i have to say that people complaining about the setlists
are a real pain in the ass
stones fans and iorr members i have to ask you
if you real mean what you post here or if you just
cant see facts
a stadium show and the stones only do stadium or arena shows
live from the mood of the crowd
the stones crowd is getting old and the vibe at stones shows
isnt as good as u2 shows for example but its still good
because they play a lot of big hits
for sure satisfaction is a @#$%& bad song but most of the
songs you demand here to be played are @#$%& bad too and
most of the crowd dont knwo them
so why should they play a these songs
they arent bob dylan
for gods sake

keep on rolling
stones!

Agreed, except for one thing: The Stones are screwing U2 both live and in studio. Because they're the best, that's something I used to say all the time - but now I am really convinced: The Rolling Stones are STILL the greatst rock'n'roll band in the world. I have seen so many bands the last 6 months, and no one can compare with our favourite band. But anyway, it's not so important WHAT they play - but HOW they play it.

for sure the stones are the best
no doubt about that

Hey,I can see the facts just fine.They used to bring more variety to the table than they do now.They haven't always changed alot of songs from one show to the next but,they have always brought out different songs for different tours (tours which had higher attendances than this one) up until this tour where these types of songs are very few and very far between.

There are plenty of songs that people know and that are on greatest hits albums that haven't been played in decades or have not been played at all.They have tons of chart topping albums.Still,to this day,they have not played a few Exile On Main Street songs ever (34 + years later) and others less than four times.This is completely ridiculous.Could you imagine if Pink Floyd had never played tracks from The Dark Side Of The Moon?

Then you have shows like the one on October 6th,2005 which only feature two songs from the past 27 years.Again,how can you call yourself a fan of the current band and be happy with a set list like that.I was there for that show and it was very sobering and very depressing if you exclude the few treats like Sweet Virginia.I saw other shows on this tour with better overall set lists but,they still were far from where they should be.

If you don't care about set lists,fine,good for you but,you can't seriously expect all Stones fans not to care about which songs are played,not played,which songs are repeated,and how many times etc..This is not a complex argument.It shouldn't be hard to follow.

I always said U2 sucks. I saw a DVD of a recent tour where Boner took a young lady up on stage and was laying next to her as they looked up at the stars. I was ready to toss my cookies there. That's called emotional porn.

JumpingKentFlash

Theif in the Night Wrote:

This is not a complex argument.It shouldn't
> be hard to follow.

yes, but the guy who started this idiotic thread is clearly not a complex person.

They have all said (esp. Charlie) that they would love to play more tracks from Exile but they just can't get them "right".

Whiners and counter whiners already geared up well before the show! This should be a great season!

LOL...The 'counter whiners' faction are getting their attacks in early - before the tour has even started. Yet nobody has really 'complained' about setlists yet and most have acknowledged that the news from rehearsals sounds encouraging. I sense nervousness!!

You know the old football saying about attack being the best form of defense...!

Esperola Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have all said (esp. Charlie) that they would
> love to play more tracks from Exile but they just
> can't get them "right".


Im not sure what everyone is talking about re: Exile.

On the last two tours I've heard Tumbling Dice, Happy, Rocks off, All down the Line and Sweet Virginia (that I remember).

In 98 we got Shine a Light.


Where's the problem?

The problem is :

Let It Loose ~ zero times ever
Soul Survivor ~ zero times ever
Casino Boogie ~ zero times ever
Ventilator Blues ~ one time ever ('72)
Sweet Black Angel ~ one time ever ('72)
Torn And Frayed ~ three times ever
Shine A Light ~ fifteen times ever
Loving Cup ~ seventeen times ever
Rip This Joint ~ ten times since 1975

Those are the stats on how many times half of the songs on the legendary double album have been performed in concert during the 34 + years since it was released.(One of the Loving Cup versions was from before the album was released and there is a rumour that Soul Survivor was played at one of the three Chicago 1972 shows but,suspiciously,it is the one show that we don't have any record of what was played.)

