we´re down to only one song from ABB, Streets Of Love, last night in El Paso, time to dump that one as well.

Leaving ticket prices, half-empty stadiums, fanclub memberships and short sets aside, the saddest thing about the "BIGGER BANG" (yes, that is still what it says on the tickets) tour in 2006 is that they´ve finally become just an artistically irrelevant rock´n´roll revue instead of a working band, showing no interest in promoting or presenting their latest songs to their audiences.

I like them changing the set a bit by including Live With Me, Monkey Man, She Was Hot, but these should never replace the new songs which should be the centerpiece of the set, circled by the Greatest Hits

Think of VL and B2B, how the by then new songs were an integral part of each night´s show, Saint Of me and Out Of Control being some of the central highlights.


"We´ve gotta play new songs cause we can´t just keep recycling old ones", yeah right, you wish.....

Here we go...

JumpingKentFlash

You're right Kent, no matter what The Stones are doing - there are always some "fans" complaining about something.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go...

He has a point though. They really need a long holiday and think the whole thing over again before they come to Europe again. It's very sad to see them in half empty (half full) stadiums.
They are not going out with a bang despite what statistics say

Especially when they play shows in places that they haven't played for a long time [or have never played before] they assume quite reasonably that they're playing to an audience that doesn't attend a Stones Concert every other freaking week !
Folks who haven't seen them before or don't see them frequently WANT to hear the warhorses. When will that finally sink in ?
Whether we like it or not, the Stones don't cater primarily for the hardcore fans. They throw us the odd bone where they can...but there you go. It's just the way it is.
I do believe that they often misjudge their audiences a little...but it's an honest mistake.

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here we go...
>
> He has a point though. They really need a long
> holiday and think the whole thing over again
> before they come to Europe again. It's very sad to
> see them in half empty (half full) stadiums.
> They are not going out with a bang despite what
> statistics say


What is all this talk about half-empty stadiums? They have been touring since august 2005, and there has been ONE half empty stadium out of how many sold out stadiums? Bigger Bang is the largest grossing tour ever, the stadiums in Europe were packed. I did attend 6 shows in Europe, and I will attend many shows next summer as well. The Rolling Stones are performing fantastic rock'n'roll concerts. Never mind the set lists, the show length - as long as the band are playing good I don't care.

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has a point though. They really need a long
> holiday and think the whole thing over again
> before they come to Europe again. It's very sad to
> see them in half empty (half full) stadiums.
> They are not going out with a bang despite what
> statistics say.


Of course he has a point. I'm just stating the bleeding obvious. This thread will have many posts soon. Setlist whining and setlist loving galore. It's the single most tired discussion on this board I think. We've been over it time and again. At this point we know where almost every board member stands on the issue. Some are for the current setlist and some are against. Without entering the discussion for the millionth time, I think it's pretty irritating that people can't just deal with it and get into another discussion. OK, I will enter the discussion a little bit: If The Stones read this board (And RocksOff and Shidoobee too) and sometimes take a new song in because we want it, shouldn't we then ask for more songs from "A Bigger Bang"? Since early 2006 there have not been too many wishes for songs from this album. They took up "She's So Cold", "She Was Hot" and "Sway" mostly because of us I think. If we had a general agenda to get more ABB songs, which we don't, it might up the chances for some new ones.

JumpingKentFlash

By no means this was intented to start yet another setlist bitching discussion or money-making machine rage. I just observed that the "bigger Bang" concept and with it the relevance of the Stones as working/producing band has reached yet another low level last night on which I wrote a comment.

And this has nothing to do with hardcore fans, we know the album anyway, on the contrary, it´s the casual fans and concert goers that should be incited to buy the new album and be interested in what the stones are doing at this point of their career

YPatrick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By no means this was intented to start yet another
> setlist bitching discussion or money-making
> machine rage. I just observed that the "bigger
> Bang" concept and with it the relevance of the
> Stones as working/producing band has reached yet
> another low level last night on which I wrote a
> comment.
>
> And this has nothing to do with hardcore fans, we
> know the album anyway, on the contrary, it´s the
> casual fans and concert goers that should be
> incited to buy the new album and be interested in
> what the stones are doing at this point of their
> career


How can we know if The Stones does or does not use the concerts to promote their entire catalogue???

JumpingKentFlash

Again, a new album is just an excuse to tour. That is where the big money is. But they couldn't tour behind the 40 licks (officially) again although they are

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, a new album is just an excuse to tour. That
> is where the big money is. But they couldn't tour
> behind the 40 licks (officially) again although
> they are.


