JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> As always, Dale has good things to say although I
> don't agree. I knew right at the start of the
> Licks tour that it was gonna be great and
> something special, but at the same time I feared
> for the fans' look at the whole touring thing in
> the future. So Licks was, artistically, very
> special and a good idea.
The weird thing with Licks was that when they announced it, I thought the idea of touring behind a greatest hits album was appalling - as theyd always vowed never to be a nostalgia act. I was happy to be proved wrong - despite the lack of new material (1 song), they more than made up for it with a brilliant concept (if you were lucky enough - as I was - to see three types of shows in one city in the same week) and to their credit dug deeper than ever before into their rich catalogue of material, giving us even more surprises and never/rarely played gems than ever before.
I can see where youre coming from with future expectations about setlist variety and them playing non-hits. the attitude that Dale has (and myself and others) is that if they raised the bar and showed what they were capable of, its reasonable to expect them to try and maintain that level. I'm not expecting them to succeed necessarily, but making the effort is what counts. That doesnt mean ridiculous expectations such as demanding they play old b-sides at stadium shows or anything, but some middle ground would be nice. When Dale went to those Fenway shows in August, they changed one song around from one night to the next and played only one old Stones song that hadnt been played regularly (or to death) on recent tours - ie, Shes So Cold. Compare that to opening shows on previous tours and theres a significant difference.
Fan-wise they were
> digging themselves down in a hole though. Of
> course every fan would think that the future tours
> would be like that (Ever changing setlists).
I dont think its as black and white as that. I could handle reasonably static setlists if the content wasnt almost exclusively made up of the SAME songs from 40 Licks. Its as if the Stones didnt exist prior to that album coming out. They could however even do a greatest hits show using a variation of 12-15 out of a selection of 30 plus hits that EVERYONE knows and I'd be content enough with that. (I made a post on this sometime ago showing how easy to do it is...[
www.iorr.org] ) No problem with them playing a greatest hits dominated set especially in a huge stadium - but if they must do that, then theres enough of those songs that most people recognise and which they can play competently to allow them to change it around.
The
> Stones have had setlsits that look and feel the
> same for every tour (Almost). Licks was special on
> that point. This tour isn't.
every tour should (and has been, up to now ) 'special' in its own way
I can't see how it's
> bad that they do it like they did before Licks.
There was quite a lot of variety on BTB/No Security and (to a lesser degree) on Voodoo Lounge. With each successive tour up to and including Licks, theyve varied the show more.
> Funnily enough, the best concert I saw them do was
> the Licks in Copenhagen. And that was VERY
> warhorse-ish.
what other shows are you comparing it to? Ive seen a few 'warhorse' stadium shows on the last couple of tours (especially Licks) that were as good as any I've ever seen.. Twickenham #1 (being 10th row at the catwalk helped..lol) and also Anaheim 2002 - a show which was the best stadium show I've ever seen the Stones play, even though I was up in the 500's with a nosebleed. Stadium shows/warhorse shows dont always necessarily mean boring..!
But still a good point as always
> Dale. I can see why you agree with Gaz, and it is
> a valid point of view. I just don't agree because
> of the reasons stated above.