OK SJS12…let us analyse your reasoning…because you have completely missed the rationale for this discussion. You mention the 1972 set list:

“The set list stays the same for most of the tour. Compare this to tours in 69 - 73. How much did set lists change from night to night?”

IT DID NOT NEED TO CHANGE…MOST OF THE MATERIAL WAS BRAND NEW!!!

The important thing is whether or not they are entertaining. If you can only be entertained by seeing different songs each gig then your going to be stuck. I actually think they do mix it around quite a bit. Not as much as they could, but think about it.

YOU THINK ABOUT IT… 85% OF THEIR SET TODAY IS RECYCLED FROM THE PAST 10 WORLD TOURS.

Take the example of the 72 set list:

OK HERE IS THE EXAMPLE…IN 1972 WATCHING THE STONES LIVE:

1. Brown Sugar – 1 YEAR OLD [FROM OFFICIAL RELEASE DATE]
2. Bitch – 1 YEAR OLD
3. Rocks Off – BRAND NEW
4. Gimme Shelter – 3 YEARS OLD
5. Happy – BRAND NEW
6. Tumbling Dice – BRAND NEW
7. Love In Vain – 3 YEARS OLD [COVER]
8. Sweet Virginia –BRAND NEW
9. You Can't Always Get What You Want –3 YEARS OLD
10. All Down The Line –BRAND NEW
11. Midnight Rambler – 3 YEARS OLD
12. Bye Bye Johnny -COVER
13. Rip This Joint – BRAND NEW
14. Jumpin' Jack Flash – 4 YEARS OLD
15. Street Fighting Man – 4 YEARS OLD

LOOKING AT THIS SET LIST FULLY 50% OF THE SET LIST WAS 1 YEAR OLD OR LESS. THE REST WERE EITHER COVERS OR 3 to 4 YEARS OLD. THERE WAS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE SET BECAUSE THE MATERIAL WAS FRESH!

Today they play at most 3 ‘new’ songs…and the rest of the set is ossified. I think a true fan has every right to feel cheated…especially in light of the fact that 9 of the songs played in a 15 song set back in 1972 are STILL IN THE REGULAR SET TODAY in 2006!!!! Meanwhile an excellent new album is being almost totally ignored…not to mention so many other wonderful songs in the back catalogue…not to mention Woody’s atrocious playing on this tour…not to mention the insane prices…do you understand now?

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.

I saw them in Giants Stadium last September and I'll certainly aim to catch up with them here in London later this month.

I think we've all got spoiled - they have toured a lot in the last decade and with the Internet these days everything gets analysed to bits instead of just enjoying the shows.

Yes, Ronnie can be awful (I hate to say that as I love the guy) and Keef is not as he once was but with Charlie keeping the drum beats going and Mick's phenomenal commitment and energy, it's still a hell of a show to see... at least on a good night if not every night!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-02 01:02 by tomcat2006.

I do agree with you Gazza - I wish they were doing more stuff from the last 2 or 3 albums. However, I think the Stones are scared of doing that - they have become trapped under the category of nostalgia act and that's a shame.

However, I still disagree with the idea that the set list is exactly the same as on previous tours, because 7 out of 21 songs (a third) are different. I also disagree that they don't change the setlist because they change about 3 or 4 songs each night. People constantly winge about set lists and I must admit that I don't get it!

I think the diference with the 70s tours was that although the setlist was the same each night, the songs themselves changed every night. Sometimes GS was a furiously fast shred, and other nights it was a menacing stroll through the park. I love that about the Stones and I would argue that that is one of the things that is missing nowadays.

SJS 12 wrote; "People constantly winge about set lists and I must admit that I don't get it! "

You don't get it? Well, with all due respect read my previous post...they have an album in ABB that could provide lots of fresh material...they have a back catalogue of material that they could mine for incredibly evocative and exciting songs...and they insist on leaving perhaps 6 slots open for all of this...and the other 14-15 slots ARE WRITTEN IN STONE TOUR AFTER TOUR [pardon the idiotic pun]...and you don't get it? What don't you get? That people are looking for a fresh and commited performance...not a concert that these men could do in their sleep? We would like the Stones to challenge themselves...as artsts...as musicians...quite easy to understand, actually.

