I have never complained in my entire puff about set lists. The Stones have amazed me again and again. They are the best, original gobsmakin band around. They are walking legends. They have continually laid down the tracks for others to follow. But that's just me folks.

ok, hanns--tell me tomorrows setlist. i really wanna know.

Okay Hannover, AWD Arena July 19, 2006 show time 20.50-22.45

Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's Only Rock'n'Roll
Oh No, Not You Again
Let's Spend The Night Together
She's So Cold
Streets Of Love
As Tears Go By
Tumblin' Dice
Night Time Is The Right Time
This Place Is Empty
Before They Make Me Run
Miss You
Rough Justice
Start Me Up (extremly popular in Germany, ya know)
Sympathy For The Devil
Paint It, Black (finally it's way made into the set, yeah)
Brown Sugar
Can't Always Get What You Want
Satisfaction

I would be very surprised if we'll get an 21 song - set or the inclusion of Rocks Off, Gimme Shelter or Heartbreaker.

Shit, I forgot HTW.

7 songs i never heard live before in concert. i will be there. Thanx--hanns

They just started..doing more songs from ABB..even SOL!!!Im satisfied!!!

Jagger things the people will leave the stadium if they don't play their 10 Super-Warhorses and avoid slightly unknown tunes like Love Is Strong or Heartbreaker (both single hits).

otonneau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> woaw PhD, you even want them to play JJF twice?
> like, as an opener and an encore, perhaps...


I misfit with IORR sorry but I wouldn't mind having JJF as an opener and an encore. I have always thought this song to be the alpha and omega of Stones legacy. And it would sounds like a never ending tour à la Bob Dylan, on a different scale though.

It's completely OK to hate the setlists. I have no problem with that. But if that's what people care about, and not the quality of what is being played, then they truly have lost the important ability to just rock out and enjoy the show. And, to me, that's one of the most valuable things you gotta keep close. Who cares if they play what they play? If you can't enjoy it, maybe it's time to find another band. Hey. Go with U2. You'll be bored to death.

JumpingKentFlash

How many times is the same thing gonna be discussed????

Joe public go to see the Stones to see war horses and music they know. Probably not that interested in much new stuff and certainly any rare stuff....

Years ago, my Dad went to see the Everley Brothers and they got heckled by the crowd who only wanted to hear their old hits. The Stones are a nostalgia act for many but unlike some of their remaining peers, the Stones are capable of writing new material. Whether that material is any good is totally arguable.

They should play as much new material as possible and leave the warhorses for encores. Relying on decades-old material to bulk out the set is just lazy. I personally don't need to hear JJF, GS, YCAGWYW etcetera over and over again. There is a case to be made that what were ground-breakingly astounding tunes 30 years ago have been blunted into cliche by overplay.

Dear atzl, you say ...

(A) "But why the @#$%& they call their tour ABB and play only four songs from that great album ("Warhorses" or "Licks Revisited" would fit better for that kind of shows)".

If this is a reason to say "Goodbuy", you are late. Look at the setlists of B2B tour. See for example the lists of the first european shows in 1998 to draw comparisons. Four or five songs from their last studio album. So the question is: why the hell did you waste so much time staying with "stupid" people who can't imagine a Stones concert without JJF, who want a real well balanced list?

( "Where are surprises like "Heartbreaker", "Sway", "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?", "Let It Bleed" or "Shattered"?"

That's funny! With the exception of "CYHMK", a song played a lot on 2002/03 tour, you mention songs performed (rarely or more often) during the whole ABB round... And you judge the european leg from the first three gigs! Tell me, why the hell do you consider "Let It Bleed" as an welcome surprise but not "Under My Thumb" (Milan)? They didn't play in Europe, yet, "Shattered" or "Heartbreaker", but why do you think "Con Le Mie Lacrime", "She's So Cold" and "All Down The Line" is not refreshing, unusual -in Europe- stuff?

(C) "Every time almost the same set lists..."

Do you mean every night? You must be kidding, unless you remeber their lists in seventies and early 80s! Do you think that nowadays they give us insufficient variety? Maybe you're right. But then you have wasted not 8, as i said in the beginning, but 35 years remaining into the Stones. Because then the band was playing only 33 or 35 songs during a whole tour.

(D) "In my opinon the Stones don't bother about the hardcore fans that buy every record, know every song and visit each tour three or four times. Shame shame shame. Not with me again! Goodbye!"

Goodbye. The selfish "hardcore fans" who believe that the Stones must scorn big audiences can stay home and play their CD's. It's very selfish to say "shame, shame, shame" because the band don't perform exactly the songs you want. So, your shelter is CD player.
BTW, i'm glad to see a nagger (not a critical- i respect 100% every factual criticism) having interest for people who "visit each tour three or four times". Do you know why? Because any time i say something about the variety of the lists, which- at least- now is bigger than what it has been in the past (1989/90 included), the answer is: "Who cares? The 90% of every audience are going to just one show each tour"...