It's no secret that they do new albums partly because they wanna go out and play. Keith said in an interview to RS.com that they were getting "antsy" to get on the road. "Forty Licks" was great, but if we're gonna go out on tour again we need a new album to back it" he said (Check one of the first ABB pages of Virtual Ticket if you want to see it). Everything is fine with me though. If an album is just an excuse to tour for them, but at the same time they make them as good as they did with ABB, I have no complaints whatsoever...

JumpingKentFlash

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, a new album is just an excuse to tour. That
> is where the big money is. But they couldn't tour
> behind the 40 licks (officially) again although
> they are

They are not touring 40 Licks currently. Or have they recently played Don't Stop, Stealing My Heart, Keys To Your Love? The first two would be much appreciated, though. And I guess some people would also like it if Keith played Losing My Touch.
But it's indeed not so nice that the new material seems to be on the way out.

billwebster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are not touring 40 Licks currently. Or have
> they recently played Don't Stop, Stealing My
> Heart, Keys To Your Love? The first two would be
> much appreciated, though. And I guess some people
> would also like it if Keith played Losing My
> Touch.


"40 Licks" as in a retrospective tour, not to be confused with a tour where the 4 new "40 Licks" tunes are played.

JumpingKentFlash

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, a new album is just an excuse to tour. That
> is where the big money is.

They just love to play. That's it. Money is a bonus.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Especially when they play shows in places that
> they haven't played for a long time they assume
> quite reasonably that they're playing to an
> audience that doesn't attend a Stones Concert
> every other freaking week !
> Folks who haven't seen them before or don't see
> them frequently WANT to hear the warhorses. When
> will that finally sink in ?
> Whether we like it or not, the Stones don't cater
> primarily for the hardcore fans. They throw us the
> odd bone where they can...but there you go. It's
> just the way it is.
> I do believe that they often misjudge their
> audiences a little...but it's an honest mistake.

Rubbish...this is not about setlist whining...cause playing more tunes from ABB does not mean, playing less greatest hits..
From a 20 song set list they can easily play 10 warehorses , then 3-4 lesser known or obscure songs, which means there is still space for 5-6 ABB songs evry night.
It could have been so easy.
Play so different songs like:
Streets of love ( a great live ballad)
Back of My hand ( a great live blues)
Rain fall Down ( a great live funky tune)
Oh No ( a great live Rocker)
Rough Justice another live rocker.
and this are just the ones they did play irregularly.
If they would have playd these 5 gems evry night, people would realize:
"Hey this is great NEW stuff"...this is what the Stones are about..playing blues, rock, country, ballads...and all of them NEW.
I know many fans who did go to 10 and more shows this tour...but they just saw 1 or 2 of the new songs...
This is so embarrasing IMO.

I am a totally hard core Stones freak...but to ignore ABB live was one of the biggest dissapointings I never ever ecpected from "my " group.

To know that they do have the balls to perform songs like SWAY,SHE WAS HOT,As tears go by for the first time makes it even worse...cause they can, if they want to...but why the hell do they avoid playing their new tunes ???

Please give me one simple reason...but do not come with: "it`s all about the hits"..or "people want just see the warehorses"....
cause the do get them...but instead of playing new tunes in between, they prefer to perform seldom playd, lesser known, or even worse, cover songs.

This was a lost oppurtunity..cause the Stones lost the chance to proove they are still a living, a working, a far from a nostalgica act, being band.
Instead they came with another Licks tour, 2 years after the original licks tour.

Its hard to accept for me....and I had high hopes for this latest US leg...but instead of playing more ABB tunes they prefer to play....
I have to stop it now...cause it makes me worry about thinking of it.

Anyway..
On with the Beacon shows..looking forward for the dvd`s....and still hoping for one or two new ABB songs there.

salar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> looking forward for the
> dvd`s....


DVDs? There's gonna be more? Cool...

JumpingKentFlash

if you want the full stadiums again they need a smash single like start me up
which will never happen again imho, the stones new music get NO radio play at all, how can they expect [people to buy it and want to come and see it

Let's all kill ourselves because they won't play RJ every night.

