Lets just be glad they are alive and playing!

The Stones fan base has too many old farts who don't get enough fiber in their diet, and younger fans who are wannabee old farts and bitch like they are 70. Spoiled brats, the whole lot.

..not to mention wannabee cheerleaders...

My last poop would indicate I have enough fibre - but thanks for your concern

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you miss the point - again. No one in
> their right mind would suggest they should play a
> show to thousands of people without these songs
> being in it. They're an essential part of any
> Stones show and in some cases, some of the
> greatest rock songs ever written. The issue is
> that they play ALL of these songs EVERY night and
> many of them have been played to death (JJ Flash
> IMO ISNT one of them). There are at least 8-10
> songs in every show which never get rested.
>
> The Stones have probably about 20 songs or more
> that EVERYONE in their audience should be expected
> to know (if they dont, they shouldnt be there).
> They could keep the same number of warhorses as
> they do now - but just rotate a few of them each
> night to keep the show fresh and leave some
> element of surprise. As it stands now, once you
> hear the opening chords of Miss You, you could go
> home knowing what the last hour of the show will
> be. The only degree of surprise is whether Start
> Me Up appears on the b-stage or in the final run
> through at the end.
>
> To give an example :
> Satisfaction, JJ Flash, Sympathy, HT Women, Brown
> sugar, Tumbling Dice, Miss You, Start Me Up, IORR,
> YCAGWYW - 10 'classics' that get played at
> practically every show
>
> 10 more classics (all of which are on 40 Licks)
> that everyone should know and which at any time
> could swap with any of the songs listed above :
>
> Its all over now, The last time, Paint it Black,
> Get off of my cloud, Street fighting man, Gimme
> Shelter, Angie, Lets spend the night together,
> Ruby Tuesday Bitch
>
> There you go. An alternate 'warhorses' set,
> several songs of which have been played on this
> tour (7 out of 10 I think)
>
> Rotate 3-4 songs from ABB each night (theyve
> played, what, 6 on this tour to date? shouldnt be
> difficult) and Keith's 2 songs set could be
> swapped around every night (he did this without
> any problem in 1999 and on Licks) and you
> effectively have 15 songs comprising classic hits,
> Keiths set and new songs that could EASILY be
> rotated and I doubt anyone would reasonably
> complain
>
> And that still leaves about a quarter of the show
> to feature 'deep album' tracks that WERENT on 40
> Licks (Midnight Rambler) or minor hits that were
> (Beast of Burden, Wild Horses, etc) which they
> could vary as much or as little as they pleased
>
>
> Seriously.Its easily done. All they need to do is
> rotate a few big hits and make a couple of minor
> other 'tweaks' regarding new songs and Keith's set
> - which just basically means playing songs already
> performed this in tour in more regular rotation
> Only because it happens to be true. its been
> covered in depth a few weeks ago by breaking down
> the show with the number of warhorses, album
> tracks, songs new to the shpw/not played in ages
> and new songs. This tour is far more 'hits'
> orientated than any previously. Fact.

No I don't miss the point. I'm just saying that some songs, in the Stones' case many warhorses, should be played every night (Like the ones on your warhorses set). I would maybe go to one Stones show with everything alternate and no warhorses.....But I'd miss them because these are their best songs. FACT. I'd rather go to a show with all the cool songs played. If I had to choose between quality (The warhorses they can play VERY VERY good) and quantity (A selection of tracks they can't play), I choose the first. Who wants a half-baked show??? Check out Sheperds Bush, which I'm sure you own on bootleg and maybe even attended: It's an OK show, but nothing more than that. Why? They don't play the warhorses..........And that's a damn friggin' shame.



> The shows are very good but a LOT of songs sound
> tired and overplayed and the 'warhorses' part of
> the set could do with being shaken up. They could
> easily do that with a bit of rotation and there
> would still be enough recognizable hits to please
> everyone.


Funny. It sounded better than Licks from the shows I heard. All the warhorses, EVEN SFTD and HTW, which was the most tired-sounding ones on Licks, sound cool. And this tour has brought back what the Licks and NS shows missed: THE GRAND FINALE!!!!! Everything I heard or saw from these two tours didn't have the bang that this tour does at the end of the show (Like B2B, VL and SW tours had). That's a fact for you.

And how can you say the shows are very good if you think that many songs sound tired? I don't get that.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 16:47 by JumpingKentFlash.

