With one day delay due to a cold, Springsteen played a s.o. wild from the start 30,000 crowd last night in Holland:
- eight new songs, all very well received by the crowd from whom clearly most knew the Magic songs . The night before in Milan he played 9(!) new songs.
- only three songs which reached the hitparade in Holland (Dancing in the dark/(sucks), Tunnel of Love and Born the run)
No 'the river' or 'born to run' etc.

He trew in ' Santa C. is coming to town' too as we have Santa C. in Holland this week.

Steven vZ sounded much meaner on guiter than I thougt and Max Weinberg is a much harder/tight drummer than I realized

A great rock and roll night, easily held together by Magic

In addition to that Sprimngsteen released the beautiful remastered \ Born to Run box with that great new '75 DVD as surprise. And some yrs ago he released that 4/5(?) CD box with outtakes,etc.

And still some fans here are defending the Stones not to open the vaults ' because the Stones still go strong....'

Strong? With playing only one song from their last CD? And guitar players who are far up behind any of their same generation collegues.


Next Springsteen gig will be July 2008 Barcelona, fos tickets. Thanks to my Spanish friend

Wake up Stones !

The Rolling Stones are not Dylan or Springsteen. If you want improvisations or a dozen "new" songs then you don't go to a Stones show. Why, after 44 years, do people still expect the Stones to change? They have played the same setlists on every tour for 44 years. That is the Stones.

Bjornulf

Greatness can also come through growth and experimentation. A band needs to evolve too....

...as does the music.

Playing Satisfaction for the zillionth time (at the expense of newer material), smacks of pure laziness.

Variety is the spice of life!

did he do badlands?? I like that one!!

Actually Keith himself says Stones are about some improvisation, he never plays a riff the exact same way (JJF). And they used to be compared to jazzbands in the 70s (I have no source, I read it, once, many years ago). They did change a lot actually. Line ups, members, styles, new songs, old songs back, new versions, same live versions but with slight differences etc. I think they played songs like Shattered and Shes so cold good this last tour, almost new versions. Thief in the night was a good in 1998 a new song that I like. the Last Time was good in Canada 1997 (one of Mick's best performances ever).

BV, in '78 Stones played some 8 songs from SG, in '76 that played Hot Stuff, Hand of Fate, Hey Negrita, Fool to Cry each night to promote B&B, even during VL and the first gigs of BTB they played a reasonable amount of new gigs.
But when it comes to new songs on tour ABB was a low point in Stones history.

Lazyness or lack of self confidence I don't know. There were sufficient decent songs on ABB to play at least some 6 from the album each night

LoFL! i heard four totally different approaches to Satisfaction last year and came home blissed
only to read here that "ohh nooo what's he doing, he's changing it, he's messed up what's wrong"
and the wonder of it is: they keep finding the heart to come back to us anyway.

they're the Rolling Stones.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why, after 44
> years, do people still expect the Stones to
> change? They have played the same setlists on
> every tour for 44 years.

Really?

the thing is - you say that as if its a positive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-02 18:20 by Gazza.

Life is too short to bitch about setlists. If you want variety - Springsteen would be your man and if you want the same warhorses over and over again- The Rolling Stones would be your choice. Simple as that.

How about if you like them both and think its a bit of a waste that a band who have released about 350 songs and have put out a body of work that compares with pretty much any act in musical history (and who are still making good records) chooses to sell themselves short by ignoring much of that great material?

Theres nothing wrong with wanting your favourite band to continue evolving and re-discovering what made them great instead of merely stagnating.

Its not a question of 'bitching about setlists' - it's about ambition. You're right about 'life is too short' though....however, on that theme, they're not going to be around forever and it would be a bit of a shame if the last few years of their great career is going to see them feeling 'obliged' to spend a large % of the show year in year out going through the motions of playing the same material when they have so much more to give.

Read Rev Robert W.'s posts on this link - especially the one at the bottom.
[www.iorr.org]

Sums up perfectly what the Stones - great as they still are - could still be capable of.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-02 19:11 by Gazza.