I remember very good some negative articls published on greek newspapers in 1978 and 1981/82 too. The focal point of their arguments was just one stricture: "They care only about the promotion of the new stuff", "the company makes the lists", "where are the legendary songs which we love the Stones for?" etc. A LOT of fans, myself included, agreed with this criticism. I know, this statement sounds "heretical" to many fans on the board, but personally never liked the model "we are playing last album and a few older anthems- and just the same".

After all it's a matter of taste and of personal preferences. Yes, i have to admit that performing only one song from ABB affects the balance between new stuff- classics- diamonds rarely played, atleast the balance i like. But that happens because the Stones are shuffling the pack of cards during the tour. And that's very good IMO! They are "diging" enough giving us songs never played before, like "Sway" or "She Was Hot". They play songs rarely performed in the last years, like "She's So Cold" or "All Down The Line". Maybe you like this model, maybe you don't. But why on earth this job must be considered as "lazy"?? I suppose 1972 and 1978 maniers (especially the second one) would be much more comfortable for them: playing basically ABB. That's the last album, so they don't need hard efforts to remember something. And the rest stuff the SAME, every night... Would you prefer something like that? Something so "working" (!) and so "representative" of the Stones career???
Thanks God, fortunately, they're smart enough!

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember very good some negative articls
> published on greek newspapers in 1978 and 1981/82
> too. The focal point of their arguments was just
> one stricture: "They care only about the promotion
> of the new stuff", "the company makes the lists",
> "where are the legendary songs which we love the
> Stones for?" etc. A LOT of fans, myself included,
> agreed with this criticism. I know, this statement
> sounds "heretical" to many fans on the board, but
> personally never liked the model "we are playing
> last album and a few older anthems- and just the
> same".
>
> After all it's a matter of taste and of personal
> preferences. Yes, i have to admit that performing
> only one song from ABB affects the balance between
> new stuff- classics- diamonds rarely played,
> atleast the balance i like. But that happens
> because the Stones are shuffling the pack of cards
> during the tour. And that's very good IMO! They
> are "diging" enough giving us songs never played
> before, like "Sway" or "She Was Hot". They play
> songs rarely performed in the last years, like
> "She's So Cold" or "All Down The Line". Maybe you
> like this model, maybe you don't. But why on earth
> this job must be considered as "lazy"?? I suppose
> 1972 and 1978 maniers (especially the second one)
> would be much more comfortable for them: playing
> basically ABB. That's the last album, so they
> don't need hard efforts to remember something. And
> the rest stuff the SAME, every night... Would you
> prefer something like that? Something so "working"
> (!) and so "representative" of the Stones
> career???
> Thanks God, fortunately, they're smart enough!


Matter of fact...yes!!!

melillo wrote: "if you want the full stadiums again they need a smash single like start me up which will never happen again imho, the stones new music get NO radio play at all, how can they expect [people to buy it and want to come and see it"

Since 1989 they attract on every tour million people without having a "smash single" in their pocket. Their sucess as live act doesn't depend on it.

As "the Worst" said, all this talk about "full stadiums" or "half- empty stadiums" is pointless. It's completely meaningless as for a band that will have played to 3.6 million people until the end of the year - having so high, unfortunately, ticket prices. As for a band that will add a huge number in 2007 too. As for a band that did an incredibly number of gigs in the last years, wordlwide. As for a band that visits american cities once again, doing the 4th or 5th concert during the same tour.

According to the official numbers Georgelicks gave us recently (tour's start- September 29, 2006), the "problematic" tour's leg was the european round (OK, we must add up 2-3 american gigs of the current leg). And on their "problematic" leg the Stones had 11 out 19 gigs with more than 90% analogy between tickets sold - capacity. Average percentage in Europe was 87%. Worst analogy in Berlin, 68%. Where exactly are the "half empty stadiums", exept on the 4th Chicago gig, on a "Alaska night"?

YPatrick you're talkin rubbish!

We don't need pillocks talking crap...

"They are not going out with a bang despite what statistics say"

Yes, Harm, statistics can do something "tricky". They can "offer" 2-3 "factitious" sellouts, reducing the number of tickets available. All of us know, for example, that Giants capacity is bigger than 48,000. It's 59,000. But we are talking about 2-3 cases in USA. That's the whole "story". And, fortunately, there aren't only the statistics around. There are our eyes too. There are the reviews. Have you heard someone saying "i was at this gig, the crowd was 35,000, not 51,878 as official statistics say"? I don't think so. In contrary, in one case happened the opposite: all the fans know that in Stade De France went much more than 62,761 people. Something smells like tax evasion here (i suppose M Cohl knows better...), but that's another story.