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.

tomcat2006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> I think we've all got spoiled - they have toured a
> lot in the last decade and with the Internet these
> days everything gets analysed to bits instead of
> just enjoying the shows.
>

in all fairness, the Stones arent the only act who are subject to that scrutiny. Any band or artist you can think of that has an online community gets the same.

>Yes, Ronnie can be awful (I hate to say that as I love the guy) and Keef is >not as he once was but with Charlie keeping the drum beats going and Mick's >phenomenal commitment and energy, it's still a hell of a show to see... at >least on a good night if not every night!

I agree with every word of that. Problem is that when youre paying these prices, its reasonable to insist on the night that YOU see them as being a show that theyre "on" and capable of playing. If you ask people to cough up what is a lot of money to see you, youre raising their expectancy level for your performance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-02 01:48 by Gazza.

Turd. Yes. I´m with you.

But - why tour when even the warhorses sound like shit?

It doesn´t matter. Play Citadell or Honky Tonk Women...still there will be no focus.

I can not - from the heart - understand why some people defend Ronnie Wood?

You pay for a good show - good playing. Not for the myth: heroin, tight jeans and black hair.

But - obviously, the myth is stronger than reality.

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do agree with you Gazza - I wish they were doing
> more stuff from the last 2 or 3 albums. However,
> I think the Stones are scared of doing that - they
> have become trapped under the category of
> nostalgia act and that's a shame.
>

yep..thats the crux of it. Thing is, its something theyve always stated theyd never do


> However, I still disagree with the idea that the
> set list is exactly the same as on previous tours,
> because 7 out of 21 songs (a third) are different.

Aside from the new songs, there isnt a single Stones song thats regularly played on the shows on this tour that wasnt played on the last one. Some songs, such as As Tears Go By, Sway, Shes So Cold etc have been introduced (which is very welcome), but theyre not there on a regular basis.

> I also disagree that they don't change the
> setlist because they change about 3 or 4 songs
> each night. People constantly winge about set
> lists and I must admit that I don't get it!

I think theres less onus on them to change it dramatically because most shows on this tour have been one nighters. Where theyve played two back to back shows in one city, theyve been quite good about changing the show. Hollywood Bowl being a great example. Whilst they may change 3-4 from one show to the next it tends to be the same small number of songs being rotated. As it stands now, once they start playing Night Time, you know what the rest of the show is going to be and how its going to be played. The only variable is the 2nd b-stage song and if its Start me Up, then that means you'll get Paint It Black later on. Changing songs for the sake of it isnt the issue in itself, its the fact that so much of the show is the same 10-12 songs that have been there for decades - many of them in that final third


>
> I think the diference with the 70s tours was that
> although the setlist was the same each night, the
> songs themselves changed every night. Sometimes
> GS was a furiously fast shred, and other nights it
> was a menacing stroll through the park. I love
> that about the Stones and I would argue that that
> is one of the things that is missing nowadays.

I agree with that. A good point.

I agree with Bjorn's earlier comments: Keith and Ronnie are rarely playing with vigor. Ronnie blows more leads than he wow anyone on. Keith is just sloppy and playing without intensity most of the time....and YES I have seen him on this tour.

I was excited in Toronto because he came out with fire and tore into Start Me Up....but then faded into the 'look at me, I'm a clown, stumblin' round playing a chord once in a while' Keith.

I know they can play better. For $160 or more...I expect better.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Turd on the Run. In '72 and '78 they played a lot of newer material, and played it with confidence and passion. It's almost like they are saying ABB is not good enough to play live...when it is one of their better records. Play it LIVE and maybe it will become classic too.

