Because if Jagger had 100% control over set lists, they would routinely underwhelm:

"Our last show in California, and the second one at the Staples Center. As usual, I took one of the early vans and settled in to do the set list and prepare for sound check. No guest on board tonight…the first time on the tour that has happened…and I have to say, kind of nice to have a break from it and have it be just us. Of course Mick Taylor would guest as usual, and I took advantage of that to suggest he be on more tunes. We had a “By Request” for the first time in a couple of shows, and “Sway” had won that position. That would serve as one tune for Taylor to play on, and as I had been stressing to get “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking” in and finally convinced Mick J to do it, that would be another…and we kept “Midnight Rambler”, so that was the third. Actually, of late he has been coming out for the final encore and playing on “Satisfaction”, so it was actually four tunes he would play on. I suggested “Far Away Eyes”, which had the reference to Bakersfield…and “…sending $20 to the church of the Bleedin’ Hearts somewhere in Los An…” for fun. It turned out to be a very special show, and the hard cores lit up the Internet and YouTube with positive comments and snippets. Mick thought it was one “…unusual song” too many, but I personally disagreed and thought it was great. Not that he thought the set as a whole didn’t work…he liked it, too and of course liked the fact that the fans were chattering about it. He commented to me later…rightfully…that we didn’t quite get the reaction on “Far Away Eyes” that we thought we would…they liked it, but it didn’t seem to bowl them over like we anticipated. Still, ya gotta take some chances, and we both agree on that."

I'm a fan of Chuck. I've met him a few times and he's a very nice person.

His instincts are fundamentally sound: in '94, he recommended going with one keyboardist and fewer horns. He's the guy pressing Jagger to dig deeper into the catalog. He's like a mole inside the Stones organization, representing the interests of people like us. And yet few seem to realize it.

Chuck is a good guy, in my book.  I don't get the crap he gets on the boards for just doing his job.  Without him, the last 3 or 4 tours would have probably been far less interesting, setlist wise.  But he must have to bite his tongue sometimes when pushing the obscurer songs on Jagger.  I'm sure there's a very thin line to cross if he got a little too pushy about it. 

I'M SURE HE'S A SWEETHEART.
BUT I'D RATHER HAVE MAC OR STU OR NICKY, AND HE'S GOTTA TAKE THE HEAT.

How can Jagger be fretting about "one obscure song too many" being in the set??
At these prices only diehards are going to the shows. They know the catalog better than the Stones do.
Reward them with deeper cuts.

When you read stuff like that you really have to ask yourself what colour is the sky in Mick Jagger's world.

Chuck's a very nice man with a good heart who clearly cares more deeply about the Stones legacy and has more faith in them than the band do themselves.  Without him, your setlists over the last decade would basically be most of Jump Back with a smattering of hits from 1968-69. Every night.

His biggest crime appears to be that he's not one of a couple of dead guys and he's doing something that every single one of us has probably fantasised about. Being onstage with and the musical director of The Rolling Stones. We all know we cant be a Stone and as some fans cant allow themselves to criticise their heroes, bashing a hired hand is the easy alternative.

It's the (rest of the) band's job to convince Jogger they can back him up on any nervy or eclectic outings, shirley, Gazza. Alternatively, when Charlie W is comfy, all is dandy. Or something. Gawd knows.

Here's an olde interview I stumbed across...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IghtFwXuKsA

I'm not sure which is the greater. Mick's lack of confidence in his bandmates' musical chops or his lack of confidence in his own ability to keep an audience interested and engaged for over two hours. With all this stuff about too many ballads/obscure songs/oddities etc, I honestly think it's the latter.

Which is a somewhat odd level of insecurity for someone of his level of greatness as a performer.

A lot of truth spoken here.

THE SHOW THEY ARE PERFORMING DOESNT NEED TO FUCKED WITH IN ANY WAY.
THE FANS KNOW EVERY SONG THEY ARE PLAYIN,EXCEPT FOR THE 2 NEW ONES, AND ARE INTO IT THE WHOLE WAY.
AND THATS WHAT MICK WANTS.

Interesting to note that MICK cares what we are chattering about after the shows! Chuck's cool.

BILL PERKS wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 9:12am:

THE SHOW THEY ARE PERFORMING DOESNT NEED TO FUCKED WITH IN ANY WAY. THE FANS KNOW EVERY SONG THEY ARE PLAYIN,EXCEPT FOR THE 2 NEW ONES, AND ARE INTO IT THE WHOLE WAY. AND THATS WHAT MICK WANTS.