There's always a sizable number of baby-boomers who've never seen the band as well as an inordinate number of young (18-35) folks these last couple tours. I WISH there was a way to tell. If there was I'd still bet over half of any given Stones audience has never seen them live.

Hey Gazza,
Again I am impressed by that overflowing fountain of knowledge, truth, and articulation I've come to know simply as "Gazza."

Your comments regarding the "alternate war horses." "deep album cuts, " and "3-4 new Bigger Bang" songs sound not only logical and logistically possible, but is also the kind of variation that keeps me interested in a band, in this case The Stones.

Have you ever connsidered emailing your comments to Chuck Leavell? It might be worth a try.

L



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 17:11 by Lukester.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> And how can you say the shows are very good if you
> think that many songs sound tired? I don't get
> that.


because its the Rolling Stones and ANY Rolling Stones show should be at least 'very good'if you happen to be there, based on the catalogue that they have and the level of performance ability that the band has (Jagger especially)

'Satisfaction' might be overplayed, but its still a great song that generates a lot of excitement to many people. However between 1971 and 1981 they probably played it about ten times. I doubt too many walked out disappointed. They still had enough great songs in the show to compensate. Most people are mature enough to realise that in a 2 hours (or less) show you cant get to hear EVERYTHING...especially from a band with such a great back catalogue.

However, even a show thats 'very good' can still be improved to make it 'great'. Fewer shows have been in THAT category for me on this tour than on the last one. Not a complaint as such, just a personal observation. I'd still rather see a so-so (by their standards) Rolling Stones show than a show by almost anyone else.


>No I don't miss the point. I'm just saying that some songs, in the Stones' case many warhorses, should be played every night (Like the ones on your warhorses set). I would maybe go to one Stones show with everything alternate and no warhorses.....But I'd miss them because these are their best songs. FACT.

Its not a 'fact' that its their best songs, Kent. Its an opinion. I'm not suggesting they alternate all ten songs from one night to the next. I'm talking two or three. Seriously now, if they dropped IORR, Tumbling Dice and Miss You and replaced them with Gimme Shelter, Paint It Black and Bitch would anyone complain? Its still a large selection of their best known and (for most people) greatest songs. The three dropped songs would be back in maybe at the following show and a couple of others changed around. Piece of cake.

Granted - there would be few times (if any) that you would reasonably expect them to NOT to play their 4 best known songs - Brown Sugar, HTW, JJF and Satisfaction. Anything else is dispensable on occasion.

>And this tour has brought back what the Licks and NS shows missed: THE GRAND FINALE!!!!! Everything I heard or saw from these two tours didn't have the bang that this tour does at the end of the show (Like B2B, VL and SW tours had). That's a fact for you.

whaa? The 'grand finale' has consisted of the same bloody songs on the last 4-5 tours!! The subtle difference being that one or two of them get rotated from one tour to the next to the early part of the show to keep casual fans interested for the first hour!


>If I had to choose between quality (The warhorses they can play VERY VERY good) and quantity (A selection of tracks they can't play), I choose the first. Who wants a half-baked show???


who says it has to be? Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?. Theyre professional musicians..are you suggesting there are only 12-15 songs that they can play WELL? If thats the case (and it isnt), they should have packed it in years ago.


>Check out Sheperds Bush, which I'm sure you own on bootleg and maybe even attended: It's an OK show, but nothing more than that. Why? They don't play the warhorses..........And that's a damn friggin' shame

yes they did play 'the warhorses'. Quite a few of them, in fact. JJf, IORR, Tumbling Dice, Brown sugar and a few more as I recall..hello? And yeah, I was there. Trust me, if you had the chance to see the Stones from the proximity of 20 feet away, youd never compare it unfavourably to watching a video screen from 50 metres away in a football stadium again. Theres NO contest!!



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 17:42 by Gazza.

And why does KR have to sing two songs every night?

If it is for MJ take a breath, let's let Lisa Fisher do a sensual dance in B stage while Charlie keeps the rhythm.

And it's worth throwing the argument that seems to be forgotten or glossed over while we have this discussion:

Who on this bloody earth really thinks that a fan will go home disappointed if they hear songs they don't know? We have all gone to many (non-Stones) shows where we didn't know the vast majority of songs and still enjoyed the hell out of the show. If the songs are any good (and most in the Stones vast canon are), people will enjoy them. Let's not forget that FACT.

No, T&A, I have to contradict. I hope this doesn't count as "bitching" in the sense of Steven's
definition. I only like "Satisfaction" and "Miss You" ever since I was young. I am on the toilet
during all other songs. FACT.

