Agree baboon..... just read some of the posts. You'd have thought someone had died. Not that a 62 year old man cut a few songs to 8000 people cause he had a sore throat and has many huge gigs to play in the future???

Bankers and ex-patriots are people too.Maybe most of them would prefer more well known songs but,I'm sure that if they were given a choice,they would have taken something in the place of the banned warhorses as opposed to nothing in the place of the banned warhorses.The more important thing,as I see it,is the Stones' line of thinking.They should relish the opportunity to perform a reasonable # of songs to people that are at least somewhat interested in their music and may or may not have seen them before.

ahem: "ex-pat" means ex-patriate, not "ex-patriot".
and when someone finds a link to where anyone in the band talks about the factors that led to this set list,
let me know, okay? that will be interesting.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'acknowledge that this stunt was a pretty shitty
> thing to pull'???? Stunt? They still played 18
> instead of 21 songs to glowing reviews?? Hows that
> ever a stunt?
>
> Over reacting to nothing in my book......
>
> And that doesn't mean I accept everything the
> Stones ever do just that I find the over reaction
> to dropping a few songs from a set list
> incredible.


Of course its a 'stunt'. And a cheap one at that

as for over-reaction. Thats one way of looking at it, and youre entitled to that opinion of course. I consider it a debate on a message forum which was set up specifically for that purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally its the 'counter reaction' to the criticism from some who posted that reducing the set to 18 songs was 'great' that I find more weird. There are people who think thats a good sign? Quite bizarre.

However, it'd be interested to see how you'd react at the first show you see this summer if for no logical reason at all the band decide to play a set thats about 3 songs/15 mins shorter than every other show on the tour to date - and then go back to a normal length show afterwards.

I think they wanted to walk the dingo...have you heard that Nurmberg(Germany 98)boot..Jaggers voice is gone...that aint funny for the fans so I can understand why.it was a shorter list.

The Wild Horses duet was a complete mess. The guest performer did not remember any words. He was reading heavily from the papers on the floor but it was not in chinese you know so it was not that easy in a hurry while singing. But Mich came to his rescue at a point where he was about to loose out entirely on the song. Cui Jian was singing in English, but he made this a very bluesy slowed down vocals which makes no sense in a duet, when Mick and the rest of the band have an all different tempo. Wrong song to have a guest spot I think.

As for the club show feel. It was certainly a theatre setup. Remember Brixton Academy use to be referenced to as a club show. An arena of 3,900 people. Well this was double size but I will tell you it had the same setup as Brixton and Olympia. All of the venue decorations and stage was local no Stones stuff. A ral big theatre indeed. Not an arena. No space for camera people in the security barrier between the stage and the crowd, so the photographers had to get in front of the crowd for the first two songs. A surrealistic exercise when you know press professionals are facing "front row professionals". Only the English accent hired muscle guys saved the photographers from being kicked out by the fans up front. I had a untold pact with the photographers in front of me. If you move or change my position an inch I will trash all your shots. In trade I let him shoot Mick From the "lip stage" without blocking his view. As the 2nd song was finished he was out and I was back in my position. They say I was on CNN so may be one day I will have a copy of this show on a DVD. It was a great show and I don't care if it was 15 or 25 songs.

Bjornulf

I dont believe that excuse for a minute to be honest.

When they shorten the set they tend to drop songs that Mick would have difficulty singing if he's having problems with his throat

Seems a bizarre coincidence that the 3 songs dropped were the 3 that were on the banned list that would normally have been played (HTW, BS, RJ)

Firstly, debates ok as long as you don't bang on about the same subject.

And I'm sure at my 'first' gig I won't be sitting there with my stop watch waiting to see if the gigs 15 mins short???? I'll probably be with the rest of the crowd enjoying myself!

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>They say I was on CNN so may be one
> day I will have a copy of this show on a DVD.

do you mean it showed you in the crowd? I didnt catch it on CNN, but there were a few news reports on the BBC and Sky which probably all had similar footage

Hopefully the DVD will circulate soon..when is the TV broadcast?

The 'Wild Horses' duet sounds hilarious in a weird way. Look forward to seeing it for some reason!

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Firstly, debates ok as long as you don't bang on
> about the same subject.

