Set lists now and then: is there a difference?

Everytime the Stones hit the road there seem to arise a debate concerning their set list choices. Discussing that kind of thing seems inappropriate in concert threads, so I decided to start a thread of its own to these matters. My intention is not to take sides on the debate, but just to discuss about it with the fellow IORRians in a friendly manner. Perhaps even some misunderstandings could be straighten out, who knows. I hope some further discussions concerning anything about their setlists - now and then - might develop in a best IORRian fashion...

There seems to be two issues involved in a recent 'debate': one concerns the amount of songs varying from one concert to other. Call it 'varying the setlist problem'. The other concerns the amount of 'greatest hits' in the set list. Call it 'war horses problem'. These issues can be sometimes linked, but I think it is healthy to undestand that they do differ from a bottom.

-----

Like people have noticed, the current tour - especially in the form it took in Europe, and now it looks continuing similarly in Australia - does not differ from the classical tours they did in the seventies. Like then, from 1969 to 1982, they do not vary a setlist much. First shows were like testing some possible songs until they find the ones that would work fine, and the rest of the tours were going through with fixed sets. So any show of a given tour was based on more or less similar 'story'; the same opening songs, same sequence of songs, same final numbers. In that way each tour seemed to have an identity of its own; how the shows were builded on. It looks like that only 00's tours LICKS and A BIGGER BANG TOUR seemed to be radically different in that sense compared to old days and now. Of course, even those 'wild days' they didn't pick up any Bob Dylan routine, but still probably enough that some fans still have expectations based on them (funnily, Dylan himself, famous for varying setlists for ages, has now adopted a habit of playing more or less teh same set every night). But let it be noted that the Stones still do more obscure one-timers than they did in 'classical' days. They almost never do that in their legendary past. The amount of different songs they have played during the current tour (I take that to start in 2012) is still impressive.

Even though I said I won't take sides here, I need to say that as far as 'varying a setlist problem' goes, I think the criticism is not fully justified, at least if we take history into account. The idea of varying setlists is a rather new phenomenon. Probably even a speciality of 00's tours. I also kind of like the conservatism here: people all around the world will get about the same show, a kind of same product the Stones at the moment are. The people who follow them from gig to gig are are not the target audience, so their 'complaints' of them not offering enough surprises and variance is a bit misguided. Of course, internet offers a chance for everyone to follow the tour closely, but still, in the end, it is teh people at the shows and their experience and opinion that count the most.


----


What goes for the other issue - 'war horses problem' - there we find some major differences between the present and the past. They have never played so greatest hits heavy set as they tend to do now. That seems to be a leading artistic choice. For argument's sake I define 'war horse' in a following way: a song that is (a) played before the current tour, (b) generally a familiar tune (released in greatest hits collections, radio-friendly, etc.), (c) not released very recently.

So, if we start from 1969, they played about only one 'war horse' ("Satisfaction") then. Things like "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women", "Sympathy For The Devil", "Midnight Rambler" etc. that were some day to be war horses, were all new current songs. Actually about each new tour all the way into 1981/82 produced a new upcoming war horse ("Brown Sugar", "Tumblin Dice", "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", "Miss You", "Start Me Up" ), but they were something else at the time when played for the first time. So, by same logic, 1972 had about four 'safe and sure' already live tested old hit numbers ("Jumping Jack Flash", "Street Fighting Man", "Midnight Rambler", "Honky Tonk Women") along with new fresh material ("You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Gimme Shelter", as I take "Brown Sugar" as well, belonging to the latter). STICKY FINGERS material was altogether still fresh stuff for their audiences in 1972 and 1973. Four war horses out of, say, 15 songs, was not much yet.

1975/76 tour, with its longer sets, offered more room for war horses. There were - what? - "Honky Tonk", "Flash", "Fightin Man", "Rambler" and "Angie" some nights, "Brown Sugar", "Sympathy", "Happy", "Dice", "Can't Always Get"... Altogether 1975 started to sound like 'greatest hits of 1968-73" to be offered with some new fresh material from IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL plus an odd gem from a past ("Get Off of My Cloud"). Clearly most of the songs were familiar from their earlier tours.

