LONDON: 'The Beatles' legend Paul McCartney and rockers 'The Rolling Stones' are battling it out to headline the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics.

The Rolling Stones and 68-year-old McCartney, one of the two surviving Beatles, have both played at the American Super Bowl to worldwide audiences of over 100 million but only one of them will be able to jam at the games to be held here, Daily Star reported.

"The 2012 Olympics opening ­ceremony is going to be ­spectacular. It has to be to kick off the event in great British style. Everyone wants to be a part of this historical happening and what is great for us is The Rolling Stones and Paul ­McCartney are interested in playing," a source said.

"They both have an outstanding catalogue of hit after hit that everyone across the world knows. The Stones and McCartney can easily carry off something of this magnitude on the world stage," the source added.

'The Rolling Stones' formed in 1962 and led by vocalist Mick Jagger have sold more than 200 million albums worldwide while McCartney has been rated as one of the most successful songwriter in the history of popular music.

"We're looking at the American Super Bowl's half-time show - which they have played at - as the kind of thing we're going for with the opening ceremony. It would be great to have both but there can only be one headliner. It's going to be difficult but talks have opened and we'll see what can be worked out," the source said.

McCartney's fashion designer daughter Stella is designing the England team's 2012 Olympic kit.

Another tabloid article?

The Rolling Stones will never di this. They do their own thing, and I'm happy with that.

I actually think they will do this. And it shouldn't be McCartney. He's from Liverpool, and tehe are the London games. The Rollong Stones are London boys. And isn't Mick a friend of Sebastian Coe, head of the organizing committee?

Quote
NedKelly
The Rolling Stones will never di this. They do their own thing, and I'm happy with that.

As it says in the article, if they can do Super bowl then why not this?

I think it would be great if the Stones were to play that gig. A high-profile way to celebrate their 50th anniversary...and since the Olympics will be in London, it would be all the more fitting.

someone should tell the writer of this article that the beatles don't exist anymore.

Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-08 22:24 by Gazza.

don't think 5 against 2 is much of a fair fight

That Superbowl gig was nothing to be proud of. I'd be surprised if it made any significant increase to their number of fans.
Personally, I don't think sport and music mix so I hope they don't even consider doing it whether the Daily Star report is true or not.

I guess it will be P(F)aul (William Shears Campbell) that gets the job.

Rolling Stones and Paul on bass.......no problem with that, as he can play the bass very well

__________________________

Quote
Gazza
Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.

Who would be good enough to represent this country under the age of 65 and be in the same class as the stones and McCartney?

If the British want so much for old farts to entertain the youth of the world why just ask all those "Sirs" of music world to do something together. That would be fun.... Who we would have there: Sir Paul, Sir Mick, Sir Elton, Sir Cliff?

"The Sirs"?

I really hope that the Stones will not get the gig. Jagger alone (a duet with Macca?) might somehow sound reasonable but just to think of seeing Ronnie and Keith clowning there, and acting their usual dated pirate and wasted look with a cig in their hands (and can they do anything else?), just isn't good... The Stones would make a sad joke of themselves.

- Doxa

Keith should light the torch with his cig.

I dont think Mick will be interested at all. He is not amused.

Is this really just talk? Or has something actually been officially considered? Don't know what to think about people just assuming that the Stones (or McCartney for that matter) are going to do it just because of who they are or some milestone in years or whatever because of the Olympics! Just seems to be a bit much.

Quote
Doxa
If the British want so much for old farts to entertain the youth of the world why just ask all those "Sirs" of music world to do something together. That would be fun.... Who we would have there: Sir Paul, Sir Mick, Sir Elton, Sir Cliff?

"The Sirs"?

I really hope that the Stones will not get the gig. Jagger alone (a duet with Macca?) might somehow sound reasonable but just to think of seeing Ronnie and Keith clowning there, and acting their usual dated pirate and wasted look with a cig in their hands (and can they do anything else?), just isn't good... The Stones would make a sad joke of themselves.

- Doxa

To Sir with love.

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Gazza
Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.

Who would be good enough to represent this country under the age of 65 and be in the same class as the stones and McCartney?