For French people, tickets for June 2008 at Paris The Parc des Princes, where The Stones played 3 enormous Urban Jungle gigs, will be on sale tomorrow at 10:00 pm.

>>Read Rev Robert W.'s posts on this link - especially the one at the bottom.
[www.iorr.org]

Sums up perfectly what the Stones - great as they still are - could still be capable of.<<

wow, great post of the Reverend.
I hadn't read it - thanks for pointing to it, Gazza.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the Last Time was good in Canada 1997 (one of Mick's best performances ever).

Which show do you mean?

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For French people, tickets for June 2008 at Paris
> The Parc des Princes, where The Stones played 3
> enormous Urban Jungle gigs, will be on sale
> tomorrow at 10:00 pm.


10 am, I assume you mean.

Incidentally - unlike other Euro dates, there has been a presale on the promoter's site since Friday for this show.

www.gdp.fr

thats because bruce is not afraid to play his new stuff, he has confidence in his new stuff as should the stones, but for some reason they dont these days

I agree with Kees ... still love the Stones though . . . but wish they played a lot more ABB . . . ABB is a great disc . . . Let's hope Keith's head improves, and K&Ronnie stay sober, then the next shows may be better.

What does the normal one time concert goer expect from a band like the Rolling Stones or Led Zep or any other big band: They want to hear the songs they know and this is only a few, very few. Of course I would have loved more variety during Bigger Bang (which I had by the way 25 shows in 3 years and about 70 different songs or so is not to bad). But I agree that the Licks Tour was the more favourable one when it comes to the variety of songs.
One can argue over the next decades and it will be always the same. I remember when Led Zep brought out In Through the Outdoor and the big yawning went around. Today everybody is eager even to hear all my love and that stuff, just to be able to get them back on stage. Once they would tour again, it would be the same .... moaning.
I had a great time this summer, met so many people and a marvellous trilogy at the O2. I wonder if you are still able to dance that night away....

Not only is Bruce not afraid to play the majority of his new album,on any given night he can reach back into his catalog and play any song. With confidence.
No the Stones are not Springsteen and are still my favorite band. But right now the E-Street band is a far superior live act.

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

Rockingfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does the normal one time concert goer expect
> from a band like the Rolling Stones or Led Zep or
> any other big band: They want to hear the songs
> they know and this is only a few, very few.

I find it hard to believe that this phenomenon only seems to apply to the likes of the Stones or Led Zeppelin or 'any other big band'. Less so with the Stones, as they tour so frequently. There's not many people left whose last or next Stones concert will be their only time. Since they returned to touring in 1989, they must have played to around 30 million people.

I also find it hard to reconcile this "the audience only know very few songs" nonsense with the two acts youve mentioned, considering the fact that theyre two of the three most successful bands in the history of popular music and have between them sold in excess of 500 million albums worldwide.

If less commercially successful artists can dip more deeply into their back catalogue, there's no logic to your argument IMHO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-02 21:22 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Read Rev Robert W.'s posts on this link -
> especially the one at the bottom.
> [www.iorr.org]
>
> Sums up perfectly what the Stones - great as they
> still are - could still be capable of.


A superb post by Rev Robert...and thanks for reminding us Gazza.

I don't say it is positive or negative. I say it is a fact. On many tours especially the early ones they played the same set list every night. That's how they like to do it. May be that is the magic formula. How come more and more millions of people come and see then after all these years and we all know it is a fact? Are all these millions of fans plain stupide? How come each and every one of you (and me) keep following this band and talking about them every day and night? Don't we have a life? Do we hope they will start playing from their entire back catalogue 100's of songe one day? Or do we love them somply because of what they do, who they are and how they play it? Waiting for them to start playing 20 different songs every night is like waiting for the lottery calling about the jackpot. It might bhappen but not very likely.

