Was anyone else really disappointed with the set list on Sunday? They could have really pulled out some gems, especially as it was the last night of the entire world tour. Having witnessed a truly great gig at the 02 on Thursday with thunderous versions of Midnight Rambler and Paint It Black and an extremely rare outing for Shine A Light it seemed as if Sunday would be the night where they really rewarded the fans. The only rarity really was Ain't Too Proud To Beg and having the kids on to sing backing vocals on Sympathy. It could have been so much greater.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-28 19:06 by Silver Dagger.

Silver Dagger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was anyone else really disappointed with the set
> list on Sunday? They could have really pulled out
> some gems, especially as it was the last night of
> the entire world tour. Having witnessed a truly
> great gig at the 02 on Thursday with thunderous
> versions of Midnight Rambler and Gimme Shelter and
> an extremely rare outing for Shine A Light it
> seemed as if Sunday would be the night where they
> really rewarded the fans. The only rarity really
> was Ain't Too Proud To Beg and having the kids on
> to sing backing vocals on Sympathy. It could have
> been so much greater.


Well, the setlist wasn't anything special. But you know, just being there was great. And when they bang out those riffs it makes no differnce. I loved the setlist even though I saw one similar in Brno and Copenhagen. The songs they did was great. And I got my wish for She Was Hot fulfilled.

JumpingKentFlash

yippee!!!

Thought it was taking a while for the moaning to start. feel better now.

I liked the set list. but hey ho, big enough world for everyone

usually i moan about setlists but i wasnt going to think about setlists once i went to the concert.

i went to enjoy the whole show, no matter what they put on.

but to hear "she was hot" was a great surprise cos they dont do it often and i thought they done a great version.

>> thunderous versions of Midnight Rambler and Gimme Shelter <<

they didn't play Gimmie Shelter at any of the o2 shows
(negativity when one doesn't have one's facts straight is so declasse!)

the Rolling Stones never said or implied that the London shows would be radically different
from other shows on this leg, and that was way cool with me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-28 16:17 by with sssoul.

I wasn't disappointed- I thought She Was Hot was magnificent and a surprise.

I didn't expect to hear anything ultra rare and I never seem to tire of hearing the warhorses, although I can understand that for those who do see a lot of shows (Sunday was only my 9th) expectations may be higher.

Yup, sorry. I meant Paint It Black.

"the Rolling Stones never said or implied that the London shows would be radically different"

You'd think the Stones would realize that they are playing three shows at the same venue and many fans are going to more than one show. So wouldn't a band naturally want to change it up more for the fans. Sounds like pure laziness to me. And it comes out in the way they play some of these songs (like Miss You)

If they are going to be lazy and keep repeating the same songs, than I am going to save my money. I guess when BV said expect some surprises in London he meant having the kids on stage to sing or Mick bringing the backing singer to the front of the stage during a song. Sorry but its kind of embarassing for me as a long time Stones fan.

Yeah, my sentiments entirely J-J-Flash. When the Stones do a series of shows in one town they usually mix up their set lists. They after all master craftsmen so you would expect a certain amount of looseness. It must get boring for them to have to churn out the same songs night after night so why not have a bit of fun. I think it was laziness.

I agree there were no huge surprises in London, with the exception of Beast Of Burden and Shine A Light during the first shows.

Some people from the board are a bit disapointed.
Considering the amount of songs they could've played : Some Girls, Little T&A, Sway, Heartbreaker, just to name some they played on this leg of the tour, I share a bit of this disapointment, but on the other hand, a lot of people came out of the O2 saying, even screaming - for those who were drunk - that they had a wonderful concert. These people didn't care about "surprises".

I think we, the hard core fans, are a minority at each show.
This minority may be disapointed, but since the Stones don't fill the venues with a minority...

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

Yadda, yadda, yaddda, BLAAAAH!
I went on Thursday and it was fkin great!!!
I also wish I was there on Sunday....and Tuesday.

Set lists eh? Set lists, set lists, set lists, set lists set lists, set lists, lists, lists, lists, lists, lists, LISTS, LISTS,LISTS.........

Oily.

As good as 'Aint to proud to beg' and 'She's so hot' are - they are obviously not in the same league as 'Midnight Rambler' and 'Gimmie Shelter'.

