How do people feel about getting only 19 songs? I just don't understand how the boys can do this to the people that are paying too much as it is to see/hear them. Have they no conscience at all? When CSNY and Springsteen give you about 30 songs and charge about less than half of what the Stones do, it just burns my a## all the more. Sure they give a great show and I still love em...but I hate em too!

What says all of you?

last night was possibly the best Rolling Stones stadium show i have ever seen-
the song count is irrelevant, when the quality is, what it was, last night.

Quality is more important to me than the quantity...

And the quality was FANTASTIC...

When you have a great show, a great setlist, the band putting in a fine perfomance - a couple of extra songs really makes little difference. I certainly wasn't counting them, having far too much of a good time!

Why do people persist in counting the number of songs? The Stones have to be the only band on the planet where the fans are so anal as to count the number of songs played. Did you count the number of songs the Who played? Led Zepellin? No. No one cared. It was the performance that counts.

I'll repeat what I just wrote on another thread that also echoes the comments above. I'd take 19 songs delivered in that quality any day. There is absolutely NO room for any complaint about getting one song less in such an incredibly tip-top performance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-23 14:24 by Beast.

Those heady days when everyone was too stoned to count past 3 anyway......

It aint flippin train spotting. Its Rock N Roll!!!! Who cares how many songs as long as your entertained and there played well. And being at Twicks you certainly were!!!

Go to a gig then comment!

Yes, I really feel shortchanged that this bunch of 60+ year olds can only perform for 2 hours....NOT.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It aint flippin train spotting. Its Rock N
> Roll!!!! Who cares how many songs as long as your
> entertained and there played well. And being at
> Twicks you certainly were!!!
>
> Go to a gig then comment!


I 've been to many shows since '72 when the Stones were in their prime. I have every right to comment whenever and however I want. I have always been entertained at a Stones show. I just feel that the shows should be longer for the $$ you must pay to see them. Simple.

you got glitter,programmed set lists down to the second,is that ROCK and ROLL thats not what attracted me to the golden era 1969-1974.

Equally simple is that some of us out there prefer to get a shorter quality show for our $$ than a minimally longer one of lesser quality.

Well for the $450 I pay PER SHOW I want BOTH! Sorry, but that's an insane amount of $$ and I guess that means I'm insane as well BUT I should have 22 songs of HIGH QUALITY ! This is NOT too much to expect!

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well for the $450 I pay PER SHOW I want BOTH!
> Sorry, but that's an insane amount of $$ and I
> guess that means I'm insane as well BUT I should
> have 22 songs of HIGH QUALITY ! This is NOT too
> much to expect!

when you enter into the contract of buying a ticket,(whatever price you choose or can afford to pay)no where, does it state,
that you are guaranteed and entitled to, 22 songs.

who cares how many songs they play ? surely the quality is all that matters not the amount of time they spend on stage ?

when the Ramones did 50 minutes sets it was the greatest thing i'd ever seen. why extend it to 90 when 50 is amazing already ?

leave people wanting more, not wanting to snore!

andy js Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> leave people wanting more, not wanting to snore!

quite- and that's my one overriding problem with the ABB album,
its too long.

Sorry Debra,

I was there and was more than happy. To be honest, I wasn't even counting how many songs they did at the time so I didn't feel short changed. Especially as they probably put on the best show that they have done in many years. They played for 2 hours which, although it seemed to fly by, is about the same amount of time as they play elsewhere.

God I hate train spotters!

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God I hate train spotters!

I haven't yet noticed any complaints from anyone who was there last night. They would need their head examining.

Complainers about Twickers 2 having their heads examined?

One would think they had already been subject to lobotomies and possibly decaptiation thereafter!!!!

SD

Hey, where did you get that picture of me? Were you in the row in front of me last night? I think this was during Bitch when I was taking notes about the type of wood that Keith's guitar is made from.

