Quote
Stoneage
Get over it, Steve Rogan. It's the Olympics not a Rolling Stones concert. Watching Maccas contribution almost made me glad they didn´t attend.
But don't give up yet. Who knows, maybe they will play a full set of songs for the closing ceremony?

Quote
steverogan
Macca did- Stones didn't. Case closed.

Quote
Rockman
Stephanie's Hot

Quote
steverogan

Quote
Gazza

Quote
steverogan

I found the "inclusion" of the Stones to be an embarassment to them. All major British bands were included but "World's Greatest R&R Band" had only one song in part 2. I know they and many fans will not care, but in the greater context to the rest of music lovers, the Stones very limited inclusion is puzzling. The "not stage ready" line is a bunch of BS. Sorry, with todays technology and proper planning they could have done something- even if Keith cannot play he coulda "faked it" and the band coulda played something.. not enough that they represent their country in the Olympics- the $$ wasn't there. As a fan of the stones for over 40 years their choice to not participate disgusts me. "Not Stage Ready" what total shite!

I saw two of Brit Rock royalty have songs played at the ending part of the ceremony- Pink Floyd and Paul McCartney."Sir Paul" saw it fit to playt for his queen- "Sir Mick" was, well, somewhere else that was more important.

I enjoyed the event very much, but if they weren't fit to play, then I'm glad they didnt embarrass themselves. Its very hard to just go out 'cold' and play at an event like that - as could be seen when McCartney went to sing the start of 'Hey Jude'. 'Faking it' would have been even more unforgivable, embarrassing and damaging. Are we really so desperate that we'd have wanted them to go out there and mime over a backing track?

They know better than us whether it was a risk or not. Anyway, I'm a bit ambivalent at best about my favourite musical acts being a sideshow at what is a sports event. Music at the Olympics isn't THAT important.

Not that bothered they werent included more. Britain's contribution to music and culture over the centuries isn't limited to 'rock' and certainly isn't dominated by one act or group.

I appreciate your thoughful response but find it a bit misguided. The Stones have shown in the past they have no problem charging upwards of $350 per ticket to the people who support them and then only to embarass themselves on stage- either showing up very late for shows or another case in point: much of the ABB tour- especially after the coconut tree. I went to AC to see them only to have the show cancelld at the very last minute. When they finally did play ( to many empty seats), there was no ackowledgement to the crowd for the cancellation from Jagger.They obviously didn't give a shite that many fans were inconvenienced, spent money to travel and stay in AC only to be let down at the 11th hour.Total lack of respect to the fans imo. I saw Seger back in the early 80s. His show was cancelled due to illness a couple of days prior to the event. When he finally did play he acknowledged it to the crowd and, actually used that show as part of a live double album called "Nine Tonight".
By all accounts they had been rehearsing for some time; I am sure they could have played one number and not faked it but perhaps limited the contributions of members who may be rusty... I agree music at the Olympics is not all that important and England's contributions to the arts go well beyond RR music, however, I think, the Olympics, in the native country of the Stones, merited an attempt for "the boys" to play live. Macca's performance wasn't perfect, but he was there and played . They would not have had to fake it. They could have played one song with keith contributing minimally. Just my opinion. Why do I think if they were offered 10 million pounds they would have been "stage ready"? I think the moniker : "The World's Greatest RR Band" as a marketing tool is a graet idea. Is it true? Perhaps at one time but certainly not in the last 30 years- they did nothing to distinguish themselves... from allowing the Hells Angels to be security at Altamont to causing a near riot in the old Boston Garden by appearing several hours late, the Stones have crapped on their fans fro years.. but yet, if any tour IS announced people will go.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Rockman
Stephanie's Hot

Absolutely, thanks for bringing her to my attention.
And she can swim too. Congratulations Australia.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
steverogan

Quote
Gazza

Quote
steverogan

I found the "inclusion" of the Stones to be an embarassment to them. All major British bands were included but "World's Greatest R&R Band" had only one song in part 2. I know they and many fans will not care, but in the greater context to the rest of music lovers, the Stones very limited inclusion is puzzling. The "not stage ready" line is a bunch of BS. Sorry, with todays technology and proper planning they could have done something- even if Keith cannot play he coulda "faked it" and the band coulda played something.. not enough that they represent their country in the Olympics- the $$ wasn't there. As a fan of the stones for over 40 years their choice to not participate disgusts me. "Not Stage Ready" what total shite!

