|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
As Fmk has already touched on, how the fuck can you slag a show you aren't even fucking well attending???????? I'm fucking dumbstruck. You can't comment on a show just by looking at a setlist. I don't really think much of Like A Rollin' Stone, but hey! I saw some guy who obviously loves that song going fucking apeshit surrounded by complete fucking tossers who had no right to be taking up seats at this gig. More power to him! How dare you criticise a show you neither attended, or have yet heard? Wankers!!!! |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
WORD.
I do not understand it, neither do I resonate with it, nor does it compute, no comprehension say I!
Our love is like our music, baby, it's here and then it's gone!
This setlist bitching has got to go, daddy. It has become as boring and redundant as the lists it purportedly criticizes allegedly are.
Use your mentality!
Wake up to reality!
I can see an alternate reality where there were message boards discussing the Australian tour re: 1973: Oh, blimey, they played BITCH again!! Why don't they play Stop Breaking Down?!?!
Too much love drive a man insane, mama.
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
amen to that - it's the singer not the song
i think a lot of people completely misunderstand the stones doing LARS
i was particularly taken with their perfomance of it on the 22nd
aside from the cute title connection there is absolutely no reason why they should do it (or any dylan tune for that matter) at all, yet they persist with it - could it be, as well as giving a nod to bob, that they enjoy playing it?? - it's a real test of the audience (and the band)and i, for one, am glad they do it
it's a big piece of work, as anyone who has ever played in a band or strummed a guitar and sang a tune knows, his bobness' songs are pretty much hard work - you've really got to want to do it
so for all those that knock LARS (and i know this means you marko) when you hear it think on the fact that they are playing it because they mean it and perhaps there is something in it that they really want you to "get"
i mean, it would be quite easy for them to replace it with another of their own tunes (and that would be a much more "audience friendly" move) yet they don't, it makes me think they really want us to hear it for some reason
|
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Hey Stoned! ya got eyes & ears, no doubt!....Do you remember Dylan saying, "I coulda written Satisfaction, but could The Stones have written Like A Rollin' Stone?....Payback was late comin'...but it came. |
|
|
| marko |
aaaaaah i still don�t like lars at all,that remains me of
a swdish dude,yikes.I heard it in 1995,it was ok then,after
pointless and needles to play or hear. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
marko wrote:
aaaaaah i still don�t like lars at all,that remains me of
a swdish dude,yikes.I heard it in 1995,it was ok then,after
pointless and needles to play or hear.
Yeah! Like point taken MArko, but you know like I say... I can take it or leave it personal like, but when I saw that guy gettin' so into it, and everyuvver boring git is like on the mobile to the baby sitter.....I see a perspective uver un mine, know what I mean? |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
I like LARS because it is a great sing along.
I like to sing at shows.
And on the news before them.
If anyone has ever seen my eclectic, riveting performance of Can't You Hear Me Knockin' on the WB, you know what I'm talking about.
So keep LARS in there.
MAXY!
|
|
|
| telecaster |
They could come out on stage and take a dump for all I care.
People that bitch about song lists, especially when they
weren't there drive me nuts.
It is a fucking Rolling Stones concert. They are alive, playing, playing well, enjoy. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
amen to that - it's the singer not the song
i think a lot of people completely misunderstand the stones doing LARS
i was particularly taken with their perfomance of it on the 22nd
aside from the cute title connection there is absolutely no reason why they should do it (or any dylan tune for that matter) at all, yet they persist with it - could it be, as well as giving a nod to bob, that they enjoy playing it?? - it's a real test of the audience (and the band)and i, for one, am glad they do it
i mean, it would be quite easy for them to replace it with another of their own tunes (and that would be a much more "audience friendly" move) yet they don't, it makes me think they really want us to hear it for some reason
I agree -- they seem to take it as a badge of eternal lawless survival and they really seem to like the connection it makes with the audience. As a Dylan nut, I was never thrilled with the Stripped performance, because I'd been privy to much more crashing, chance taking versions (how do you beat the version played in Manchester '66? Not even the Stones can top that.) But both times I saw them play it on this tour, you could really feel their personal connection with it, and the American audiences, anyway, loved it. Except for the all knowing hot rock hating hard cores. The audience doesn't really know the words (they always hit the "Like a Rolling Stone!" part of the chorus one line too soon) but I think for the Stones it really is a song of unity and survival. Which is ironic considering the song Dylan wrote is one of dissolution and uncertainty. I think they are proud of their version and the amount of audience participation it gets, and more power to them for sticking with a 90s move and selling it to a big audience who seems to love it. I feel the same way about You Got Me Rockin', another choice unpopular with armchair quarterback "hardcores".
Little piece of cornbread layin' on the shelf/If you want anymore you can sing it yourself!
|
|
|
| woodywoodpecker |
AH Do I sense a C10 connection to this post?
Maxy should hear Woodpecker do Dancin with Mr.D! |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
I comment on any show, no matter I attended or not.
Come on guys it is the same setlist all over again. Why do the US always get the good stuff?? |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
I comment on any show, no matter I attended or not.