I didnt realise there was a maximum posts limit on the subject, but thanks anyway. However, arent you prolonging it by 'banging on' too? ;-)


>
> And I'm sure at my 'first' gig I won't be sitting
> there with my stop watch waiting to see if the
> gigs 15 mins short???? I'll probably be with the
> rest of the crowd enjoying myself!


as will I - as I always do - but we might react differently afterwards

Well if you think or even mean they should have played Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar and Rough Justice then you are either stupid, lacking respect or do not care about 20% of the world's population. Their leaders told us they don't want these songs so on these conditions the Stones could perform. It is not about how many times you use the F-word or if you "come" or "cum" or anything at all like that but about who is in control. And if you check out the national budgets or depts to China from some other major countries you will understand who is in charge and why it takes only 6 minutes to go from downtown Shanghai to the airport, a travel that would take half an hour or more in any other country. I am not saying I am impressed. I am not. I am saying they are in control. They know what they want. And they get it.

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Remember Brixton Academy use to be
> referenced to as a club show. An arena of 3,900
> people.


Brixton Acadamy is'nt an arena. It's a theatre.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well if you think or even mean they should have
> played Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar and Rough
> Justice then you are either stupid, lacking
> respect or do not care about 20% of the world's
> population. Their leaders told us they don't want
> these songs so on these conditions the Stones
> could perform. It is not about how many times you
> use the F-word or if you "come" or "cum" or
> anything at all like that but about who is in
> control. And if you check out the national budgets
> or depts to China from some other major countries
> you will understand who is in charge and why it
> takes only 6 minutes to go from downtown Shanghai
> to the airport, a travel that would take half an
> hour or more in any other country. I am not saying
> I am impressed. I am not. I am saying they are in
> control. They know what they want. And they get
> it.



uh...I dont think anyone's seriously suggesting they should have played songs they were told not to play. they would have been idiotic to do that. Might be a ridiculous form of censorship to us, but if youre in someone else's country, its common sense and basic courtesy to respect their laws, even if you dont like them.

I think the point is they could have replaced them with other songs..as Mick suggested they would at the press conference. That's all.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they did less in 1969? not the point...theyve done
> more everywhere else since 1978!


Yeah. Things change it seems. Surprise, surprise. :-D

JumpingKentFlash

Mind you they placed a dozen or two high ranked uniformed officials front row. Well they were front row. There was a lot of space in front of the front row and that was taken up by real fans. But by then the set list was already written. May be the falling pillow was aimed at Keith but he was back with Charlie as usual so it saved him as always. But may be it was sort of a warning. No BS or there will be more pillows...

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The printed set list said 18 songs, and the
> written set lists on Charlie's plexi etc are
> written according to that one, so this was not a
> last minute change. As it was a club show setup,
> and no B-stage, I think 18 songs was great. Since
> when was art measured by quantity? If you want
> quantity for your money then there are plenty of
> stuff to choose from. But not the real stuff. The
> Stones.

Now that's a good one! Art - I always believed it was only rock'n'roll and I always liked it. No, seriously: Their music is art. But their current shows are more or less warhorse jukebox happenings. Concerning club show setups - here's what Tom Petty did in 2003 at the Vic Theatre in Chicago:

28 songs, many obscure songs, just a handful of Petty warhorses - and even a 12 song acoustic set:

01.Baby Please Don't Go
02.You Don't Know How It Feels
03.Love Is A Long Road
04.Crawlin' Back To You
05.Down Home Girl
06.Handle With Care
07.Black Leather Woman
08.Little Red Rooster
09.A Woman In Love
10.Done Somebody Wrong
11.I Won't Back Down
12.Not Fade Away
13.I'm Cryin'

Acoustic Set:

14.I Got a Woman
15.13 Days
16.Walls
17.Angel Dream
18.Learning Yo Fly
19.Melinda
20.Wake Up Time
21.Peggy Sue
22.Yer So Bad
23.Lost Children
24.Two Men Talkin'
25.Refugee
------------
Encores (Electric):

26.Carol
27.I'm Moving On
28.You Wreck Me


Now that's what I call "adventurous"... That's art in a live performance and value for money as well - it can be done! Tom Petty might not be the "real thing" in Stones fans terms, but just imagining the Stones performing a similar adventurous club show setlist sends me shivers down my spine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-10 16:47 by retired_dog.

Mr retired_dog hits the nail very firmly on the head, for only in our wildest dreams could we ever expect the Stones to do anything remotely akin to a setlist such as that.

