Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The basic structure of the setlist and the few
> featured rarities were largely based on the
> feedback through RS.com before the first show.


and the moon is made of green cheese. Theres one born every minute. No doubt you're still convinced the average ticket price was $100-110 and they'll be playing $50 a gig theatre shows, as announced at Juilliard. Can you spell the word "h-y-p-e" ?

> That is when Sway was picked. It has damn little
> to do with what is posted here.

Its been a "request" song of choice on every board I know of this time around. More than any other song. If it was picked at the start of the tour, why was it only played once in 2005?
>
> 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.

wrong again. Could name you quite a few examples where I know for a fact that certain songs have been added to the setlist in the internet era (and I'm not talking about the BTB webvote) because a few suggestions re: fan favourites have got back to the band and also where certain songs have been included sporadically as a nod/request to certain fans which were more than coincidence


Many of the people
> here don't even read all the crap about setlists,
>

you seem to read and comment on nothing else

>let alone Mick, Chuck or the rest of the Stones.

well, I know for a fact that the Stones' employ staff for whom monitoring message boards is a part of their job. Not that the band are going to listen to much of it, but they do become aware of some degree of feedback.

>
> If it makes you feel better about yourself,
> pontificate to your hearts content and continue to
> believe anyone really cares.


wrong again. On this tour and previous tours there have been cases where the Stones have dug out of mothballs songs that were at the start of the tour heavily 'campaigned' for on message boards more than any other song at the time. 'Moonlight Mile' on No Security and CYHMK on 'Licks'.

Be aware though,
> that as often as not, the endless
> whining/dreaming/praying probably annoys more
> people than it truly entertains.



touche, and I'm personally delighted!




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-25 04:00 by Gazza.

well to turn this thread into a positive:

whats the next song we want to hear?? lets start a new lobby!

personally i'm real glad they played sway this tour....

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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???


that tiger print thing has to go tho; i am totally biased about that.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


Great post. Agree with every word of it, but hey - according to some folks twisted logic, wanting to hear great new songs that you like and being able to enjoy more than about 15 songs from their back catalogue - not to mention wanting your favourite band to do well and remain creatively inspired and driven by the great music theyve given us - means youre not much of a fan and just a 'whiner'.

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well to turn this thread into a positive:
>
> whats the next song we want to hear?? lets start a
> new lobby!
>
> personally i'm real glad they played sway this
> tour....
>
>
Me too.

'You Cant Catch Me' on the b-stage

Keeping it remotely in the bounds of realism, however - "Slave" seems to have been a popular choice for some time now. probably would work better in a small venue though. They do a potentially nice version of it during the rehearsals that are shown in Four Flicks

Any Chuck Berry would always be welcome, although theyve "Berryfied" "IORR" on this tour making it sound better than it ever has done in concert IMO.

'Let it loose' or 'Soul Survivor' would be quite special, dont ya think?

To be honest, I'm genuinely happy when they try ANYTHING new and fresh. I'm more concerned that they make the effort to do so rather than worry about whether or not it matches the original.

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.


It's quite evident you are in the "entertained" section. Glad to be of service, mate!

boy it WOULD be great if they played a chuck berry cover...in fact, they should absolutely play a chuck berry song every night.. they played two or three a night for a while!

i just love chuck berry so much.. i think of the rolling stones as playing chuck berry rock'n'roll..

you know chuck leavell talks to mick about set lists i think before the shows.. i think basically mick tells him what songs they are going to do..

anyways in his diary he wrote that initially at radio city they were going to do can't you hear me knocking but agreed they needed to practice it some more (a clear admission of wussiness i think...)...also that mick told him they'd do one less song...

his site -under the contact tab- takes messages....one way to try to steer the band to be a bit more adventurous might be to bombard his site with some messages.. assuming the feature works and someone reads them (and my guess is that someone does read them as chuck is involved in some big environmental causes, sells a bunch of stuff through his site, etc..)

i do hope the stones come back to the US in the fall (of course i understand its europe's turn now.. they certainly deserve many shows).. for all the warhorses i had a blast in baltimore..

so CYHMK is on the shortlist again? Didnt know that! Excellent news!

from chuck leavell's last diary entry from his site...sorta describes the process...seems like chuck has a lot to do with whats going on with set lists:

I started to work straight away on the set list, pouring over our four previous NY shows and also looking at what we did in LA at the Hollywood Bowl, as this would be a similar kind of show. The "B Stage" was to be an abbreviated version of our normal shows, just as it was at the Bowl. The other major consideration was that this is a special benefit show for the Robin Hood Foundation and therefore a unique audience of major contributors for the event. I finished my suggestions leaving several choices for Mick and I to discuss later.