Come on guys it is the same setlist all over again. Why do the US always get the good stuff??
Excuse me, but what about the Paradiso, L'Olympia, Shepherd's Bush? Europe saw more club gigs with varied setlists in the 90s than the US did (scheduled theater and club gigs with varied setlists in the US during the 90s: 0). Sounds like greener grass and sour grapes to me. You better watch your karma or you're gonna end up with a 15 song setlist where they play It's Only Rock and Roll TWICE.
|
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Excuse me, but what about the Paradiso, L'Olympia, Shepherd's Bush? Europe saw more club gigs with varied setlists in the 90s than the US did (scheduled theater and club gigs with varied setlists in the US during the 90s: 0). Sounds like greener grass and sour grapes to me. You better watch your karma or you're gonna end up with a 15 song setlist where they play It's Only Rock and Roll TWICE.
Excuse me but what about the start of the current tour? Much more fucking variaton in songs in the US. What about the No security tour? The European part was B2B all over again.
Paradiso? Olympia? Sheperds? These were all so called suprise gigs. You could attend if you were on the right place at the right time without even being a fan. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
yup, for the paradiso,
there where more celebs and non fans then fans!
and what about the obscure songs like SSC and T&F?
it's about apples and pears, but 1 thing is for sure, hahaha you always get most songs haha! |
|
|
| Gazza |
take out those '95 shows - which were done primarily for material for a live album with a "small club" concept - and hardly as a "thank you" for fans - and you'll find theres been very few "club or theatre" shows in Europe in the last 20 years
Shepherds Bush?? Uhh...one thing may have slipped everyones mind for that one (it also slipped those of the band).. when they postponed the UK shows in 1998 the announced at the time that when they returned a year later they would play "10-12 small venues around the UK - including several in cities they havent visited in over two decades"
so..we cancelled our flights and hotels that we'd booked for August 1998 and didnt worry about the expense and inconvenience too much because the boys were gonna make it up to us. We didnt blame them too much for the cancellations as they were doing it primarily to help the road crew (later exposed as absolute bollocks as most of the crew werent UK residents. If theyd been honest and admitted they canceleld the shows as they didnt want the tour to run at a loss because of the tax changes, it would have been a totally reasonable excuse) Of course,what happened in 1999 was 35 lucrative arena shows in North America, 7 or 8 additional European STADIUM shows in Holland,Germany,Austria and Spain - and one UK theatre show - NOT in the provinces but in fucking London as usual - and in the same week that they were gonna there anyway for 2 shows in front of 140,000 people at Wembley. They even put the bloody tickets on sale the day before the show when most GENUINE fans would have STILL been in Sheffield seeing them perform - 250 miles away! Half of the tickets went to the band's families and hangers-on anyway!
European fans get preferential treatment? You gotta be kidding! The band have always taken thrown the setlists around a lot more in the US..by the time they reach Europe, theyve generally been easy to predict. One song has been premiered on the Licks Tour since October (Waiting on a Friend) - in my book thats hardly daring.
I cant really comment on the setlists for Australia. Sure,theyve become mundane but the fact is,most of the people seeing the shows in the last couple of weeks WERENT in the US for those shows so its "fresh" to THEM! The reviews from our Aussie friends have said the shows were high energy and the band in good form,so thats all we can expect. However, 19 songs is crap and when youre effectively saying that an audience in one country gets a setlist thats a couple of songs shorter than those in the one youve just left,then IMO unless the shows are shorter for health reasons, youre insulting that particular audience who have paid a lot of money to see you. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Well from what I've heard& witnessed Jagger definately has some vocal problems, so what? He's still pulling it off. I never want A Stones show to end anyway. 19 songs, that were longer than usual instrumentally, still gave us two hour shows. You'd all be going like" no Satisfaction, No Honky Tonk? no JJF, no Brown Sugar? Setlists reflect fuck all. |
|
|
| gypsy |
Jagger's doing damn good for nearly 60! I admire his endurance just as I admire that of a boxer's. I hope I have his stamina when I'm that age.
I also like it when they do LARS. We had a great time singing along with them and the rest of the crowd. If you didn't have a good time during LARS, then that's your fucking loss. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
I comment on any show, no matter I attended or not.
Come on guys it is the same setlist all over again. Why do the US always get the good stuff??
OK! I'm sick of biting my cyber tounge here, You're Dutch right? Nothing more to say really...Arrogance personified. I hope The Rotterdam Stadium crumbles before they arrive, Sorry Moonisup! as far as I can see you're cool, I hate getting personal, but this really is fucking getting on my tits! |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
gypsymofo60 wrote:
OK! I'm sick of biting my cyber tounge here, You're Dutch right? Nothing more to say really...Arrogance personified. I hope The Rotterdam Stadium crumbles before they arrive, Sorry Moonisup! as far as I can see you're cool, I hate getting personal, but this really is fucking getting on my tits!
Getting personal? Just look at the facts. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
Getting personal? Just look at the facts.
