This is kind of off-topic, but not in how it relates to the Stones and many older bands.

Though I'm not a huge fan, I went to see Neil Young on Friday with some friends. He put on a truly amazing show, sounding better than in any any of the previous 3 or 4 times I have seen him in the last 20+ years.

Beyond his (and his great band's performance) what impressed me were his lack of fear of having a setlist consisting of mostly new music from his current record, and 'deeper' older cuts (great songs, but not generally considered 'hits'....like Everybody Knows This is Nowhere, Oh Lonesome Me).

He threw in Like a Hurricane and Cinnamon Girl as encores, but had enough confidence in the quality of his new music that he featured it prominently....even though I, and most of the audience, had not heard much of it.

It was an absolute treat. Great songs, great performance in a 3,200 seat theatre. Will the Stones ever do the same thing?

Your post brings to mind some of the reasons why I love Neil. He's got balls, he is fearless, progressive and more often than not writes and plays great songs. Will the Stones ever follow suit? They had an excellent opportunity to do recently, ostensibly touring behind on of their best records in years but the Bigger Bang Tour was that in name only as very few new songs were showcased. One can but hope they can become more progressive and relevant.

Here we go again...

No, I don't think and I don't expect that as a band the Stones will ever change their approach to setlists. And that's a good thing. Their show needs that energy that only good amount of warhorses is able to generate. If you play stadiums you have to appeal to wider audience who expects to hear well known songs and the Stones do it perfectely. Another question is when they do club shows or solo shows. But then they do provide more less-known songs (e.g. 2002-2003 club shows, or Mick's solo show in 1993 when he did almost entire Wandering Spirit album + 3 non-warhorses as an encore).

Believe, they know what they are doing and they know how to do it well.

They did it well. I and a number of friends, hit only one show on the last tour (Toronto) after it became apparent that they were playing the mass market/nostalga act.

People on here get excited over one 'gem' making it onto a setlist (CYHMK, She Was Hot).

They seem content with being vanilla, while others take on the edge live that the Stones once had.

Contrary to its well honed image, the band is very timid. It knows what works. It knows what the broadest demographic wants to see. It knows where the money is. Its shows are rituals. Music is not so much created, but performed. How you interpret what you see is a matter of taste and faith. I see a band that at every step is trying to AVOID obvious and warranted criticism. That's why I find the band's "energy" so vapid. I don't connect to it because it's a disguise. There's nothing to set this band apart from any of the entertainment acts working today, but people's faith that it is something else.

There is a reason for that. Ron Wood limits what the band can do. And outside the confines of "Rolling Stones" music, the band is not very good. It does not have anything to say. It cannot expand its musical or lyrical horizon because it does not have the talent, vision or will to do so. It has rarely exhibited the courage to even try.

People are comfortable with the shows. They know what they are going to get. It's like walking into any large corporate chain store in any city in the USA. You know right where to go. It's fabricated for your convenience.

Neil Young? He does not dance to a corporate tune. The Stones do.

The reaction to this one should be good......

If someone limits what the band can do than it is:

a) Mick, because he confirms the setlist written up by Chuck and he is a sissy when it comes to changes
b) Keith, because his arthritis and medication limits him in his abilities to play

Ronnie could play everything. I agree with the rest you wrote, pmk251.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

Stones have no excuses they have plenty of songs in their catelog to do what people like Neil, Dylan, Bruce and so many others do.

I am going to see Neil this week and next, can't wait. Much of the excitement with seeing someone like Neil is you know it will be a completely different show from the last time I saw him last summer. Wish the Stones would do the same sort of thing.

franzk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Believe, they know what they are doing and they
> know how to do it well.

I think the point is not that they don't know what they are doing or they don't do it well but rather that they are content to rest on their laurels. I for one would like to see them take chances by playing predominantly new or unplayed material, like their contemporaries.

