to be fair, the stones have played many rare songs since btb, but for the most part they rely heavily on the cookie cutter setlists when all is said and done

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW Logie
>
> Bruce's UK shows in 2008 appear to be (according
> to sources on the Bruce forums)
>
> May 28 Old Trafford, Manchester (Lancashire
> cricket ground, not MUFC)
> 30 Emirates Stadium, London (and probably the next
> night too)
> June 14 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
>
> maybe there'll be 1 or 2 more.
>
>
> I've heard the May 30th show goes on sale
> Wednesday.


Excellent news Gazza and many thanks!

BTW, do you know if there is a FOS section for the outdoor gigs?

PS. Will e-mail you some time next week re-Belfast. Premier Travel Lodge now booked for two nights (there was sod all left!). Can't wait!!

I read there will be an extra concert in Oslo. Gives me a 2nd chance!

BTW, brilliant post above, Gazza



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-02 22:47 by Erik_Snow.

LOGIE Wrote:
> BTW, do you know if there is a FOS section for the
> outdoor gigs?

I would imagine so


>
> PS. Will e-mail you some time next week
> re-Belfast. Premier Travel Lodge now booked for
> two nights (there was sod all left!). Can't wait!!

cool. Look forward to seeing you.

Erik_Snow Wrote:

> I read there will be an extra concert in Oslo.
> Gives me a 2nd chance!

Vallehovin Stadium, 7 July, 2008 according to Pollstar.com

Hey thanks, Edith, that's a big stadium, tickets won't a problem then

8-9 songs that 98% of the crowd had no idea what they were hearing...............

Not from the reports I've read....

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said it before and I'll say it again. The Stones
> should play more new songs but Bruce plays too
> many new songs imo. Bruce and The Stones both have
> huge catalogs and if I ever go to a Springsteen
> concert I want to hear classics like Bandlands,
> The River, Thunder Road, etc. etc.- not eight new
> songs.

Hmm...well, if you were to go, you can hear both..and as a fan of any act with a large back catalogue, surely from one tour to the next,you could understand that some big favourites get dropped and some get brought back in. He's playing a HUGE amount of songs from his 70's albums on this tour - more so than in any tour hes done for decades. So, its a good mix of new and 'classic' stuff. Tonight's show in Mannheim was a 23-song set which included 11 songs from 'Born In The USA' (1984) or earlier..as well as 8 off his new record.

I think its easier to keep that balance though when one act is playing 23-24 songs per show and another is playing 18-19. Unfortunately, when the Stones streamline their set as a tour progresses and shorten the show it tends to be the new or 'surprise' songs that get dropped, not the warhorses. So the show evolves from consisting of 50% "hits" to about 65-75% in that category.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-03 00:12 by Gazza.

jjflash73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 8-9 songs that 98% of the crowd had no idea what
> they were hearing...............


I've heard several torrents from the tour already, and it seems if anything, that 98% of the crowd not only know the songs, but can sing along with most of the words as well!

that must be awesome hearing bruce and 98% of the crowd singing along-kumbaya anyone?

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jjflash73 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 8-9 songs that 98% of the crowd had no idea
> what
> > they were hearing...............
>
>
> I've heard several torrents from the tour already,
> and it seems if anything, that 98% of the crowd
> not only know the songs, but can sing along with
> most of the words as well!


LOL...some of them were singing along to the new songs at the rehearsal shows..before the album actually came out.

As good as the new stuff is,I'm hoping that on the next leg he drops it down to 4,5 new songs and throws in a few more fan favorites.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

I kind of have mixed emotions to both sides of the set list argument but ultimately I agree with the side who wish the Stones would include more newer songs (especially when they are supporting a new record like AB as well as older ones rarely played before, along with maybe a handful+ of standards. A friend of mine who likes the Stones and has gone to a number of shows with me over the years surprised me when he said to me recently that he probably won't see them again since he always hears so many of the same songs - even though he really likes the shows. He is more of a casual fan. I went back and reviewed the set lists of the last 5 Stones shows he has attended with me in Philadelphia and the vicinity over the last 10 years or so and came up with the following numbers:

For these 5 shows:

105 total songs (average of 21 a night)
65 different songs

This averages to about 13 different songs a show (for these five shows) along with 8 of the standards played basically every show. I think the 8 standards were:

Jumping Jack Flash
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice
Honky Tonk Women
Sympathy for the Devil
Start Me Up
Satisfaction
It's Only Rock N' Roll

He was surpised when we went over this by how many different songs he actually saw/ heard them play during this time span. This certainly was not a scientific study but I was even surprised when I saw the numbers on these five shows. I still think they could reduce the standards from the 8 listed above to maybe 4 or 5 leave another handful for newer songs and the other 10 for rarities, other hits they don't play that much, etc.

Jimmer

ya gets what they gives you...and bruce is giving people something contemporary with great passion; he knows it's only rock and roll but he believes in a promised land and he'll tell you about it so hard that you'll see it too...
he hit the road with this album like he was on fire with it...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-03 06:20 by Beelyboy.

Went with a friend to see Springsteen a while back, only went because of free ticket, otherwise I'd really have been pissed off by the show. Can't complain a show is crap if you're there for free, or can you.