I saw two of Brit Rock royalty have songs played at the ending part of the ceremony- Pink Floyd and Paul McCartney."Sir Paul" saw it fit to playt for his queen- "Sir Mick" was, well, somewhere else that was more important.

I enjoyed the event very much, but if they weren't fit to play, then I'm glad they didnt embarrass themselves. Its very hard to just go out 'cold' and play at an event like that - as could be seen when McCartney went to sing the start of 'Hey Jude'. 'Faking it' would have been even more unforgivable, embarrassing and damaging. Are we really so desperate that we'd have wanted them to go out there and mime over a backing track?

They know better than us whether it was a risk or not. Anyway, I'm a bit ambivalent at best about my favourite musical acts being a sideshow at what is a sports event. Music at the Olympics isn't THAT important.

Not that bothered they werent included more. Britain's contribution to music and culture over the centuries isn't limited to 'rock' and certainly isn't dominated by one act or group.

I appreciate your thoughful response but find it a bit misguided. The Stones have shown in the past they have no problem charging upwards of $350 per ticket to the people who support them and then only to embarass themselves on stage- either showing up very late for shows or another case in point: much of the ABB tour- especially after the coconut tree. I went to AC to see them only to have the show cancelld at the very last minute. When they finally did play ( to many empty seats), there was no ackowledgement to the crowd for the cancellation from Jagger.They obviously didn't give a shite that many fans were inconvenienced, spent money to travel and stay in AC only to be let down at the 11th hour.Total lack of respect to the fans imo. I saw Seger back in the early 80s. His show was cancelled due to illness a couple of days prior to the event. When he finally did play he acknowledged it to the crowd and, actually used that show as part of a live double album called "Nine Tonight".
By all accounts they had been rehearsing for some time; I am sure they could have played one number and not faked it but perhaps limited the contributions of members who may be rusty... I agree music at the Olympics is not all that important and England's contributions to the arts go well beyond RR music, however, I think, the Olympics, in the native country of the Stones, merited an attempt for "the boys" to play live. Macca's performance wasn't perfect, but he was there and played . They would not have had to fake it. They could have played one song with keith contributing minimally. Just my opinion. Why do I think if they were offered 10 million pounds they would have been "stage ready"? I think the moniker : "The World's Greatest RR Band" as a marketing tool is a graet idea. Is it true? Perhaps at one time but certainly not in the last 30 years- they did nothing to distinguish themselves... from allowing the Hells Angels to be security at Altamont to causing a near riot in the old Boston Garden by appearing several hours late, the Stones have crapped on their fans fro years.. but yet, if any tour IS announced people will go.

I'd be pretty much at the back of the queue when it comes to defending the Stones for 'giving a shite about their fans', in case you hadnt noticed.

Atlantic City was especially a disgrace. Even more so if more people realised what led the show to be postponed and what lay behind the delay in announcing it.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
steverogan
Macca did- Stones didn't. Case closed.

Is that a promise ?

Quote
stupidguy2
Our girl not only lost a medal, but her world record.

Quote
steverogan
No, it is a fact.

Quote
Big Al
Can't wait for it to end, personally. Roll on the start of the football season!

Quote
steverogan

Quote
Gazza

Quote
steverogan

Quote
Gazza

Quote
steverogan

I found the "inclusion" of the Stones to be an embarassment to them. All major British bands were included but "World's Greatest R&R Band" had only one song in part 2. I know they and many fans will not care, but in the greater context to the rest of music lovers, the Stones very limited inclusion is puzzling. The "not stage ready" line is a bunch of BS. Sorry, with todays technology and proper planning they could have done something- even if Keith cannot play he coulda "faked it" and the band coulda played something.. not enough that they represent their country in the Olympics- the $$ wasn't there. As a fan of the stones for over 40 years their choice to not participate disgusts me. "Not Stage Ready" what total shite!