I felt (sitting up on the 'flight path') on Saturday, that I was just watching a bunch of entertainers going through the motions. The crowd loved it, it was clearly good entertainment - but if you had come expecting to see fire and pashion of The Rolling Stones, you had to be disappointed.

I am not proud of the fact I left before the end - but I can't bring myself to go, 'Yeah yeah yeah Wooooooooo'.........

the trouble with the Stones as that is has now become an event just to see them play and those fans are there to hear the warhorse. they come once pay £200 a ticket and have a good time. They want hot Rocks performed live by the band

For every one fan on here who want different set lists there are 3 or 4 who just want the warhorses.

I went on Thurs and Sun and sure after IGC we got the same setlist i still had a great time both nights

only thing I would like them to do is mention Brian before they go into PIB as I see this as a Brian song

Just a thought.. I these days of credit cards and online booking they propably know roughly how many people attended more than 1 London show.

Pity they can't do an Internet shop for us all as well.

Well I am pretty sure the Stones have enough songs to please fans like us and people who want to hear hits. Yes they are great entertainers and put on a great show, but they are musicians as well so be creative. No Security tour didn't disappoint people and look at some of the hits that were left out of the set.

I went to both shows at the start of the tour (Fenway) and they played identical set lists both nights. I learned my lesson and figured something similar would happen in London and it did, but they played about 4 less songs and cut out what I thought were two real highlights early on in the tour (Back of my Hand and Out of Control)

I know a few people who rolled the dice, spent a fortune to travel to see the London shows with the idea that these shows would be something special from a setlist perspective. I also know these people would never publicly admit that they are disappointed and wished they had not rolled the dice in retrospect.

No - the Stones never promised a rose garden, but the opportunity was certainly at hand to deliver something "interesting" that would satisfy all-comers. Alas....

sherer1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the trouble with the Stones as that is has now
> become an event just to see them play and those
> fans are there to hear the warhorse. they come
> once pay £200 a ticket and have a good time. They
> want hot Rocks performed live by the band


That may be the case for many "one night stand" type shows but with Sunday's gig being the 3rd show and their 5th in London in a year plus the fact that it was the tour finale, that wasnt the case, Mick even ACKNOWLEDGED the fact on the night, pointing out how many familiar faces he could see, mentioning about fans going to 100 shows etc and how these people knew the songs better than he did - and then they played a 'standard' setlist!!!

The show was very good. The choice of songs however was definitely anti-climactic - I dont care what spin anyone puts on it. Sorry. And I know a lot of fans who wouldnt normally say anything negative publicly felt the same way.

>
> For every one fan on here who want different set
> lists there are 3 or 4 who just want the
> warhorses.

That's simply not true, and wasnt the case last weekend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-28 18:07 by Gazza.

Well you didn't get those surprises, that people in this forum had let you to believe would be there.
Otherwise it was the normal sort of shows, take it or leave, it's what they do.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know a few people who rolled the dice, spent a
> fortune to travel to see the London shows with the
> idea that these shows would be something special
> from a setlist perspective. I also know these
> people would never publicly admit that they are
> disappointed and wished they had not rolled the
> dice in retrospect.
>
> No - the Stones never promised a rose garden, but
> the opportunity was certainly at hand to deliver
> something "interesting" that would satisfy
> all-comers. Alas....


Hopefully, they weren't enticed by the rubbish contained within. That would be a shame, you know, to be mislead.

[www.iorr.org]

>> I guess when BV said expect some surprises in London he meant ... <<

you'll have to ask BV what he meant. meanwhile, the Rolling Stones didn't tell you to expect surprises.
they did three shows in a small venue instead of one giant show, and good on 'em.
i really recommend you go immerse yourself in a series - any series - of three 70s arena-show bootlegs in a row -
you'll cheer up right away :E

>> I am going to save my money <<

good

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you'll have to ask BV what he meant. meanwhile,
> the Rolling Stones didn't tell you to expect
> surprises.

