Mick sounds better with the Stones.

Saint Sway wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:


It's an evidence that Jagger is better with the Rolling Stones , but don't  touch Foo Fighters  cause for most youngers ,and for example my 23 years son , they are what the Stones were in the 70 .
Anyway , listening to the partial tracks from Trabendo the Stones don't surprise me , same old song and dance !
i hope they will do better with some rares tracks like Winter etc , we all got a long list of wishes .
Today they even caricature them, maybe it is because they do not have the technique, it is very sad.
Maybe  it's because Dudes are old

Steel Wheels wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:


Christ so would Tiny Tim

Last night was really fun to experience a live set-list session again. After today's (long) work it's again fun to read the reviews, watch pics and you tube and can go to bed knowing my favourite band can still do it!!

grt,
Albert
Holland

Steel Wheels wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:



They really wouldnt, you know.

They might revolt if the music is shambolic, though.

And how many 'hits' do the Stones have - just the same eight or ten that they ALWAYS play?

And whats the worst these people could do - not come back for their next tour in five years time? Thats REALLY gonna hurt the band's feelings.



Quote:


Absolutely untrue. When they toured from 1969-73 or so, the show was pretty much all music written from 1968 onwards. Songs like JJF and Brown Sugar weren't warhorses back then, they were recent hits or new material. Their old hits like Satisfaction, Get off of My cloud, Last time, Paint It Black werent getting played. It was as if they were a new band.

Steel Wheels wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:


Yes, but you said they have never avoided 'warhorses' in large venues. They have. In the period I'm talking about 'Brown Sugar' (for example) was a new song - it hadnt gained the iconic status that 'Satisfaction' had. Mick himself has even said onstage in recent years when 'justifying' playing new songs that in order for songs to become 'oldies' they have to be 'new' at some point. Which is correct. Most of the songs played in 1969-73 were new in concert to the audience that were experiencing them.  In 1972 for example, the Stones were playing songs from Exile and Sticky Fingers in the US for the first time. The only songs that the US audience would have seen them play before were Street Fighting Man, Jumpin Jack Flash (and only if theyd seen them in 1969) and if they were lucky one or two others. Nothing earlier than 1968 except for about five performances of 'Satisfaction' as a medley with Stevie Wonder.

Quote:



In which case, Mick's full of shit. Its a cop-out. It wouldnt be a problem if his shows werent tailored towards corporate blow-ins who only know ten songs. Thats HIS problem for having those people in the front five rows that he's looking out at every night.

Wasnt an issue even in the 90s when theyd routinely play stuff like No Expectations or Memory Motel in a stadium. Can you imagine that happening now? You're lucky if you hear the Stones play a single blues song in anywhere larger than a theatre. On the 1999 tour - the first tour they did where they brought in the crazy prices, they dropped 'Satisfaction' and 'Miss You'. They even announced before the tickets went on sale that some old songs were being rested. They sold out every show and - people still came back in their millions the next time.

If Mick Jagger - supposedly the greatest entertainer on earth - cant get a crowd excited and has to worry about performing certain songs to keep them interested then that says something about either Mick's self-confidence (something youd never imagine he was short of) or his audience - because he sure as hell has an abundance of quality material. Other musicians dont always need to be a jukebox for the audience - no reason why a band like the Stones, who have more great and recognisable songs than anyone - should be. Theyve sold about 200 million record for goodness sake - how difficult is it for an audience paying a lot of money for a ticket to invest in the bands music enough to know more than 8-10 songs?

Mick has allowed the Stones to be a jukebox for people too lazy or disinterested in the band's music. By paying lots of money, come people feel theyre somewhow 'entitled' to hear their favourite songs. They're not. And pandering to that is an utter waste of a great body of work from a great band.  

Saint Sway wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:



word

Gazza wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 4:46pm:



POETRY IN MOTION!!!

I saw the Foo Fighters in 1995. Bored the shit out of me, never paid much attention since.

Is it the bi-anual transfusions of the blood of whippets and spaniels? Or due to his 'old lady' and dawters being rather osmosisingly-lovely? Or is K's, and the Stains', overall humour that most drives them forward, and ameliorates any tidsy bits of Arthur Ritis?  It's said that Michael's joints and limbs are fit-as-Beiber at this juncture, but it's rarely been the case that KR hasn't 'pulled one out of the bag/trousers/portfolio' when ncessary.

I've harped on this before, but here goes again: the problem is not the 8-10 warhorses; the problem is length of show. I'm not suggesting the Stones try to replicate Bruce's 3-plus-hours extravaganzas. But there's a happy medium -- I'd say 2-hours-and-20 -- where everyone goes home happy.

Mel Belli wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Right Mel. It's not just the warhorses. Even Bruce has his core setlist. But try different songs in the rest of the set. Change more than 1 or 2 songs a night.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Oct 27^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

a lotta plinking.