Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicago was wide open and therefore they deserved
> a short setlist. You get what you pay for.
>
> Why are they booking stadiums in the middle of the
> winter???


Thats not the fans fault that paid for the show. Is it!!

"Is it any wonder that we fuss and fight"

If they play things like SWH...they can get away with 17 songs!!Do you really need another 11 min version of SFTD!!??

Look at the bright side - 18 songs is better than 16 numbers (time to fold up the tent for awhile)......

It was freezing cold, that's the reason. Very logic imho.

They probably cut it short by one song because it was so friggin' cold. Mick to Keith: "everyone's freezing Keith, Let's cut the slow one and get the f out of here"!

So people say its cold out so that is why 18 songs. Why the hell do you play an outdoor stadium in Chicago in the middle of Oct. People are paying lots of money to see them and the shows keep getting shorter.

Hey at least they played She Was Hot.... Now if they can just do something different in the 2nd half of the show to make it more interesting...

When I saw them at Gillette in 2002 tickets were much cheaper and they did 23 or 24 songs, including longer ones like Rambler.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Why the hell do you play an outdoor stadium
> in Chicago in the middle of Oct.

Because Michael Cohl is greedy.

- reports of curtained off sections and empty blocks,
would suggest, that on this occasion,
the all-consuming greed, has backfired.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So people say its cold out so that is why 18
> songs. Why the hell do you play an outdoor stadium
> in Chicago in the middle of Oct. People are paying
> lots of money to see them and the shows keep
> getting shorter.
>
> Hey at least they played She Was Hot.... Now if
> they can just do something different in the 2nd
> half of the show to make it more interesting...
>
> When I saw them at Gillette in 2002 tickets were
> much cheaper and they did 23 or 24 songs,
> including longer ones like Rambler.


Ditto, if they could play one more "surprise song" around #17 that would make the second set not so damn predictable.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicago was wide open and therefore they deserved
> a short setlist. You get what you pay for.

why penalise the people who DID pay and attend in freezing conditions just because non-attendees DIDNT - just because Cohl and the Stones misjudged the market completely and booked too big a venue. By your logic, when they played places like Moncton, buenos aires or Horsens, they should have played for about four hours.
>
> Why are they booking stadiums in the middle of the
> winter???


because theyre greedy c**ts?

The cold weather is an acceptable reason to shorten to 18 songs, from 19. There are other problems as indicated: booking an outdoor show in a prone-to-cold-weather city this time of year, ticket prices...etc.

If Seattle gets cold temps and rain, the Stones will be on a bad-weather-luck roll this tour.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So people say its cold out so that is why 18
> songs. Why the hell do you play an outdoor stadium
> in Chicago in the middle of Oct. People are paying
> lots of money to see them and the shows keep
> getting shorter.
>
>

This 'lets cut the show short because the weather is shit' logic is getting old and insulting. If anything, its more unpleasant for the people who have been standing out on a field all evening than it is onstage - and I doubt too many of the people who are paying for tickets are urging the Stones to hurry up and get it over with. The Stones are hardly going to develop frostbite by playing an extra five minutes.

theres the old adage that 'you made your bed - lie in it'. If youre going to expect people to come out in bad weather to see you, then they deserve some respect for doing so and should be treated like every other audience - not sold short because you decided to have a show in freezing weather so you could make as much money at all costs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-12 16:51 by Gazza.

My thinking is that if a show got cut because of bad weather from let's say 22 songs to 17, a more significant amount, than it's like the fans got screwed by the cold temps and a shortened, (most likely) phoned-in show. 19 to 18 is missing one song--most likely a warhorse, at that. I think there are bigger issues than one song.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-12 16:56 by southboundtrain.

southboundtrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there are bigger issues than one song.

yes- making $$$$

2003 Munich Cirkus Krone - 18 songs

Can you judge a show sitting at home and act like a statistic expert?

southbound train -

thats a fair point, yeah but every few months now theyre dropping a song - thats the problem

at the start of the tour it was 21 and occasionally 22

By early 2006, it was either 20 or 21 depending on whether they played Midnight Rambler or not

By Europe it was 20 pretty much every show and then when they got to the UK, the first Twickenham show got 19 - apparently because of the delayed start as they had to clear the rain off the stage which left them insufficient time to get 20 in before the curfew. Yet it stayed at 19 for the rest of the tour.

Back in North America, its 19 each show - with two reduced to 18 because apparently it was too wet (Halifax) or too cold (Chicago).