Thats probably why Neil Young is only playing small theaters, if he played the hits mabe he could sell more tickets. Heck if the Stones played only small places they would probably play more new and rare songs to. But as long as they want to keep playing in big Stadiums and charging big money they need to stick to the big hits, which I am good with because it makes for a great show and the crowd is happy.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-31 06:22 by cirrhosis.

cirrhosis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neil Young has warhorses?

Duh...

Cinnamon Girl
Down by the River
Cowgirl in the Sand
Heart of Gold
Southern Man

just to name a few
off the top of my head



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-03 20:07 by schillid.

I don't think Neil cares about the sizes of the venues, I have many of his bootlegs from the past and he doesn't do hits only sets in larger venues. When I saw CSNY last year they didn't do maybe their biggest hit, Suite Judy Blue Eyes, and nobody seemed to care.

Neil Young is one person and in addition to the setlists, he is also changing the people he works with. He is actually more of an "artist" than the Stones. I don't even consider the Stones being a real band for the last 20 years. They are mainly just a corporation for touring that can occassionally get it together enough to record music.

I saw the Oct 30 show and it was real good.

You can consider the Stones whatever you want but the fact of the matter is they are still the best life performing band in the world. Thats why they just completed the number 1 money making tour of all time. So they must be doing someting wright.

Sorry, but a lot of what 251 wrote is true. Whereas my earlier Stones shows had a feeling of excitement or even danger about them, they're now simply the best concert in the world (not such a bad thing).

But the marketing, setlists, tight schedule (remember the old days of "When will they play?"), same clothes tour after tour, etc. make them more "normal" to me - not quite as special/different.

"No Anchovies, Please"

the truth ain't pretty sometimes

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats probably why Neil Young is only playing
> small theaters, if he played the hits mabe he
> could sell more tickets.

er..does it ever occur to you that maybe hes not that bothered about that? Why does every decision have to be made about "how much money can we make?"


Heck if the Stones played
> only small places they would probably play more
> new and rare songs to.

Look at the setlists for the theatre shows on Licks and other tours. They played rarer songs but also plenty of the warhorses. Besides, this notion makes no sense. When you buy a ticket for a show before the tour starts you dont KNOW whats going to be in the setlist.

But as long as they want to
> keep playing in big Stadiums and charging big
> money they need to stick to the big hits,

No they dont. They "need" to? Why? Who is to dictate that? Whats going to happen? Are thousands of people going to walk out in disgust because they dont play 'Satisfaction' ? The whole notion of this is ludicrous. Here's another way round it, rick - If they dont charge 'big money' then they wont feel obliged to dance to the tune of the sort of fans who only know a few songs and who cant grap anything beyond that. Youre suggesting that its justifiable that once people pay silly money to shows, the band are obliged to pass over ownership of the show to them and let them dictate what the band will and will not perform. What kind of self respecting artist allows that? Who is the artist here - the Stones or the audience?

which I
> am good with because it makes for a great show and
> the crowd is happy.

Its clear that they get the audience they deserve. One that doesnt even like their music.

It does not have to be all about money if Neil Young is happy doing what he is doing then thats fine good for him. But we all know the Stones want to make big money when they tour and I am sorry if the truth hurts but if they tried to play a stadium and charge what they are now charging for tickets and left out songs like satisfation or Brown sugar the places would be more then half empty. If they wanted to play smaa venues and play all rare or new songs that would be fine for the hard core fans and yes I would go. But as for playing all rare or new stuff to a large crowd without the big hits sorry it won't happen.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> I saw the Oct 30 show and it was real good.

I was there. That was a great show.

One thing I noticed, besides what everyone else has said here, is how the audience hangs on Neil's every word, and anticipates each song. At the typical Stones show, half the place acts like it doesn't even know who they've come to see.

Different audiences, for sure.

I'd say Keith is less versatile and progressive than Ronnie these days.

bigbang is probably very right about the differences between the audiences. The Stones attracts a wider audience, and they try to appeal to that audience by playing a lot of warhorses and being commercial. Sadly for many of us hardcore fans, it makes them a lot less interesting.

