Roger sounded much better singing "See Me Feel Me" at the Olympics than he did singing it at a wedding I attended in 1993, Roger as the wedding singer also performed "Stand By Me."

I'm glad the Stones didn't even consider play that show.
I hope George Michael, Annie Lennox or that amazing line up around Pnk Floyeds drummer have the chance and take some minutes to watch their performances.... not to forget the anazing Spice Girls and the late John Lennon procdure.
What an remarkable evening for Britains music history......wow.:-)))

I bet the USA, with their vast and amazing history in music, would have come up with a better line up. Let's see who played at the closing ceremony of the last games they hosted, shall we:

Salt Lake City, 2002
Creed, Sting, Yo Yo Ma, R. Kelly, Christina Aguilera, Dianne Reeves, Harry Connick Jr., Dorothy Hamill, Dave Matthews Band, 'N Sync, Earth, Wind & Fire, The Dixie Chicks, Josh Groban, Charlotte Church, Bon Jovi, Mormon Tabernacle Choir and, during the presentation of Turin, Irene Grandi and Elisa.

Obviously it was NOT just the Stones who decided not to play. The Olympic committee must have invited just about all of the big names in British rock...they must have all chickened out! Too big an audience to screw up in front of? Or no $$ to play?

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-15 00:03 by Max'sKansasCity.

Ok - you got me there LOL (not that i think he's that big a deal - Mike and the Mechanics was boring as was Genesis imho) but WTF? - Gilmour and Waters couldn't do ONE damn song? Would they actually have to rehearse WYWH?? They probably could do it in their sleep and we'd be happy.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Lynd8
Pink Floyd's drummer with a bunch of nobodys

Mike Rutherford a nobody ?

I find quite a lot of the comments in this thread amusing because (1) those who chose not to show up get criticized for choosing not to show up, (2) those who chose not to show up get criticized for how badly they would have played had they chosen to show up (i.e., The Rolling Stones), and (3) those who did show up get criticized for how they played/performed (except The Who).

I think it's better not to show up for something like this. An artist/performer rarely can be shown in the best light, because an event of this magnitude is too restrictive, too choreographed, and the artist/performer has so little control over how they will go over. Can anyone blame Kate Bush for not showing, when she's only performed live 12 times in her entire career? And ultimately, an event like this hardly has any lasting relevance--the Olympians themselves are only going to be on TV for the next couple of years appearing in schlock commercials hawking crap products for their corporate sponsors. And it does nothing for Ray Davies' legacy one way or the other to be seen miming to Waterloo Sunset one more time. Perhaps a lot of the big names in British rock who said no were just too dignified to appear. The Who said no twice--wish they'd refused a third time. I'll see them live on their upcoming tour, thank you very much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-15 00:23 by stonesnow.

Phil Collins turned it down to reform Genesis now I know why.

Quote
stonesnow
I find quite a lot of the comments in this thread amusing because (1) those who chose not to show up get criticized for choosing not to show up, (2) those who chose not to show up get criticized for how badly they would have played had they chosen to show up (i.e., The Rolling Stones), and (3) those who did show up get criticized for how they played/performed (except The Who).

I think it's better not to show up for something like this. An artist/performer rarely can be shown in the best light, because an event of this magnitude is too restrictive, too choreographed, and the artist/performer has so little control over how they will go over. Can anyone blame Kate Bush for not showing, when she's only performed live 12 times in her entire career? And ultimately, an event like this hardly has any lasting relevance--the Olympians themselves are only going to be on TV for the next couple of years appearing in schlock commercials hawking crap products for their corporate sponsors. And it does nothing for Ray Davies' legacy one way or the other to be seen miming to Waterloo Sunset one more time. Perhaps a lot of the big names in British rock who said no were just too dignified to appear. The Who said no twice--wish they'd refused a third time. I'll see them live on their upcoming tour, thank you very much.

Very well put, and I agree 100%. To me it looks like the whole Olympic thing in regards to these opening/closing ceremonies has gone out of hand. Some sort of common sense seem to be lost. I remeber wtaching LA 1984 ceremonies, and watching Lionel Richie singing there, and thinking, I hope The Stones will never do anything that corny. Now peopel are arguing that the Stones should do that "for their country", like they have some strange national duty to do that. In some sports event, for god sake. What next: to play for their soldiers when they are fighting in some foreign country? Anyeways, there are always some george michaels dying to do that.

I suppose quite many of artists still see - despite euphoria and hype over the games now - the whole as a kind tricky business, and are not not comfortable with it. And I can totally understand them. Personally I was afraid of that Jagger mmight take the bite, but gladly he did not. I like think it is due to artistic dignity. (I tried to figure Jagger's decision with more detail in the other thread).