But things got different in the following tours. The Stones relied more on recent material (again), and seemingly rethought their 'war horses' selection. A typical show from 1978 had about 6 to 8 proper war horses typical for previous tours ("Honky Tonk", ""Street Fighting Man", "Happy", "Brown Sugar", "Dice", "Flash" with not so obvious "All Down The Line", "Star Star"; "Love In Vain" found its way back). 1981/82 tour also put war horses into circulation. A typical show of 1981 was based about half or even more on the material they had released within the last three years. There seem to be only about 5 warhorses ("Dice", "All Down The Line", "Honky Tonk", "Can't Always Get", "Brown Sugar") in their 29 song set list. They did, though, introduce a league of songs from the past they had never performed or had done it for ages ("Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time is On My Side", "Let It Bleed", plus a rarity called "Satisfaction"). It is noteworthy that the upcoming DVD releases from 1975 and 1981 have only 5 songs in common! The variance in songlists between the tours sounds almost unbelievable by today's standards.

In a way, 1989/90 tour continued the theme of 1981/82 by widing up their historical past (by paying attention to pre-JJF material, that is), by picking up things like "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday" and "2000 Light Years From Home" into their regular setlists. But at the same time the amount of war horses started to grow; all their signature big hits from "Satisfaction" to "Start Me Up" were played, together with great past show highlights "Gimme Shelter", "Sympathy For The Devil", "Street Fighting Man", occasionally "Midnight Rambler", etc. even though some of them had been resting for a while... One could say that a typical modern Rolling Stones show was created then. The same tendency, namely, continued in the following years, the amount of fresh songs - a new song or a rarity from the past - didn't have much room alongside the war horses parade. Probably NO SECURITY tour was an exception to a rule. But like noted above, the set lists variations between the shows (but not between the tours), and a sudden rarity one-timer (LICKS TOUR, A BIGGER BANG TOUR) showed a new approach. There is not many high profile concert along the years that would not consist at least halfly of the same numbers.

14 ON FIRE TOUR, with rather fixed setlists, is an outcome of the development starting in 1989. Some 13/14 or so songs out of their regular 19 song set list are more or less war horses. "Jumpin Jack Flash", "Tumblin Dice", "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", "Honky Tonk Women", "Midnight Rambler", "Miss You", "Brown Sugar", "Paint It Black" (rather often), "Start Me Up", "Gimme Shelter", "Can't Always Get", "Sympathy For The Devil", "Satisfaction"... of those old obvious songs, "Street Fighting Man" has put into rest, or to the league of potential surprises with "Angie", "Ruby Tuesday", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Wild Horses" - each of them being familiar crowd pleasers. All of them are played many, many times during the last quarter century. Tells something of the caliber of the band when classical songs like that are in a variation...

Well, that was the statistics - just to show that things have changed along the years as far as the 'war horses problem' go. I wrote it quickly out of memory, so some facts might be incorrect. I'd love to be more specific (analysize the tour set lists more closely tour by tour, be more careful with my 'war horses' notion, etc.), but I don't have time and patience right now, and since I already have used too much space, I just hurry up to conclusions.

First of all, I think the Stones didn't play that much 'war horses' from 1969 to 1982, probably 1975/76 was an exception. They were about four/five songs they seemed to do every tour, the others were in a circulation, and almost each tour introduced new potential 'war horses', but which were fresh at the time. The latter was possible because they still would add new killer songs, and they still had great, classical status songs in the 'vaults' they had not utilized yet (or for a very long time). The result is that the setlists vary quite a lot from tour to tour.