I think history has shown what songs are their best. Get a guy who never listened to the Stones in and let him hear the entire catalogue for some months. I would bet my right nut that his favourite would be a warhorse.

About the grand finale bit: Yes it's the same 4-5 songs (Since SW tour I guess). Now why is that one could ask. Well, it's their best songs, and more importantly: They are WAY more competent songs to end a show with than Sway or CYHMK. Equally important: The majority of the audience (Speculating, but still pretty sure) would rather have these songs as the finale than frickin' Biggest Mistake.

(Sorry for just making this post a kinda messy affair) NO Rolling Stones show are to be considered very good in my opinion. Only if it is deserved. Judging from all of my boots and live stuff, that just seems to be the case that it is in fact a very good to great show every time our dear motherpuckers hit the stage.

I know they did the warhorses at Sheperds Bush, but judging from the bootleg the show goes stale at some points because they play many songs that aren't as good as the warhorses (They did IORR, JJF, BS, HTW and TD by the way). It is a very good to hear this stuff, and it's great fun to watch our guys going through these oddities, but the show itself is not as good as a warhorse show (Check out Nippon Voodoo (I'm sure you have it as you prolly have EVERYTHING) for a band that's REALLY on fire for a warhorse-ish show). I'm not saying that I wouldn't enjoy hearing Melody, but it IS an oddity that would make the show seem strange. Let me point out that I would NEVER EVER go to a show to be puzzled by the choices. I'm there to ROCK my durty sox (Believe me my socks stink ).

I agree that I wouldn't wanna see them from miles away again if I can avoid it. But I do like the great outdoors much, but then again: I never saw them inside (DAMNIT). I'm always up front anyway (One, two, always). I just like that I'M up front with many thousand people on my back trying to get where I'M standing. Call me an egoist, but hey........

JumpingKentFlash

Mick made the remark at Shepherds Bush that they were going to try out unusual stuff and that if you wanted to hear the 'warhorses' (that wasnt his exact words but something like it) they'd keep them for 'up the road' at the weekend - ie, Wembley.

Pretty much everyone at Shepherds Bush that night went expecting to hear off the wall stuff. It was a show where you pretty much had to jump through hoops to get tickets for. My wife has been to about 12 shows with me and shes a 'casual' fan but THAT was her favourite show of them all. It was the best atmosphere of any Stones show I've been at, although it was VERY rough down the front. And it was £10 a ticket too - to see the Stones and Sheryl Crow on the same bill. Incredible.

anyway - 'judging from the bootleg' ? Now I thought judging a show that one didnt attend from a bootleg recording was frowned upon by some here. Evidently not. Believe me, the momentum didnt drop for a second that night. Pretty much everyone on that floor knew every song - and if they didnt, they didnt care.

The grande finale doesnt have to be the same hits though. Yes, of course, its unreasonable to end a show with a few unknown songs. I never suggested they should. Momentum is important. But - again - not the SAME friggin five or six every tour. They have enough that EVERYONE knows to tamper with that formula even slightly. You could perm any 5 or 6 from the rockers in those 20 'classics' I mentioned earlier and it would work just as well.

Funny you should mention the Voodoo Lounge Tokyo show - thats one major show from recent years that I happen to think is VERY flat and ordinary. After the brilliant SW show in the same venue 5 years earlier, it was very anti climactic. (Rio and Buenos Aires from a few weeks previously were much better shows IMO) But the VL show was NOT a 'warhorse-ish' show when you look at that setlist. A lot of new songs and even many of the old hits played on that tour had not been played in many years or ever before.

> I think history has shown what songs are their best. Get a guy who never listened to the Stones in and let him hear the entire catalogue for some months. I would bet my right nut that his favourite would be a warhorse

Its all opinion. For what its worth, my favourite 3 Stones recordings are all very well known songs - Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler and Jumpin Jack Flash.

However, none of the other 'warhorses' would be in my top ten. Maybe not even in my top 20.

Whilst someones favourite song may indeed well be a warhorse, its unlikely that after listening to a few hundred songs for a few months, his top 10-12 would ALL be warhorses. Theres the difference.

I wasn't one of those people who said that one can't juding from a bootleg. You can, but the sound has to be good though (It's quite OK on the Sheperds Bush DVD - Don't have the CD. Great sound on that no?).