Getting personal? probably!.....it was stupid of me to lose it, but I'm sick to fucking death of people 12.000 miles away looking at a set list and deciding from that, or rather ASSUMING, that because they don't like a list the show was shit. I hope someone has recorded it, then you can tell us what you really think. |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Just play the fucking track... |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
gypsymofo60 wrote:
Getting personal? probably!.....it was stupid of me to lose it, but I'm sick to fucking death of people 12.000 miles away looking at a set list and deciding from that, or rather ASSUMING, that because they don't like a list the show was shit. I hope someone has recorded it, then you can tell us what you really think.
My point is NOT that the shows suck or anything. According to the reviews, most attending people enjoyed the shows.
Point is, that compared to the American shows the setlist is becoming a standard one. Variation in songs was much better in the States. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
My point is NOT that the shows suck or anything. According to the reviews, most attending people enjoyed the shows.
Point is, that compared to the American shows the setlist is becoming a standard one. Variation in songs was much better in the States.
Well let's not kid ourselves here for a single minute. We are talking Australia..ten, fifteen years between drinks is not unusual. Mick & Keith are assuming a 'Hot Rocks' crowd wherever they turn up, and in all honesty, as I have pointed out before; where Australia is concerned, if they did not throw at least half a dozen war-horses in each show they would be crucified. |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
gypsymofo60 wrote:
Well let's not kid ourselves here for a single minute. We are talking Australia..ten, fifteen years between drinks is not unusual. Mick & Keith are assuming a 'Hot Rocks' crowd wherever they turn up, and in all honesty, as I have pointed out before; where Australia is concerned, if they did not throw at least half a dozen war-horses in each show they would be crucified.
Point taken. But we've seen this before..I am worried about setlists for European shows. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
Point taken. But we've seen this before..I am worried about setlists for European shows.
Europe's another story entirely, just check your live albums, particuarly where Europe's followed Australia. Who knows? Maybe they will preview new material. |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
gypsymofo60 wrote:
Europe's another story entirely, just check your live albums, particuarly where Europe's followed Australia. Who knows? Maybe they will preview new material.
I'll drink to that! |
|
|
| Moonisup |
Maybe they do standards a bit cos the last time in Oz was in 1995! and mick was a bit sick during the shows, maybe that is why is was a bit standard?
"Sorry Moonisup! as far as I can see you're cool"
Thx, well I try to keep out of this discussions but well it's hard, haha
Rik |
|
|
| corgi37 |
The set list fighting has been going on since the very start of this tour. i recall people bitching about the arena ans stadium gigs being just a hot rocks show. Now, 6 or so months later, people still whine about that, and the fact that us aussies are getting only 19 songs. I agree with gypsy, we may be getting only 19, but when i saw them on the 27/2/03, we got rambler, sympathy, YCAGWYW. 3 very long songs. Its obvious the U.S. is always going to be looked after. Money talks. Tours always start there, the press conference is always held there, and the live simulcasts are from there, as are the video/dvd releases. They may well get longer sets, due to the "make or break" critics. The have the attention over there by rock writers saying "see this show, they do 23 songs, 1-2 never played before". "they only toured 3 years ago, this time they are doing something special". Then there's Entertainment Tonight, mtv, hbo, E news and a myriad of other showbiz shows. Shit, ROlling Stone, billboard etc. That means more than any critic here in Oz simply because they tour the U.S. every 3 years, and here 3 times in 30 years! Some U.S. fans could be jaded, where as we poor deprived bastards will see them do anything/anywhere. I think we are lucky to see them at all. If they were only doing stadium shows, Australia would have missed out all together - AGAIN! Everyone has a fave song, and we all try and be smart asses saying we love, simply love, the most obscure stones song to try to impress others, but the fact remains, they gotta do around 10 of the same songs every gig, or people will be disappointed. I find it amazing they arent doing miss you. I hate that song live, and am glad its gone, but alot of people latched onto them in 78 cause of that track. You cant please every one. So, you can all whine about other countries getting preferential treatment, but spare a thought for us aussies. WE missed out on 75/76, 81/82, 89/90, 97-99. Thats some pretty good shit we didnt see. And Jaggers 1/2 aussie!!! |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
LOL Jagger's half Aussie. I wonder if he'll retire "Down Under"......get his own lifestyle show,(or segment in said show), Mick's Neighbourhood,.....just hope he keeps away from those self-piloted helicopters. Apologies to non Aussies here, a very parochial post this is. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Are we still on this subject?
You know, the Stones vary the setlists more now than they ever did in the past.
Look at the "best" Rock tour ever...1972. They played the same setlist every night.
In 2002-03 they played 68 different songs in the US.
The Aussies got Ruby Tuesday. Hadn't been played yet.
And NOBODY better bitch about the setlists for the China or India shows....Those people have NEVER seen Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash or Like A Rolling Stone. To THOSE people...and it's THEIR shows...it's fresh and new.
WTF do you people do? Collect "songs"? You are losing sight of the forest because of all the damn trees. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]