Surely, all of the tedious warhorse apologists on this site would love it too. Or would that be way too far beyond the bounds of their goldfish-in-a-bowl mentality towards live music?

Probably.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-10 17:05 by LOGIE.

A Tom Petty show without American girl, Into the great wide open, Mary-jane's last dance and Free fallin' ain't my cup of tea.
Only hardcore fans would put up with a Petty show without the mandatory warhorses.
That's a fact. It's like a Stones show without Brown sugar, Miss you, Satisfaction, Jumpin' jack flash etc. That wouldn't be no real show, ya know.

Can you compare Tom Petty with The Rolling Stones? Its like sticking a Porsche up againsta Honda Civic..... goes well, reliable but dead boring!!!

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
goes well, reliable but dead boring!!!


thats a Stones setlist you've just described! lol

Nobody can argue that 18 songs is a rip-off if they regularly play 20 songs. It's like selling a box of 20 cookies that only has 18. I'd think it's a rip off!!

Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A Tom Petty show without American girl, Into the
> great wide open, Mary-jane's last dance and Free
> fallin' ain't my cup of tea.
> Only hardcore fans would put up with a Petty show
> without the mandatory warhorses.
> That's a fact. It's like a Stones show without
> Brown sugar, Miss you, Satisfaction, Jumpin' jack
> flash etc. That wouldn't be no real show, ya know.


Ever heard of the artistic expression, "pushing the boundaries" or how about "challenging the listener/audience"?

And what's up with catering for hard-core fans ocassionally?

Well I don't think its top of the Stones priority just yet, as tours go this aint looking to bad.... aint it just been extended till dec?

Tom Petty is a completely different artist to the Stones and in my book it seems silly to compare. The Stones are unique!

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I don't think its top of the Stones priority
> just yet, as tours go this aint looking to bad....
> aint it just been extended till dec?
>
> Tom Petty is a completely different artist to the
> Stones and in my book it seems silly to compare.
> The Stones are unique!


Why, exactly?

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Tom Petty is a completely different artist to the
> Stones and in my book it seems silly to compare.
> The Stones are unique!

That's a weak excuse for the predictability of Stones shows, and it is even weaker in the light that the Stones have an even bigger catalog of great songs to choose from than Tom Petty.

I am a Stones fan since nearly 4 decades and I "just" like Tom Petty...
...but, seeing how Tom Petty treats his fans simply makes me jealous.

How come Petty didn't play Out In The Cold that night?Seriously though,he has played his warhorses enough times that it didn't kill him to do a small show for his long time fans which,by the way,did have SOME warhorses.

Did anyone check out Leavell's tour diary entry for the 2005 Tampa & Charlotte shows?It's right there in black & white.Jagger called him and asked for easy set lists.

To some people the Stones really can't do anything wrong it seems. Just when you think it can't get any worst with the Stones and their set lists it does. And Mick didn't need to say that they have over 400 songs to choose from because they don't. They seem to be stuck with the same songs and thats it. My fears for some of these shows came true which made me vrey happy to have sold my tickets for many of the Euro shows. I would not be surprised to see the set down to 19 songs and I expect more of the same set list each night, again it will be the same as last tour where their shows have more variety in the US.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ahem: "ex-pat" means ex-patriate, not
> "ex-patriot".
> and when someone finds a link to where anyone in
> the band talks about the factors that led to this
> set list,
> let me know, okay? that will be interesting.


I believe both are correct.There is a page called www.expatriot.com.Capital letters are supposed to be used at the start of sentences.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-10 20:51 by Theif in the Night.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To some people the Stones really can't do anything
> wrong it seems. Just when you think it can't get
> any worst with the Stones and their set lists it
> does. And Mick didn't need to say that they have
> over 400 songs to choose from because they don't.
> They seem to be stuck with the same songs and
> thats it. My fears for some of these shows came
> true which made me vrey happy to have sold my
> tickets for many of the Euro shows. I would not be
> surprised to see the set down to 19 songs and I
> expect more of the same set list each night, again
> it will be the same as last tour where their shows
> have more variety in the US.


This is true but,at least in Europe you have a 1% chance of Salt Of The Earth or Connection.Also Europe has been lucky to get a few songs like I Just Want To Make Love To You (8 times only in the U.S.) & Shine A Light which the U.S. has rarely ever gotten.