Then I went exploring the venue. We played there many years back when we performed at the MTV Music Awards....but of course that was just a couple of songs and tonight we would be doing a full set. It's an amazing venue...very beautiful and the stage is a generous size. The rest of the guys started arriving and eventually I went in to talk to Mick about the songs we wanted to go over for the sound check and to do a preliminary discussion of the set list. We talked it over and decided on doing Worried About You, As Tears Go By and although we had talked about the possibility of Can't You Hear Me Knocking, we decided we needed to run it over a few more times before it was ready to bring back to the stage. He told me we should to one less song than usual, so with all of that we went to do the sound check. It went very well and we all got a feel for the room.

Afterwards I went back to Mick's dressing room to finalize the list. We talked about it quite a while....discussing the mix of people in the audience and how we would balance doing a good bit of the well known songs and one or two tunes a little off the beaten path. Basically we put in the two above mentioned ballads and Midnight Rambler, Gimmie Shelter and the rest of the set was the usual fare.

So they spent the afternoon discussing how to add two songs. I would think Mick can do that while taking a morning dump reading the paper.

I'll bet Chuck a lot of input, Mick says here are two ballads and we need two songs what do you think? Only pick two Chuck.

Sorry stoned, just being a little sarcastic.

If the Stones want to know what the fans want they don't need any CIA guys scanning the message boards. Only one thing needed, post a question at the top fan club sites (like ours) and let it run. I think were worth more than one song. Is that too hard to do. I'll bet everyone will jump all over that one too. Do you think the Stones own a notebook computer. If not BV is on the road alot. He'll bring one up to the room.

What to talk about? How about reviews of the show by people who attend, rather than endless complaints about what wasn't played by those who weren't there?

Good luck, I hope your whining is listened to and acted upon. I suspect you would only find something else to whine about though.

Some people find the good in any situation, some only see the bad. The negative vibe on this board is often staggering. It is not surprising that so many of the negative people here have trouble affording tickets. Life's whiners are rarely successful. The continued resentment over the suits, ticket prices, comments about what the Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true" fans are poor, depressed, and life's underachievers are very telling.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stoned_in_dc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > well to turn this thread into a positive:
> >
> > whats the next song we want to hear?? lets
> start a
> > new lobby!
> >
> > personally i'm real glad they played sway
> this
> > tour....
> >
> >
> Me too.
>
> 'You Cant Catch Me' on the b-stage
>
> Keeping it remotely in the bounds of realism,
> however - "Slave" seems to have been a popular
> choice for some time now. probably would work
> better in a small venue though. They do a
> potentially nice version of it during the
> rehearsals that are shown in Four Flicks
>
> Any Chuck Berry would always be welcome, although
> theyve "Berryfied" "IORR" on this tour making it
> sound better than it ever has done in concert
> IMO.
>
> 'Let it loose' or 'Soul Survivor' would be quite
> special, dont ya think?
>
> To be honest, I'm genuinely happy when they try
> ANYTHING new and fresh. I'm more concerned that
> they make the effort to do so rather than worry
> about whether or not it matches the original.

U have a point and i agree on that

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to talk about? How about reviews of the show
> by people who attend, rather than endless
> complaints about what wasn't played by those who
> weren't there?
>
> Good luck, I hope your whining is listened to and
> acted upon. I suspect you would only find
> something else to whine about though.
>
> Some people find the good in any situation, some
> only see the bad. The negative vibe on this board
> is often staggering. It is not surprising that so
> many of the negative people here have trouble
> affording tickets. Life's whiners are rarely
> successful. The continued resentment over the
> suits, ticket prices, comments about what the
> Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true"
> fans are poor, depressed, and life's
> underachievers are very telling.
>
>

Unfortunately I would agree with most of your post.

"Sad, Sad, Sad"

Yeah, Baboon & Gazza - The X-pensive Whiners

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so CYHMK is on the shortlist again? Didnt know
> that! Excellent news!


That's not the way I read it, Gazza. I read it that Chuck wanted them to just give it a bash as though they could conjure it up from memories of the Licks tour. Mick was probably smart about opting out on this - it would probably have been a train wreck, frankly. And, I don't see the boys working this one back into the set at all - it was a "Licks Tour Special" and never-to-be-heard-from-again number, I'm afraid....