I saw two of Brit Rock royalty have songs played at the ending part of the ceremony- Pink Floyd and Paul McCartney."Sir Paul" saw it fit to playt for his queen- "Sir Mick" was, well, somewhere else that was more important.

I enjoyed the event very much, but if they weren't fit to play, then I'm glad they didnt embarrass themselves. Its very hard to just go out 'cold' and play at an event like that - as could be seen when McCartney went to sing the start of 'Hey Jude'. 'Faking it' would have been even more unforgivable, embarrassing and damaging. Are we really so desperate that we'd have wanted them to go out there and mime over a backing track?

They know better than us whether it was a risk or not. Anyway, I'm a bit ambivalent at best about my favourite musical acts being a sideshow at what is a sports event. Music at the Olympics isn't THAT important.

Not that bothered they werent included more. Britain's contribution to music and culture over the centuries isn't limited to 'rock' and certainly isn't dominated by one act or group.

I appreciate your thoughful response but find it a bit misguided. The Stones have shown in the past they have no problem charging upwards of $350 per ticket to the people who support them and then only to embarass themselves on stage- either showing up very late for shows or another case in point: much of the ABB tour- especially after the coconut tree. I went to AC to see them only to have the show cancelld at the very last minute. When they finally did play ( to many empty seats), there was no ackowledgement to the crowd for the cancellation from Jagger.They obviously didn't give a shite that many fans were inconvenienced, spent money to travel and stay in AC only to be let down at the 11th hour.Total lack of respect to the fans imo. I saw Seger back in the early 80s. His show was cancelled due to illness a couple of days prior to the event. When he finally did play he acknowledged it to the crowd and, actually used that show as part of a live double album called "Nine Tonight".
By all accounts they had been rehearsing for some time; I am sure they could have played one number and not faked it but perhaps limited the contributions of members who may be rusty... I agree music at the Olympics is not all that important and England's contributions to the arts go well beyond RR music, however, I think, the Olympics, in the native country of the Stones, merited an attempt for "the boys" to play live. Macca's performance wasn't perfect, but he was there and played . They would not have had to fake it. They could have played one song with keith contributing minimally. Just my opinion. Why do I think if they were offered 10 million pounds they would have been "stage ready"? I think the moniker : "The World's Greatest RR Band" as a marketing tool is a graet idea. Is it true? Perhaps at one time but certainly not in the last 30 years- they did nothing to distinguish themselves... from allowing the Hells Angels to be security at Altamont to causing a near riot in the old Boston Garden by appearing several hours late, the Stones have crapped on their fans fro years.. but yet, if any tour IS announced people will go.

I'd be pretty much at the back of the queue when it comes to defending the Stones for 'giving a shite about their fans', in case you hadnt noticed.

Atlantic City was especially a disgrace. Even more so if more people realised what led the show to be postponed and what lay behind the delay in announcing it.

I don't know what caused the postponement or the backstory- I just know I wasted time and money booking and staying in a hotel in AC only to find a sign saying the show was not gonna happen. Please enlighten me.

Quote
Stoneage
... We had no chance in literature however where Baron Pierre de Coubertine won for France. I think he deserved it well. I mean, the Baron founded the Modern Olympic Games...

Quote
Honestman

Quote
Stoneage
... We had no chance in literature however where Baron Pierre de Coubertine won for France. I think he deserved it well. I mean, the Baron founded the Modern Olympic Games...

Agreed but it's De Coubertin

Quote
Stoneage
maybe you have a different set of spelling rules in France?

Quote
Gazza
Yep..I was surprised to hear from American friends that the ceremony wasnt carried live and only excerpts were shown later (which from the comments Ive read here proves that in doing so it missed the context of much of it). I get the impression the coverage tends to be almost all geared towards covering US competitors, which I suppose I can understand to a degree if there are limited TV slots available, but in doing so it does miss the point of the entire competition.