Just to make myself clear: I am a big fan of Olympic Games, and I enjoyed great deal in following the events (the actual substance: sports), but I can't see what the hell The Stones or any other major act with some artistic dignity should do anything with it. It's not their cake. Or should we need to have Usain Bolt running some faked 30 meters in middle of a Rolling Stones show?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-15 10:23 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Now peopel are arguing that the Stones should do that "for their country", like they have some strange national duty to do that. In some sports event, for god sake. What next: to play for their soldiers when they are fighting in some foreign country? Anyeways, there are always some george michaels dying to do that.

I suppose quite many of artists still see - despite euphoria and hype over the games now - the whole as a kind tricky business, and are not not comfortable with it. And I can totally understand them. Personally I was afraid of that Jagger mmight take the bite, but gladly he did not. I like think it is due to artistic dignity. (I tried to figure Jagger's decision with more detail in the other thread).

Just to make myself clear: I am a big fan of Olympic Games, and I enjoyed great deal in following the events (the actual substance: sports), but I can't see what the hell The Stones or any other major act with some artistic dignity should do anything with it. It's not their cake. Or should we need to have Usain Bolt running some faked 30 meters in middle of a Rolling Stones show?

I like what you´ve written,Doxa.

Thanks shortfatfunny, I just add that I don't have anything against a big show like that, and seemingly people enjoyed it a lot, and it is more than right that the host country wants to present achievements of their culture - which in the case of Britain is extraordinary as far as pop music is concerned - but I think it is unfair to demand that the artists themselves - of whom the country is rightly proud of - should take part. I find that demand odd. In this sense I defend artists' rights... We should respect them, too. More I have watched the closing ceremony, easier it is to understand why Mick, Bowie or Bush or whoever were not so keen being part of it. And even though Roger and Pete were doing alright, I somehow felt little sorry for them, especially knowing that they have said no twice. Poor Ray Davies looked like an odd man out. But i guess there were artits who loved to be here (for whatever reasons), so good for them.

But I guess in Britain - in the middle of the hurricane - all of this might be more sensitive, and it is way easier to 'judge' from distance, like I do here.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-15 12:04 by Doxa.

"Groups are now brand names.." You said it all deeppurple. Disgusting. So uncool.

Would love to know who put the music together for the closing ceremonies. They should be smacked...HARD. Nowhere close to the imagination and quality of the opening ceremony.

I was cringing at the thought of them playing the event. But my God they pulled it off, they were great.
Roger's voice sounded on form, and he's toned down the rigid Dad dancing.

The song choices of Baba O'Riley and See Me Feel Me were perfect for the event, very euphoric for a stadium with all the lights. I'm not so keen on My Generation but it had to be done.

I loved the fact that the songs went straight into the next one, no messing or talking inbetween (most probably in their contract as an obligation to the show).
They just banged out the tunes that people wanted to hear and closed the ceremonany in style.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-16 15:46 by brownsugar86.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Lynd8
Pink Floyd's drummer with a bunch of nobodys

Mike Rutherford a nobody ?

Exactly what I thought.

Quote
leteyer

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Lynd8
Pink Floyd's drummer with a bunch of nobodys

Mike Rutherford a nobody ?

Exactly what I thought.

We can blame him for the rise of Phil Collins. That's notorious...not famous

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stonesnow
I find quite a lot of the comments in this thread amusing because (1) those who chose not to show up get criticized for choosing not to show up, (2) those who chose not to show up get criticized for how badly they would have played had they chosen to show up (i.e., The Rolling Stones), and (3) those who did show up get criticized for how they played/performed (except The Who).

I think it's better not to show up for something like this. An artist/performer rarely can be shown in the best light, because an event of this magnitude is too restrictive, too choreographed, and the artist/performer has so little control over how they will go over. Can anyone blame Kate Bush for not showing, when she's only performed live 12 times in her entire career? And ultimately, an event like this hardly has any lasting relevance--the Olympians themselves are only going to be on TV for the next couple of years appearing in schlock commercials hawking crap products for their corporate sponsors. And it does nothing for Ray Davies' legacy one way or the other to be seen miming to Waterloo Sunset one more time. Perhaps a lot of the big names in British rock who said no were just too dignified to appear. The Who said no twice--wish they'd refused a third time. I'll see them live on their upcoming tour, thank you very much.

