So I was checking out the Rolling Stones setlists...

[Chizip]

San Francisco, SBC Park, Nov. 13th

1. Start Me Up
2. You Got Me Rocking
3. Live With Me
4. Tumbling Dice
5. Oh No Not You Again
6. Rain Fall Down
7. Sweet Virginia
8. All Down The Line
9. Night Time
10. Slipping Away
11. Infamy
12. Miss You
13. Rough Justice
14. Get Off Of My Cloud
15. Honky Tonk Women
16. Sympathy For The Devil
17. Paint It Black
18. Brown Sugar
19. Satisfaction
20. YCAGWYW
21. Jumping Jack Flash

San Diego, Petco Park, Nov. 11th

1. Start Me Up
2. You Got Me Rocking
3. She's So Cold
4. Tumbling Dice
5. Oh No Not You Again
6. It Wont Take Long
7. As Tears Go By
8. Midnight Rambler
9. Rocks Off
10. Night Time
11. Slipping Away
12. Infamy
13. Miss You
14. Rough Justice
15. Get Off Of My Cloud
16. Honky Tonk Women
17. Sympathy for the Devil
18. Brown Sugar
19. Jumpin' Jack Flash
20. YCAGWYW
21. Satisfaction...

Hollywood, Hollywood Bowl, Nov. 8th

1. Start Me Up
2. Shattered
3. She's So Cold
4. Tumbling Dice
5. Rough Justice
6. Rain Fall Down
7. Won't Take Long (1st time!)
8. Bitch
9. Night Time
10. Slipping Away
11. Infamy
12. You Got Me Rockin'
13. As Tears Go By
14. Get Off My Cloud
15. Sympathy For The Devil
16. Paint It Black
17. Honk Tonk Women
18. Brown Sugar
19. Satisfaction
20. YCAGWYW
21. Jumping Jack Flash

Portland, Rose Garden, Nov. 1st

1. Start Me Up
2. It's Only Rock 'n' Roll
3. She's So Cold
4. Tumblin' Dice
5. Oh No Not You Again
6. Angie
7. Midnight Rambler (nearly 11 min.!)
8. All Down the Line
9. Night Time
10. Slipping Away
11. Infamy
12. Miss You
13. Rough Justice
14. You Got me Rocking
15. Honky Tonk Woman
16. Sympathy for the Devil
17. Brown Sugar
18. Satisfaction
19. YCAGWYW
20. Jumpin' Jack Flash

If these old geezers can mix up the setlists like this to keep it exciting, dare I ask, why can't U2?

(and yes i realize U2 has mixed it up more on this tour, its just a general question)

 

[Chizip]

going from one night to another 4 or 5 or 6 out of the first 10 songs are different from night to night, and most of the ones ive posted are single city shows. Playing different songs and moving some of the same songs around is impressive for their age. I wonder if Mick uses a teleprompter

the only thing that appears static is the 4 closing songs, but if you check out all of their dates, they mix those up a bit too

go here http://www.stonesnews.com/rolling_stones_setlists.php to check it out for yourself

 

[phanan]

I'd post some Springsteen setlists for you to review, but that would really piss you off.

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

The Rolling Stones' setlists are amazing!!

The reason why I think they can change their setlists up a bit more than U2 is cause they got a lot of songs with that same kind of Stones/rock n' roll vibe. Even though each song has its own characteristics and are NOT a copy of each other Rough Justice can still be played next to Jumping Jack Flash for example, and it will flow well.

U2's songs are more different. They don't have many songs like Vertigo for example or like City Of Blinding Lights, or like Discotheque, or like Stuck In A Moment. So it's harder to make a set list where the songs flow perfectly after the other and the set feels right. That's what I think.

 

[Blue Room]

The Stones are a great live act. They are about the only artist I have seen that comes close the U2 experience for me.

There are several reasons why they can mix it up more. First, their songs are more straight forward rock and roll. The Stones never went into to much of an experimental direction like U2 did. Also, the stones have about 8 musicians on stage playing with them and back up singers also to cover their mistakes. Whereas U2 are four guys on stage and one underneath playing only. So factor in the the first and 2nd part to this paragraph and I think you can see why there is a little less variation on the U2 side.