I don't know if it must be called "bang". But attracting so many people with these prices on the 4th tour in the last 11 years for sure it's a little miracle. Criticism sometimes is right and always it's useful. But i can understand fans who obviously underestimate or even refuse the success of the band, just to "justify" their criticism...

Star Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YPatrick you're talkin rubbish!
>
> We don't need pillocks talking crap...

If you say so.......

they make more money and more attendance since 89 cause the tours are longer and the prices are higher, not because there is more demand to see them

Just enjoy it while you can. There ain't gonna be another 40 years ahead of us with The Stones touring.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you want the full stadiums again they need a
> smash single like start me up
> which will never happen again imho, the stones new
> music get NO radio play at all, how can they
> expect [people to buy it and want to come and see
> it


1)Think this is quite true...many people are like lemmings and will flock to artist with the "big hit" at the moment. With the right single they may get the airplay, downloading, etc.

2)They also need to keep shaking upp the set list...as they have been doing to a degree IMO lately... to keep the "real" fans happy at the shows.

3) To "sell out" the shows they also need to LOWER the PRICES of the goddam tickets! Simple as that...believe me they could still make a profit with $200 seats.

4) Consder nonstadium shows. Do arenas with a more stripped down approach, maybe 1 sax player, 1 backup singer and a keyboard player. No pyrotechnics or blowup tongues (though I do kinds like it), no onstage seats, a stage ala 1978-81. That would reduce costs...then you can reduce tix prices.

i agree in principle with patrick - but at the same time, if i never heard Oh No Not Rough Jvstice Again, i'd hardly shed a tear. i'd much rather see them promoting Voodoo Lounge now, actually . . .

you can't catch me!

melillo : "they make more money and more attendance since 89 cause the tours are longer and the prices are higher, not because there is more demand to see them"

Forget the money they make- who cares? Just look at the other factors.

(a) Yes, since 1989 Stones tours are longer. So what? If a band is able to visit more cities of the same countries and to play in packed stadiums, i suppose that does mean "vast popularity". If a band can visit during a tour four of five times an american city attracting many people, i think we have another popularity's figure.

(b) During the seventies tours were shorter, because the band was doing them very often. 1989/90 was the first tour after 8 years and it included a huge "virgin" market- Japan (attendance 500,000). Voodoo Lounge was the first round after 5 years and it included another huge "virgin" market- South America (900,000). But now? The frequency of tours in the last years reminds us of the seventies. The Stones aren't a rare act anymore, never had been since 1994. In contrary, everyone who just wanted to see a mythical band while he could, without taking any real interest in their music, had not one or two, but a lot of opportunities. But the band still attracts million people. If this doesn't mean "popularity", what the hell does mean? In 2005/07, IMO this success is more remarkable than what we have seen in the past dacades. For the reasons i mentioned.

(c) I'm bothered by the ticket prices, of course - as anyone. On the other hand, the fact that the band plays to so many people despite these prices means something too. Unless you believe that the Stones are attracting 4-5 million "millionairs" all over the world. I went to 4 gigs in Europe. I have seen a notable number of enthousiastic young people in the stadiums. Despite these prices. Nice to see it.

In every case, the Stones don't need a "smash hit" to attract million people. Is not a "smash hit" what people asking for. Since 1989 people ask from the Stones great performances, energy...and they have it!
Remember the last Floyd's tour. It was very successful, of course. Had they a "smash single" like "Another Brick On the Wall" in their pocket? No. Have U2 a real "smash hit" since 1991 ("One")? I don't think so. Noone remembers today "Lemon" or "Discoteque". But they're a very successful live act since then, even if sometimes (USA 1997) they played in half empty stadiums many times...

patricks point is a very good one,what everyones real complaint should be is why are they not playing atleast 2 and a half hour shows,2.15 at the very least.abb is a great album and to not play atleast 5 songs off of it every night makes no sense.23 song set lists should be standard,they could play a few slower tunes,and mick gets a 10 minute break when keith sings anyway.don't say its there age cause(iv'e seen 6 shows this tour)and jagger could go 4-5 more songs with ease.(elton john played almost 4 hours in ny last year,with no break)and he is also 60.)dont get me wrong the shows have been great,but to stay current you need to play current.10 hits,5 new,2 keith,5 or so deep cuts,(like stray cat blues,she was hot,time waits,etc.)why cant they figure this out.

john scialfa