Talked into buying ticket and going with same friend to see Dylan. Cat being strangled comes to mind as does the word 'senile'

Far as I'm concerned the Stones have the perfect formula for their shows. They are more than the greatest rock band, they are entertainers, which is something the rest aren't. Mick works his ass off and has the crowd eating out of his hand, as does Keith, Ronnie, Charlie is in own way, Lisa etc and yes, even the stage, lighting et al play a part. A good mix for all and most essential, they leave you wanting more.

Not like others who have you looking at your watch every few seconds and wondering when this moron on stage who likes to hear himself make a noise, is going to eff off so you can go home and shoot yourself.
Maybe you should go for broke and go see the incredible anorexic give us your money spice thingies.

When the Stones have been the highest grossing live act for the last 20 years can you see why the Stones are reluctant to do anymore.

they also still enjoy each tour?

if it aint bust why fix it?

Thats not saying I wouldn't mind new material just that I can see why they probably don't change.....

Bah, give me The Stones anytime...

Yeah, that's the right spirit! We don't want 'em to change a bloody thing. We want to hear JJF, IORR, Brown Sugar and Tumblin' Dice over and over again.....

Yesterday I was in Mannheim to see Bruce and it was absolutely fantastic. Might go down as the best concert of any artist I've seen so far.
It was fast (23 songs in hardly over 2 hours) and he kept his promise "Tonight I'm gonna burn this town down". I'll definitely have to see him again next summer!

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the Stones have been the highest grossing
> live act for the last 20 years can you see why the
> Stones are reluctant to do anymore.

Well..yes, but wouldnt you agree that the obsession to achieve that 'landmark' detracts from things a little? It has to be about more than spectacle and profit. As that post I quoted earlier by Rev Robert W. states, theres much more to that fantastic body of work than the 'big rock anthems'..

>
> they also still enjoy each tour?
>
> if it aint bust why fix it?
>
> Thats not saying I wouldn't mind new material just
> that I can see why they probably don't change.....


See..I wouldnt go as far as to suggest its "bust". Far from it. It's still running pretty well. Maybe just in need of a little tweak or an oil change now and again.

I just hope that the stones will play "satisfaction" in 10 different versions (each gig) next tour. That's what people want to hear ie. Satisfaction.

Yes, Thurrick, you are right:
Dylan is senile (except that his latest almum sold 4x AB and Springsteen can't entertain the audience at all.

Stones have the perfect mix indeed: More Sympathy, more BS, More Satisfaction, more IORR, etc. I think we only need less guitars and more back ground vocalists.

leaving you wanting for lots more indeed........

Hey Gaz I agree with you. But I can see why the Stones are reluctant to give too much if its so successful as it is.

Don't you also think that alot of people now go to the stones because of nostalgia, see the old buggers do it one more time? Unlike Springstein who'd would attrract more 'music' fans? Most people could name 5 stones tracks but would struggle with Springsteins (I mean joe public).

For me, again, for me, the Stones is more of an atmospheric thing, the whole experience of a stones concert. The crowd, the band, the music, everything. When I see Bruce, I am focused in on Bruce, and his band from time to time. The music comes from a different emotional level, I can't explain it. And people, I am not saying one is better than the other, It's just different. They are 2 world class acts any way you look at it.

Sorry, but the Stones can learn nothing from Bruce Springstee - except how to sell records to truckers!!

lol, you're referring to the Seeger Sessions? I actually like them a lot!! It's a pity I missed the tour, but he still plays American Land on the Magic tour; brought down the house yesterday!

I still find it interesting that this particular record with American folk was a much larger success in Europe than in America! There are lots of people who are really fond of it here!

ablett Wrote:
> Don't you also think that alot of people now go to
> the stones because of nostalgia, see the old
> buggers do it one more time?


Yes, but thats the problem. The 'last tour' mentality has been there since about 1976 (not by the Stones - to their eternal credit - but by the public and media)

Surely the onus is on the Stones to turn that around and prove that theyre NOT an ageing nostalgia act on their last legs making a fortune from just playing their big hits to an audience who are seeing them as 'just another big act who we have to see before they croak it'. I'm convinced they still have it in them to do that (I also think that on the Licks tour, even though they didnt have a new album out, they went some way to redress that image by an imaginative variety of shows and by making some daring departures in song selection). The 'this could be the last time' carrot has been dangling in front of the public for about two thirds of their career or more. There should be more to the appeal of a Stones concert than that.

>Unlike Springstein who'd would attrract more 'music' fans? Most people could name 5 stones tracks but would struggle with Springsteins (I mean joe public).

but why cant the Stones appeal to the "music fans" you speak of? Seriously. Look at that body of work they have. I mean, surely the fact that you're dismissing or accepting them as JUST being this 'nostalgia' act instead of a 'music' act (when they are regarded by anyone who knows the slightest thing about 'music' as one of the all time greats) is in a way cheapening what they are.

I know you dont mean it deliberately or in a disrespectful manner but surely our expectations have to be a bit higher than that?

Has anybody heard some of that new Bruce stuff? Alot of it is crap. I was just at his show. Alot of pee breaks during those songs. A constant stream of people going to the john or for food or beer. Gives me the Stones anyday.

I really think that Magic is WAY better than The Rising - of course the subject matter of The Rising (9-11) was much bleaker.

"No Anchovies, Please"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-03 21:31 by Elmo Lewis.