Is the fact that they played a shortened set on the last tour featuring only 19 songs an indication that they are now getting older? I saw them at Madison Sq in Sept 2005 and they played 22 songs for a total time of 2hrs 15 mins. Now they barely made it 2 hours. Is this the shape of things to come? I hope not. Maybe they will soon need ventilators at the side of the stage.

How many people who post on this site would be able to run/dance and sing for 2 hours (with a 10 minute break)?? Or bash the drums??

their shows in the 60s and 70s were far shorter - and the setlists much more consistent from show to show.

Lets face it, Keith only did Happy for years.

quite right thecitadel - don't know what they're moaning at... there will be plenty to feel bad about when they do call it a day so just enjoy the GREATEST ROCK N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD!

"till the next time..."

Ok, they did just 19 songs per show but a showtime takes still 1:50 up to two hours but not because they make longer breaks, no, but they play many songs a bit longer. And there are many +5 min songs in their set: Midnight Rambker, YCAGWYW, Miss You, Sympathy For The Devil, CYHMK...

I don't count songs at shows. I just have a great time.

Since this time they do also have no break to go back and forth to the small stage. That took at least 5-10 minutes. So the showtime seem to be shorter, but more condensed.

First time I saw them, in 1965, the set was less than 30 minutes... One could hardly hear them, for the screaming girls - having orgasms, or pretending to be... As usual! And they did two shows every night - and they were from 22 to 29 years old.

thecitadel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many people who post on this site would be
> able to run/dance and sing for 2 hours (with a 10
> minute break)?? Or bash the drums??
>
> their shows in the 60s and 70s were far shorter -
> and the setlists much more consistent from show to
> show.
>
> Lets face it, Keith only did Happy for years.


we are talking about the stones, not about people on this forum.

My band does a 30 - 45 minute set. Keep it short and sweet - keep them wanting more!

They did 19 song sets also in 2003 during most of the Australian and European legs and in 2006 on nearly every show after London, including the US dates.
This time was the first tour since 1989 that had 18 song-sets (Halifax, Budva, Budapest, Bucharest).
Vienna and Austin in 2006 got 21 songs though.

Hanns Rainsch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This time was the first tour since 1989 that had
> 18 song-sets (Halifax, Budva, Budapest,
> Bucharest).

That's not true. On Licks they played a 18-song set in Munich, Zirkus Krone, or in Enmore, Sydney.
In 1999 Shepherds Bush they also had 18 songs.

On the opening night of Voodoo in DC they did 27 songs (later pared down to 24 or so). They exhausted both themselves and the audience. I saw a comparitively abbreviated show a few weeks later which still ranks as my all time favorite

The stlists in general are getting shorter with each tour. Thats down to age I guess. Heaven knows why it's always seemingly shortned for Europe. It's not as if they don't have a break in between legs.

This is a topic I've brought up myself a few times over the years.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Heaven knows why it's always seemingly shortned for Europe.


That's a relevant question. I've been pondering over this matter, but there's no clear explanation as far as I know.

Thanks Keefed, I forgot.
Btw, I wouldn't count then as regular shows; it were all club shows with a lot of rarities in very hot rooms.

I go to very many different concerts and the Stones Concerts are way over average in duration. So I'm not complaining.

I do have to agree with you though about the fact that the length of the show has slightly been reduced.