I know this is the millionth post about the set lists, but it is a simple fact that the set lists are lacking, not just in quantity, but in choice. Fans are now relegated to argue the set list is great if they play Sway or As Tears Go By. Below is the set list from Hartford, October 5, 2002. Not a single show of the ABB tour comes close to having a set list as good as this one, which was typical of the Licks tour.

1. Street Fighting Man 2. It's Only Rock and Roll 3. If You Can't Rock Me 4. Don't Stop 5. Rocks Off 6. Love in Vain 7. Let it Bleed 8. Monkey Man 9. Gimme Shelter 10. Tumbling Dice 11. Slipping Away 12. Before They Make Me Run 13. Start Me Up 14. Love Train 15. Honkey Tonk Women 16. Can't You Hear Me Knocking 17. Satisfaction [to B stage] 18. Mannish Boy 19. You Got Me Rocking 20. Brown Sugar [exit out the back of the arena] [then the encores] 21. Midnight Rambler 22. Jumping Jack Flash


Does anyone have a candidate from the current tour which they wish to argue is better than the above set list?

"make up your mind, 'cause I gotta go"

You can't call that Value for Money. With such tickets prices you have to offer a lot more.

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.

Bjornulf

8,000 is a club show now???

Even if it was, the logic for such a show being a few songs shorter than a 'regular' show is lost on me

Maybe understandable if it was one of those mythical $50-a-ticket club shows, but then again...it wasnt.

BOBM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honkey Tonk Women and Brown Sugar were mentioned
> in this thread, but does anyone else know which
> songs were actually 'banned'?

The four that were already excised from the Chinese version of "40 licks", namely :

HTW
Brown sugar
Lets spend the night together
beast of burden (and no, I dont know the logic behind that one either..)

A fifth song was added to the list when they got to China. According to a TV report on BBC (or was it Sky) last night, that song was Rough Justice

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.


Well if 18 songs were printed on the glass by Charlie then i really don't think it was because of Micks voice. I he did have bad voice that day then i would think they would have a "normal" setlist of twenty songs and if he had trouble with his voice then they would skip one or two songs. Remember Amsterdam '98? I think it was the first of the five concerts, Mick had some trouble with his voice and he barely sang during the opener Satisfaction. So he knows like no one else how to control his voice and if it all went wrong then thet can skip a song or two. And yes that is possible even though there are a lot of people, lightning crew, sound crew, involved in the show.

So, playing only 18 songs in a country you have never played before is just a shame and a insold if you would ask me!

Cheers,
Wuudy

Since most of you whinners were not at the show. What the hell do you care what the selist was? Ask someone who was there if they were disappointed. I doubt you find any who would say its was a @#$%& rip off. Same old shit we've seen them play tour after tour.

backstreetboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > saw them play less then 2 hours in ft lauderdale
> and they were great.


Backstreet, I was at FT. Lauderdale I had it clocked aT 2HRS 5 MINS. I could be off but just a little.

Without starting another thread early on someome posted that they would start this tour with 22 or 23 songs and it would be down to 19 by Europe. I hope they are wrong but it sure seems to be heading that way. The two opening shows in Boston had 22 songs. those are the only ones I can recall. Hartford 5 days later was down to 21 are there any other 22 shows since Boston?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rickster Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am not one to bitch about the set lists at
> all
> > and I still love the band and would see them
> > anytime and be happy with whatever they played
> but
> > only 18 songs in China. I mean I know they
> could
> > not play some of there usualls but you would
> think
> > they could have been replaced with others
> instead
> > of cutting the set list to 18 after all ticket
> > prices were not cheaper. But I still love the
> band
> > just hope this does not become normal they need
> to
> > do at least 20 per concert.
>
>
>
> I'd like to think it was a one-off and it probably
> will be
>
> very disrespectful to treat that audience in that
> way. To not even bother to replace the 'banned'
> songs is outrageous, especially when Jagger had
> the nerve to mention at the press conference about
> having 400 others to choose from!
>
> I dont get any pleasure in saying it, but it only
> adds a lot of fuel to the arguments about the
> Stones having a lack of respect for their paying
> audience, and their tendency to take the money and
> run.



Gazza-we finally agree on something!

Take Care.

virgil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without starting another thread early on someome
> posted that they would start this tour with 22 or
> 23 songs and it would be down to 19 by Europe. I
> hope they are wrong but it sure seems to be
> heading that way. The two opening shows in Boston
> had 22 songs. those are the only ones I can
> recall. Hartford 5 days later was down to 21 are
> there any other 22 shows since Boston?