Secondly, 14 ON TOUR is like a best of collection of the war horses songs created from their tours since STEEL WHEELS/URBAN JUNGLE tour. True that many of the songs got that status already during the earlier period, but it is the constant play since 1989 that has cemented their status. The result is that there is not much variance among the bulk of songs between the tours (unlike earlier). The difference is also that of inwhereas earlier a 'war horse' was a sure gig highlight to be thrown in a right moment to cheer up the crowd, now such a crowd pleasing function is a presupposition of almost any song. I think that has made many people to think that a Rolling Stones show cannot be satisfying without hearing certain familiar songs - their 'best songs'. This thinking seem to prevail both in 'casual' and 'hardcore' fan sections. By contrast, it is unbelievable now to think that the Stones 'managed' to go through the seventies without almost playing "Satisfaction" at all, their most famous song ever.

Okay, there is a lot to be added, but I stop now. But I will continue... I hope that my intention in keeping this discussion 'civil' is appreciated. This is similar fact based issue than anything connected to the Rolling Stones we have discussed here along the years, and we might have differing opinions how to interpret what we observe and perceive. It is not sensible to 'spoil' specific concert threads with 'general' issues like this. Nor I hope this kind of discussion belong either to that shapeless 'complaints' thread. Because it is nothing to do with that. Thank you.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-03 01:16 by bv.

since you opened this i move here my 2 cents

Compare the repetitive setlists of the early seventies with today's is nonsense. they were in their heyday then, playing their latest, strongest stuff, in a catalogue that was not even 10 years old. That ended in 78. 81 was an added chapter to that but also a hint to what they could and would in fact be from 89 on.

New songs were limited to a smaller part of the setlist and basically at the beginning. Start me up was the last "new" song to make it to the "warhorses" part of the gig. It began the era of the "obscure" tracks to dig out from catalogue. There was the acoustic set in 95, the web choice in 97 and so on.

The best part of this was in 2002/2003 with the 3 venues per town idea + the album theme idea, even if it was early limited to the usual suspects. Of course i'd love to hear Parachute woman or She smiled sweetly and I think that to throw Till the next goodbye or Out of time in the list instead of Wild horses or Iorr once in a while could do no harm to the crescendo

Fact is that Mick thinks and design the setlist as a crescendo plus he is the one that sings (has to remember the lyrics) and feel more comfortable if he does not have to "think" about the lyrics and focus on the "working the crowd part" with his body and choreography. That is why he, and they, need a "safe" setlist at this point and at their age.

Fact is that it works very well on most nights and I have never left a gig unsatisfied (1990, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2014)

Post scriptum: I have seen the whole MR for Adelaide





so may I enlist among the "Lame Crowd Moaners"? It's incredible to see the work of Mick and the band AND all those people standing motionless, arms folded and silent... but hey, I'm italian and was at the Circo Massimo..

I agree that there are two issues: varying the setlist and warhorses.

Re: varying the setlist: as a general rule, everyone on tour (jazz, classical, pop artists) tend to play the same pieces of music, in the same order, at every performance. There are many reasons for this--and there are some exceptions--but, by and large, The Stones are not at all unusual for playing the same thing every night on a given tour.

What has changed about The Stones is very simple: they no longer produce new music. They are an oldies act and only play a limited number of old songs. As a result, people are encouraged to indulge themselves in arcane discussions about their catalog--why don't they play this instead of that, etc.

When The Stones were producing new music and would launch a tour based on presenting that new music, we didn't really care quite as much about what "old" songs they might include in their set. It was about the new stuff, the things you'd never heard before that you were dying to hear live.

Those days have been gone for decades and now we just debate the relative merits of different selections from an ancient jukebox.

I think the setlists represent the group today. It's pared down for an undiscriminating mass audience that wouldn't appreciate hearing The Spider & The Fly, so why bother? The Stones have a dilemma with their music, other groups can pull in hot shot guitarists to boost their sound, but the Stones can't. Unlike some groups, it's always been about chemistry, and the whole amounting to something more than the individual parts. That chemistry was torn asunder by Wyman's retirement, and over time what was left eroded away.

It's not only the setlist that represents an atrophy. It's also the never changing backline of musicians and backup singers that mask a lot. It's hard to imagine the current Stones even doing a relatively pared down tour like No Security.