When did they ever say that they hadn't been able to get those songs right?When did they say that they wanted to play more of these songs?They have proven that they can handle at least some of those songs.In 2002,Wood was bragging about how they had gotten just about all of Exile On Main Street down.

you've neglected to mention others that have never or rarely been played too. a travesty. a crying shame. a crime.

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> songs you demand here to be played are @#$%& bad
> too and
> most of the crowd dont know them
> so why should they play a these songs
> they arent bob dylan
> for gods sake


So then your theory states they play to the non-fans and not the true knowledgable ones? That's Sad Sad Sad.

The RS never got too adventurous with setlists until late in the game, starting in '89 when technology allowed them to do songs they'd never try (& would never have worked) in the their first 27 years, like "2000 Light Years"...They did vary things nicely, and without the dubious presence of Matt Clifford, during the '94-99 period, and this setlist variation reached its peak on the 2002-03 tour. I happen to think the shows I've attended during 2005-06 have been tremendous, and in some ways better than I expected (less reliance on Chuck and the backup musicians generally, an incremental return to a certain spontaneous feel within the songs, and a much more raw sound). I do wish they played more new material, and at least a couple less warhorses per show, but those classics are frequently played with amazing vitality that I would not have counted on before I attended. So while I have some set pet peeves, they don't detract from the shows except when I think about it later, or notice ABB falling down the Top 200 in the middle of the tour

The vast majority of their songs do not require modern technology like 2,000 Light Years From Home did.

Once again,the set lists during the first twenty years did not vary much from show to show but,they did vary from tour to tour > they brought out different songs for different tours.The older tours were not nearly as long as the current one.That is just another reason to bring some fresh material.

from what i have read tonight the Stones put on one hell of a show in Italy and the set list was very very cool, opening with JJF, slipping away, UMT i have to say my confidence in our boys has risen greatly after that

People who complain about set lists have either seen too many shows, and need a rest, or they have grown out of the band, and need to find another band. Face the fact. THe set list is the Stones. That is what bthey are all about. They will not change it dramatically. If you go to Boson or New York city then may be a little bit, but for all other citiesw across the world, where they visit just one or may be two times per tour, they will play all their greaqtest hits because that is what people want and that is what works. In Milan last night the biggest winners were IORR and Satisfaction and M. Ramber and all the greateswt hits of course, plus Streets Of Love big surprise as it was first time, but it is very popular in Italy that's why.

Mick said at the press conference about the set list: There will be a different one for Europe. Not changing 100% but a different one. Like it or not. That's what they play. That's the show you get. But I don't see the point in complaing about the set list. It is like getting old and complaining about age. It's facts. Nobody will or can do anything about it.

Bjornulf

BV, I have a solution for all this set list trouble. It's all about the math, if Jagger feels that all, let's say 10, warhorses MUST be played (SATISFACTION, JJF, HTW, SFTD, YCAGWYW, BS, TD, IORR, MU, SMU) and then you add 4 slots for ABB + 2 more that are near warhoses (GIMME SHELTER, PAINT IT BLACK) + 1 Slow one that besides "AS TEARS GO BY" is gonna be predictable (WILD HORSES for example), 2 Keith songs then right there you have 19 and really only 1 to 2 slots to experiment with at the most. They usually put in something very popular in one slot like MIDNIGHT RAMBLER so 2 slots left for SHE'S SO COLD and NTITRT - that's basically it. The ONLY solution is to drop 2 or 3 Warhorses and add a song or 2. Personally I would get rid of MISS YOU, TUMBLING DICE (or rotate TD and HTW) AND START ME UP (or rotate SMU and IORR). SO THIS IS HOW THE FINAL COUNT WOULD LOOK:

WARHORSES: 7 (SAT, JJF, SFTD, YCAGWYW, BS, HTW or TD, IORR or SMU) MU is OUT (or rotated with YCAGWYW)
NEAR WAR HORSES: 2 (GS, PI
ABB: 3
SLOW ONES/BALLADS: 2 (AS TEARS GO BY + 1 more, WILD HORSES or ANGIE or BACKSTREET GIRL or LADY JANE or RUBY TUESDAY or Whatever)
NON STONES SONG: 1 (NTITRT) How about a BILLY PRESTON SONG since his death?
POPULAR ONES: 2 (MR,SHE'S SO COLD,GET OFF MY CLOUD)
KEITH SONGS: 2 (COMING DOWN AGAIN + one of whatever he wants)
2 or 3 slots left for rare ones: SWAY, MOONLIGHT MILE, SHE WAS HOT, LOVING CUP, HIGHWIRE, SOUL SURVIVOR, MUST BE HELL, 2000 MAN, EMPTY HEART(reworked), CONNECTION, WINTER, some other overlooked great ones.

Like Billy Preston in 1975 I would give Lisa Fisher a 1 Song solo spot. I don't know if she has any hits but maybe a solo GIMME SHELTER or BILLY PRESTON number. It would make the show seem GRANDER and LONGER. I saw Mary? Merry? CLayton (original singer on studio version) do GIMME SHELTER solo in the 70's and it worked fine.The show goes to a total of 23 songs and 2 hours, 15 minutes every night.

This is the only way it could work, 2 warhorses must be slightly sacrificed through rotation and they must go up to 22 songs, PERIOD. The 1999 NO SECURITY set List was BRILLIANT but a few sacrifices were made. The Stones must remember the long term fans that want to hear a few rare ones. Anyway, that's the way I see it - all about Math, Slight Illusion, and Courage....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-12 11:38 by MicksBrain.

It is just not only fans complaining even the press I see today. It is too bad that Stones are not musically able to be more interesting live.

johang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is just not only fans complaining even the
> press I see today. It is too bad that Stones are
> not musically able to be more interesting live.


Well, my daily newspaper doesn´t cover the tourstart at all.

The Swedish paper Aftonbladet states "A coward of a show" "Do we have to listen to Satisfaction one more time?". For a change I agree with the critics.

hi MicksBrain,

but its not jagger who feels the so called war horses (how about calling them CLASSICS?) must be played...its the fans! have you not heard about the fact that most people at milan show were pretty young and first timers?? these people have never even heard of coming down again!

face it they are not making set lists for the very very few people who see them a couple of times each tour.. they are making them for those that "just want to see them one time before its too late".

The critics in most cities in the US gave their performance good reviews but just about all of them mentioned something negative about the set lists.. NYC and LA down right trashed them for not being able to play different songs.

Some cities the Stones need to play all greatest hits, even if its the same ones again. While others they can be more diverse. They have enough big hits where they can always make the shows interesting but they just won't. Not going to explain my views on the set list here in detail again because some people just don't get why so many people are disappointed.

the more i think about it the more i think these set list demands are not reasonable...

first of all the stones have been playing rarities on this tour and will continue to introduce them

mr pitiful is a rarity or is it not? and its the stones doing otis redding.. a great version in my opinion....

sway is a rarity..

a little more variety would be nice and i'm sure they are going to spice things up in europe a bit... adding streets of love does count (even if i hate the song)

but this idea of telling them exactly what they should play as micksbrain has done..well its just silly... be happy they are playing and enjoy the songs.. i mean they are in their 60s and deserve a bit more latitude.. let them do what they want and be grateful they do it.... if chuck berry ever comes to dc i willl be glad to see him regardless of what he does or plays.. i think the stones are now at a similar point...remember a few weeks ago we thought they'd never tour at all.. and i like hearing midnight rambler and satisfaction and all the classics... and i consider myself a diehard fan


we've had the debate on the set lists a million times here.. why can't we reach some conclusion???

its just not as fun to discuss this set list thing as it is to say discuss who the starting 11 should be for argentina's next world cup team (and thats not that fun at this point)....


i guess we agree to disagree..some people on this board can't stand the set lists and have a huge problem with them and some people are happy..it is by no means unanimous that the stones set lists are a disaster..

by the way micksbrains, and you've i'm sure done this, but it might be more productive to send your proposed set list master plan to chuck leavell as he reads the emails and plays a part in putting together set lists



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-12 18:54 by stoned_in_dc.