Gazza help me out here?

MSG on 13.9.05 also had 22 songs. Along with the two opening shows at Fenway thats the only ones that have had that many

Apart from RCMH (19) and Shanghai (18) all the rest have had 20 or 21 songs.

In the first couple of months of the tour, most of those shows had 21 songs but from late 2005 and into 2006, 20 songs has been probably a more common occurrence than 21 (usually - but not always - it depends on whether they play 'Midnight Rambler' or not - when they do, its normally a 20-song set)

On the Licks tour, most of the European shows consisted of 19 songs and some were running as little as 105-110 minutes. In America it was usually around the 21 mark.

They always play shorter sets as the tour progresses. Whilst I doubt any more will go as low as Shanghai did, Virgil's summation appears to be right on target so far.

I would expect 19-20 to be the 'range' in Europe. And I doubt the song they choose to drop will be a warhorse!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-09 17:27 by Gazza.

I suppose we should count ourselves luck. For the first 5 years of touring only did'nt they only do about 5 or 6 songs at most shows. I am sure that Gazza will put me straight if I am wrong!

LOL...maybe a bit more by the time they got to the 'package tour' type of show when they started as a touring band from late 1963 onwards, although their early residencies in London clubs would have seen considreably longer sets

still, I'm glad we've progressed a bit since then. I wouldnt really fancy sitting through 6 or 7 other acts waiting to see the Stones play a show for 30 minutes that no one could hear because 90% of the audience were screaming as if in the final throes of death from rabies and the band were using amps the size of a peanut!

well pretty soon the stones are going to be back to 30 min sets if it keeps going like this, what a disgrace, the least thjey could have done was replace the numbers that were banned, what the hell is going on here, $450 for 18 numbers, i would have sued cohl for that

SKlPPY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since most of you whinners were not at the show.
> What the hell do you care what the selist was? Ask
> someone who was there if they were disappointed. I
> doubt you find any who would say its was a @#$%&
> rip off. Same old shit we've seen them play tour
> after tour.


It's pretty simple.It is NOT a good thing to see the Stones become more & more lazy.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

i
> would have sued cohl for that


i understand the compulsion to scapegoat cohl - after all, the guy is clearly a greedy cretin. however, the set-lists are not his department. really, it's the band's fault: they're just lazy.

I am becoming increasingly sure that even if the Stones came on stage and performed a 90 minute version of Satisfaction with no encore, there are a great many on this board who would defend it come what may, merely because they had a "great time".

I'd love to know what these people have on their iPods!

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> i
> > would have sued cohl for that
>
>
> i understand the compulsion to scapegoat cohl -
> after all, the guy is clearly a greedy cretin.
> however, the set-lists are not his department.
> really, it's the band's fault: they're just lazy.

your right , both are to blame i guess, because that is a lazy setlist,
and the price is a disgrace

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> hell is going on here, $450 for 18 numbers, i
>
Ive always agreed with the argument that If you compare todays set list/show length to the seventies, this tour is still better in that respect. But this is a VERY good point ive never thougth of. Even in inflation adjusted dollars, the shows were A LOT cheeper back then.

SKlPPY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since most of you whinners were not at the show.
> What the hell do you care what the selist was?

I care a lot as I have 5 shows coming up and dont wish the shows I'm attending to be so bloody short. If I found the show would be 15 minutes and 3 songs shorter than most shows on the rest of the tour so far, I'd be pretty much insulted. I'd be even more insulted at the fact that rather than substitute the 3 songs from the regular setlist that were censured that - despite assurances from Jagger at the press conference that they had hundreds of others to replace them with - the band simply couldnt be arsed playing any of them and just hoped that no one would notice as they fancied an early night

> Ask someone who was there if they were disappointed. I
> doubt you find any who would say its was a @#$%&
> rip off.

how do you know..did YOU ask them all? Your post is no more credible than anyone elses. (Although maybe you could ask the locals who couldnt afford to attend whether they thought it was a rip off) Maybe this audience did indeed have a good time. However, tell the same people that everywhere else got a much longer show and this was the shortest non-theatre or non-festival show that the Stones have played in 28 years and I doubt they'll feel too special all of a sudden. Especially when theyve paid a couple of months wages for the privilege of being treated like a 3rd class audience. You still dont feel thats a rip off or even a tad disrespectful? Put yourself in that position if it was a show YOU happened to be at and had saved a lot of money to attend. The band play a shortened set at an overpriced show basically because they think you're not sophisticated enough to know any better. I'm sure you'd be outraged - although of course you'd never admit it publicly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-09 22:57 by Gazza.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even in inflation adjusted dollars,
> the shows were A LOT cheeper back then.