Bjornulf

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.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't say it is positive or negative. I say it
> is a fact.

well, thats not how it read. They havent played the 'same show' all that time. Look at 1972-73 for example. It was pretty much the same show from night to night, but there was generally nothing prior to 1968 performed. A huge sea change from what they had been doing up to 1967.

Theyve updated it for most of those years to include new material, rest certain songs (Satisfaction was barely played throughout the 70's for example) or dig out old ones that havent been played for some time. Nowadays, it just seems to lean heavier on the best known songs than before.

On many tours especially the early ones
> they played the same set list every night. That's
> how they like to do it. May be that is the magic
> formula. How come more and more millions of people
> come and see then after all these years and we all
> know it is a fact?

The diversity of the setlist during the same tour wasnt really just what the discussion was about, in fairness. It was also about from one tour to the next. They have enough great songs to be able to drop some of the better known ones once in a while without it causing so much as a flutter in their audience. I dont recall too many fans vowing never to come back after No Security because they rested Satisfaction and Miss You.


Are all these millions of fans
> plain stupide?

The Stones seem to believe that many of them are, I think. Thats what I'm getting at by pointing out that the number of records theyve sold would suggest that there are more people in the world who know more than "very few" songs that the Stones - and others - seem to want to believe. Audiences are more discerning than many people seem to assume.

How come each and every one of you
> (and me) keep following this band and talking
> about them every day and night? Don't we have a
> life? Do we hope they will start playing from
> their entire back catalogue 100's of songe one
> day? Or do we love them somply because of what
> they do, who they are and how they play it?

Isn't it possible to be in both camps? I enjoy the shows every bit as much as you or anyone else does - like you said, I wouldnt be following them around different countries if I didnt - but dont you think they could and should keep evolving? If you cant play new songs then surely it defeats the purpose of recording and releasing them to begin with. Do you want the Stones to stop making records? I certainly don't.

> Waiting for them to start playing 20 different
> songs every night is like waiting for the lottery
> calling about the jackpot. It might bhappen but
> not very likely.


No ones suggesting 20 different songs every night - who said that? Why does everything have to be as black and white as that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-03 01:20 by Gazza.

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.

It was different back in the day for The Stones and Springsteen because many of their new songs were future classics but now it is different. You are not hearing future classics- most of their new songs will be quickly forgotten in two years.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

It's not just about the setlists with Springsteen. Everything about this tour has been fan friendly. From the choice of venues,to reasonable ticket prices,to having a GA section up close,to playing an imaginative setlist everynight. Having a major act of that stature to compare it to after a 3 year tour by the Stones speaks volumes about the contrast in styles. I think that's why it's a little more obvious right now.
Like bv said,we all still follow the stones and talk about them everyday and have for the most part put up with their take it or leave it style. But I don't know that,that will continue to work for the Stones. But after 44 years I guess it does'nt have to.

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

Yep and somwhere someone is righting a review saying Springsteen played to much new stuff. This is a no win situation for classic rock bands either they play to much new stuff or too little people will never be happy. So here's my suggestion if you like the band go see them and have a good time regardless of what they play if your going to complain just stay home.

I don't normally get into these ongoing discussions about the Stones and what they should and should not do. I love them and have put myself in financial debt following them around. And maybe I am spouting off as I have just experienced two back to back Bruce shows(Boston)that have left me at a loss for words. When the last of my three London shows were over, I couldn't help but feel disappointed that they hadn't changed it up for what might be their "last concert."

I'm with Gazza on this one. I don't think we should excuse them for their laziness. We pay big money to see them.

Will I continue to go see the band I love? Most likely. But If I need to consider my finances, I just might change which band I travel all over the country to see!!

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LoFL! i heard four totally different approaches to
> Satisfaction last year and came home blissed
> only to read here that "ohh nooo what's he doing,
> he's changing it, he's messed up what's wrong"
> and the wonder of it is: they keep finding the
> heart to come back to us anyway.
>
> they're the Rolling Stones.


Hm, I dont think people complained about Keith changing the song.