Hey think of it this way, after being completely dissappointed with the hardly any changes in the set list this tour from the past few I saved myself a bunch of money. I sold tickets to 4 different shows I was supposed to see in Europe, a few which were either postponed or cancelled.

About 8 other friends of mine also sold their tickets after they saw a few shows in the US as well so they were pretty happy after what happened.

I am pretty easy to please when it comes to concerts of bands I like but the Stones have been coasting with playing songs that they do every tour and some aren't even their bigger hits like You Got Me Rocking. I also, for the first time, agree with the critics who are bashing them for their lack of creativity with the set lists..

well i think thats great J-J Flash.... why should you go to such an expensive show if you are not happy with the songs that are played?

but obviously the stones are not making set lists for such privileged people as yourself who are catching so many of their shows and traveling around the world to see them! they make the set lists for the overwhelming majority of people going to a stones show who are lucky to see them once per tour.. more likely a high percentage are going to their first stones show.... and the average concertgoer say in italy who lives in milan is going to only go to the milan show! they don't travel around europe during the workweek catching stones shows!


its clear: many IORR posters want the stones to treat them as if they are the only people at shows... the 22 year old kid who has never seen the stones or heard them do satisfaction..foget him! lets privilege the guy who has seen them 28 times and spent over $2000 just on this tour!

this is just not realistic.. its also not even "right" if there is such a thing..


this argument is never ending.. having said that i also would like to see a bit more variety.. but not to play satisfaction - possibly the greatest rock and roll song ever written- is just not a good idea in my opinion

oh and the stones, for sure, should not play songs to please jaded critics - maybe at show for free with some cush ticket- who is bored by "satisfaction"..give me a break!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-12 19:09 by stoned_in_dc.

I think bv summed it up pretty well.

The folks who post on this board could all come up with a radical and exciting set list ...but, unfortunately for us, the Stones are still a Stadium filling band and most of the 50,000 people in that stadium don't post on these boards and want to hear the war horses.

I don't have a problem with folks expressing their regret that this is the way it is...but they know what they'll get in a Stones set these days, and nobody forces them to buy the tickets ;^)

It's all been said. We'd all love a "real fan"s set list...but surely we know and understand why it won't happen.

My one concession to the set list "whiners" is that, frustratingly, I think the Stones themselves sometimes do slightly underestimate the typical audience and could often get away with something just a little more adventurous.

"but obviously the stones are not making set lists for such privileged people as yourself who are catching so many of their shows and traveling around the world to see them"

stoned in dc, for years I had only gone to see the Stones once per tour. I had the chance to see them in the states this time because I travel for work.

"why should you go to such an expensive show if you are not happy with the songs that are played?"

I will not see them again, yes its the same songs tour to tour but they are not playing them as well. Listen to the piano and horns replace guitar riffs like in songs such as Bitch or Under My Thumb and tell me you are happier with how they sounds now.

And also a real fans set list would be great of coarse but with the large number of hits they have they can easily please everyone with a nice mix of new songs, old ones and a few treats. They used to do this very well. Look at the nice mix on sets from 75, 81, or 89.. even though the set didn't change much from night to night. Someone said it before and its very true. Jagger's solo tours in the 80s has become what the Stones tours resemble today.

well i see your points...

i saw them in baltimore in 2006 and i thought they rocked....

Before They Make Me Run...
Keith has listened to the critical voices.

The Italian version of As Tears Go By must have been great to hear too.