IMHO, Young, Dylan and Springsteen are doing a better job today than the Stones are at creating music that have a deeper artistic relevance to many lovers of music and art/poetry in a wider sense. At the same time they are still as popular as they ever were, or as anyone could wish.

The typical Stones kind of music doesn't age as well as that of Dylan, Springsteen or Young (they have all kept a more "mature" niche, ever since they started), but I think they could still do a lot better, no matter in what shape Keith or Ronnie may be in.

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does not have to be all about money if Neil
> Young is happy doing what he is doing then thats
> fine good for him. But we all know the Stones want
> to make big money when they tour

which restricts them creatively, wouldnt you agree? Good thing or bad thing? Youre a big fan, Rick - I know that. Wouldnt you prefer the band to develop or just wallow in some kind of nostalgia-style slow brain death?

and I am sorry if
> the truth hurts but if they tried to play a
> stadium and charge what they are now charging for
> tickets and left out songs like satisfation or
> Brown sugar the places would be more then half
> empty.

how would the place be half empty when you buy tickets long before you know what songs theyre going to play? Is there a condition on the ticket sale that guarantees what songs are going to be performed?

The left out Satisfaction and Miss You on the first tour where they charged silly money (No Security) and three years later they did another tour which was even more expensive for a ticket and which then proceeded to be the biggest grossing tour in history. Obviously the omission of a few big hits and jacked up prices didnt do them too much harm.

How many 'big songs' does this band have that everyone knows? Its more than enough for one show. They'll always have to leave some out.


If they wanted to play smaa venues and play
> all rare or new songs that would be fine for the
> hard core fans and yes I would go. But as for
> playing all rare or new stuff to a large crowd
> without the big hits sorry it won't happen.


Totally unreasonable for anyone to expect them to play NONE of them but thats not the point. Its RELYING on them that the thread is about. Significant difference between playing 5-6 of them per night and twice as many.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 01:20 by Gazza.

pmk251 Wrote: Neil Young? He does not dance to a corporate tune. The Stones do.

Much as I love Neil, and would love to see him again, I'm afraid I can't completely buy the whole non-corporate image. I can understand why he uses Ticketmaster as there isn't much choice, but the price of the seats and the fact that they capitalize on the Auctions now means that this is a different business, and the artists are different business persons, than in the late 60s / early 70s when most of the iconic songs were written.

But I do believe it's his choice, and likely his preference, to play the small venues. He has a smallish group of backing musicians and vocalists, his wife is opening for him and several of the musicians play for both. It was very comfortable and intimate.

Neil is likely one of the most experimental musicians in the business and is known for pushing the envelope. Not too long ago there were howls of outrage at the Tron, Greendale and Mirror Ball material. People who went to his concerts around those times were furious that he didn't play the old acoustic stuff. This concert tour seems to focus more on his roots, including the recent songs from Chrome Sin which reflect them. It was the best of both worlds - the older iconic acoustic songs including some of the rarer ones, and the rockin' electric stuff. And because the two sets were divided, it was really easy to get totally into the mood of each.

The Stones are very different to me. Their R&B / Blues / Rock sound has changed a bit over the years, but varied little from their original style compared to Neil. I think that would mean that no matter how much they change it up, a Stones concert will never be the same sort of show as something by Neil, or by Dylan or Springsteen.

Would I like to see a more varied set list? Sure - I'm not like a lot of you students of music on IORR, who know every song and the colour of socks all were wearing when it was recorded. Chances are there is always something new to me at a concert, but that grabs my interest and makes me listen to other material.

Would I like to see the Stones do a concert tour in the small venues? You bet. But I think the applause would be drowned out by grief-stricken screams from those of us who wouldn't be able to manage to get tickets to any shows, let alone multiple shows. Neil's tix were being scalped at 5 times face value right outside the front door of Massey Hall. Say what you will about the European prices this summer, at least we got in the door a few times.

If I had a point, I've forgotten it now...