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to talk about? How about reviews of the show
> by people who attend, rather than endless
> complaints about what wasn't played by those who
> weren't there?
>
> Good luck, I hope your whining is listened to and
> acted upon. I suspect you would only find
> something else to whine about though.
>
> Some people find the good in any situation, some
> only see the bad. The negative vibe on this board
> is often staggering. It is not surprising that so
> many of the negative people here have trouble
> affording tickets. Life's whiners are rarely
> successful. The continued resentment over the
> suits, ticket prices, comments about what the
> Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true"
> fans are poor, depressed, and life's
> underachievers are very telling.
>
>



This has to be the most negative post I've read on this board in a long time. NICE work, Steven!

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to talk about? How about reviews of the show
> by people who attend, rather than endless
> complaints about what wasn't played by those who
> weren't there?
>
> Good luck, I hope your whining is listened to and
> acted upon. I suspect you would only find
> something else to whine about though.
>
> Some people find the good in any situation, some
> only see the bad. The negative vibe on this board
> is often staggering. It is not surprising that so
> many of the negative people here have trouble
> affording tickets. Life's whiners are rarely
> successful. The continued resentment over the
> suits, ticket prices, comments about what the
> Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true"
> fans are poor, depressed, and life's
> underachievers are very telling.

Bullshit, Steven, and you know it.

From what I hear when I listen around is that some of my friends still go to see them, but with a considerably lesser enthusiasm compared to past tours. Consequently, many of them go to a lesser number of shows than in the past.

And there are some who don't go at all this time around. And every one of those could easily afford to see them. For them it's more or less a case of "why pay considerably more than last time for considerably less variety / or more or less the same procedure as every year?"





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-25 22:26 by retired_dog.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to talk about? How about reviews of the show
> by people who attend, rather than endless
> complaints about what wasn't played by those who
> weren't there?
>
> Good luck, I hope your whining is listened to and
> acted upon. I suspect you would only find
> something else to whine about though.
>
> Some people find the good in any situation, some
> only see the bad. The negative vibe on this board
> is often staggering. It is not surprising that so
> many of the negative people here have trouble
> affording tickets. Life's whiners are rarely
> successful. The continued resentment over the
> suits, ticket prices, comments about what the
> Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true"
> fans are poor, depressed, and life's
> underachievers are very telling.
>
>



you're clearly so blinded by your own stupidity and obsession with other posters that you cant even see positive remarks when theyre staring you right in the face

And your sweeping (and laughably inaccurate) personal generalisations about people you dont even know anything about only makes you look an even bigger idiot

For the record, I'll be seeing the Stones in five different countries in 2006. Not bad for what you'd define as a poverty-stricken whiner who cant stand them.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-26 01:49 by Gazza.

go gazza go

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to talk about? How about reviews of the show
> by people who attend, rather than endless
> complaints about what wasn't played by those who
> weren't there?
>
> Good luck, I hope your whining is listened to and
> acted upon. I suspect you would only find
> something else to whine about though.
>
> Some people find the good in any situation, some
> only see the bad. The negative vibe on this board
> is often staggering. It is not surprising that so
> many of the negative people here have trouble
> affording tickets. Life's whiners are rarely
> successful. The continued resentment over the
> suits, ticket prices, comments about what the
> Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true"
> fans are poor, depressed, and life's
> underachievers are very telling.
>
>

Look,you don't seem to understand the situation.I for one,have been to eight concerts on this tour & did not have any trouble at all affording to do so.I doubt that I'm alone on that among set list complainers either.I think that most everybody can agree that it would be a good thing for fans if the tickets were somewhere in the ballpark of what everyone else's tickets cost.Extra money in our pockets would not be a bad thing.
The premise that you have to be at every single show of a 100 concert tour to have a valid opinion on what should or should not be played is completely & entirely ridiculous.
I'll tell you who are underahievers.People who lack intelligence & people who accept mediocrity.
You are,at the same time,whining and attacking whiners.
The objections to the growing # of "suits" is not based on resenting them for their money but,for their apparent lack of knowledge of 95% of the material by the band that they are taking up seats to see.The only things I've read about the Stones owing their fans are : 1) the club shows that they used to promote sales of $100 memberships so,they do in fact owe people those as far as I'm concerned. 2) Creativity - They create very few new songs so,it has become more important to be creative with their live shows.Without either of those two things going for them,they don't have much else as artists.

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?"