In each Olympics, the BBC pretty much routinely provides blanket coverage for the whole duration - more so this year in the era of HD and digital TV as theyve actually launched almost 30 'temporary' BBC Olympic stations so they can extensively cover every sport. No doubt with the games actually being in the UK this time, this has made them up the coverage even more than usual, but theyve generally tended to be pretty comprehensive in previous games as well.

Quote
JimmyTheSaint
Were the Stones included in the music medley? The sportscast I watched mentioned Beatles, Who, Sex Pistols, Queen...

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Gazza
Yep..I was surprised to hear from American friends that the ceremony wasnt carried live and only excerpts were shown later (which from the comments Ive read here proves that in doing so it missed the context of much of it). I get the impression the coverage tends to be almost all geared towards covering US competitors, which I suppose I can understand to a degree if there are limited TV slots available, but in doing so it does miss the point of the entire competition.

In each Olympics, the BBC pretty much routinely provides blanket coverage for the whole duration - more so this year in the era of HD and digital TV as theyve actually launched almost 30 'temporary' BBC Olympic stations so they can extensively cover every sport. No doubt with the games actually being in the UK this time, this has made them up the coverage even more than usual, but theyve generally tended to be pretty comprehensive in previous games as well.

Sadly you are correct Gazza. I am in the USA, and many times in the past it has upset me how slanted the coverage here is. It is totally geared towards US competitors. I can understand some amount of preference for the hometown athletes, but so often I find the "Olympic spirit" missing, gone.
E.g. in an event the medals go to China/France/India; maybe it was a great competition up front, but all I hear about is the brilliant performance of US athlete at the 12th position. I was watching one event once where the winner was literally neglected, barely mentioned because they were from somewhere else.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Gazza
Yep..I was surprised to hear from American friends that the ceremony wasnt carried live and only excerpts were shown later (which from the comments Ive read here proves that in doing so it missed the context of much of it). I get the impression the coverage tends to be almost all geared towards covering US competitors, which I suppose I can understand to a degree if there are limited TV slots available, but in doing so it does miss the point of the entire competition.

In each Olympics, the BBC pretty much routinely provides blanket coverage for the whole duration - more so this year in the era of HD and digital TV as theyve actually launched almost 30 'temporary' BBC Olympic stations so they can extensively cover every sport. No doubt with the games actually being in the UK this time, this has made them up the coverage even more than usual, but theyve generally tended to be pretty comprehensive in previous games as well.

Sadly you are correct Gazza. I am in the USA, and many times in the past it has upset me how slanted the coverage here is. It is totally geared towards US competitors. I can understand some amount of preference for the hometown athletes, but so often I find the "Olympic spirit" missing, gone.
E.g. in an event the medals go to China/France/India; maybe it was a great competition up front, but all I hear about is the brilliant performance of US athlete at the 12th position. I was watching one event once where the winner was literally neglected, barely mentioned because they were from somewhere else.

That's always pissed me off. If an American athlete is not a favorite in the competition - most likely we won't see that competition. I'm surprised we saw the Aussie women's medal ceremony after the relay. We hear very little about the medal winners if they aren't American.......its been like this for years. Listening to Rowdy Gaines go on and on about the US athletes while some Chinese is breaking a world record is annoying.
And as for the opening ceremony - it was all but slashed ....we see only bits and pieces and it seemed very disjointed and lacking in context until....
I'm wondering if we'll get to see the Chinese or Soviet men or women's first round in gymnastics....

Quote
stupidguy2
I'm wondering if we'll get to see the Chinese or Soviet men or women's first round in gymnastics....

Quote
Koen

Quote
stupidguy2
I'm wondering if we'll get to see the Chinese or Soviet men or women's first round in gymnastics....

Nope, only the US girls. And then they have a poll to vote which country is going to win. Well, you'll have to show all the teams so I can get a good impression who will be my favorite. F*cking morons.