It would be nice if they mixed it up on the last songs, but I don't really care if they do. At that point in a Stones concert, I'm a bloody mess and already feel beaten to a pulp. Then they take their hands around me and put me in the blender just to @#$%& me up completely. Fact is: When I'm at the concert I don't even think about the setlist for one second. I'm way too busy getting into it. On this tour I'm gonna try to not see the Europe setlists before the Horsens show. I didn't listen to ANY Stones some weeks before ABB came out either an it worked like a charm. It's just be surprised a bit.

JumpingKentFlash

To say that most people that goes and sees a show are doing it for the first time, I think is the most stupid thing I have seen on the site! There is no excuse for their lac of creativity, it is an embarrasement to a Stones fan! Its not bitching to complain about the setlists it is a hope that something will be done about it, but by now I doubt that will ever happen. As I said before it will be the end for the Stones. They personally most be so sick and tired of the same old songs as artists to want to keep it going and I think more and more fans like me will not bother to go to a show to listen to that same old stuff over and over again.

Still: The shows sell out even if this tour does have the highest hit factor ever.

JumpingKentFlash

I was outside the Stones' hotel in Beverly Hills late Saturday when they returned from Las Vegas. I was not able to get close to any of the boys, but a tour bus arrived with all the backing musicians and let them off at the sidewalk.

Knowing that Chuck makes up the setlists with Mick, I asked him for Sway and Ain't Too Proud To Beg for tonight's show at the Forum. He said he'd consider them as requests. I also told him (knowing there is almost no chance) that She's A Rainbow would also be great. He told me that was one he'd love for them to play. He was a very nice guy and I had him and Darryl sign the back of my Stripped LP. I'm hoping that any of those songs make it into tonight's setlist.

I would think the average person at the Forum tonight has seen the Stones at least 2-4 times?

Hey Gazza:

Been following this thread and am very impressed with your ability to handle all the setlist rationalizations from all quarters.

I had a good-to-great experience at the five shows I attended from Fenway to MSG. What's not to like? It's the Rolling Stones and they're still pretty good at playing that collective part.

Still, how could anyone who really cares about the band and its vast and fascinating catalogue not be disappointed that fully half of the show is made up of songs that get performed night-after-night, tour-after-tour? HALF THE SHOW.

Isn't that, in some broad sense, a waste? A blown opportunity? Give me five huge "warhorse" numbers a night. Scatter them into a hot rock'n'blues'n'funk'reggae'country set and watch the local 20,000 seat hockey hall erupt. Does anyone here really think that even first-timers don't speak the language of "Little Queenie" or "Not Fade Away?" Or "Mannish Boy?"

The Stones actually cheapen, say, "Satisfaction" by making it an obvious and obligatory part of every single evening of their performing lives. I love the song as much as anyone and that's why I don't want to see it as part of a mandatory "hits overkill" set.

To my mind, most of the comments on this thread regarding what percentage of what audience has heard what song and wants what experience are completely and totally off-base. The Stones should be LEADING and NOT SLAVISHLY FOLLOWING the wants and expectations of their audience. Sure, there should be A SCATTERING of huge anthemic moments in the show, but the first concern of the band has to be its own interest and passion. When the Stones get a chance to score with, say, "Love Is Strong" is when they tend to then turn around and take "Midnight Rambler" to a truly exhilerating place...

Doesn't matter what you or me or Gazza or BV or little-Sally-at-her-first-Stones-show wants to hear...

I want to know what Keith Richards is truly interested in playing. Dig?

PS: May be reiterating something Gazza has written, but is there anyone here that fails to make the connection between Bob Dylan and Neil Young's creative approaches to performing and the fact that they still make significant records? Don't you think if the Stones were actually excited themselves onstage that they would stand a better chance of turning out memorable work in the studio?

Good post, Reverand.

In my heart of hearts, I believe the static-ness of the setlist owes more to diminshed playing ability than anything else. Surely Mick is more aware than anyone what Ronnie is/isn't capable of handling (to say nothing about KR's situation with his arthritis). The Stones/Mick know that taking setlist "chances" at this point runs a risk of embarrassment that even a casual fan could spot, and they are not willing to "go there."

You can take this as a Ronnie bashing if you like - it's not. It's an honest reflection on the Stones in 2006.

All good points above. Without repeating myself for the 100th time about the lack of creativity of their shows how hard would it be to go out and play a set like this.. There is no Start Me up or Miss You so some people may freak out here. And why not try Country Honk one night instead of the usual. I bet the whole would be singing along.