Back of My Hand is amazing live....the Stones can own the blues....if they want to.

x



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-07 06:53 by Beelyboy.

i saw them in baltimore in february and they rocked.. (i keep saying that but its like to deaf ears or something).

the stones are still performing at a great level.. no doubt they play songs from back in the day, largely, but they do those type of songs better than anyone else... and i think mick jagger sounds the best he ever has which compensates for a bit of raggedness on the guitar fronts..

i can't wait to see them again


so many posts on this board start "i never thought i would say this.. i have been a fan for 32 years but now i've had it.."

its like ENOUGH ALREADY! there are plenty of us on this board because we like the stones and this is where we presumably get together with others who like the stones to talk about them....

what i've had enough with is not the stones but the whiners about set lists etcc... i mean i can't wait to see them again and i'm not going go complain if they play midnight rambler again...

i mean how can one ever have enough of rambler!

Yeah I am, I still think they are a great band. and have not heard any other that are better, so add me to the list of satisfied.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-07 06:53 by Beelyboy.

Turd, is it surprising that 3/4 of the set list comes from the Stones back-catalogue of most critically acclaimed albums and greatest hits? After all, that is when the Stones were at their creative peak.

I don't disagree that they should play more from the latest album(s). However, they have to strike a very careful balance between pleasing the hard core fans and pleasing the tourists. Since the tourists probably make up the vast majority of the audience, you can see what way they are going to turn.

Personally, I love to hear BS, HTW, JJF, SFTD and all the other warhorses. I also like the odd surprise - perhaps Sway or even Worried About You. I will always be disapointed if they don't play Midnight Rambler. You see, I like things to be well balanced. When I see people post set list wishes for an entire set from Dirty Work, I think that would be really boring. Imagine going to see the greatest rock n roll band in the world and they ignore the vast majority of their greatest songs.

Anyway, I think I can see where you guys are coming from and I don't want to give the impression that I entirely disagree with all your comments. However, at the end of the day I do not care what the set list is as long as the Stones play the songs with fresh energy and I come away with a smile on my face.

I have probably taken a very polarised line of argument here because I sometimes get the feeling that there are too many "song collectors" on this board. Sometimes I get the feeling that people have seen the Stones so many times that they can no longer be entertained unless a super rare song rears its head.

maybe you were not in paris last friday mates ?? oh yes ? so this is a mistake or you are unlucky but anyway this thread would not exist if you had been there...

as far as the set list being from albums they did a long time ago

GUYS i hate to break this to you but those are by unanimous agreement the greatest albums of all time and the greatest rock and roll songs of all time..so of course they play them.. the fact is they have not made albums of the caliber of let it bleed since, well, let it bleed era...

i mean count me as someone who likes to hear songs from those albums... could they play jigsaw puzzle..sure..but i'm not going to complain cause they play the greatest rock and roll songs ever created! more variety would be great but if its variety you crave you are diggin the wrong band.. try some jam band.. go see the allman brothers at the beacon theater.... pick up a few dead tapes..this is the rolling stones not the dead.... their tour set lists have never had much variety ..the only differnece is that they used to include more new songs and now they include few new songs..why? cause MOST paying customers don't want to hear the new songs when they can hear brown sugar... now you may be bored with brown sugar but they are not playign the show for YOU..they are playing it for everyone there and wether you like it or not most people there are first timers who "..just want to see the stones once before they die.."

this set list argument is so boring...its been done over and over and over again.. leave the dead horse alone..stop beating it to death! its dead! it ain't moving! i just don't get why everyone has to make the points here! write to chuck leavell on his web site or the bassist dude on his web site... go to keith richards web site and write him..find mick's mailing address and write him! make a huge banner and take it to show ..banner to read "SET LISTS STALE" or some such

don't just complain about it here.. if you feel the set lists are so bad then don't go to shows and let those of us who enjoy the set lists alone

yeah i'm aware its not 1973, I love the stones, i love each show, i am aware theyre human and have bad shows i am aware they have good shows, i wish some people would get over themselves, or lock theselves in a dark room with the brussels affair and leave us all alone

OLDKR

Nice work, Gazza and Turd On The Run. I haven't really had the energy lately, but...

In response to BV and others' question: "If you don't like the Stones, why spend time on a Stones board?"

