The two Tokyo shows varied by 30%. 7 songs out of 20 varied from one night to the next night.

Every day at Shidoobee,RO,and here, someone complains about static setlists ( of course the same people often then praise 78, 72, 69 when almost nothing changed, even from an afternoon to an evening show).

Where are they all now? How come no one wants to post about an active vital band giving two shows that are , in effect , different? Seems to me to a be a bit of BIAS when you can whine, but not praise.

I am sure that people who disagree will pout..."but they did not pull out Mona, where is Parachute Woman, why dont they do Time Waits for No one." Well maybe the real complaint is " why didn't they do the twenty songs I have chosen to put om my setlist wishes?"

you want a piece of ME?

If I'd gone to both nights,I would have been fairly pleased with the changes.
I particularily like JJF AT THE END OF A SHOW.

I hope they open with SMU in Europe as it's 17 years since they used it as an opener,as opposed to JJF which they opened with in '99.

Yes I said 17 years ,as it now looks as if the UK tour could be prosponed until 2007.

Anything left in Spain ? Might as well make a holiday of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well said kahoosier.

I hope they hit another venue, becaue if they postpone rather than replace Wembley, I have a hard time validating all time off , hitting Porto, Valladolid, the just hanging until Glasgow. It may be more effective to save the time off, and hope for the 18 city RUN rumored for next fall in USA.

There have been several times on this tour where the Stones have changed up the setlist and I have been quick to praise them. So, let me once again give credit where credit is due and say that I thought the two setlists in Tokyo where good ones.

As someone pointed out, the Stones generally change things up when they play multiple shows at the same venue, which is to be commended. It's the shows where they only play once at a particular venue (ie, the majority of shows on the tour) where the setlist is usually static.

I don't understand all this animosity towards people who'd like a more varied setlist. I'm not saying the Stones aren't playing well or that I'm not grateful they're still around. They are, and I am.

I just think a band with such a rich catalogue that has toured so extensively in the last tweleve years could give us more variety. And I'm not talking about obscure songs like Parachute Woman, etc., I'm talking about songs that are well-known even to casual fans: The Last Time, Not Fade Away, It's All Over Now, Under My Thumb, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-25 01:50 by ohnonotyouagain.

Good post, ohno, especially that last line -

I'm not talking about obscure songs like Parachute Woman, etc., I'm talking about songs that are well-known even to casual fans: The Last Time, Not Fade Away, It's All Over Now, Under My Thumb, etc.

Maybe ya all have seen it umpteen times, but...
User Jeep over at ROCKS OFF posted these
linx from Japan... Both incomplete but yet givin' us an
image of what it was like.

JJF [www.toshiba-emi.co.jp]

ONNYA [www.toshiba-emi.co.jp]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-25 01:25 by Baboon Bro.

kahoosier: for a man of your self-proclaimed intelligence, I'm surprised you would suggest that only those who would expect more from this band (setlist-wise) to be the only ones with BIAS. Each of us approaches the subject with bias - you're no different from the rest of us....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-25 01:51 by StonesTod.

"Bias" is defined as a "preference that inhibits impartial judgment."

Very similar to many of the posts wherein "the boys" can do wrong.

I yield to no one in my love of this band, but I read some of things on this board, such as "best Shattered EVER!!" or "Ronnie nailed every solo.", it is pretty clear who is toting around the bias and who isn't.

I think most people who post and complain about set lists are sitting at home and "reading" the set list not experiencing it. And being a fan not being able to see them is depressing, also if you think the biggest thing in life is changes. Also many who saw them and miss them, and many from Europe, who just can't wait to get them live.

Finally, it is the same people who complain. A handful. Most people are happy with the shows and have other things to do than complain about having to hear songs such as Worried About You and Gimme Shelter. And the new great versions of Satisfaction. And the new guitar bits Keith just added to Midnight Rambler. See what I mean?

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
See what I mean?
>

No. What do you mean?

BLA BLA BLA BLA..............did i tell you guys i got a couple of very cool shirts like richards has , a green one and a purpley one ...very cool.....what where we talking about???