Most of the world has internet access these days and alot of people will check the bands website before a show and there for they will usually see a setlist so they know basically what will be played. I mean the last 2 Stones shows I went to I checked so I basically new what would be played there were slight changes from show to show but not many. So my point is if alot of people see a band leaving out there biggest hits they might get upset and say I am not paying to see someone who doe not play what made them stars to begin with.

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of the world has internet access these days
> and alot of people will check the bands website
> before a show and there for they will usually see
> a setlist so they know basically what will be
> played.

Most of them dont bother, though and the time frame between shows being put on sale and most people attending them usually doesnt allow most people the opportunity to check a setlist before they decide to buy tickets. Especially for shows that sell out fast.

Example - ABB tour was announced 10th May 2005 and most shows went on sale within a few weeks of that. The tour didnt begin until late August. Most tickets for the tour would have been sold long before the Stones hit the stage at Fenway Park.



I mean the last 2 Stones shows I went to I
> checked so I basically new what would be played
> there were slight changes from show to show but
> not many. So my point is if alot of people see a
> band leaving out there biggest hits they might get
> upset and say I am not paying to see someone who
> doe not play what made them stars to begin with.

why is this phenomenon seemingly exclusive to Stones' audiences, then? Are they really that sensitive or brain-dead? I dont think they are.

Seriously - the Stones could replace the 10-12 songs that you feel they must play every night with the same number of other big hits and I doubt too many people would feel shortchanged. Songs like Time is on my side, little red rooster, ruby tuesday, angie, beast of burden, Gimme shelter, the last time, waiting on a friend, fool to cry and several others are examples of well known songs that have hardly been played on recent tours - and yet they could throw any or some of those into the mix ANY night at the expense of a few songs that have been played to death and I would seriously doubt anyone would care enough to think they were cheated.

the band should set the tone of the show...not the audience. They're not a troupe of performing seals.

Any music fan who thinks there is no depth to the music of the Rolling Stones beyond about ten songs or even whats on 40 Licks is missing out on something great. The Stones should be introducing these people to that magnificent body of work - not acting like it doesnt exist. It also does them a disservice - IMO - when what could be described as hardcore fans actually encourage such pandering by blindly going along with it. Dont we want more people to appreciate this music?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 14:30 by Gazza.

I appauld the fact that Neil is playing small venues & multiple nights in some cities. Also note that he basically is playing the same set each night.

So Neil is playing the same setlist each night. Well thats more proof that bands do not very their setlist much every night, wich is another thing some Stones fans complain about they think they should change at least 10 songs each night. True they have the material to do it with but if they did that then everyone would say they don't sound good, because they would not have played them enough to get the timing all down right. Look at most bands setlist for say U2 or Springsteen yes they have enought songs to change around from night to night but no one does it.

Bob Dylan does...in the last couple of years I've seen him do back to back shows with about 2-3 songs being repeated.

ten songs EACH night is unrealistic though I'd agree, but relying on the same songs every TOUR is a differet thing.

the Stones rehearse for about 5-6 weeks before every tour and work on dozens of songs. They could easily establish a core of about 20 'hits' where they could play 10 a night and rotate a few per show accordingly and then maybe 40-50 songs that could get rotated in and out less frequently but could still be fresh. They work on songs as a tour progresses..last tour they played about 80 songs, most of them competently so its well within their range of capabilities. The only issue is that a high % of those songs only got played on a very small number of occasions and the 10-12 'big hits' got aired at almost every show..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 19:58 by Gazza.

Rickster, its not that the Stones don't change each night, they don't change each tour either, maybe a song or two but all they've really been doing is changing around when they play Start Me Up and Satisfaction. Neil will revamp his set list almost entirely each time he tours.

"yes they have enought songs to change around from night to night but no one does it."

The Black Crows, Allman Bros., Dylan, White Stripes and many others do it.

All I know is I have a hand full of friends who like the Stones but won't see them anymore cause they think they play the same songs on each tour.

People thought I'm crazy because I see more than 1 show on the tour. They play the same every night after all. And they were not that wrong...


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno