I think both Magic and ABB (except for a few fillers) are both very decent albumbs who deserve to played in public.

Bruce does it.

The Stones don't Making them nothing more than a nostalgia act.

Confirmed UK dates - all shows on sale Wednesday at 9 am

28/5/08 - MANCHESTER - OLD TRAFFORD RESERVED SEATS £55.00 & £45.00 STANDING/GEN' ADMISSION £55.00

(note - this show is at Old Trafford football stadium (Manchester United FC) and not,as previously believed, the Cricket stadium where he played in 2003)

30/5/08 - LONDON - EMIRATES STADIUM RESERVED SEATS £57.50 & £47.50 STANDING/GEN' ADMISSION £57.50

14/6/08 - CARDIFF - MILLENNIUM STADIUM RESERVED SEATS £55.00 £50.00 & £40.00 STANDING/GEN' ADMISSION £55.00 (Bruce's 1st ever show in Wales)


Apparently there is a licence application in for a 2nd London show on Saturday 31st May

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?


Excellent points throughout, Gazza. I was going to respond to BV but could not have said it better.

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


Elmo,did you get tickets for Atlanta?

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

I like "Living in the Future" from the new album. It has a classic E-Street Band sound to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-03 23:40 by ryanpow.

BV is too protective. The Stones do not take chances anymore on tour and quite frankly are LAZY.

They blew it big time last tour.

Could have easily played 6-7 ABB songs. Instead, they start with 4 and end up with NONE!

Disgrance.

Yeah that's exactly what they should do. With a catalog like they have they should dedicate one third of the show to ABB. Nuts. Six songs is too many and Springsteen definitely plays too many new songs. As a casual fan, I wouldn't go to one of his concerts and be bored to tears.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah that's exactly what they should do. With a
> catalog like they have they should dedicate one
> third of the show to ABB. Nuts. Six songs is too
> many and Springsteen definitely plays too many new
> songs. As a casual fan, I wouldn't go to one of
> his concerts and be bored to tears.


So what you're saying basically is that you don't want to hear anything that is new.

Frank, at what precise age (or year) was it that you grew tired of listening to new songs, or did this particular aversion just creep on you?

I see where Frank is coming from. Any creative endeavor has a life span. a band shold continue to make new albums, but the reality is that while the new stuff may please die hard fans, after a ceritan point its going to loose universal appeal. A lot of people point to the 78 tour with a re-vamped set list... well the way I see it Some girls was really a miracle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 00:58 by ryanpow.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah that's exactly what they should do. With a
> > catalog like they have they should dedicate one
> > third of the show to ABB. Nuts. Six songs is
> too
> > many and Springsteen definitely plays too many
> new
> > songs. As a casual fan, I wouldn't go to one of
> > his concerts and be bored to tears.
>
>
> So what you're saying basically is that you don't
> want to hear anything that is new.
>
> Frank, at what precise age (or year) was it that
> you grew tired of listening to new songs, or did
> this particular aversion just creep on you?

You better get "hooked on phonics" because you can't read man. Where did I say I didn't want to hear any new songs? Are you hearing voices in your head lol?

Dedicating a third of the show to new songs is ludicrous for artists with huge song catalogs. I'm the one always pumping up ABB so why would you think I don't want to hear any new songs?

Phonics!!

Answer me this. Do you want to hear new songs live or don't you?

A yes or no will do.

FrankM got it right. Can't you read?

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phonics!!
>
> Answer me this. Do you want to hear new songs live
> or don't you?
>
> A yes or no will do.

Why should I write an answer for someone too dumb to read. Look at my posts throughout this thread and get some reading glasses lol.

It's the Amstel!!!

Ignore previous post(s)!!

Now, where was I?

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOGIE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Phonics!!
> >
> > Answer me this. Do you want to hear new songs
> live
> > or don't you?
> >
> > A yes or no will do.
>
> Why should I write an answer for someone too dumb
> to read. Look at my posts throughout this thread
> and get some reading glasses lol.


I had taken your previous post as sarcasm, which is why I responded accordingly.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah that's exactly what they should do. With a
> catalog like they have they should dedicate one
> third of the show to ABB. Nuts. Six songs is too
> many and Springsteen definitely plays too many new
> songs. As a casual fan, I wouldn't go to one of
> his concerts and be bored to tears.


but youre a 'casual' Springsteen fan (at best) and a 'big' Stones fan, so the comparison between one act playing "too many" songs doesnt add up as your personal taste in both acts isnt the same.

Personally, as a big fan of, say, Bruce, the Stones and Dylan quite equally and as someone who enjoyed each of their last albums and who has seen all of them several times, I'd be quite happy with each of them playing a sizeable amount of songs I hadnt heard on previous tours. A third would be OK by me. LOTS of artists do that. I dont see the problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 01:10 by Gazza.

FrankM Wrote:
> Dedicating a third of the show to new songs is
> ludicrous for artists with huge song catalogs.

Only to those who dont/cant appreciate them. I havent read or heard a single complaint on any of his fansites that its too many.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah that's exactly what they should do. With a
> catalog like they have they should dedicate one
> third of the show to ABB. Nuts. Six songs is too
> many and Springsteen definitely plays too many new
> songs. As a casual fan, I wouldn't go to one of
> his concerts and be bored to tears.


I would personally love the Stones to do 8/9 songs from ABB. Why not?

...and as a fan, why should I give two hoots what Joe Public or the "casual fan" wants to hear?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> > Dedicating a third of the show to new songs is
> > ludicrous for artists with huge song catalogs.
>
> Only to those who dont/cant appreciate them. I
> havent read or heard a single complaint on any of
> his fansites that its too many.

imagine touring off a #1 album and actually featuring songs from it in the set...what nerve...that bastard...
the tour is a triumph so far from all reports...
and he's the Boss, not catering to market economics but to his own passion to communicate what's going on with his new songs because he is so dedicately connected to them; that's artisty and leadership and courage and determination; that's why his dedicated organic band of brilliant original E Streeters call him the Boss...

when the stones did the exiles tour there was all material from exiles and sticky fingers mostly...i mean how dare they...they were not catering to the casual fan then...and what did it get them? relevance and the golden age?
correctomundo.

those bruce shows sell out so quick i don't even think he has any "casual" fans per se...inspires more connection, continuity and direct communication with their hearts and souls, because he's courageous and committed...
...he dosen't go slumming by trolling the super rich demographics of people who get the best seats and often don't even have one stones album in their entire collections...
the stones have to play the beacon or rcmh to get anywere near the intimacy bruce offers in an arena or even a stadium...the crowds not clueless and vacant and desperately trying to feel like they've got a piece of history in their pockets they can casually boast about at the country club...
for bruce the crowd is part of the show; part of the evening...it's an unspoken agreement...it's a special feeling...i recommend it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 01:30 by Beelyboy.

Beelyboy Wrote:
> when the stones did the exiles tour there was all
> material from exiles and sticky fingers mostly...i
> mean how dare they...they were not catering to the
> casual fan then...and what did it get them?
> relevance and the golden age?
> correctomundo.


Exactly - remember Keith's comment a few years ago? "We bow to no one". So, to endorse what Barn Owl says above, why not do shows on their own terms instead of whistling to the tune of "Joe Public" or the "casual fan"? Time to reclaim their own music, methinks. They fought hard enough to protect it years ago when Klein et al were exploiting them left, right and centre. If they believe in it, then f**king play it. They're a rock 'n' roll band with the best back catalogue in the history of any band - not the personal jukebox of some corporate ligger or someone who thinks that having the status symbol of a $500 ticket entitles him to hear the 12 songs he knows and to hell with everyone else, including the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 01:28 by Gazza.

Well no offense guys but you seem to be really self centered. The casual fan pays just as much for his ticket as the die hard fan. Of course the die hards want to hear new songs but the casual fan isn't going to want to hear eight songs they have never heard. Why is this concept so hard to understand? Everyone at these concerts is not a diehard fan. Why would a casual Springsteen fan want to hear some new semi obscure stuff instead of his classics.

Even though I consider myself a die hard Stones fan I still don't want to hear eight songs off the new album? Why? Because they have been around forty five years and have a huge catalog of hits I want to hear in addition to a few new songs.

Some great posts here recently...

Fine. Then let them play more from the 'huge catalogue' that youre talking about. Forty per cent of which has STILL never been played live. Ever.

The key is diversity and not to rely on the same material from one tour to the next. If any band has the potential to be able to avoid falling into the trap, it must be the Stones, as they have this 'huge catalogue'.

I'm sure you'd agree on that.

The difference is that one artist's fanbase who attend the shows seem able to accept and embrace new material - in fact they expect it - whereas the other seem trapped in some kind of timewarp. It shouldnt be so.

The only people in this equation who are being 'self centred' are the casual fans youre so eager for the Stones to embrace. Their lack of interest in the band's music is stifling them.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 02:01 by Gazza.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even though I consider myself a die hard Stones
> fan I still don't want to hear eight songs off the
> new album? Why? Because they have been around
> forty five years and have a huge catalog of hits I
> want to hear in addition to a few new songs.


Indeed they have been around for forty-five years, which makes it all the more ludicrous that the last twenty-five of them are so criminally under represented.

Nothing selfish about that comment is there?

I am saddened to even write this, but our favorite band has morphed into nothing more than a Broadway show. Getting the top dollar drives every decision. If they were to tour again, I would go for nostalgic reasons only. I would prefer to go see an evolving, maturing and experimenting band---yes! I still think and expect them to be that.....

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well no offense guys but you seem to be really
> self centered.

jeesh. don't know how you got there...some of the posters on this thread are amongst the most generous Stones fans in the world...

The casual fan pays just as much
> for his ticket as the die hard fan.

No they pay more because they want the event status...and a couple of grand is nothing to them; they made more than that on tax breaks for the super rich these last many years...
it's all about money and market economics, not art or continuing legacy; thanks for remindind me...


Of course the
> die hards want to hear new songs but the casual
> fan isn't going to want to hear eight songs they
> have never heard.

how do you explain the wild popularity of the current Bruce tour, and the diversity that so many fans appreciate wildly...i don't agree with your personal assessment of what "the casual fan" is or isn't going to "want to hear" nor could i care...nor do i agree with your assessment about "die hards" because everyone likes to hear a good handful of the classics done wild and true...

Why is this concept so hard to
> understand?

it's not hard to understand, it's just 1) untrue and 2) mere speculation on your part...people are connecting with that album; and bruce is wild to rock it on out...that's his job. as a writer, performer, and a man of conscience.

Everyone at these concerts is not a
> diehard fan. Why would a casual Springsteen fan
> want to hear some new semi obscure stuff instead
> of his classics.

why do the shows sell out worldwide and why are the profesional and fan reviews all so great? what part of the reality of this is hard to digest?

>
> Even though I consider myself a die hard Stones
> fan I still don't want to hear eight songs off the
> new album? Why? Because they have been around
> forty five years and have a huge catalog of hits I
> want to hear in addition to a few new songs.

have you seen any of bruce's set lists? do you know how many songs he plays?
and what percentage of them are new? and how well they go over? and how he might shake them up, change them around, re-invent them...or not...how carefully they are placed in the set to create a building experience filled with connectivity and progression as a writer and a band...
?
...and how satisfied people are to also get a taste of some his most profound classics on a rotating basis, as he constructs the set from night to night...

you don't tell picasso what to paint. or have a sales meeting with emily dickinson and tell her what's gonna work commercially or not?

tho you might find yourself saying 'uh, pablo, you've shown me that blue guitar picture a thousand times, what have you been working on recently man'?

should van gogh have done the same middling shit that most of his contemporaries were coming up with, instead of being a brilliant visionary offering a unique and enduring experience with his art? it wasn't even paying the bills, yet he didn't abandon it...what a fool, eh??

ah, the twain shall not meet; which is ok...luckily, u don't have to go to see Bruce...it's not mandadted by law...so your fear of 'tears of boredom' will not manifest...you're homefree...

I've only been to a few Bruce shows and i did see people in tears...but they were tears of joy and epihany and of having their hearts touched and their bodies freed...

i don't presume to tell the stones anything...and i've lowered my expectations according to their marketing strategy...in terms of what material is likely to be presented...

of course everyone's thrilled to hear sfm or something like that and they will always provide several of those in any case...as bruce does...

to me it shows that mick has little regard for their output from '90 on...actually from earlier than that...maybe since SG, TY, ER days...before undercover, dw, and the rest...

yeh i could see all the walkouts if they did 'highwire' or 'dance little sister' i can see the riotous confusion as people head for the exits en masse...
rough justice KILLED at the superbowl; then they dropped it?
they never did lmds, which is as perfect a twin guitar melodious rock song with heart and great lyrics as anybody could come up with...etc..etc...etc...
i could see the mega thousands crushing to get out of the stadium in disappointment...besides those casual fans are never coming back anyway...
and they're not buying any albums, and never have supported the stones career.

they want a little of the patina of being able to say they were at the event and brag about their positions, literally. those aren't fans, those are either syncophants or pathetically lost people when it come to the nitty gritty of rock and roll....

stones fans here are standing up for the band and saying they believe in them and the material and love them and don't want a disneyland automaton puppet show when the band is still so vital...

and Springsteen fans are standing up and saying thank you for not insulting our intelligence and for being present in modern day reality with your material and your empahses and your heart on your sleeve. and quite a big rock and roll rocket in your pocket.

also no backup "stage show" musicians in the E Streeters...they are all in a real band as a recording and performing unit with unity....actual members who are in it 100% and it's their own footprint and history...
which is why the entire band can turn on a dime and ace songs from any period in their huge catalog, at the drop of a look from bruce...exciting!!

people can feel stuff like that...it's a fireworks show in your heart. and it overflows...and it's not an oldies show...no one's ever come close to accusing him of that...even tho you'll hear the warhorses at a bruce show too.

imagine the courage and individualtiy and committment to art to do major concerts and skip huge hits from one of the biggest albums in the history of the genre...because he's not catering to someone elses lowest common demoninator of what they think their demographics will yield them in whatever market they can squeeze till it bleeds...

you will appreciate none of this; but someone will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 02:36 by Beelyboy.

I still think the casual fan argument does'nt work. For either Springsteen or the Stones. What after 40 years somebody suddenly says hey you know what,these guys aren't bad. Yes their may be a small percentage of the so-called casual fan who go to these shows. But mostly it's the die hards. These artists should play to that type audience.

Very well put Beelyboy

Casual vs Die hard...

When I went to Springsteen in October, a friend of mine got last minute tickets and he was able to go. He respected Bruce, but he was not one of his favorites. My friend has been to 100's of concerts.

After the show he told me that he was shockingly impressed, that show he ranks 3rd on his all time list behind an Allman Bros. show in the late 60's and a concert featuring Hendrix with Joplin opening. Steel Wheels drops to 4th place.

I don't rank shows like he does, but I probably have what I call a top 10% of concerts I attended.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 02:44 by BluzDude.

Re: Beelyboy

Conveyed so eloquently from the heart...and yes, I certainly appreciate what you're saying.

A superb piece of writing.