Lot of topics here are about how bad setlists are, same songs over again, warhorses and so on. I have pointed out several times that The Stones changes the arrangements on most of them.

A great example of this is Wild Horses. Sometimes Keith use electric guitar, sometimes acoustic. Sometimes 5 string, or even ten! It's incredible how they work their songs really.

Same thing with Let's spend the night together. Sometimes he use open tuning, sometimes standard. Sometimes 6 string, sometimes 5. Sometimes electric guitar, sometimes acoustic.

Other bands does the same versions for ever, but our boys keep on working with them, change them, keeping them still interesting. That's why I don't get tired of hearing them.

Shure I have my favorite versions, but that is just the result of having the pleasure of hearing different versions. I think that's a real treat for the hardcore fans, like some of the people on this board are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-04 13:01 by Niklas.

When did Keith use 6 or 12 strings on Wild Horses? From all the versions I've heard he used open-G 5 string or 10 string for the acoustic since 2002.

good points- but is it 'a band in progress' ?

changing guitars isn't the same as changing arrangements.....

I thought Ronnie's acoustic guitar on recent Street Fighting Man was a cool idea, it really adds a "flow"...the version on Stripped, for instance.

Good point although Let's Spend the Night Together hasn't sounded good since '81...IMHO...

A band in progress and maintaining relevance would be putting the emphasis on new material, at least in my view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-04 19:10 by ChrisM.

Even being considered 'in progress' after 43 odd years has gotta mean something....

I think this is where the band are often a little at odds with many of the fans.
Keith in particular seems to think that re-arranging the old songs and giving them a new twist is sufficient to keep the spark alive and stop things getting stale. Many fans on the other hand would rather have a new song than the 36th version of an old favourite.
I'm easily pleased. I'm always interested to hear this year's twist on the old songs...I love it. But I siuspect that I may be in the minority.

I think a band in progress means a band that expands their horizon, creates new music and looks for new ways to play old ones. I can't see how the Stones did any of that to deserve to be called a band in progress...

I don't think the Stones have got it anywhere near Dylan regarding fresh and innovative re-working etc and arguably they do not need to go a great distance along that route however the thing that most fans agree with is the fact that we all want to hear more of the unsung classics,gems,obscurities,covers etc and of course latest songs but not the greatest hits for the nth time.The Stones have actually approached this on the ABB tour and on the Licks tour but certainly some scope to go further and considering the high admission prices that must exclude large numbers of kids and students attending ,it is safe to say that the vast majority of people attending are fans who as we witness daily on this site would love to hear Let It Loose , Winter , Citadel etc etc.

off the top of my head, the ONLY song they've specifically re-arranged to NOT sound like the studio version in the past 20 years was 19NB, which was then summarily taken out back and shot and never heard from again after one public outing (aside from the warmup gig). I actually was encouraged by that development before it stopped - 'cos it seemed to indicate a band willing to try to grow and take the audience with it. Sigh.

seems to me that lets spend the night together and under my thumb are played these days with a total lack of energy. Seems Chuck leading the songs and minimal guitar participation. Just Keith and Ronnie strumming along. Far cry from the Guitar driven versions of 81/82..In short..todays versions suck. IMO
Oh yea..and Keith without guitar on YGTS and horns on TnA also suck

What I'm saying is that I think it's good for the freshness of the songs that they change arrangements on them. They could have played them the same way if they wanted to. Weather we like it or not, they have to play the so called war horses, and I'd rather like them to do some changes to them, than doing them the same way on every tour. That doen not mean that I don't want them to focus on new songs, or songs that they've never done live before. Of course I'd like that, but it just doesn't work that way. Therefore I'm pleased by the constant changes they make on the warhorses. And as I say, of course there are some versions better than others. Some like Let's spend better in 81/82, some don't. That's fair enough. Got no problem with that.

IMHO changing a guitar for a song does not equate to a "Band in Progress."

"A Band in the Progress of Calcifying into a Traveling Oldies Juke Box ".

Real Progress? The Stones challenging themselves by playing and recording vital new material, and maintaining relevance by committing to this new material. Their commitment to ABB has been disappointing. And if older material must be played [it must...fair enough] then play it with passion and change it up in order to avoid going onto auto-pilot mode. That may be good enough for the tourists. But it is not worthy of the Stones' greatness.