This argument (by kahoosier) DOES NOT apply to all of the criticisms & it definitely does not apply to my criticisms.
Of the seven "new" songs from the March 24th show,FIVE out of the SEVEN were played in Tokyo,at the same venue on the Licks Tour.The one show per tour people who went to the Tokyo Dome in 2003 and then came back for the ABB tour on March 24th got hit with shows that were 80% or so identical.This is an awful approach to use.Just rotating the same tired old songs is not the answer.
I will give credit where credit is due.I actually liked the March 22nd set list.Check the thread "Tokyo March 22".Apart from a few songs,the March 24 set list was too repetitive for me.
Of course I have songs that I would most like to hear live but,they are not going to make or break the shows for me.What will make a show less enjoyable is the lack of more than a few songs that have not been played out.For example,I would most like to hear Soul Survivor but,if they played Summer Romance instead,I would be fine with it just as long as they are bringing something new to the table as they have always done for each different tour.This tour there are rare live songs but,they skip them way too often.I went to eight shows and heard Sway,among seven others,at none (ZERO) of them.They have only played it six times out of what,60 shows this tour?They are only at six because they have only just recently stepped it up a little.

Go, Thief, Go (x 2)

artistic mediocrity imho is also an "obscure" number played once or twice in a tour and like a karaoke from the undusted cd.

also I see more artistic mediocrity in the way they interpret some songs (SFTD is the perfect example) than in the way they choose the list

a good setlist for me: add more warhorses, divide them in 2 sets to be played on and off, choose a good but limited number of real obscurities and play them often with little rotation.

also i think this setlist disputes stem out of the overload of info that this medium has brought

a step further (live streaming of all concerts) and things would change dramatically

also I think there's alot of people here that can't remember their firsts rs concerts anymore. The thrill for satisfaction is not gone for me and maybe I am not the only one.

Sure I would like to hear Soul Survivor. But I think for that we need a dramatic change in the scale of the rolling stones circus. Licks tour was the closest THIS band could get to that approach.

maumau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> artistic mediocrity imho is also an "obscure"
> number played once or twice in a tour and like a
> karaoke from the undusted cd.
>
> also I see more artistic mediocrity in the way
> they interpret some songs (SFTD is the perfect
> example) than in the way they choose the list
>
> a good setlist for me: add more warhorses, divide
> them in 2 sets to be played on and off, choose a
> good but limited number of real obscurities and
> play them often with little rotation.
>
> also i think this setlist disputes stem out of the
> overload of info that this medium has brought
>
> a step further (live streaming of all concerts)
> and things would change dramatically
>
> also I think there's alot of people here that
> can't remember their firsts rs concerts anymore.
> The thrill for satisfaction is not gone for me and
> maybe I am not the only one.
>
> Sure I would like to hear Soul Survivor. But I
> think for that we need a dramatic change in the
> scale of the rolling stones circus. Licks tour was
> the closest THIS band could get to that approach.
>
>

Those are some good ideas but,I would add at least a couple of club shows in each hemisphere in which they add more rare live songs because,most of the songs they play less than ten times a tour have sounded fine to me.Some examples that immediately come to mind are Dance Pt.whatever it was,Parachute Woman,Heart Of Stone,Far Away Eyes,Might As Well Get Juiced (except for the small drumming problem),and Sad Sad Sad ('94).If they try to honor the studio version some people will criticise & if they don't other people will criticise.I believe that most of that has to do with perception.They use the same approach on most of the new songs but,nobody complains about that.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What to talk about?

The continued resentment over the
> suits, ticket prices, comments about what the
> Stones owe you, and theory that the only "true"
> fans are poor, depressed, and life's
> underachievers are very telling.


"Underachievers". Now there's a great topic!

OK let's go...let's here it from THE MAN himeself.

Theif in the Night Wrote:

> Of the seven "new" songs from the March 24th
> show,FIVE out of the SEVEN were played in Tokyo,at
> the same venue on the Licks Tour.The one show per
> tour people who went to the Tokyo Dome in 2003 and
> then came back for the ABB tour on March 24th got
> hit with shows that were 80% or so identical.This
> is an awful approach to use.Just rotating the same
> tired old songs is not the answer.

__________________________________

I've seen the local boards, and it is hard to find any Tokyo fans who went to both shows and were disappointed. Also, I don't think that I've seen ONE post where anyone compares a show from 2006 to the show they saw in 2003. The real evidence of how pleased the audience was is in the sales of the tickets for Saitama, which had been slow. At this point, even with the highest ticket prices ever, I think it will be close to a sell-out.