I suspected the end was near when I saw them in 2006. Great Mick show. Great spectacle, but I walked away feeling I hadn't really heard a musical concert. The fireworks and booming sound blew everything away. And then when I saw them on the New Jersey Pay Per View it was confirmed that Keith was in bad shape. It seems that it's taken a couple years on the road just to get Keith somewhat near his old capabilities. And it's shown in the unyielding set list. They have to play extremely familiar songs to keep it simple. I get it.

I love the Rolling Stones, and if they want to trot out those tired songs for millions, fans and money, more power to them. As for me, I saw Hyde Park. The spark is gone. For me. They've been accused of being a parody of themselves since 1969. Well....

Quote
24FPS

I suspected the end was near when I saw them in 2006. Great Mick show. Great spectacle, but I walked away feeling I hadn't really heard a musical concert.

This may not have been what you meant, 24FPS, but for some reason it reminded me of the old adage about a live Grateful Dead show: 1/4 of it was unlistenable, 1/2 of it was mundane, and 1/4 of it was transcendent.

The Dead and The Stones are two ENTIRELY different outfits, of course, and comparisons between them are dicey, at best. But the spontaneity of a live Dead show, in which at any moment they could elevate and take you to a different place by blowing the top of your head off ... well, that's sort of the antithesis of a pre-programmed by the numbers latter day Stones spectacle.

The Stones put on an impressive display, and there are obviously still millions of people around the world who are willing to part with significant $$$ to see them play.

But does their performance inspire, transcend, surprise? Hearing them perform great new songs in interesting arrangements in the late 60's and early 70's certainly did meet those criteria. Hearing them today mostly inspires remarks like "whoa, awesome for 70 year olds."

But they are not alone in this lapse into nostalgia, so it's hard to criticize them too much. The only exception in their generation is Dylan, whose irascible insistence on playing new music demonstrates his commitment to his artistry, for better or for worse.

The critics (journalists) who writes the reviews do not seem to bother about the setlists though. The Stockholm gig for instance did only recieve good reviews. As oppose to the infamous 2007 gig.
And I haven't heard any bad reviews from the current tour at all.

Like said already, you can't compare today to back in the day because they were playing mostly new songs. While Licks gave us the best varied set lists it also showed the Stones were done playing new stuff. I think Bridges was the last time they really played their new songs with pride. A Bigger Bang got 4 songs in the set at first but half way through that tour we got 2 and then at the end none. Can't think of any other album that they toured behind that this happened with.

I understand that Mick wants to please the masses and play hits friendly sets, but I think the problem is its the same hits and they have so many. I have a lot of friends who are big classic rock fans that have seen the Stones but won't go to multiple shows on a tour or now won't go to any because they know its almost an identical set list. Price of tickets factor in. So other bands from that era that have half as many songs or hits, say the Allmans, Who and others.. manage to do different things with their set lists tour to tour. Many people here will argue people want to hear Satisfaction and not Citadel but they are missing the point. There are songs like Under My Thumb are not rarities, they are also hits that everyone knows, so many others that can be played that fans would love.

Random thoughts.

True that in the 70s the War Horses/ New Songs ratio was completely different than nowadays, but it is also true the "new" songs were then "hit" songs of super successful albums, so were well known to all of those attending the concert. In fact in the 70 the Stones never played truly "obscure" songs = the concerts didn't have low moments.

Starting from the UJ/SW tour, more and more of the people attending were the "greatest hist" type of fan. That's when the notion of "obscure song" became relevant. Add that - with the only notable example of Saint of Me and Out of Control - not only the the albums from SW onward didn't generate warhorses, they weren't even able to excite the hard core fan base.

Recently someone posted here a full rehearsal set: if in 2014 they still need to rehearse songs like Happy and the like, it is clear that today the trade off is between playing well or playing more songs - that is unless you are happy with darryl and chuck carrying the song with MJ reading the lyrics on the teleprompter.


C

Mick has said that the reason they do these new songs for the hits compilations is so that they don't end up "like the Beach Boys".

Mick is the one that is into doing something new, something different, when it comes to recording records. When it comes to playing gigs he's the exact opposite. He doesn't walk the talk. His mind set is that of the Beach Boys when it comes to Rolling Stones setlists. Which can make one wonder, why bother with doing new recordings then?

I know having an album is one thing but playing shows with new songs... what, are they not as worthy? They basically ignored A BIGGER BANG on that tour.

The real issue is probably that they've been around for so damn long, they have such a huge discography, yet their most popular tunes are from 1968-1971 with the odd later track stopping with Start Me Up (at least as far as they are concerned).

Look at AC/DC's setlists from the past however many tours. It's the same set list except whatever new songs they're doing from whatever new album. Otherwise it's beyond predictable.

They are the songs that made them. So it goes as well with the Stones in this late part of their existence (and it makes watching SOME GIRLS - LIVE IN TEXAS that much better). We're lucky they did toss us the EXILE and SOME GIRLS extras, regardless of how good or bad they were. If someone not knowing anything about the Stones was to glance at their catalogue and see those two extras they'd think, 'Oh, dried up and digging around. Got it.'

Well maybe. But at this point, who cares? Half their albums have tracks they've sat on for years. Their legacy probably won't be the shows so much as their singles from 1968-71 and then their 5 or 6 really good albums, especially 1968-72, and the tours, well, stage design will probably be a big part of it.

But not as big as hearing the cowbell, the congas or the opening riff of Brown Sugar on the radio.

I thought it was really cool that they were playing I Wanna Be Your Man... but somehow that's disappeared.

would it be so hard to devote 15% of the show to the die hards who have traveled the world over to see them....that would be 4 whole songs.15 for the casual goer and 4 for the people who have made following them a way of life.....for pete's sake play time is on my side, play with fire, ruby, 19th nervous.....these are hits people would recognize......I don't think asking 15% of the show is a lot.....but it'll never happen

In that 1989 interview on 20/20, Mick said there are about 10 songs that a majority of fans would feel disappointed if they didn't hear. I agree. I have no problem with that. The thing is, nowadays, they're only playing about nine songs in addition to those "must-do's"—seven, if you discount the Keith set. And six, if you make room for a new song.

To satisfy everyone—the casual fan, the warhorse-weary veteran, and everyone in between—they need to play for an additional 20-30 minutes, as they did in 1989-90. At their age, that's just not going to happen. As it is, the two-hour show is padded with introductions and a two-song break for Mick.

Quote
mjmjr
would it be so hard to devote 15% of the show to the die hards who have traveled the world over to see them....that would be 4 whole songs.15 for the casual goer and 4 for the people who have made following them a way of life.....for pete's sake play time is on my side, play with fire, ruby, 19th nervous.....these are hits people would recognize......I don't think asking 15% of the show is a lot.....but it'll never happen

Sounds reasonable and easy enough to do. Round it up to 20 songs and make it 5 to be mixed in on a given night. And make 2 of the 5 deep cuts with another the fans vote upon. The remain 2 could simply be favorites that simply aren't in the firm line up for this tour

An other point : we know more (almost everything) about the rehearsals which give a lot of expectations before the tour.
Before the 78' Tour, the songs rehearsed were incredible but the informations (4 CDs) came after the tour. So no frustration discovering the setlist.
Nowadays, we expect too much.

Most of their hits were from 68-72?? Actually many of their hits were not in that period, JJF Flash, Satisfaction and so on.

When it comes to their set lists, its just as safe as can be and the band on auto-pilot. Yes they can bring energy to the same songs if they are at a festival or being recorded, but I just think most of it is laziness.

Agree with hound dog, would casual fans come home disappointed if they heard Beast of Burden or Under My Thumb instead of Miss You. No Security tour got great reviews everywhere and they left off some of the usual warhorses.

Quote
J-J-Flash
Most of their hits were from 68-72?? Actually many of their hits were not in that period, JJF Flash, Satisfaction and so on.

When it comes to their set lists, its just as safe as can be and the band on auto-pilot. Yes they can bring energy to the same songs if they are at a festival or being recorded, but I just think most of it is laziness.

