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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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?

Quote
Doxa
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

Quote
Naturalust
The Stones have long since sacrificed challenging set lists in order to please the majority of concert goers and guarantee a decent show.

I can't really imagine that it is nearly as fun for them. Sure they are getting paid big $ and that I would imagine is the motivation. But when was the last time they actually went out on a limb and challenged themselves?

Keith says he likes playing JJF every time but I can't even imagine having to play it (basically the same way) for the 500th time. And I can't imagine people going to multiple shows and seeing the same tunes played the same way again and again.

In a way, a Rolling Stones concert these days is attractive because it is a Rock show and there is loads of energy and excitement from the audience, but I for one have lost a bit excitement over the live music.

Still a huge fan, just a bit jaded about the same old songs, played the same old way live. Love to see them improvise for a whole set, fall on their faces and maybe stumble into some magic....at least since the Dead are no longer doing it. The guests are about the most exciting thing but even they seem to be a bit limited in what they are allowed to do.
So give me a few dates with all different tunes being played and I'll go to every one and be damn happy, even if they do have a bad night. peace

Quote
Naturalust
The Stones have long since sacrificed challenging set lists in order to please the majority of concert goers and guarantee a decent show.

I can't really imagine that it is nearly as fun for them. Sure they are getting paid big $ and that I would imagine is the motivation. But when was the last time they actually went out on a limb and challenged themselves?

Keith says he likes playing JJF every time but I can't even imagine having to play it (basically the same way) for the 500th time. And I can't imagine people going to multiple shows and seeing the same tunes played the same way again and again.

In a way, a Rolling Stones concert these days is attractive because it is a Rock show and there is loads of energy and excitement from the audience, but I for one have lost a bit excitement over the live music.

Still a huge fan, just a bit jaded about the same old songs, played the same old way live. Love to see them improvise for a whole set, fall on their faces and maybe stumble into some magic....at least since the Dead are no longer doing it. The guests are about the most exciting thing but even they seem to be a bit limited in what they are allowed to do.

So give me a few dates with all different tunes being played and I'll go to every one and be damn happy, even if they do have a bad night. peace

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Naturalust
The Stones have long since sacrificed challenging set lists in order to please the majority of concert goers and guarantee a decent show.

I can't really imagine that it is nearly as fun for them. Sure they are getting paid big $ and that I would imagine is the motivation. But when was the last time they actually went out on a limb and challenged themselves?

Keith says he likes playing JJF every time but I can't even imagine having to play it (basically the same way) for the 500th time. And I can't imagine people going to multiple shows and seeing the same tunes played the same way again and again.

In a way, a Rolling Stones concert these days is attractive because it is a Rock show and there is loads of energy and excitement from the audience, but I for one have lost a bit excitement over the live music.

Still a huge fan, just a bit jaded about the same old songs, played the same old way live. Love to see them improvise for a whole set, fall on their faces and maybe stumble into some magic....at least since the Dead are no longer doing it. The guests are about the most exciting thing but even they seem to be a bit limited in what they are allowed to do.

So give me a few dates with all different tunes being played and I'll go to every one and be damn happy, even if they do have a bad night. peace

This show was pretty daring, I'd say

Quote
PhilipStaniforth
I've seen multiple dates on all the tours since 1990. I love hearing the rarer songs but I was really disappointed when they missed Satisfaction on the first O2 night.

There are five or six songs the Stones have to play.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree, Witness, but Naturalust asked when was the last time they really challenged themselves.

I think Glastonbury is a good example, because in a way they had to.

But I could easily mention London, November 2012. A show with lots of surprises. Add that many doubted Keith's ability to play at all, the feud between Mick and Keith etc.

We musn't forget that they're in their 70s. So, when they're bringing on Silver Train, Around And Around, Memory Motel or 2000 Light Years From Home, they're taking risks, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<It wasn't until 1989-90 that the set list we have come to know was established. Kind of.>

I'd say the setlists on the SW were magnificent. However, it was the first time they lumped many (not as many as today, mind you) late 60s/early 70s songs toward the ending.

Here's a 1989 setlist:

01 Start me up
02 Bitch
03 Sad sad sad
04 Undercover
05 Harlem shuffle
06 Tumbling dice
07 Miss you
08 Terrifying
09 Ruby Tuesday
10 Salt of de earth Axl Rose & Izzy Stradlin
11 Rock and hard place
12 Mixed emotions
13 Honky tonk woman
14 Midnight Rambler
15 You can't always get what you want
16 Little red rooster Eric Clapton
17 Boogie chillen Eric Clapton & John Lee Hooker
18 Can't bee seen
19 Happy
20 Paint it black
21 2000 light years from home
22 Sympathy for the Devil
23 Gimmie shelter
24 Introduction
25 It's only rock 'n roll
26 Brown sugar
27 Satisfaction
28 Jumping jack flash