Lastly, the answer if fairly simple. U2 mixes it up when they feel they want to. I guess the Stones feel like they want to mix it up a tad more (given the fact that its probably fairly simple for them to do so also is a factor) Its a difference in how the artist themselves feel about the live performance which is a very personal and subjective thing I'm sure for both.

As was pointed though in the initial topic post. U2 have done a fairly good mixing it up this tour. I know some fans are not happy with some of the song selections or order. But they have done alot of songs this tour and some that alot of people would have never imagined would even be played again.

EDIT: to add that, yes, Mick does use a teleprompter.

 

[tarquinsuperb]

Jesus look at the six songs to close at the Hollywood Bowl:
15. Sympathy For The Devil
16. Paint It Black
17. Honk Tonk Women
18. Brown Sugar
19. Satisfaction
20. YCAGWYW
21. Jumping Jack Flash

It's enough to make you moist.

 

[Blue Room]

Jesus look at the six songs to close at the Hollywood Bowl:
15. Sympathy For The Devil
16. Paint It Black
17. Honk Tonk Women
18. Brown Sugar
19. Satisfaction
20. YCAGWYW
21. Jumping Jack Flash

It's enough to make you moist.

Yes, for the non diehard. All Stones "hits". Now apply the same list to U2 "hits"

15. Sunday Bloody Sunday
16. Pride
17. NY Day
18. I Still Havent Found
19. Beautiful Day
20. With Or Without You
21. I Will Follow

If that was a consistant rotation with U2 the fans here would be bitching up a storm because it was a "greatest hits" setlist. Not saying you are wrong, but looking at that perspective puts a different light on it IMO. Whats sort of funny about it, is that all these songs are done by U2 at certain points and the fans here bitch about them.

I guess its like comparing apples to oranges for me personally though. U2 and The Stones are similiar only in that they are both major artists who play rock and are big live draws. I think there are legitimate reasons why the setlist variation is different between the two. Maybe The Stones fans are bitching also. I'm sure if they have followed them like we have U2 they could be tired of Honkey Tonk Woman or Brown Sugar.

Another factor to consider. Look at how many songs from the Stones new album they are doing versus how many U2 are doing from theirs.

 

[U2girl]

I wonder if Mick uses a teleprompter

Very likely, as he is what, 15-20 years Bono's senior?

So does Michael Stipe (he always reads It's the end of the world as we know it), and probably many other singers.

A tour that really played any hit you could imagine, Elevation didn't get nearly as many complaints setlist-wise as this tour, which had different openers/closers and encores.

Stones's career is also a tad longer and they have a bigger catalogue to play from.

 

[Matt786]

Although the current Stones tour has had a decent amount of variation, they actually did an even better job on the last tour in 2002-2003. That might have been because they were playing three different venue types (stadiums, arenas, theaters), while this tour has been mostly stadiums and arenas. Regardless, the Stones have so many more songs than bands like U2, that it would be pretty ridiculous to play the same 20 or 21 songs every night.

 

[tommycharles]

So does Michael Stipe (he always reads It's the end of the world as we know it), and probably many other singers.

A tour that really played any hit you could imagine, Elevation didn't get nearly as many complaints setlist-wise as this tour, which had different openers/closers and encores.

Check out Perfect Square, Stipe is definitely not reading ITEOTWAWAKI(AIFF). Also..yeah, I've wondered that about Elevation... I was looking through Pimm's book last night and the third leg Elevation sets caught my eye...mostly beacuse they were almost all the same. Did people complain then? I'm curious.

 

[Blue Room]

I was looking through Pimm's book last night and the third leg Elevation sets caught my eye...mostly beacuse they were almost all the same. Did people complain then? I'm curious.