They certainly were!

£2.20 in English Pounds gave you a front row ticket in 1973. I made do with the sixth row.

>> The band play a shortened set at an overpriced show basically because they think you're not sophisticated enough to know any better. <<

just curious where you found out that was the reason.

i mean ... i admire your fervour, Gazza, but your argumentation's getting a little unkempt here, isn't it?
it was clear way before the show that the audience would not be mainly Chinese,
so who was supposed to be too unsophisticated to know any better?
and if it's the ex-pat community you're concerned over, that blows the "two months' salary" line of attack -
there's a big difference between average ex-pat salaries and average Chinese salaries.

another thing i'm curious about is how it happened that numbers that were left off the Chinese version of ABB were left in the setlist -
that is a bit weird.


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

Gazza, the best by far Stones show I ever saw had 15 songs. I've never seen a 20-21 song show that could touch it.

When you bought tickets to 5 shows are you telling us that it never dawned on you that the ticket didn't come with a guaranteed number of songs or a setlist printed on the back. You had to know before you made your purchases that this tour would follow the pattern of the last 3 tours.

I think alot of whinners (not aimed at you Gazza) get upset by the same old setlist because they won't get a variety in their illegal boots that will circulate on the net after the shows.

In LA it was a club show as well and they added on As Tears Go By, there is no excuse for this one.

I don't get it. They have something like 20 Billion Chinamen over there and they only play to 8000 mostly Euro expats !?! What was the point !???

SKlPPY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza, the best by far Stones show I ever saw had
> 15 songs. I've never seen a 20-21 song show that
> could touch it.

LOL...I dont doubt that. The length isnt the issue (story of my life ) because that was the 'standard' show back then, but more so that they treated this audience with less respect than any other on this tour. I dont think you can make comparisons in this case with a show from 30 years ago or more - more a case of 'would they have pulled this stunt had they been playing Madison Square Garden or somewhere else where theyve played lots of times?' I honestly dont think they would have (which is the point I was trying to make which sssoul disagrees with - ie, a mostly new audience in a country where they're not very well known)
>
> When you bought tickets to 5 shows are you telling
> us that it never dawned on you that the ticket
> didn't come with a guaranteed number of songs or a
> setlist printed on the back.

Of course not - but I think its reasonable that (in theory at least) the band should treat one audience with a similar level of respect than they do for the others. In this case I dont think they have done.

You had to know
> before you made your purchases that this tour
> would follow the pattern of the last 3 tours.

I dont think it HAS followed the pattern of previous tours. Skippy. Its more a 'greatest hits' show than it was previously which I personally think is a backward step (others may disagree, and thats their prerogative to do so).

Reason I bought tickets for 5 shows (as well as 2 in the US 3 months ago) is because theyre my favourite band, I still enjoy seeing them and I enjoy the social aspect that a Stones show entails. However, I'm going to fewer shows than before because I'm less 'enthralled' by various aspects of this tour than I have been previously.


>
> I think alot of whinners (not aimed at you Gazza)
> get upset by the same old setlist because they
> won't get a variety in their illegal boots that
> will circulate on the net after the shows.


Thats a perfectly valid point to a certain degree, although my personal angle is 'how would I feel if this was the only show I got to' ? A lot of the best shows and performances I've heard on this tour have been those with unspectacular setlists (Rio for example)

Duane in Houston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't get it. They have something like 20
> Billion Chinamen over there and they only play to
> 8000 mostly Euro expats !?! What was the point
> !???


20 billion...lol

Duane - I think the thing thats been missed by some is that the show was broadcast for free on Chinese TV (I dont know if it was shown live or recorded for future transmission - maybe someone can clarify)

This is the first time that a concert by a western rock act has been shown on TV there. So, whilst the Stones really are almost unknown in China, by playing a televised concert in a country of 1.2 billion people the potential for reaching a new audience is almost incalculable. Think of the audience that had the chance to watch them play the Superbowl and then multiply it a few times.

Certainly a good business and marketing move

>> broadcast for free on Chinese TV
(I dont know if it was shown live or recorded for future transmission - maybe someone can clarify) <<

recorded for future transmission


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

cheers my dear!