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> See what I mean?
> >
>
> No. What do you mean?
>

I think he means the minority is always wrong, and since those who'd like more variety are in the minority, we are therefore automatically wrong. Not the most logical thing I've ever heard, but it is the sort of reasoning the world seems to be running on these days.

It's funny that the Stones started as rebels who wouldn't think twice about speaking their minds and now their fans are criticized for doing the same.

i like the purpley one. i think the green was is too predictable and stale.....

<<<<kahoosier: for a man of your self-proclaimed intelligence>>>>

LOL Stonestod, history (both my own personel and on the world stage), shows that really smart people can do stupid things LOL. Reviewing my relationship record, I can see that some of us do the same stupid things REPEATEDLY!

And starting this thread in retrospect may prove to be one of those stupid things I have done! Oh well...crap happens!

PS:
Hmmm I mean I have admited that I am an MD, I know a fair amount of Stones trivia, history, etc. I cannot however remember ever "proclaiming" my intelligence here hahhahha. The shear fact that I spend so much time here and at RO and Shidoobee would lead some to question my brain power and that woud be without even looking at what a tour does do my bank accounts!

good to know you're down here with the rest of us low-lifes! cheers, mate!

It's a valid perspective Mr Kahoosier (or should that be Dr) and I can certainly see where you are coming from.

However, we (and that includes myself back then) didn't complain about setlists in 72/73 because although they remained rigidly fixed, night after night, they consisted almost entirely of material off the band's previous four albums. Audiences in those days got off on listening to new music as opposed to being spoon-fed on familiar oldies like they are now. In addition, such a ploy helped to "move the audience on", so to speak, from one particular genre of music to another, by providing a modern up-to-date and contemporaneous feel to the gigs. Moreover, we grew with the band, and as a consequence, they became part of our lives. We were hooked.

I still am. I love the modern day (1990 onwards) Stones albums as much as most of those from any other period, and as such, agree with other IORR members who argue that such material, if played before the public for any sustained length of time, would no doubt spawn new classics. Sadly however, new songs are not given a chance. They are strangled at birth in favour of old chestnuts.

As a consequence, my own personal wish is simply that the band show faith in the new as well as the old and have the guts to stick with a setlist that is not a pandering to the collective whim of the casual/occasional follower. So what if some numbers are received a little more quietly by the audiences than others? This doesn't necessarily mean that the public don't like the songs or that the party has been ruined. Get the buggers to listen!

In a well-paced show, including six or seven essential party-time warhorses, the Stones would have the opportunity to show even the newest kids on the block that they are as essential now as they have ever been, and that they didn't stop making records after 1981.

We all want the party to go on, but please, let's at least start to acknowledge that the sweets and balloons belong to the past.

It's because we're old & tired.
On the setlist issue I'm mainly with Björnulf, though.
It's just an expression of bore when ya have to nag & nag
on the setlists. It's not What ya play but How ya play it
that matters.
But we have the right to complain, when its motivated.
Like a fool I believe we should take any chance to influence
our band... Sway is in there, thanks to us & the other boards.

I really do not see myself as a complainer.

How about this--a true fan who is objective enough to call things as he sees them (God forbid!!) and has no interest in drinking the Kool-Aid.

I mean Satisfaction and Midnight Rambler are unique every time. Just like Beckham and Roaldinho are unique in every game. If you care about football then you will appreciate these playes in every game. They are unique and you don't replace them in the team becaue they are in the lineup, and the lineup looks boring every time. Just like Satsifaction and Midnight Rampler.

Bjornulf

we'll never know for sure about Sway, eh, Baboon? But, assuming you're right I'm only motivated to complain my ass off for the rest of the tour. LOOOOOK OUUT!!!!

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most people who post and complain about
> set lists are sitting at home and "reading" the
> set list not experiencing it. And being a fan not
> being able to see them is depressing, also if you
> think the biggest thing in life is changes.

I saw them in Memphis and found the song choices to be safe and boring, although the performance was good. Then I saw them in Atlanta and liked both the setlist and the performance, and therefore enjoyed the whole experience much more. So yes, it is possible be unhappy with the setlist even if you were there and not sitting at home.