Considering the concept of this tour is to celebrate their 50th anniversary, the format of the show theyre doing is pretty much spot on in theory and for the most part in the way they're presenting it.

A few tweaks would make it even better.

1) The guests - the idea of it is fine. Duetting with people who've influenced them, their contemporaries and with people who they're passing the torch on to. Its made for some good and unusual song choices at times. However, I'm unconvinced that some of the choices in the latter category are genuinely in the latter group as some of them are chosen for other reasons, such as being purely easy on the eye.

2) Mick Taylor - the best and worst change that theyve made on this tour. The best in the sense of what he's added to the show in a musical sense - and the worst in the sense that he's being criminally underused. Its the musical equivalent of being at a peep show and having a great ass dangled in front of your face for a few minutes and then the door closes just as you're getting a stiffy.

3) The warhorse run through - theyre being played well (better than in years in some cases) and they always go down a treat. But always the same ones and played in exactly the same order? By all means play a lot of greatest hits - but a bit of rotation would be easy to do.

  http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_magu9oyJzc1ro8ysbo1_500.gif

Mick panics if the energy level of the crowd drops 1%. He can't seem to grasp that they might just be listening a bit more attentively if the song is not off 40 Licks ....... They are playing the warhorses better than recent tours, but a lot of us have (understandably) focussed our attentions on songs 5-7 and it's sometimes not enough. As Gazza says, A few tweaks and it could be perfect.

Saying that,I can't say that I've not enjoyed any Stones show and this tour is right up there with the best. Chicago 2 was in my top 3 of all time .

Hyde park may see some surprises . They keep rehearsing 2000 LYFH !


sc uk

The 2 stand out performances for me this tour, by a huge margin, are I Wanna Be Your Man and Street Fightin Man.  The inclusion of stuff like Miss You means that I can nip out for a slash and not miss anything.

Gazza wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 3:22pm:

BILL PERKS wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 9:12am: THE SHOW THEY ARE PERFORMING DOESNT NEED TO FUCKED WITH IN ANY WAY. THE FANS KNOW EVERY SONG THEY ARE PLAYIN,EXCEPT FOR THE 2 NEW ONES, AND ARE INTO IT THE WHOLE WAY. AND THATS WHAT MICK WANTS. Considering the concept of this tour is to celebrate their 50th anniversary, the format of the show theyre doing is pretty much spot on in theory and for the most part in the way they're presenting it. A few tweaks would make it even better. 1) The guests - the idea of it is fine. Duetting with people who've influenced them, their contemporaries and with people who they're passing the torch on to. Its made for some good and unusual song choices at times. However, I'm unconvinced that some of the choices in the latter category are genuinely in the latter group as some of them are chosen for other reasons, such as being purely easy on the eye. 2) Mick Taylor - the best and worst change that theyve made on this tour. The best in the sense of what he's added to the show in a musical sense - and the worst in the sense that he's being criminally underused. Its the musical equivalent of being at a peep show and having a great ass dangled in front of your face for a few minutes and then the door closes just as you're getting a stiffy. 3) The warhorse run through - theyre being played well (better than in years in some cases) and they always go down a treat. But always the same ones and played in exactly the same order? By all means play a lot of greatest hits - but a bit of rotation would be easy to do.

GOOD POINTS GAZZA.
I THINK MJ MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH FAITH IN MT TO STICK TO THE SONG,HE TENDS TO WANT TO IMPROVISE.

AS FAR AS GUESTS,AEG MAY POSSIBLY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SOME CHOICES.

It's certainly interesting to read just how far Chuck is in the corner of the hardcore fan.  I wish Mick cared that much, but I guess you can afford to not really care when you're truly getting paid to only show up to BE Mick Jagger and the actual performance is just the side show.

I wonder what would happen if the setlist duties were up to Chuck completely.  Or how about fully up to Keith? Or Ron? Or Charlie?  What not do THAT for a few nights on the tour and see what happens?

Sad that it takes Chuck Leavell to speak up and lobby for more Mick Taylor. Nobody else in the band dares say it?

Gazza wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 3:48am:

I'm not sure which is the greater. Mick's lack of confidence in his bandmates' musical chops or his lack of confidence in his own ability to keep an audience interested and engaged for over two hours. With all this stuff about too many ballads/obscure songs/oddities etc, I honestly think it's the latter. Which is a somewhat odd level of insecurity for someone of his level of greatness as a performer.