I love the Rolling Stones and I'll be discussing their records and shows on this board and elsewhere for as long as I'm around. If I decide not to shell out for any of the upcoming North American shows because I am disappointed with the tour's complete lack of innovation (apart, of course, from "On Stage" seating) well, that's becuase I still have high standards and high hopes for the band.

And more fundamentally: My dismay at the current stage show--while very deep and very real--pales before the sense of wonder and gratitude I have for the magnitude and breadth of their career accomplishments. Too much to even get my head around, really...

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
My dismay at the current
> stage show--while very deep and very real--pales
> before the sense of wonder and gratitude I have
> for the magnitude and breadth of their career
> accomplishments

Very well said. Cuts right to the heart of how I feel. It's very possible to love the Stones and at the same time be disappointed with their current state.

Stoned in DC you are wrong. This is EXACTLY THE PLACE where one can discuss these things. If you don't like it go YOU somewhere else...like RollingStones.com...and read the propaganda there. This is a place for the real dedicated fan. F-A-N...as in loving the band...being emotionally involved in the band...and caring enough to see the reality of the Rolling Stones 2006. We are not happy to see the decline of Woody. We are not satisfied getting the 2,765th performance of 'It's Only Rock and Roll' with a mangled guitar solo by Keef or the 995th performance of 'Start Me Up' with Woody destroying the solo...then Disneyland fireworks at the end. Instead we demand committed and fresh performances...we realize that the Stones have to play certain songs to satisfy the masses...but the very least we can expect is that these songs be played with vigor and professionalism...and that these songs be kept to a minimum after 20 world tours. The Stones 'aint the Beach Boys...and never wanted to be...so why are they acting like them...? Whybecome a nostalgia ct? And why do yo accept this? As far as oldkr is concerned...I will not lock myself in a basemsnt with Brussel Affair...I do not live in the past...but I demand that the present Stones be held accountable...that is the least a true fan can do.

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.

I still love 'em. I got a buzz seeing them this tour. They're on fire, reminds of '78 in some ways although then it could be argued mick was the weak link, if there was one, he's better now. I've seen them since '75 and I still like seeing some the warhorses with the nice surprises thrown in. Although, i only see one or two shows a tour. Obviously they have to balance different needs. I mean, really, play Citadel over GS?

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I love the Rolling Stones and I'll be discussing
> their records and shows on this board and
> elsewhere for as long as I'm around. If I decide
> not to shell out for any of the upcoming North
> American shows because I am disappointed with the
> tour's complete lack of innovation (apart, of
> course, from "On Stage" seating) well, that's
> becuase I still have high standards and high hopes
> for the band.
>
> And more fundamentally: My dismay at the current
> stage show--while very deep and very real--pales
> before the sense of wonder and gratitude I have
> for the magnitude and breadth of their career
> accomplishments. Too much to even get my head
> around, really...


ditto

Hell... Muddy Waters at the end wasn't the same Muddy - but he WAS Muddy ....John Lee......the same

That Mick Jagger can run around like a giddy 18 year old has me baffled....that Keef is even standing - one of your minor miracles....

Enjoy them as long as they are here - they are a one-off!!

How much do you think Muddy Waters's most expensive ticket ever was?

baloney TURD if you had read my first post perhaps you would have seen that i saw them in baltimore and they kicked ass... so spare me the mangled solo and all that junk...please spare me your "i see reality and they suck but i'm a dedicated fan" bullcrap.... the copacabana show was great..the buenos aires shows were by all accounts (and the soundboard of the first night) phenomenal and the baltimore show was great (i was there) and the list goes on.. just cause you think its reality that they suck don't make it so... stop passing off your negative whininess as some sorta reality..this is the place to discuss the stones but not to bring up a bunch of crap with no relation to reality.

i don't agree the set lists are that bad and i don't agree- based on the recordings i've heard and the show i attended in baltimore (ie. , my own ears!) that the stones suck etc..