Very well put, and I agree 100%. To me it looks like the whole Olympic thing in regards to these opening/closing ceremonies has gone out of hand. Some sort of common sense seem to be lost. I remeber wtaching LA 1984 ceremonies, and watching Lionel Richie singing there, and thinking, I hope The Stones will never do anything that corny. Now peopel are arguing that the Stones should do that "for their country", like they have some strange national duty to do that. In some sports event, for god sake. What next: to play for their soldiers when they are fighting in some foreign country? Anyeways, there are always some george michaels dying to do that.

I suppose quite many of artists still see - despite euphoria and hype over the games now - the whole as a kind tricky business, and are not not comfortable with it. And I can totally understand them. Personally I was afraid of that Jagger mmight take the bite, but gladly he did not. I like think it is due to artistic dignity. (I tried to figure Jagger's decision with more detail in the other thread).

Just to make myself clear: I am a big fan of Olympic Games, and I enjoyed great deal in following the events (the actual substance: sports), but I can't see what the hell The Stones or any other major act with some artistic dignity should do anything with it. It's not their cake. Or should we need to have Usain Bolt running some faked 30 meters in middle of a Rolling Stones show?

- Doxa

Thank you for saying, Doxa. Yes, the sports events and the creative arts are two different animals indeed!

The closing ceremony was not very good and the Who were a side show

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-16 14:34 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

Quote
Rockman
definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category

Hey Gazza ... how about that one where Mick's hangin 'round Leicester Square & Nelsons Column ........

Nice! As far as legit tunes go, I think Play With Fire could be in there.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

I knew your Beady Eye was lurking

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

I knew your Beady Eye was lurking

oh yeah, who are you?!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

I knew your Beady Eye was lurking

oh yeah, who are you?!

I'm the 6th spice girl...Drunk Spice.
They never let me perform with them...ever. I hate them for that.

Look.. there are only so many embedded quotes in the world.. stop it before we run out.

Its only just getting annoying. Should I have said Beer Spice?

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

I knew your Beady Eye was lurking

oh yeah, who are you?!

I'm the 6th spice girl...Drunk Spice.
They never let me perform with them...ever. I hate them for that.

I heard StonesTod's joining them for a Fall tour, and he'll be known as Old Spice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-16 18:43 by treaclefingers.

from 5:26

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

I knew your Beady Eye was lurking

oh yeah, who are you?!

I'm the 6th spice girl...Drunk Spice.
They never let me perform with them...ever. I hate them for that.

I heard StonesTod's joining them for a Fall tour, and he'll be known as Old Spice.

Why didn't I think of that. Thats why they don't want me. They have him

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Munichhilton
Also, what the hell was the point of the Bowie tribute?
He's not dead and couldn't be bothered to show!

Why not give Robert Plant his own 10 picture moment?
What about Eric Clapton?

That made zero sense to eulogize a living man...

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

I am still mildly curious... and ask again... I wonder why they gave Bowie such a nice segment, but did not give The Rolling Stones so much as a whisper.

I am only mildly curious at this point, it is not a big deal.

Bowie is and has been every bit as big in the UK as the Stones. He's probably the most important and iconic British act since the 60s.

Watching bits of it again, its sort of dawning on me a bit more that a lot of us are missing the 'context' a bit. Naturally, if you were including great and iconic British acts, the Stones would be in the top tier of music to be represented - but if you're showcasing 'Britishness' in music - maybe less so. The Stones' music isn't really typically British in the way that The Beatles, Bowie, The Who or The Kinks would be.

'Waterloo Sunset' was the absolute perfect choice for an occasion like this. Its probably THE definitive London pop song. The Stones don't really have a song that could be pigeonholed into that category ('Street Fighting Man' maybe - at an absolute push....but its not anywhere near their most iconic song). Neither do Led Zeppelin for that matter.

[www.iorr.org]

Excellent use of the quoting thingy. I need to learn that.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the answer though.
If Bowie can't be bothered to be there, just be happy you got Take That to show up...

They belonged there whether you or I like them or not, as theyre a hugely successful act from the 90s onwards. The event was supposed to showcase different eras and genres of musical history, not be merely a 60s/70s 'rock' timewarp - seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp for some people?

The concept? Not hard to grasp...just not well thought out.
The excellent quoting work by Max. That's hard to grasp. Take That.

Munich, you're showing an ability to think in only, One Direction.

I knew your Beady Eye was lurking

oh yeah, who are you?!

I'm the 6th spice girl...Drunk Spice.
They never let me perform with them...ever. I hate them for that.

I heard StonesTod's joining them for a Fall tour, and he'll be known as Old Spice.

Why didn't I think of that. Thats why they don't want me. They have him

It was going to be 'Acerbic Spice' but they thought most of the audience wouldn't know what that meant, so they went with the obvious.