Just goes to show, that you'll have to take anything you read with a grain of salt...only the band and their people know excactly what will happen.
That's why I don't believe in any more touring until they tell us at a press conference. Don't say I won't happen, just say cool down until they announce it :-)

WMiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I know a few people who rolled the dice, spent
> a
> > fortune to travel to see the London shows with
> the
> > idea that these shows would be something
> special
> > from a setlist perspective. I also know these
> > people would never publicly admit that they are
> > disappointed and wished they had not rolled the
> > dice in retrospect.
> >
> > No - the Stones never promised a rose garden,
> but
> > the opportunity was certainly at hand to
> deliver
> > something "interesting" that would satisfy
> > all-comers. Alas....
>
>
> Hopefully, they weren't enticed by the rubbish
> contained within. That would be a shame, you
> know, to be mislead.
>
> [www.iorr.org]#
> msg-789951


touchez

"i really recommend you go immerse yourself in a series - any series - of three 70s arena-show bootlegs in a row"

Don't get why people always compare today's set with the 70s when they were playing practically all new songs. Even in 1981 when the set lists were just about the same every night it still was different cause 80 percent of the songs were either never played before or not played in over 10 years.

Someone above also mentions fans come to hear Hot Rocks. Look at what songs are on Hot Rocks, half of them would have been considered surprises if played at any of the London shows.

When people say things like "don't go to the shows" after someone expresses a concern about the set lists being always the same I think they are missing the point of why people are on this board and bitch about the set lists so much.

Personally, I have a lot of friends who are music lovers and they make fun of the Stones to me cause they always play the same songs, and my friends have seen them a good amount of times. So I find myself having to constantly stick up for the Stones and why they always play the same hits. I used to say, well when they play stadiums they have to please everyone. Then my friends go see them at a smaller venue, and same songs again... So it gets tough to defend them... and I am the biggest Stones fan my friends know.

Only last london sunday 3rd gig?

All ABB tour has been the same. We could predict three or four songs in every show but the other ones were 100% undetachable.

Of course I like to hear that they will be on the road next 2008 and 2009 and... 2020, but don't doubt situation will remain the same or probably a little worse.

Just think a little bit in previous tours: LICKS, BTB, Voodoo,... Also in these tours the 66 to 75% of the songs were fixed and unnegotiable any change, so present situation is not rather different the one we are having in the last tours.

Now consider also other bands situation. Shows nowdays are like photocopies night after night, without any "wink" to the fans.

It's a pity but....

llargueras Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just think a little bit in previous tours: LICKS,
> BTB, Voodoo,... Also in these tours the 66 to 75%
> of the songs were fixed and unnegotiable any
> change, so present situation is not rather
> different the one we are having in the last
> tours.
>
> Now consider also other bands situation. Shows
> nowdays are like photocopies night after night,
> without any "wink" to the fans.
>
> It's a pity but....


Stones always played a fair amount of new songs on the tours you mention and always had fresh songs that were a staple at each show. Like Not Fade Away being an opener and so on. This tour we got Sway and As Tears Go By, but you'd be very lucky to catch either since they were seldom played.

I am sure many bands stick to the same exact set list each night but the Stones are really the only band that I follow these days that do it. I can't name another. I am not a U2 fan, maybe they do it but even a band like the Black Crows who don't have a third of the songs the Stones do still manage to keep it interesting for their fans.

Obviously some people on this site are satisfied with the Stones playing the same songs over and over again in concerts. Static setlists so to speak. That's their take on this issue and I respect that and it's quite fine with me. On the other hand, if I had attended all three of the 02 gigs I would have expected a few more changes in the setlists, at least the second part of the shows after the introductions. Keith could have easily changed at least one of his songs. Playing the same two songs for three consecutive shows at the same venue is pretty uncreative and far too predictable. Just my two cents.

i rolled the dice and went to london - tuesday's setlist was enough to justify the expense. thursday's energy level blew me away.

i too had hoped for more for sunday - would've loved to hear heartbreaker or monkey man and hear keith mix it up a bit.

>> When people say things like "don't go to the shows" after someone expresses a concern about the set lists <<

ahem: if that's directed at me, it was jjflash who said he's going to save his money.
all i did was support his decision.

>> Don't get why people always compare today's set with the 70s <<

did i say anything about comparing?? all i suggested is immersing yourself in them -
seems way more constructive than fretting because you weren't at the shows, or were, or whatever the problem is now.