BTB shows were GREAT SETLISTS.....Such a great combo of new and old... that tour was brave... they showed they had balls. How great was the B-Stage. In Philly it was Little Queenie. Crazy Momma, and Last time... Are you kidding me...WOW, simply the best.

eric Wrote:

in Philly it was Little Queenie. Crazy Momma, and Last time... Are you kidding me...WOW, simply the best.


Hey Eric, I saw that tour (Boston shows) and thought it was good, (they didn't play Crazy Mama) but I think what I have found on this tour is that even though they are playing a lot of the same songs, the shows I personally saw (especially the January ones) were very inspired, they actually appeared to be enjoying themselves, it was GREAT. I love hearing new songs too, but have to say, seeing them play with that much enthusiasm made up for the fact that it was done to songs I've already seen played before.

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Cindy- your right.. I have seen 8 shows on this tour... they are having fun but not as much emotion on this tour as with others. I can't really put my finger on it but even on the licks tour they had great interaction and emotion....Philly at the First Union Center was just beyond words.... This time I dont know... something is missing. BTB was all emotion... they had a great time. I saw both MSG shows this year and they were great... but even with shows like that something was still missing.......it's wierd. Maybe its me. Mick has it, but as a band they are missing something.....

Betch your momma don't know you scream like that!!!

I completely miss understood what you ment Cindy... Sorry, I feel the other way... I think they had more emotion the BTB and Licks than this one.....

The guitars are were they should be in the mix on this tour... but they are much more sloppy on this tour than on BTB and Lick. Still the greatest but more sloppy.

You know what, perhaps it's all subjective.

I went to the B2B shows with my ex-husband and he's not a whole lot of fun. Perhaps that has skewed (did I spell that right, i'm too lazy to look it up) my opinion.

OK heres what I saw on the licks tour; 13 non warhorses. its a pretty impressive list. It has a few more "old rarties" compared to the BTB set list.

1. streetfighting man
2. IORR
3. If you cant rock Me (RARE!!!)
4. Aint Too Proud (RARE!!!)
5. Dont stop (New)
6. Heart of Stone (RARE!!)
7. Sweet Virginia
8. Loving Cup (RARE!!!)
9 All Down the Line
10. Tumbling Dice
11.Thru and Thru (rare)
12. you dont have to mean it (rare)
13. Start Me up
14. You Got Me Rocking (no comment)
15,Cant You Hear Me Knocking (rare)
16. HTW
17. satisfaction
18 mannish boy (rare)
19. whip (rare)
20. brown sugar
21. sympathy
22. jj flash.

plus the last two tours have had alternate opening songs.

I just mean, purelty set list wise bridges wastn as good. they seemed like really fun shows all around though. I really like the DVD of that tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-07 01:22 by ryanpow.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rip This,those primary warhorses have been played
> at every 2006 show (except for the concert in
> China).I think IORR was skipped a few times
> but,that has been it.In addition to those
> songs,there always seems to be good representation
> from the secondary list except for The Last Time
> & SFM on this tour.If they wanted to play
> their most recognizable songs,they would not be
> playing You Got Me Rocking all of the time.There
> are quite a few more recognizable songs that they
> rarely or never play.The non-warhorse songs have
> become a problem because,they have started
> recycling the same ones from recent tours.They
> always have done this but,not to the extent that
> they are doing it now.When the set lists went from
> 22-25 songs down to 20-21 songs the rare live
> songs were mostly squeezed out.(The exception was
> the No Security Tour when some warhorses were left
> out to make room in a 20 song set.)That's what it
> boils down to,the way I see it.If they had to
> play,let's say 23 songs per show again,at least a
> couple of the extra songs would probably be the
> ones that the diehard fans want to hear.One
> new,one from the catalog?
>
>
>
> Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/06 00:07 by
> Theif in the Night.

sorry ............I did not succeed in writing what I meant to say which is........... they would never do a show unless they played at least 50% of the songs on above mentioned warhorse list.............but as you pointed out they have instead played 90% of those songs every performance in 2005/2006.
I'm still not sure that songs like Beast of Burden can be considered a warhorse. I do agree with you that they have recycled a bit too much from recent tours as opposed to digging into the catalogue a little bit

Cindy- your right it is subjective thats why I said maybe its me.... Maybe I am getting old.... NOT!!!!!Well, maybe we should go together and leave our husbands at home.... YOU CRAAAAAAZY MAAAAAAAAMA!!!!

That sounds like a plan! I've left my husband home for the last 3 years! Life is good.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-09 03:01 by Beelyboy.

eric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cindy- your right it is subjective thats why I
> said maybe its me.... Maybe I am getting old....
> NOT!!!!!Well, maybe we should go together and
> leave our husbands at home.... YOU CRAAAAAAZY
> MAAAAAAAAMA!!!!


Eric has a husband. Sounds like he's from Massachusetts too, Cindy!

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just mean, purelty set list wise bridges wastn
> as good. they seemed like really fun shows all
> around though. I really like the DVD of that tour.
>
>
>
> Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/06 01:22 by
> ryanpow.


I'm still not too sure about this.It's easy to say Bridges was not as good set list wise as the Licks tour but,it had a far better balance of songs than the current tour does.
What I'm getting at here is that people (including Chuck Leavell) argue that the Stones aren't playing album tracks because,they have to work new material into the shows & that the '02-'03 tour was the only type of tour they could dig into their catalog for material when,in fact,they have proven before that they can play songs from a current album,hits,a cover,and album tracks all in the same concert,in a stadium no less.That '97 show actually isn't too far behind the Oakland (touring to celebrate the catalog)'02 show as far as rare live songs go.I'll add that there were fewer empty seats back in the '90's than there are now and there were more extended stays in given cities (4 nights in Oakland) in the '90's.
Back to the ballads - Let's not forget Fool To Cry,Waiting On A Friend,and Love In Vain (blues ballad) were also played a few times each on the '97/'98 tour.

OK, you've succeeded in helping me find the merrit of the BTB setlists. but what you've described, current ablum, hits, a cover, ablums tracks in a stadium... thats soudns like the show I saw on this tour. I wont bore ya'll by posting the set list. It was S.F. second night.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-07 20:27 by ryanpow.

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd say the Stones have 4 of these:
>
> 1) Wild Horses
> 2) Beast of Burden
> 3) Angie
> 4) Ruby Tuesday.
>
> Anything else? Disagreement? ANYTHING AT ALL TO ADD


Yes, those are definitely warhorseballads. Liked to add the balladpart of Hampton -81: TIOMS, BOB, WOAF, LIB (and maybe also YCAGWYW). What a great and greatly done ballads 4-5 in a row. Rough and really "stoneslike" sound. And for example Keith's backing vocals on TIOMS - that's a way to do a rock ballad.

You're right except three of those songs are far from warhorses.

Worried About You recently
Beast of Burden
Slipping Away

Thief in the night wrote: ...

Yeah, more like "the best of ever stones ballads done live" Meant that I like those.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-07 21:20 by Hurriganes.