I'll bet those shows will sell out and WORK!!!

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Announce it beforehand mix the set for the smaller
> venues, charge more if you have too. I'll bet
> those shows will sell out and WORK!!!

the theory that the audience wouldnt be interested in a show that featured lesser known songs and a few hits missing was disproved entirely by the No Security tour

Tour was announced in November 1998, just a few months after the band had last played in North America. Ticket prices for BTB 1997-98 shows = $65. Ticket prices for NS 1999 tour - $40 - $300 (average price $109). Band announced a 35 date tour of arenas and stated they would playing some lesser known songs and dropping a few of the bigger hits

Despite all that, they sold out every show. Simple reason - anyone who buys a ticket for a Stones show knows theyre going to see a great concert. They didnt need to be guaranteed a hits-fest to know they were going to have a great time

I think Gazza nails it. The Stones have DOZENS of hits and well-known numbers. A bit of rotation wouldn’t go a miss. They don't need to keep playing the same 9 or 10 songs every night. How about mixing Not Fade Away, It’s All Over Now, Time Is On My Side etc amongst the likes of Start Me Up and It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll? There are so many well-known songs they could mix into the setlist. Lastly, what about Little Red Rooster? Wasn’t this a number 1?

Or,

play more than 20 songs. Add a few more to the mix.

I've seen 3 shows so far and I don't have no complaints about the setlists at all. BV is of course right. It would be strange not to play the warhorses since most people don't go to more than one concert. If you want obscurities, play 'em on your stereo and do it real loud. I wouldn't want to skip a single one of 'em warhorses. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are pros and experienced enough when it concerns music so we ought to have some faith in their decisions.

Your point might have credibility if they only had about ten warhorses which everyone knows.

However, they have many more.

and how the hell can a song be an 'obscurity' if its taken from an album like Sticky Fingers, Some Girls or Tattoo You, which all sold about 7 million copies??

We're not talking about something like 'Through the Lonely Nights' here....

However, go ahead and convince yourself that something like 'Sway' or 'Worried about you' is an obscurity.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-24 20:55 by Gazza.

People just keep missing the point that people like Gazza are trying to make. I don't think people read before writing here. We are not talking about a show of obscure songs, just mix the warhorses around a bit. They ignore 98 percent of the songs they did from 1962-1968 and they ignore 98 percent of their songs from 1983 to 2002. And they don't play much from Black and Blue, Goats Head Soup, ER. That leaves us the same songs from a select period of time and usually the same ones. They have plently of well known songs they can throw in to mix things up.

I guess people feel the Stones only have 10 or 15 well known songs and those have to be played every night or people won't know what the Stones are playing and go home disappointed. Rubbish

jesus not more of the about the set list.....
they played the same set list in 69 72 73 , brown sugar etc.....dice, i mean what is it ??? if you try and catch the perfect wave you are going to be paddleing a long time...and when it come s you wont be able to get on it.....enjoy what you got!!!

Out of 20/21 songs performed in Tokyo during the two shows there, they changed 7 songs. So if you really want more changes then yoiu want to throw out at least 5 of thge remaining 14 songs? Which ones?

PS. Just to explain a bit about how a Stones show is working. I don't think people understand...

Miss You and Honky Tonk Women: Can not be replaces. These songs are timed and synced to moving out and back to/from the B-stage.

Brown Sugar, Satisfacton, Jumping Jack Flash, Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up: Ultimate crowd pleasers people expect every night. Used to open/close shows, they are the true Stones. If you bring a dB meter then you will have proof that these are the most popular of most shows.

So there are now 7 songs left. You want changes. Please give me 5 songs you want to get rid of. Talk is cheap. If you really want changes then you must be able to tell what should be taken out. Five songs out of seven...

Bjornulf

I do not know how you can defend the Stones for this tour when it comes to their setlists. Its bad. Tokyo shows some light, but North America was just a scam. Vary the set lists play something interesting? But, no its all the same over and over.

Just add 5 songs, no need to replace any. In the end how much time does it add to the show 15-20 minutes.

Bigger venues deserve bigger set-lists.

"Miss You and Honky Tonk Women: Can not be replaces. These songs are timed and synced to moving out and back to/from the B-stage."

