Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And the European
> tour, with the exception of London, consists
> entirely of one nighters
> >

just how mick likes it

hopefully he'll use protection this time around, though!

nah..he#ll have his giraffe in tow this time!

better than the horse!!

BOBM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most Europeans will be disappointed if
> they get a completely different list of
> non-warhorses from those played in the States.
> That would mean they would not hear Sway, As Tears
> Go By, She's So Cold, Get Off My Cloud, Let's
> Spend the Night Together, etc.
>
> The Stones don't do 'big surprises'. There's
> nothing wrong with the set lists they have been
> using, so why change them?


Sure the Stones do big surprises,just not often enough.The "nothing wrong with the set lists they've been using" premise is very much up for debate.

I don't think it would cause widespread disappointment if when the Stones get to a place where,for example,they have already played Get Off Of My Cloud,they were to play something such as Out Of Time this time instead.I actually think that would be pretty interesting.

I'd love to hear As Tears Go By in Italian, one performance only !

Ok so we dont really know what the Stones will play at their gigs in Europe but does it really matter?

Personaly I dont think it matters what they play, im just so happy to see them once in my life ! What more can you ask for?

C U in Paris !

Does anyone complain about say The Who only adding one or two new songs in a set list? When I went to see them recently a good percentage of the Crowd went for a piss during the new stuff????
Are people here just looking at it from an obsessive fan point of view and not the paying general public???

in fairness, ablett - the Who's "new " stuff isnt just "new", its unreleased. So, NO ONE knows it. A brave choice to make from a creative point of view, but maybe not for everyone, so its understandable people would use that point in the show to go for a piss (a phenomenon thats alien to me, as personally I dont see the point in wasting ten minutes of a show I've paid a lot to see and travelled far to attend in a queue for the toilet).

I think I worked it out that for Stones shows in the US on this tour, if you take say 10 minutes going to and from the bog, it can work out at about $40 a piss. Youre better off getting rid of it long before you go in or else investing in incontinence pads...lol

To answer your 2nd question, well we're not really typical of the general public who go to Stones concerts, but then again you could argue that the people who actually buy most of their records arent typical of the 'paying general public' at a Stones show either these days. Theres not really such a thing as a typical audience member, and it probably varies greatly from city to city and country to country as well.

I just think that most of the paying public want the warhorses..... someone at the Who asked if Townhend still smashed guitars!!! They just aint gonna get the rarer tracks a few on this board crave?? Thats why I believe you don't get that much variety.
the Who played Real Good looking boy which was released a few years ago and one from the new album..... it was like an exedus to the bog!! When My Gen etc, was played etc the roof was lifted. It must be dis-heartening to the band to see people uninterested in the new stuff..... so why bother?
And I think there is a typical paying general public...... those who are interested in the nostalgia of a great act and nine times outta ten probably own Forty Liks?????

I think most of the hardcore fans own 40 Licks too, but in fairness the Stones still managed to sell shitloads of tickets long before 40 Licks came out and were able to top album charts too, so there IS a sizeable fanbase (as their record sales would indicate) who arent as ignorant of their back catalogue as many (including Jagger) seem to want to believe. The sheer variety of the shows on the Licks tour and the good reaction to it from fans and critics alike is evidence enough for me that they CAN vary it considerably more and get away with it (not expecting obscurities in a stadium or anything, but a greater variety even in songs that everyone knows and owns rather than the usual 12-13 that get played every night)

Agree with you about it being a bit disheartening for a band to see a sizeable amount of an audience showing a difference in interest between new songs and stuff from 40 years ago, but I think most of these artists have been around long enough to accept that by now.