Its got sod all to do with who's 'good enough' - an issue which is a matter of taste and which cant be proven.

Its the message that it sends out. The Olympics symbolise youth and athleticism. Forget what you or I might want to see for a minute, accept that the world doesnt revolve our favourite band and get some perspective because this is primarily a sporting event which showcases Britain to the world, not a music gig - do you think that the organisers REALLY want the image of British youth to be portrayed by a few cadaverous looking musicians?

I've the same opinion about this as I had when they played the Superbowl. The greatest rock n roll band in the world belong on a proper concert stage - not as a 10-minute side attraction for a sporting event where they get hurriedly wheeled on and then off again in between a few other performances as if its some kind of superstar bunfight.

Leave that tacky shit to marching bands and the like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-09 19:08 by Gazza.

Quote
Harlem Shuffler
That Superbowl gig was nothing to be proud of. I'd be surprised if it made any significant increase to their number of fans.

You're right. It didnt. Even though they played to the biggest TV audience of their career and they were on tour at the time, the sales push that followed it was minimal and in fact sales of A Bigger Bang (an album which they promoted by playing a song from) were pretty much unaffected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-09 19:05 by Gazza.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew
Keith should light the torch with his cig.

LMAO

Quote
Gazza

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Gazza
Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.

Who would be good enough to represent this country under the age of 65 and be in the same class as the stones and McCartney?

Its got sod all to do with who's 'good enough' - an issue which is a matter of taste and which cant be proven.

Its the message that it sends out. The Olympics symbolise youth and athleticism. Forget what you or I might want to see for a minute, accept that the world doesnt revolve our favourite band and get some perspective because this is primarily a sporting event which showcases Britain to the world, not a music gig - do you think that the organisers REALLY want the image of British youth to be portrayed by a few cadaverous looking musicians?

I've the same opinion about this as I had when they played the Superbowl. The greatest rock n roll band in the world belong on a proper concert stage - not as a 10-minute side attraction for a sporting event where they get hurriedly wheeled on and then off again in between a few other performances as if its some kind of superstar bunfight.

Leave that tacky shit to marching bands and the like.

Proberbly quite true

Personally, I think that Jagger loves the limelight too much to pass this gig up.

Here's an old story about this from 2008:


Supergroup Plan For 2012 Olympics

Rock icons MICK JAGGER, DAVID BOWIE and ELTON JOHN are reportedly set to form a supergroup - to play at the London Olympics in 2012.

The Rolling Stones are slated to perform at the opening ceremony of the games - and Jagger is said to be keen to include other members of the rock aristocracy.

He wants to be joined on stage by Bowie and John, as well as Phil Collins, Sting, Van Morrison, Pink Floyd's Dave Gilmour, and Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page.

The concert would be trumpeted as featuring the greatest rock "supergroup" of all time.

A source tells Britain's News of the World newspaper, "Mick feels the Olympics coming to London is a huge honour - and wants to make his own gesture with the band. It's early stages but Page, Bowie, and Morrison are already involved, although no-one is quite sure yet how the show will play out in its entirety.

"The Olympics people hope to use the template of the American football Super Bowl half-time show, where an artist takes over the field on a giant stage. Having the Stones on side for a project like this is a huge deal."

[www.contactmusic.com]

Quote
Gazza

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Gazza
Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.

Who would be good enough to represent this country under the age of 65 and be in the same class as the stones and McCartney?

Its got sod all to do with who's 'good enough' - an issue which is a matter of taste and which cant be proven.

Its the message that it sends out. The Olympics symbolise youth and athleticism. Forget what you or I might want to see for a minute, accept that the world doesnt revolve our favourite band and get some perspective because this is primarily a sporting event which showcases Britain to the world, not a music gig - do you think that the organisers REALLY want the image of British youth to be portrayed by a few cadaverous looking musicians?

I've the same opinion about this as I had when they played the Superbowl. The greatest rock n roll band in the world belong on a proper concert stage - not as a 10-minute side attraction for a sporting event where they get hurriedly wheeled on and then off again in between a few other performances as if its some kind of superstar bunfight.