Agree with hound dog, would casual fans come home disappointed if they heard Beast of Burden or Under My Thumb instead of Miss You. No Security tour got great reviews everywhere and they left off some of the usual warhorses.

Agree strongly with you and hound dog. It has nothing to do with what the fans want it's what the band wants, which is to do it easy and not put in the work that would be necessary to play different songs. It's just much easier this way and it works, the tickets sell and they make the money. What they play is pretty much what they can play at this point.

For me, having MT around now just makes it seem like more a missed opportunity than before. As someone who only sees them once in a while, I only paid cursory interest for the last few years until 2012. I'm not someone who gets excited noting the differences in each and every warhorse for different shows. I'm proud of them for doing what they're doing at their age, but that only takes my interest so far. The magic is in a) doing a rarer song or in a different manner and b)seeing what MT adds to anything. The first few shows and the American leg had less than what most expected of a and b, but since then that has seemed like an avalanche in comparison. I get that if it fills seats that's who the show is for, but the possibilities were just there for so much more.

I always take people to the stones concert that have never seen them before. Of course I like to hear a lot of obscure songs but I also like to have my friends saying after the concert "holey cow, I never realised that they have so many hits" and they are always blown away. That can only happen with a lot of warhorses.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
GasLightStreet
I thought it was really cool that they were playing I Wanna Be Your Man... but somehow that's disappeared.

It's not like they were giving it the spirit it deserved. They were literally strolling through songs like Get Off of My Cloud on the American tour.

Having, and not using, Mick Taylor is a big letdown. I'm glad Mick T. gets to put a few bucks away, but it's a wasted opportunity. Same way they were with Bill. Maybe they really are lazy. Oh, well. Who would have thought they'd be around at this point in any shape? And yes, Mick Jagger has let them become the Beach Boys. Except I saw Brian Wilson with Al Jardine, Blondie Chaplin, David Marks and Jeff Beck. It was thrilling.

There are two songs that should always be in the setlist regardless - Monkey Man & Rocks Off. These two songs can offset a subpar setlist on any given night.

Also, the warhorse YCAGWYW should not be played every concert.

Sympathy is most non-welcome, non-surprise. It's almost like a party piece for Mick.

Quote
Chris Fountain
There are two songs that should always be in the setlist regardless - Monkey Man & Rocks Off. These two songs can offset a subpar setlist on any given night.

Also, the warhorse YCAGWYW should not be played every concert.

I agree, but if Mick read the reactions here after the Boston-show, I can understand why he skipped RO

Point is, what they do will never be good enough, so they do it their way - which is good for the majority of their fans. Call it safe, but it is what works for them.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Chris Fountain
There are two songs that should always be in the setlist regardless - Monkey Man & Rocks Off. These two songs can offset a subpar setlist on any given night.

Also, the warhorse YCAGWYW should not be played every concert.

I agree, but if Mick read the reactions here after the Boston-show, I can understand why he skipped RO

Point is, what they do will never be good enough, so they do it their way - which is good for the majority of their fans. Call it safe, but it is what works for them.

I actually attended the Boston 2 concert. The setlist included When the Whip Comes Down, All Down the Line, & Mem Motel. No Rocks Off or Monkey Man but the setlist was balanced despite YCAGWYW. Plus, there is nothing like seeing the Stones on a Friday or Saturday night, especially in Boston.

Quote
Chris Fountain

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Chris Fountain
There are two songs that should always be in the setlist regardless - Monkey Man & Rocks Off. These two songs can offset a subpar setlist on any given night.

Also, the warhorse YCAGWYW should not be played every concert.

I agree, but if Mick read the reactions here after the Boston-show, I can understand why he skipped RO

Point is, what they do will never be good enough, so they do it their way - which is good for the majority of their fans. Call it safe, but it is what works for them.

I actually attended the Boston 2 concert. The setlist included When the Whip Comes Down, All Down the Line, & Mem Motel. No Rocks Off or Monkey Man but the setlist was balanced despite YCAGWYW. Plus, there is nothing like seeing the Stones on a Friday or Saturday night, especially in Boston.