Mothers Little Helper (Mick takes the stage and says “what a drag it is getting old…”
Its All Over Now
Oh No Not You Again
She Was Hot
All Down The Line
Black Limousine
Laugh I Nearly Died
Gimme Shelter
This Place is Empty
You Got the Silver
Love is Strong –b-stage comes out
As Tears Go By
Country Honk
Sympathy For the Devil (acoustic maybe into electric as Keith’s solo comes in at the end, stage goes back)
Look What The Cat Dragged In
@#$%&
Satisfaction
Brown Sugar
Encore:
Midnight Rambler
Jumpin Jack Flash

thats a great set--list--Hound dog

Hound Dog:

I count myself among the defenders of the current setlist (if it's ALL warhorses, I'm still happy), but you're right, the setlist you propose would definitely be performable, and the audience would have a great time.

I am sure, The Stones change the SETLIST in Europe! Open the concert with "Under my thumb". Ruby tuesday---angie----and streets of love surely will be played.
Hope for "Shes a rainbow"--and "paint it, black" I dont wanna hear "Miss you" again---Sorry---liza

Here's an example of the 'rotation' system that I've been talking about. I just threw this together off the top of my head in my tea break at work today in about 10 minutes, so its not something that requires much thought

Basically, for a bit of fun this is a list of a standard 21-song Rolling Stones setlist for this tour - with alternates thrown in to keep it fresh. An A-list and a B-list if you like. The show is structured in a way to have a requisite number of warhorses including a well known song to open the show, a classic ballad, a 'rarities' spot, a part in the show reserved for new songs, a classic cover version, Keith's 2 songs, a 3-stage bstage set, a final run through of crowd pleasers and a 2-song encore. Basically similar to what we already have. I've tried to pair each song off with another song (or songs) which either have a similar theme or recognisability or which would have a similar impact on the crowd when performed as the song they alternate with

I've tried to make it reasonable. Very few of the songs mentioned have not so far been played on this current tour, and those that havent are songs that have either been recently recorded (ie for the new album) or have been frequently played on recent tours so shouldnt be hard to work up again. So, I'm not asking for them to suddenly dig out obscure stuff theyve probably never even rehearsed for 20 years or anything. I've even left out quite a few songs that HAVE been played this tour and which could also be brought back in when the occasion demands

here we go :

1) Jumpin' Jack Flash / Start Me Up
2) Shattered / She's So Cold
3) Tumbling Dice / Lets Spend The Night Together
4) Back Of My Hand / any other ABB song (eg She Saw Me Coming)
5) Dead Flowers / All Down The Line
6) Worried About You / Sway / Memory Motel
7) Wild Horses / Ruby Tuesday / As Tears Go By
8) Rain Fall Down / any other ABB song
9) Night Time / Mr Pitiful / Get Up Stand Up/ Aint Too proud To Beg

10) This Place Is Empty/ Slipping Away/ The Worst
11) Happy/ Infamy/ Before They Make Me Run

12) Miss You

13) Rough Justice / Oh No Not You Again
14) either a slow blues song (Rooster, Wanna Make Love to You, Mannish Boy) or a Chuck Berry-style rocker (Little Queenie, Route 66, Carol, etc)
15) Honky Tonk Women / Street Fighting Man


16) Sympathy For The Devil / Gimme Shelter
17) Out of Control/ Beast of Burden
18) Respectable / Get Off Of My Cloud
19) Brown Sugar / Paint It Black

20) You Cant Always Get What You Want / Midnight Rambler
21) Satisfaction / Its Only rock 'n' Roll

The show is structured as it is now. Songs 10-11 are keith's set, 12 is the song which takes them to the b-stage, 13-15 is the b-stage, 20-21 are the final encores - and so on.

Ok, so the way you have it is a 'warhorse' as an opener, plus #3, #7, #12, #15, #16, #19, 20 & 21

Thats 9 songs a night evenly distributed throughout the show that EVERYONE will know. You can drop any one of those songs and replace with another which is as well known and (in practically all cases) which is also to be found on "40 Licks", which appears to be the 'benchmark' of recognisable 'classics' for even the most casual fan.

Obviously, you wouldnt change many of them per night (maybe 3 or 4) and some you would expect to hear maybe 80% of the time at least (You should certainly be expected to hear at least 3 out of their 4 best known songs - Satisfaction, JJ Flash, Brown Sugar and HT Women - at any one show)..and just because one of the classics gets played doesnt mean its alternate cant be slotted it in place of another 'rotating warhorse' from time to time (eg, you could open with JJF but still occasionally play Start Me Up later in the show, say as track 15 on the b-stage). You could even move Paint It Black to be an occasional opener (what a beginning to a show THAT would be). The important thing is that there are a certain number of 'slots' in the show where you have a warhorse. A show obviously needs a certain number to retain some momentum.