Just seems that when they reduce the number of songs for some reason, theyre not in any great hurry to increase it again.

If they were playing long shows to begin with, it wouldnt really be a big deal at all, but for these prices, 19 songs is already not a big lot of songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-12 17:25 by Gazza.

keefed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2003 Munich Cirkus Krone - 18 songs
>
> Can you judge a show sitting at home and act like
> a statistic expert?

We are not statistic experts but 19 songs is effectivly not a big lot of songs for the tickets prices !

keefed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2003 Munich Cirkus Krone - 18 songs
>
> Can you judge a show sitting at home and act like
> a statistic expert?


remind me of the ticket price for that show again??

I think I got 18 songs at the Astoria - then again the tickets cost £50. For that price and for a show in a theatre, they could have farted into the microphone for an hour and I wouldnt have minded too much

If people are paying five or six times that, I think its reasonable to expect the bar to be raised somewhat. Especially when youre standing in a bloody stadium in the cold, watching a video screen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-12 17:24 by Gazza.

LOL about you know what!

Gazza, what about the excuse: be glad they are still around playing at all? :-)

You having a bad day Gazza?

Surely its quality not quantity? Good performance upto the two hours? Sod the counting of the songs?

southboundtrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cold weather is an acceptable reason to
> shorten to 18 songs, from 19. There are other
> problems as indicated: booking an outdoor show in
> a prone-to-cold-weather city this time of year,
> ticket prices...etc.
>
> If Seattle gets cold temps and rain, the Stones
> will be on a bad-weather-luck roll this tour.


Thats bullsh*t! They were playing 21 songs earlier on the tour.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> keefed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2003 Munich Cirkus Krone - 18 songs
> >
> > Can you judge a show sitting at home and act
> like
> > a statistic expert?
>
>
> remind me of the ticket price for that show
> again??
>
> I think I got 18 songs at the Astoria - then again
> the tickets cost £50. For that price and for a
> show in a theatre, they could have farted into the
> microphone for an hour and I wouldnt have minded
> too much
>
> If people are paying five or six times that, I
> think its reasonable to expect the bar to be
> raised somewhat. Especially when youre standing in
> a bloody stadium in the cold, watching a video
> screen


Thats you!! what about the 1000's of others on the floor that paid, $450

Uh..I think I'm agreeing with you, if you read it again...jesus...

stonesriff-While I am not thrilled about the shorter setlists, they've been doing this for at least the last 15 years. They always start tours off with longer setlists & by the end have trimmed several songs off. Go back & look at the first few shows of the VL tour on & compare it to the final shows.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You having a bad day Gazza?
>
> Surely its quality not quantity? Good performance
> upto the two hours? Sod the counting of the songs?


I think if youre at a theatre show and havent paid much, your expectations are significantly lower in terms of performance/value for money than if youre halfway back in a stadium looking at a screen. At a club show, theres a high factor of just being glad to be there. Capische?

If the band members' health is a factor, its reasonable to trim a show somewhat. Dont really see much of an excuse otherwise. When does it become 'too short' ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-12 18:07 by Gazza.

I agree it's not fair to continue trimming the length of the show as the tour goes on - it penalizes those who see them later in the tour. And cold weather is no excuse, they never should have attempted to play outdoors in Chicago when it was that cold, they should have done an indoor gig instead.

Trust me, if you we're there 18 was just fine. I'm not one to cut slack to people taking short cuts but with the wind it was just fine. And they really, really, really put out!

By most accounts Ive read, Keith looked and played like the cold weather was too much for him. If he was/is ill, its reasonable to take no chances. I hope thats the last show they play outdoors in cold weather and that the week off they now have does him some good

Glad you had a great time!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By most accounts Ive read, Keith looked and played
> like the cold weather was too much for him. If he
> was/is ill, its reasonable to take no chances

yes - one candid review of last nights show, (written on RO) is worrying
(but not entirely suprising) in the extreme.

This is again an issue of people coming on the internet seeing a number and setlist and not being at the show. I can tell you from being at the show along with everyone else who knows Keith, that he couldnt play last night for whatever reason his hands were killing him. I mean Lord he has arthritis and it was below freezing. Alot of the time his back was to the crowd. Tough night for keith but again you need to learn the facts before you start complaining. Otherwise no one will have any respect for our discussions. Keith couldnt really play last night. So they cut it short