I probably mixed it up with a different US gig

However, I remember the harsh comments about that RO-version very well.

EDIT: It was Chicago - sorry



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-29 10:52 by DandelionPowderman.

Very interesting issue. The variety of songs comes with the numbers played on each show. OK during licks we had the 3 different show types but only limited to very few cities. Ther we had about 40 different songs to 60-62 songs played in total.
During bigger bang the number of songs went from 21 on most US shows down to 19 in Europe and later US. So the songs skipped have bee from the latest album.

The recent shows brought us 23 songs at the beginning with a lot of surprises like Lady Jane in London 2 in 2012 or a lot of other ones during the US shows in 2013. However variety was already scaled down once Hyde Park was reached. And it is obvious that you have to stick to the mainstream songs which everybody knows especially if you go for large audiences. This maintained als in 2014 during Asia and Europe. It won't be any different during Australia/NZ. And we have to respect that putting on a two hour show with all the lightning setout and all the information is a hell of organization. So I was already surprised during Europe this year that they did change two songs not played in every town and even songs played only once or even very very few times in Europe. Don't forget that the showtime did decrease from 2.35 h in the US to ca 2.10 and less in the other shows. That makes also the difference on the three songs. And again this limits the variety of songs.

One other things that threw some people off in a major way that I work with was how Keith went around to different media outlets saying that Mick Taylor was going to be more involved in the shows since most Stones songs have layers of guitars and are perfect for 3 guitar players. Then we got nothing. I had work friends who actually shelled out money to see more shows and instead they got Taylor Swift instead of Mick Taylor.

Quote
J-J-Flash
One other things that threw some people off in a major way that I work with was how Keith went around to different media outlets saying that Mick Taylor was going to be more involved in the shows since most Stones songs have layers of guitars and are perfect for 3 guitar players. Then we got nothing. I had work friends who actually shelled out money to see more shows and instead they got Taylor Swift instead of Mick Taylor.

Well...

The set list

Get Off Of My Cloud
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Paint It Black
Gimme Shelter
Sway (with Mick Taylor)
Live With Me
As Tears Go By (with Taylor Swift)
Emotional Rescue
Doom And Gloom
One More Shot
Honky Tonk Women
--- Band presentation
You Got The Silver (Keith)
Before They Make Me Run (Keith)
Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)
Miss You
Start Me Up
Tumbling Dice
Brown Sugar
Sympathy For The Devil
--- Band off stage
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction (with Mick Taylor)

The Stones have generally never been a band to take many chances live. They have a set list of songs, with slots for four inter-changeable tunes that are brought in from gig to gig.

Is that surprising? Not really. I can't think of many artists at this level, apart from Springsteen, that would go out on a limb and played extremely changeable sets throughout a tour.

The Who, Zeppelin, Dylan, McCartney - none of these guys ever changed their basic sets and if you were lucky, on a good night, you might get a couple of different songs thrown in.

So perhaps the Stones deserve more credit for the four songs that change from gig to gig. And I guess those who were lucky enough to catch Knebworth 76, El Mocambo 77, Brixton 96, Shepherds Bush 99 or any of the recent club shows were fortunate enough to see widely different sets. Even for a gig as massive as Glastonbury they took a big risk by including a song they'd never performed before - Glastonbury Girl - and also playing the unfortunately under-rehearsed 2000 Light Years From Home.

So as much as the set lists can be pretty predictable to us die hard multi-gig attending fans maybe they deserve a bit more credit.

It isn't really true that the fans who follow the band on tour don't get surprises.

There are fans going to way more shows than I do, but on the four shows I attended I got the following songs that I've never seen in concert before:

I Wanna Be Your Man
Get Off Of My Cloud
The Last Time
Out Of Control
It's All Over Now
Going Down
One More Shot
Doom And Gloom
Beast Of Burden
Worried About You
Emotional Rescue
She's So Cold

It could be more variation, of course, but is this really so bad for four shows?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-29 16:22 by DandelionPowderman.