I also don't think you have to be at a show to judge it. Certainly not to judge whether the setlist was creative or not. Even with shows I was at, I find it easier to evaluate the show by listening to the boot later than in the heat of the moment at the concert.

yes the purpley one is cool kind of shiney...shirtstore on 45th and vanderbilt........i was hoping to get em before radio city but oh well....now what was that you where saying???
set list??? i will defend em....i have seen a shit load of shows ....i like them "War Horses" ...."them"...Sway is awsome....
name another band that you can dance to like the Stones , during the show...(no blingy bling stuff....) its a show.....THERE in there 60's!!!!!!
Brown Sugar??????Jumpin' Jack Flash???
i think the real question is ...do they the band get bored themselfs doing the show ???? Same ole songs ???
if they are having fun, we are having fun.... then thats what its all about ...

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i think the real question is ...do they the
> band get bored themselfs doing the show
> ???? Same ole songs ???
> if they are having fun, we are having
> fun.... then thats what its all about ...

I think they're having fun, and I have a lot of fun at the shows. The shows are great, but they could be better. Is there anything wrong with wanting them to be better?

It's unlikely they would have played Sway or As Tears Go By had people not complained aobut the lack of variety, so why not ask for a little more? The worst that can happen is they decide to keep doing what they are doing.

Does it hurt to try? Are we afraid their feelings are going to be hurt if they find out someone wants to hear Under My Thumb instead of the 900 millionth rendition of Tumbling Dice? I seriously doubt they would be offended.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two Tokyo shows varied by 30%. 7 songs out of
> 20 varied from one night to the next night.
>
> Every day at Shidoobee,RO,and here, someone
> complains about static setlists ( of course the
> same people often then praise 78, 72, 69 when
> almost nothing changed, even from an afternoon to
> an evening show).
>
> Where are they all now? How come no one wants to
> post about an active vital band giving two shows
> that are , in effect , different? Seems to me to a
> be a bit of BIAS when you can whine, but not
> praise.
>
> I am sure that people who disagree will
> pout..."but they did not pull out Mona, where is
> Parachute Woman, why dont they do Time Waits for
> No one." Well maybe the real complaint is " why
> didn't they do the twenty songs I have chosen to
> put om my setlist wishes?"


nope...no 'whining' from me. Already praised them for mixing it up so much in another thread and happy to do so again on this one. Very good variety for a stadium show. When you get two shows in one city in 2006 (and also at the Bowl shows in November which saw the biggest change EVER in successive shows at the same venue), there appears to be a good mix.

Nothing really surprising in the shows, but certainly had I been at both gigs I'd have been very pleased at the variety between the two shows.

Just wish the "one nighters" would have a similar degree of unpredictability and the 2nd half of each show could get mixed around somewhat, but thumbs up Macca style and credit where its due for them changing things around.

Just another angle on the 'where are the setlist bitchers now' subject...They didnt mix the sets around much on the back to back shows early on in the tour (see Fenway!). They do so now. Maybe all this whining/caring (delete where applicable) has got back to them and they figured that the show needed a bit more variety

Y'all may wish to thank us instead

Great setlists...for anyone who's been in a coma for the last 25 years.

The basic structure of the setlist and the few featured rarities were largely based on the feedback through RS.com before the first show. That is when Sway was picked. It has damn little to do with what is posted here.

I think some people overestimate their importance and the weight of their opinions if they think the Stones pick songs based on their bitches or wishes on this board or any other. Many of the people here don't even read all the crap about setlists, let alone Mick, Chuck or the rest of the Stones.

If it makes you feel better about yourself, pontificate to your hearts content and continue to believe anyone really cares. Be aware though, that as often as not, the endless whining/dreaming/praying probably annoys more people than it truly entertains.

"The basic structure of the setlist and the few featured rarities were largely based on the feedback through RS.com before the first show. That is when Sway was picked. It has damn little to do with what is posted here"

- Wrong. StonesDoug passed their and our poll, handed personally
to one of the Stones members.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If it makes you feel better about yourself,
> pontificate to your hearts content and continue to
> believe anyone really cares. Be aware though,
> that as often as not, the endless
> whining/dreaming/praying probably annoys more
> people than it truly entertains.

So then Steven, what really big important thing do you want to talk about?

You start the ball rolling...