|
|
| mrhipfl |
It seems like the current predictable setlist formula is pissing off a lot of us hardcore fans, so I thought of a new formula. Let's say they play 21 songs with Keith having a typical 2-song set. Since they're touring behind an album with completely new songs, the majority of the setlist should be filled with songs off the album. So, let's say 10 songs are off ABB. Then the rest of the setlist could be divided into warhorses for the casual fans, and obscure songs for the hardcore fans. So if 6 songs are warhorses, the remaining 5 could be gems that get changed often. This way, everyone would get what they want, and the album would sell better. What do y'all think? |
|
|
| Gazza |
Sounds ok in theory, however its pretty evident that despite paying an average of a couple of hundred dollars a head to see their 'favourite' band, the same 'fans' cant be arsed spending a tenth of that amount on purchasing what was a pretty well acclaimed album
Its not like 1978 anymore where they can just go out and hit their audience up the face by playing a set which consists of 50% old material and 50% brand new songs. Its an entirely different audience, and the Stones wont take chances anymore by playing much thats new or unfamiliar.
The average 2006 audience member isnt a fan of the Rolling Stones like you or I happen to be, but is a fan of the 'legend' that released a pretty comprehensive hits collection a few years ago. |
|
|
| FrankiePeppers |
How about if they did a tour and each show would "support" a previously released album, i.e. "Let It Bleed" show or "Tattoo You" show. Do most/all of the songs off the album and throw in 10 more songs for good measure. That would be better than the present setlist. |
|
|
| Gazza |
they did a mini-version of that at the arena shows last time, but whilst an enjoyable idea, it promised more than it delivered (ie, it rarely featured more than songs from LIB/Exile/SFingers) and when it deviated from those 3 it was usually a case of playing the 3 most well known beggars banquet songs or something like that. They stuck with the most well known records from their 'classic' era in general.
I remember before that tour Woody (as he is often prone to do) talking up the setlist ideas in interviews, even saying they might do something like play a club show and play something like 'Exile' in its entirety. Cue mass hysteria on the message boards. No doubt he got severely bitch slapped at the next band meeting for coming off with something THAT ambitious! |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
For the fans that were around for the 1969 and 1972 tours, was their disappointment then for the set-lists?? The set-lists night after night on those tours were also very similar.
[Edited by Break The Spell] |
|
|
| Gazza |
It wasnt the culture then to go to multiple shows nor for bands to vary the shows dramatically
However, on those shows whilst they were playing what we now know as 'warhorses' its worth remembering at the time that these songs were new and fresh. So, for most people seeing the Stones in 1972, even if theyd seen them in 1969, about two thirds of the show would have consisted of songs they'd never seen live before - with the band usually playing nothing more than four years old. |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
That makes sense Gazza, seeing as the only pre-68 song many nights on the 72 tour was their cover of Bye Bye Johnnie. |
|