IMO, you have right about the @#$%& ticket prices. But that's another subject. OK, i know, when a nagger moan, he wants to moan about everything...

I think there are some very legit gripes here about the set lists. For those who are 100 percent happy with what the Stones set lists have become I am happy you are fully satisfied. Like I have heard others say here, and I never thought I would say this myself, I will not be going to anymore Stones shows unless there are some changes.

Gazza explains the set list problems very well and I fully agree with him, don't want to repeat it for the 1,000th time. I really don't think people are taking some of these complaints about the sets the right way and I don't think people keep contantly starting these threads just to bitch, there is obviously a reason soo many people are unhappy with the set lists. Fans that just dismiss it and say stop bitching or don't go to the shows are missing the point..

By the way, I don't consider As Tears Go By or songs they haven't don't like She Was Hot or Emotional Rescue as rarities. These songs were hits and can be heard on the radio. Of coarse most people going to a Stones show would know these songs...

J-J-Flash: "The Stones are the only band I can really think of these days that keeps things so similar from tour to tour, yet we pay the most for their shows and they have so many great songs..."

You have a point here. But the Stones are the only band i can really think of these days that has 12-13 "all time classic" songs which the big audiences
"are dying" for. They don't play all of them, of course. So i think lists are basically OK. And to me it's much better to keep things a bit similar from tour to tour than keeping them absolutely similar from night to night, which was the 1972- 1982 style, as you know.

Personally i hate "Miss You" since 1978 (not the live versions, the song itself) but, judging from Milan gig, i have to admit that once again MY was big crowd's pleaser. And what happened in the stadium when the Stones were performing JJF, SMU, HTW, BS, YCAGWYW and Satisfaction, it was just a delirium...

Hound Dog wrote: "Fans that just dismiss it and say stop bitching or don't go to the shows are missing the point..."

Everyone has the right to do what he wants, of course. But when someone says "Not with me again! Goodbye!", it's courtesy to wish "Goodbye"...

Hound Dog Wrote:
>
> Gazza explains the set list problems very well and
> I fully agree with him, don't want to repeat it
> for the 1,000th time. I really don't think people
> are taking some of these complaints about the sets
> the right way and I don't think people keep
> contantly starting these threads just to bitch,
> there is obviously a reason soo many people are
> unhappy with the set lists. Fans that just dismiss
> it and say stop bitching or don't go to the shows
> are missing the point..
>
>

My personal belief is that people don't like the bitching not because they don't agree with it, but because they don't like THE IDEA that the Stones aren't delivering. In other words, it deflates their ideal/notion that the Stones "do no wrong." There isn't a fan among us who wouldn't rather see a more inspired setlist than the ones we've been getting on this tour. Some of us are just a little more honest about it than others.

That's the thing about fanatics, it isn't enough for them to see the world their own way, they have to try and bludgeon everyone else into seeing it their way as well. They're afraid that if too many people are allowed to disagree with them, they might just start to spot the cracks in their little fantasy world themselves.

i saw them 3 times, i dont care what they play...im happy they are still playing.

"By the way, I don't consider As Tears Go By or songs they haven't don't like She Was Hot or Emotional Rescue as rarities. These songs were hits and can be heard on the radio. Of coarse most people going to a Stones show would know these songs..."

So true, Hound Dog! Besides, As tears go by has been covered countless times.
Funnily enough, I'm taking my girlfriend to the show this year, she was not a fan (but of course I changed that) and she had never heard... Jumping Jack Flash! But she knew Sweet thing, Love is strong, Anybody seen my baby and even She's A Rainbow.

Yes, I also agree with the non-rarity status of songs like "As Tears Go By." Im frequently surprised here to read on the (many) setlist discussions people pointing to the performance of songs like that as something to be amazed by. Or just putting them on the B-stage, another concept whose value-add escapes me.

Manhattan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're complaining about the setlist it's the
> first sign of the fact that you're bored with
> your life and way too old to rock'n'roll. In your
> very first posting you moan about the setlist!!!!
> Shame, shame shame on ya dude! MEZ
>
> and Ay ay baby it hurts


Or,it could be a sign that the set lists are becoming way too repetitive.Look at Hannover '03 and compare it to Hannover '06.There is no excuse for this at all.Take a look at the variation between Hannover '95 and Hannover '98 for one example.This proves that despite the need for a good number of warhorses at a stadium show,they can bring different shows on different tours.It seems as though they have given up.

scaffer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They played Beast of Burden in Washington DC.
> They played Love is Strong in Baltimore.
>
> They're playing nuggets like She's So Cold many
> nights.
>
> They played 5 songs from ABB last week in
> Austria.
>
> They're doing what you say they should, they're
> just playing songs other than you want, no?