the stones are playing at a very high level... i mean on a day we get posts on how great paris was we have to sift through the endless hogwash proposing they play some obscure song 90% of stones fans don't want to hear..


i'm just breakin it to you that there's plenty of people who do not come to this board to whine endlessly.. and i for one don't enjoy the mandatory daily "i loved the stones but now i'm leaving cause i don't like hearing its only rock'n'roll" crap

RRMan03 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen them since the 60's.
> Let me tell you they are much better know than then
lol

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take the example of the 72 set list:
>
> OK HERE IS THE EXAMPLE…IN 1972 WATCHING THE STONES
> LIVE:
>
> 1. Brown Sugar – 1 YEAR OLD
> 2. Bitch – 1 YEAR OLD
> 3. Rocks Off – BRAND NEW
> 4. Gimme Shelter – 3 YEARS OLD
> 5. Happy – BRAND NEW
> 6. Tumbling Dice – BRAND NEW
> 7. Love In Vain – 3 YEARS OLD
> 8. Sweet Virginia –BRAND NEW
> 9. You Can't Always Get What You Want –3 YEARS
> OLD
> 10. All Down The Line –BRAND NEW
> 11. Midnight Rambler – 3 YEARS OLD
> 12. Bye Bye Johnny -COVER
> 13. Rip This Joint – BRAND NEW
> 14. Jumpin' Jack Flash – 4 YEARS OLD
> 15. Street Fighting Man – 4 YEARS OLD
>
> LOOKING AT THIS SET LIST FULLY 50% OF THE SET LIST
> WAS 1 YEAR OLD OR LESS. THE REST WERE EITHER
> COVERS OR 3 to 4 YEARS OLD. THERE WAS NO NEED TO
> CHANGE THE SET BECAUSE THE MATERIAL WAS FRESH!
>
not apples-to-apples. those songs are great, the new songs blow, that's why theyre not played.

OldKR:

I agree.If you do not like todays show stay home and watch MTV and rap awhile.If they played 30 songs from the 60's and 70's I would still go.Jagger puts on a show each and every time no matter what the setlist.If some of the bitchers would stay home I might get a better seat.As for ticket prices yes they are high.I paid 3.oo to see them the first time and 350.00 the last time and it will be 350.00 this time if I live that long or they live that long.Like them love them or leave them.

Yes, still satisfied! For many reasons (i mean Stones performances and albums, not Stones managment- of course).

Some reasons- some questions to the "all time naggers"...

(A) Despite the moaning on this board, i really like the way they play nowadays. In my ears on this tour they sound better than on every round since 1995. I hear CLEARLY the best Ronnie since 1998- maybe there is just one exception: Ronnie in 2002 american leg of Licks Tour. Some fans want to "kill" Ronnie or Keith for two "boom" notes but the same guys are dying for 1978 "punky" tour, when the band made much more mistakes on stage than nowadays or for the "love You Live" years, during which Mick's singing was usualy very sloopy or just out of tune. How on earth can this happen?

( I love stadium shows, i believe the Stones are made for playing stadiums! And i hate the idea of "VIP tours". I know, a lot of fans believe that the band should perform only in smaller venues or just that the band sounds better in smaller venues which -supposely- are more about music and less about show. OK, that's a respectable opinion. But how on earth the folks who want to see the Stones in smaller venues can say that they "have lost their musical abilities", IF small venues truly mean "pure music"?
Also: some of the fans who are demanding "no more stadium shows" consider as disaster that the Stones this summer will play in Europe only to one million people! Do they think that the band could play to 1.5- 2 million people without stadium concerts? How? Doing 350 gigs?

(C) I appreciate the fact that their setlists have from night to night more variety than during 70s and early 80s. OK, you know the following question...

I wrote "i hear CLEARLY the best Ronnie since 1998". Actually i mean since 1995...

I've have seen the Stones on every tour in America since 1969. I have never seen a concert I did not like. To me they were and always will be the greatest rock and roll band in the world. I can't afford to see them multiple times like the old days but i never miss a tour regardless of price because I must. If people don't like what they perferm then don't go.