Are you kidding? It was U2 fans, of course they were bitching! Wasnt quite to the level that this tour has seen though. I think the internet community has grown alot since then though. So percentage wise, the bitching has increased on the net as a result.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

bitching was down period durring the third leg of elevation because of what was going on at the time.

as for the stones... does mick use a teleprompter? maybe... if he does it's gotta be hidden like bono's was 'cause i didn't notice it when i went to see them and i was only 5 rows off the side of the stage... so i would have easily been able to see an obvious teleprompter. but even if it's there, mick is running around so much that it's fairly useless anyways. the man doesn't stand still for more than 5 seconds. he'll be at one side of the stadium at the start of the song, be on the other side, 50 yards away, in the middle of the song, and then be back on the other side by the end of the song. the guy racks up more yards than barry sanders.

there are a lot of backing musicians on stage for the stones. wether that helps them mix it up more or not, i don't know.

and the stage production of the bigger bang tour are much MUCH more complicated than u2's stage production for vertigo... baisicly throwing out the whole "they can't change because of the production" argument.

 

[cypress]

Regardless of their new album (which no one actually cares about since it is nothing more than the same old recycled Rolling Stones sound), the Stones are all about the past. Their fans (and I know several die-hards) would rather they played 95% of their songs at concerts like a greatest hits album. U2 is about the present and the future. That's a huge difference right there between the bands and it greatly affects how flexible one can be with a setlist.

U2 does an amazing job keeping their setlists as fresh as they do considering they need to keep so many of their newer songs in from the last two albums. Some people don't like it, but it is what makes U2 better than the Rolling Stones. U2 is current and relevent and have more of a "raw" feel to them. While the Stones are old and stale and the whole thing seems too "staged" and its been like that for 20 years.

I've seen a lot of bands live and nothing can compare to the U2 experience.. nothing. Anyone suggesting the Stones are somehow better or even on the same level as U2 is simply not able to face reality that the Stones are washed up and, literally, stuck in a time warp as a band and have been for a long time.

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

Regardless of their new album (which no one actually cares about since it is nothing more than the same old recycled Rolling Stones sound)

Have you heard it? I get the feeling you haven't.

Anyone suggesting the Stones are somehow better or even on the same level as U2 is simply not able to face reality that the Stones are washed up and, literally, stuck in a time warp as a band and have been for a long time.

I think you are the one not able to face reality. Have you ever seen a Rolling Stones concert? Even on DVD?

 

[ouizy]

Chizip - interesting.

And proof that a show can be mixed up with an elaborate stage set.

 

[ponkine]

U2 CAN change the setlist constantly... the problem is they don´t want

 

[U2girl]

and the stage production of the bigger bang tour are much MUCH more complicated than u2's stage production for vertigo... baisicly throwing out the whole "they can't change because of the production" argument.

It's a good thing U2 layed off the "bigger is better" routine with Popmart.
U2 had no problem bringing out the oldies/less played songs back on the last two tours.
Also, do the Stones have tours as heavily themed as U2?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Anyone suggesting the Stones are somehow better or even on the same level as U2 is simply not able to face reality that the Stones are washed up and, literally, stuck in a time warp as a band and have been for a long time.

the stones' current stage production is way way way way more elaborate and high tech than anything u2 has done since popmart. they put on one HELL of a show... and mick brings more energy to the stage than bono does, despite being 20 years his elder. he does more running around durring one song than bono does for an entire show.

anyone who suggests that U2 have left the stones behind as far as their live performances is simply not able to face reality.

i would certainly rather go to a u2 show than a stones show, but that's just because i love u2 and i merely very much like the stones. but let's not sell the stones short. they still very much bring it in a live setting.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's a good thing U2 layed off the "bigger is better" routine with Popmart.
U2 had no problem bringing out the oldies/less played songs back on the last two tours.
Also, do the Stones have tours as heavily themed as U2?

well... their current tour is the bigger bang tour... and there certainly are a ton of explosions throughout the show... but as far as themes within the music? no... and i don't think they ever have had themes when performing.

and on a side note... the stages for the stones and u2 are both designed, and have been for years, by the same person.... mark fisher.

http://www.stufish.com/Gallery.html

 

[Numb1075]

Headache: i would certainly rather go to a u2 show than a stones show, but that's just because i love u2 and i merely very much like the stones. but let's not sell the stones short. they still very much bring it in a live setting.


Agreed 100%