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

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. 

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.

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

A lot of truth spoken here.

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

 

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.

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?

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


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).

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



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.