You said it, the music takes a back seat to the effects. No rock song should be timed. Its great they rotated 7 songs, didn't help me when I saw them at Fenway twice and everything was exactly the same. That also goes for shows I saw at other places.

add 5 songs??? dude they dont need to add five songs!!
here is the way i see it ....
if you dont like what you see or hear then dont go ...if you like to go to Stones shows then go....
Be Happy that they still play and kick butt!!
a matter of fact everytime i take a newbie to a show they are blown away.....
destroy your notion of ....... circular time...........

i actually don't believe you are all "bored" with the "caring" - I think you are bored too but hate to admit it.

I submit to you that if the Stones were doing shows along the lines of what Gazza has repeatedly suggested, there wouldn't be ANY complaints from ANYONE, that includes the "newbies" who are supposedly unfamiliar with anything that's not a so-called warhorse.

As has been chronicled here and elsewhere, when the Stones have NOT done a certain warhorse at a given show in the past, nobody has walked away thinking they were somehow cheated.

I don't buy your arguments.

I think you just hate hearing the truth...'cos it hurts.

Yes they do need add some more songs. If they did play 25, I'll tell you what we'll go together and at the 20th song you leave and I'll stay and enjoy the next 5.

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jesus not more of the about the set
> list.....
> they played the same set list in 69 72 73

er, I dont think so (unless you mean that the setlist didnt vary much - which is true).

> , brown sugar etc.....dice, i mean what is
> it ??? if you try and catch the perfect
> wave you are going to be paddleing a long
> time...and when it come s you wont be able
> to get on it.....enjoy what you got!!!


uh, yeah but in 1972-73 those songs werent 'warhorses'. they were new songs that their audience had never seen before

bv:
"When was the last time you saw them live?"

In January. Yeah, Keith did a great solo. But for me Satisfaction is a "punk", angry young man song, and not an arena guitar solo vehicle. Its interest resides in the insinuation tone of the head melody and the classic "garage fuzz" lick, and not in repetitive power chords to back any solo, however fantastic it might be.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out of 20/21 songs performed in Tokyo during the
> two shows there, they changed 7 songs. So if you
> really want more changes then yoiu want to throw
> out at least 5 of thge remaining 14 songs? Which
> ones?

no complaints about Tokyo. That level of variety was excellent and usually is when they play two shows in the same city. Doesnt happen with one nighters though
To the band's credit, I think theyve mixed the set around a LOT more since the turn of the year.
>
> PS. Just to explain a bit about how a Stones show
> is working. I don't think people understand...
>
> Miss You and Honky Tonk Women: Can not be
> replaces. These songs are timed and synced to
> moving out and back to/from the B-stage.

agreed. Reasonable enough in a stadium show with that stage set up (although there isnt THAT much exact timing required on Miss You as they play a considerable part of the song on the b-stage when its 'docked')

>
> Brown Sugar, Satisfacton, Jumping Jack Flash,
> Tumbling Dice, Start Me Up: Ultimate crowd
> pleasers people expect every night. Used to
> open/close shows, they are the true Stones. If you
> bring a dB meter then you will have proof that
> these are the most popular of most shows.
>
> So there are now 7 songs left. You want changes.
> Please give me 5 songs you want to get rid of.
> Talk is cheap. If you really want changes then you
> must be able to tell what should be taken out.
> Five songs out of seven...

to save me using up too much space and repeating myself, see my post at 1.38 am on 8th March on this thread.

[iorr.org]

maybe only a couple out of the many "essentials" left out once in a while..of the five songs you mention, maybe one left out on a rotating basis. There are lots more classic songs which could be rotated and alternated. They could even do it and have a smaller variety of songs to pick from that they have played in this tour to date. So, its not really any more of a stretch than what theyre doing at the minute. Its still a very good show. With a couple of tweaks and some rotation, it could be even better. Thats all. Its called constructive criticism.

No ones expecting loads of obscurities at a large scale show. Just a bit more rotation amongst the well known songs (and Keith's set too, while hes at it!). As it is at the minute, once you hear the opening chords of Miss You at a Stones gig, you can pretty much predict the rest of the show and in what order.

i was seven years old..in 73...

i've never been seven...i skipped that year

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Gazza nails it. The Stones have DOZENS of
> hits and well-known numbers. A bit of rotation
> wouldn’t go a miss. They don't need to keep
> playing the same 9 or 10 songs every night. How
> about mixing Not Fade Away, It’s All Over Now,
> Time Is On My Side etc amongst the likes of Start
> Me Up and It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll? There are so
> many well-known songs they could mix into the
> setlist. Lastly, what about Little Red Rooster?
> Wasn’t this a number 1?


My thoughts exactly.

i skipped 8 twice .....