Gazza I firmly came down on your side of the debate regarding this argument before I went to the second LA show but I came out of that show sympathizing with Mick's and the rest of the band's position. As some others reported, every time a lesser known number came up (even Sway) the huge majority of the audience was just lost. The guy standing next to me even grunted some disapproval and started drinking much more. He only got interested again when the war horses came in and he could yell: Yeah baby, rock and roll, whooooooo (cue the heavy metal salute). It's difficult to sell a show like they do and have the audience stay like that for an entire tour.

Where I fault them is for two things. First, if they cared about the fans and the music, they would play club shows and make it all about the hidden gems and do something like one album or have Mick Taylor on for the whole set, but we all know that will never happen. It won't happen probably because they don't give enough of a toss to do that and probably because Mick and Keith don't really get along well enough. Also, when they do play their 1 or 2 club shows a tour, it should not be catered to allow a bunch of wanky celebrities to have priority over long time fans.

Second, the arrangements on the warhorses are almost identical every single tour. One of the great things about seeing Dylan is that he comes up with so many interesting arrangements and I've even failed to recognize some new ones until after about 10 seconds on some classic songs. The last time I remember the Stones doing that was Not Fade Away on Voodoo Lounge and I thought it was dynamite.

As for Chuck: I've never understood the anger towards him. He plays beautifully and is easily one of the best piano and keyboard players in the world. In addition to people wanting to be up there with the band, I think it also has to do with him not fitting in with the junkie/debauched image people want everything associated with the Stones to have. It probably bothers some that he's not falling apart and he has a proper family life and takes care of his health. Sometimes people care more about the image of the band than the reality of what goes on (i.e. worshipping some of the crap Keith and Ronnie say when it has no basis in reality).

Did i ever tell you guys i met Chuck once?
It was in Nice (2007 i believe) & we were on a bus going
to the stadium..

Well... I was on the bus & Chuck stood outside his Hotel..

but still:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/Egonvdv/chuckleavell_fron_hotel.jpg

Great story, I know.

The Wick wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 1:34am:

Gazza wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 3:48am: I'm not sure which is the greater. Mick's lack of confidence in his bandmates' musical chops or his lack of confidence in his own ability to keep an audience interested and engaged for over two hours. With all this stuff about too many ballads/obscure songs/oddities etc, I honestly think it's the latter. Which is a somewhat odd level of insecurity for someone of his level of greatness as a performer. Gazza I firmly came down on your side of the debate regarding this argument before I went to the second LA show but I came out of that show sympathizing with Mick's and the rest of the band's position. As some others reported, every time a lesser known number came up (even Sway) the huge majority of the audience was just lost. The guy standing next to me even grunted some disapproval and started drinking much more. He only got interested again when the war horses came in and he could yell: Yeah baby, rock and roll, whooooooo (cue the heavy metal salute). It's difficult to sell a show like they do and have the audience stay like that for an entire tour.Where I fault them is for two things. First, if they cared about the fans and the music, they would play club shows and make it all about the hidden gems and do something like one album or have Mick Taylor on for the whole set, but we all know that will never happen. It won't happen probably because they don't give enough of a toss to do that and probably because Mick and Keith don't really get along well enough. Also, when they do play their 1 or 2 club shows a tour, it should not be catered to allow a bunch of wanky celebrities to have priority over long time fans. Second, the arrangements on the warhorses are almost identical every single tour. One of the great things about seeing Dylan is that he comes up with so many interesting arrangements and I've even failed to recognize some new ones until after about 10 seconds on some classic songs. The last time I remember the Stones doing that was Not Fade Away on Voodoo Lounge and I thought it was dynamite. As for Chuck: I've never understood the anger towards him. He plays beautifully and is easily one of the best piano and keyboard players in the world. In addition to people wanting to be up there with the band, I think it also has to do with him not fitting in with the junkie/debauched image people want everything associated with the Stones to have. It probably bothers some that he's not falling apart and he has a proper family life and takes care of his health. Sometimes people care more about the image of the band than the reality of what goes on (i.e. worshipping some of the crap Keith and Ronnie say when it has no basis in reality).

I agree - but its completely of their own doing. I maintain that eventually an act gets the sort of audience that they deserve. Theyve priced and tailored a show to a specific demographic and thats the inevitable result. A lot of acts of similar vintage suit themselves and trust their audience to grow with them and discover their music beyond the greatest hits stuff. It bemuses me how a band who have sold 200 million plus records seem to have an audience which is largely ignorant of anything in their back catalogue beyond Hot Rocks/40 Licks. I mean, how can someone pay hundreds of dollars to see a band like the Stones - and NOT know 'Sticky Fingers' ?

Good point on the rearrangements of old songs. '19th Nervous Breakdown' on the ABB tour was maybe a more recent example of one they reworked.