The 5 ABB songs in Austria was the first and last time that's happened.

Love Is Strong has been played three times on the whole tour.They are probably averaging less than two of these types of songs per show these days.

I have a friend at the office. He told me he hopes Angie gets played. Thats his set list wish. Average wishes of people who attend stones conerts. It's reality. I don't want Angie.. but.. this friend has never seen the Stones before. He is not the only one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-20 09:11 by mariannerl.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the thing about fanatics, it isn't enough
> for them to see the world their own way, they have
> to try and bludgeon everyone else into seeing it
> their way as well. They're afraid that if too many
> people are allowed to disagree with them, they
> might just start to spot the cracks in their
> little fantasy world themselves.


whoa! when did we start talking about the GOP on this thread?

i agree with TomCat and Lorenz. In the Jagger's interview on ZDF he was asked if they do market research on their audience and Mick quoted the fact that it comes out how a lot of people that come to a rs concert are there for the first time in their life let alone in this tour. And I witnessed this fact myself in Milan - FOS last week. On the other hand the sound and the atmosphere of the stadium concert does not fit very much with less than very well known songs as the show is built to be a kind of party (see Jagger that likes not to slow the pace down). Could they make it different? I think they could only on a different scale (like tomcat says). Only smaller venues where more die hard fans are likely to be can make them play less warhorses. As the licks tour showed. On the other hand they are not (never been) like Bob Dylan or Neil Young. The stones music is classic r'n'r and r'n'b and that is what make a stones warhorse a kind of song without time. That is what makes people (new and old) go to their concert. Some riffs are just tribal rites, they are out of time. I found myself longing for more new and different songs but i can't help being mesmerized by jjf or satisfaction just like the youngest dude that asked "Which one is Keith Richards?". Don't you think this might be one of the reasons they're still around? And this also to show that the "setlist moaning" is fine with me as far as I can argue with that moan and I am not called an idiot if i love to hear SMU.

'Theif':

Ever check out their setlists from the '60's?

... '70's??

... ... '80's???

Mick sang on stage in Italian last week for the first time in a millenium.

In the mid-1970's, your Setlist Hater grandparents criticized the Stones for playing 'only' 4 new songs from ... Goats' Head Soup!

If you can't do the math ... don't buy the tickets, bebé.

Just went back from hannover and it was fun, fun, fun!!! I can´t stand this complaining about the setlist anymore. IT`S THE ROLLING STONES and they are on stage for over 40 years, what the hell are you expecting??? Drink a few beers get into it man or stay at home.

Strike for UN Secretary General!!!!!!!

Several weeks ago I saw Keef screw up the first verse of IORR badly in concert. Daryl had to correct him. Keef then proceeded to play the rest of the song so HARD and LOUD it ended up a revelation.

Bean counters beware: non-setlist-hating comment follows.

The Rolling Stones are the best Rock n' Roll combo ever. If you don't agree, or if you agree but are unwilling to pay to attend one of their concerts, then I trust the rest of us won't be reading your opinions about their shows on this web site, since your opinions won't be based on anything.

You're welcome.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My personal belief is that people don't like the
> bitching not because they don't agree with it, but
> because they don't like THE IDEA that the Stones
> aren't delivering. In other words, it deflates
> their ideal/notion that the Stones "do no wrong."
> There isn't a fan among us who wouldn't rather see
> a more inspired setlist than the ones we've been
> getting on this tour. Some of us are just a little
> more honest about it than others.


I have said many times that I can see your point. Especially the points made by Hound Dog and Gazza. It is completely valid to say these things. The problem I have, which really can't be called a problem, is that the setlist-whining people who go to these concerts seem to go there to closely listen to what is played and how it's played. From this we get setlist whining and bitching about Ronnie's playing or whatever. Try to picture this: I go to a show to rock out. Not to listen if bum notes are played, or what the setlist is. Remember the 70s when they still talked about "The Stones Effect"? The Stones effect, to me, is that they can make an audience rock out like no other (And of course make good songs too). I know that The Stones didn't loose that effect on people. It's rather the people, or rather the setlist whiners (By which I mean: People who complain about setlists, playing etc.) that got into listening closely rather than rocking out. And then I ask: Who's fault is it really when the fans feel alienated from the band?

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> I have said many times that I can see your point.
> Especially the points made by Hound Dog and Gazza.
> It is completely valid to say these things. The
> problem I have, which really can't be called a
> problem, is that the setlist-whining people who go
> to these concerts seem to go there to closely
> listen to what is played and how it's played.


yes, shame on you "set-list whiners." you go to concerts to listen to music! who could be so stupid?!