By the way, I was timing the gaps between songs and I noticed that I was short-changed by approximately £38. If I am pying so much for tickets, I expect them to play one long medley containing 67 songs with no breaks at all. Also, I noticed that they started at 8.31 pm and NOT 8.30 so I think I should get a refund.

"you got glitter,programmed set lists down to the second,is that ROCK and ROLL thats not what attracted me to the golden era 1969-1974."

OpenG...... have you been to a BB gig yet? If so you'll know that the set list is far from programmed to the second and wasn't glitter etc used in the early seventies? I seem to recall half of it stuck to Micks face!!!

And you can't ccomment on how many songs in a gig, just on how good a time you had!

Incidently, I was talking to a guy who in the audience who had seen both Twicks shows. He also has seen many many different bands, but he's not a BIG BIG fan of the Stones. He said that the good think about the Stones was that they change one or two songs around so you don't get exactly the same show twice, unlike other bands.

That's just a perspective from someone from the "outside". Many will disagree, but he maybe represents the normal human race. Not everyone goes to see 10 shows by the same band in one year - or even two!!!

Quality over quantity any day....

JumpingKentFlash

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, I was timing the gaps between songs
> and I noticed that I was short-changed by
> approximately £38. If I am pying so much for
> tickets, I expect them to play one long medley
> containing 67 songs with no breaks at all. Also,
> I noticed that they started at 8.31 pm and NOT
> 8.30 so I think I should get a refund.

You need to compare notes with the gent who sat next to me, who asked me at 8.31 "Did they start late on Sunday, too?"

Absolutely wonderful show. I feel privileged to have been there and certainly preferred 19 songs done with such fire and spirit to any number of tick-the-box performances.

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, where did you get that picture of me? Were
> you in the row in front of me last night? I think
> this was during Bitch when I was taking notes
> about the type of wood that Keith's guitar is made
> from.
>
> By the way, I was timing the gaps between songs
> and I noticed that I was short-changed by
> approximately £38. If I am pying so much for
> tickets, I expect them to play one long medley
> containing 67 songs with no breaks at all. Also,
> I noticed that they started at 8.31 pm and NOT
> 8.30 so I think I should get a refund.


ROTFLMAO!!

I say get a life.

You don't like the prices or number of songs played stay at home. If the prices or number of songs played is truly eschew then when enough people stay at home - prices and set lists will change.

Until then get a life.

it baffles me that no one here mentioned mick's sore throat which is probably the main cause for the shortened shows (at least in numbers)

i am glad to to hear ther's a general consensus (both from fans and press) about the quality of the two london gigs.

yes, OpenG, I agree, Stones show nowadays is pretty much programmed to last 2 hours and the setlists are built in order to achieve that goal and some songs are designed for the choreography more than for themselves (MY, HTW, SFTD)

and yes, OpenG, you can keep leaving in the golden era (was 1974 still Gold?) but you should attend to a gig before criticizing.

the 2oclockhourshow i saw in Milan was astonishing both for the bad quality of sound AND for the delivery of stuff like MR, YCAGWYW, UMT, SA, IORR, LSTNT, CLML...

This band is the greatest also because it baffles you both in positive and negative ways. Just when you think they can't do it anymore...

keefstheman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do people feel about getting only 19 songs? I
> just don't understand how the boys can do this to
> the people that are paying too much as it is to
> see/hear them. Have they no conscience at all?
> When CSNY and Springsteen give you about 30 songs
> and charge about less than half of what the Stones
> do, it just burns my a## all the more. Sure they
> give a great show and I still love em...but I hate
> em too!
>
> What says all of you?

What say all of us is that YOU should (a) have BEEN THERE instead of whining from your living room, (b) stop posting absolute bollocks, and (c) F-oxtrot O-scar. Ever heard of the concept of quality versus quantity ?

The shows were probably shortened because of Mick's throat, in which case it is perfectly understandable.

But if that's not the case ... what is wrong with expecting quality and quantity? Since they almost always play 20 songs, it's perfectly logical that people would feel shortchanged if they pay big bucks for a show and only get 19.