Of the others, song #6 is the 'rarely played' slot, #9 is the classic cover, #10-11 are Keith's set (one slow one, one rocker - the way he seems to like to pace it, with one of the songs being one of the new songs). There are 4 slots for ABB songs, including Keith's one. Again, like the warhorses, these could be moved around. They could play Rough Justice on the b-stage and still play ONNYA at song #4, similar to what they do at the minute.

The only song I havent listed an alternative for is 'Miss You'. Whilst its the one warhorse I think sounds the most tired of all, its performed at a pivotal point of the show from a technical standpoint as its when the band are moved out to the b-stage. I cant really think of a suitable alternative which is as recognisable, similar in length and style and which Mick would play guitar on while the stage moves.

So, with minimal tweaks to the existing setlist, the fan can go to a Stones show, know hes getting a requisite number of warhorses, but the element of surprise is still there because even if youve been following the tour from city to city or online, you CANT reasonably predict what the Stones are going to play on any given evening. Theres no real extra effort required on the band's part as for the most part these songs have already been played or are at least pretty fresh to them and/or recently rehearsed or recorded. I'm being uncharacteristically generous by not being too insistent on adding new songs that have been long lost to the setlist. They could add them in as the tour progresses in the appropriate 'slots' as they please.

And to reiterate, I'm not suggesting that they should be changing 10-15 songs per night or anything like that (even though its doable). Maybe even 5-8 per show - even over the one nighters and not (as is the case at the minute) keeping the rarely played stuff for places where theyve visited earlier in thr tour. The key is that its not the SAME 5-8 'slots' in the show per night. Change them around - 2-3 of the warhorses per night, maybe 1 of Keith's, 1 of the covers, 1 of the new songs, 1 'rarity' , 1 or 2 of the album tracks.

The magic is that you go to a show and always will come away surprised, yet satisfied. And the band can keep a show fresh and wont ever be in danger of auto pilot, without having to overreach themselves.

Pick your own setlist at random out of those selections in that order (and taking into account the warhorses can move around in the set) and I doubt anyone would complain

Gazza - we're gonna have to have a special donation to BV for additional file space just for your posts!

But, I think I speak for everyone when I say - spot on! It's all we really need/expect/demand (those terms can be used on a similar rotational basis, too!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-08 01:55 by StonesTod.

I agree that Miss You is going to stay right where it is for the rest of the tour except for the rare venue where they might not use the moving stage but,I don't think that it had to be this way.I believe that the moving stage was a great opportunity to try something neat.The casual fans would be amused enough by seeing the stage move - kind of the same way all of the lighting was used during 2000 Light Years From Home during the '89/'90 tour.Undercover Of The Night?Maybe not quite long enough.Dance or Hot Stuff or Fingerprint File?There must have been other possibilities.She Was Hot would have been great on the way back but,with Leavell?

well, you know they're gonna play songs coming & going that they are VERY comfortable playing - so Miss You and HTW make sense, unfortunately. The whole b-stage has completely lost it's meaning on this tour, IMO. I mean RJ/YGMR the other night - might as well have played it as a medley. Used to be that real risks were taken out there and they truly played "without a net" - no more. I actually took my piss break at one of the shows during the b-stage and didn't feel like I missed a thing.

everyone has great points here
and the only people who have issues with the setlist are on this board.
Some daring setlists might work better outside America.
If they played America for 150 - 450 a ticket and played some of the "dream" setlists i see suggested, it wouldn't work in stadiums and the reviews would be awful. I remember people in 1999 leaving DC and Charlotte wondering why they didn't sing Satisfaction or Miss You.
The B-Stage (imo) would be the place for the rarites.
Remember what Chuck said about Sway the first time. It didn't seem to connect with the aud. (in that town anyway)
I would love to see an all rare set just as much as anybody else.

I know people who never have posted a thing on this board that were upset at not hearing random songs at Stones concerts & people who don't go to see them anymore might not be going because they expect the same old songs to be played.They might make similar money to what they made in the '90's because of ticket prices but,the attendance is not as good in almost every city.On January 15 there was a lower deck section almost completely empty right up until just before the Stones came on.It looked pretty suspicious to me that all of the late arriving people had tickets to the same section or two.