Leave that tacky shit to marching bands and the like.

So I guess you really hated to see Neil Young at the Vancouer olympics?

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
Gazza

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Gazza
Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.

Who would be good enough to represent this country under the age of 65 and be in the same class as the stones and McCartney?

Its got sod all to do with who's 'good enough' - an issue which is a matter of taste and which cant be proven.

Its the message that it sends out. The Olympics symbolise youth and athleticism. Forget what you or I might want to see for a minute, accept that the world doesnt revolve our favourite band and get some perspective because this is primarily a sporting event which showcases Britain to the world, not a music gig - do you think that the organisers REALLY want the image of British youth to be portrayed by a few cadaverous looking musicians?

I've the same opinion about this as I had when they played the Superbowl. The greatest rock n roll band in the world belong on a proper concert stage - not as a 10-minute side attraction for a sporting event where they get hurriedly wheeled on and then off again in between a few other performances as if its some kind of superstar bunfight.

Leave that tacky shit to marching bands and the like.

So I guess you really hated to see Neil Young at the Vancouer olympics?

Yes, despite the fact that it was a nice performance. They didnt even give him the courtesy either of allowing his performance to be enjoyed without some knobheads talking over it, which kind of reinforces my point about it being a sideshow.

Didnt dislike it as much as I hated seeing Springsteen play the Superbowl, and seeing him truncate a few great songs to fit them into a 12 minute timeslot, though. Ugh.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-09 20:18 by Gazza.

Maybe Paul Macca will make a guest appearence by the Stones. That would be great and they show the whole world there´s no battle between them

Quote
Gazza

Quote
pgarof

Quote
Gazza
Dont they have anyone under the age of 65 to play this gig?

Its the Daily Star, for crying out loud. Of all the UK tabloids to source a story from, that lot are about the worst.

Who would be good enough to represent this country under the age of 65 and be in the same class as the stones and McCartney?

Its got sod all to do with who's 'good enough' - an issue which is a matter of taste and which cant be proven.

Its the message that it sends out. The Olympics symbolise youth and athleticism. Forget what you or I might want to see for a minute, accept that the world doesnt revolve our favourite band and get some perspective because this is primarily a sporting event which showcases Britain to the world, not a music gig - do you think that the organisers REALLY want the image of British youth to be portrayed by a few cadaverous looking musicians?

I've the same opinion about this as I had when they played the Superbowl. The greatest rock n roll band in the world belong on a proper concert stage - not as a 10-minute side attraction for a sporting event where they get hurriedly wheeled on and then off again in between a few other performances as if its some kind of superstar bunfight.

Leave that tacky shit to marching bands and the like.

well said .i agree.i liked the stones at the superbowl ,but they start doing satisfaction for the third song preceded by rough justice and start me up and then they are done very weird a stones gig done after three songs .but you are right as far as THE SIDE ATTRACTION goes.

The Beatles will never play. John and George having passed mean that this can't happen.

As for the other A list "A"holes joining the Stones on stage forget about it! You really think that Keith would share a stage with Elton friggin' John singin' songs about dead blondes? This crap scenario ain't gonna happen. This gig is a Stones gig and forget about the others.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Quote
NickB
The Beatles will never play. John and George having passed mean that this can't happen.

As for the other A list "A"holes joining the Stones on stage forget about it! You really think that Keith would share a stage with Elton friggin' John singin' songs about dead blondes? This crap scenario ain't gonna happen. This gig is a Stones gig and forget about the others.

Jagger and Richards have traded insults in the press a lot worse than what Keef and Elton have. And the Stones will have people like Justin Timberlake, Dave Matthews, Christine Aquilera onstage singing with them, but not Elton or Bowie? Yeah....riiiiiight.

Quote
NickB
The Beatles will never play. John and George having passed mean that this can't happen.

As for the other A list "A"holes joining the Stones on stage forget about it! You really think that Keith would share a stage with Elton friggin' John singin' songs about dead blondes?

Yeah because a 60 year old man singing about staring down a woman's tits is much classier.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"