Rolling Stones at Glastonbury

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

[quote name='timmo' timestamp='1372588331' post='2127397']

It was around 11pm start, but I watched it on the internet, so no idea about the red button bit.
[/quote]

Cheers for that

[timmo]

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' timestamp='1372588397' post='2127400']
Cheers for that
[/quote]
Not sure if you wanted to watch any of it. It is on BBC iplayer

[Stacker]

[quote name='Jazzneck' timestamp='1372586959' post='2127380']
Ah, that one - Versoul, made in Finland.

See: [url="http://www.ronniewood.com/versoul.aspx"]http://www.ronniewood.com/versoul.aspx[/url]
[/quote]
Interesting. Many thanks for that!

[Stan_da_man]

BC in someone is doing better than me and I'm not jealous shocker.

[the boy]

[quote name='timmo' timestamp='1372586116' post='2127371']



Ted Manzie seemed to take it good heart which was my intention, which is the reason for me choosing one direction as using them as an example. I never thought anyone would take me seriously . I keep forgetting the type of things. What is a UFC forum?
[/quote]
I was messing too mate. I keep forgetting to add smiley faces etc. UFC as in ultimate fighter ;D

[timmo]

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1372583593' post='2127339']
Seconded. In true Glasto fashion, the set is now being heralded as the best thing ever.

However... Putting the disappointment and cynicism down a moment, that was a group of very old men putting on that show. I hope I can do half as much when my time comes. And I thought, for all it's faults, it was pretty light-hearted and crowd pleasing.

And I think we could have seen it coming, with hindsight - a set trapped between the age of the players, the memories of their past glories, and the corporate body of Glastonbury.
[/quote]
In defence of the best thing ever comment, I have seen many bands live and thinking it was the best thing I have ever seen. Then a few days after you have gone back to work, got everything into perspective, you realise you may have seen better, or at least, as good, for different reasons. I guess you had to be there, as watching it on TV, you don`t get the buzz and excitement. I would imagine the atmosphere would have been electric. As I say, I am not a big fan, but I reckon I would've rated it as one of the best musical experiences if I was there. Like them or not, they are legends who can still sell stadiums out after 50 years.

[squire5]

Charlie has an odd drumming style.He tends to miss hitting the hi-hat every time he hits the snare.He reminded me of the old guy in the Wonga adverts that dives into the paddling pool.He is a steady drummer though,very few fills.Wasn't overly impressed with the overall telly coverage though.But I guess,'you had to be there'.

[the boy]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1372591599' post='2127451']
I'm a fan of TRS, but I think they have lost an edge.
It's all very well playing "for well over two hours", but they still only managed twenty tunes (including the encore) and that's mainly because pretty much every song outstays its welcome by a good couple of minutes. I also get the feeling that guys like Mick Taylor are "invited" along because neither KR or RW can be bothered to put a decent solo together (not that guitar solos are everything or course). I switched off, mentally and physically, near the end of Midnight Rambler.
[/quote]
"Jesu christo" they are all 70 yo+ what do you expect from these guys. They were good. They were missing something......... Oh yeah, youth. I'm a massive fan so my judgement is clouded but they are still pretty decent.

[Noisyjon]

I'm really torn - I do love the Stones music, they are true legends and know what they're doing [i]but[/i] at points it made me cringe because of how bad some of their performance delivery was, old boys or not.

It reminds me of a conversation with one of my Mates who's a die hard Stones fan and seem them loads over the years. He won't go now as he says it will spoil the good memories he has from seeing them before and that it seems they are becoming a nostalgia act with an element of 'see-em-quick-beore-they-pack it in-or die', especially with the juicy ticket prices on this tour.

[lou24d53]

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' timestamp='1372587722' post='2127388']


What time did bbc show it? Was it red button? I saw craig charles introduce pubic enemy ,and switced over. Watched wallander, still no stones ...
[/quote]

It was on BBC 2, programme started at 10.30, think they were on about 15 mins in. I've got it Sky +'d. In two minds whether to bother now though after these comments!!

[SteveK]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1372593318' post='2127464']
As I said, I am also a fan and they were more than decent. Their age didn't seem to be an obstacle to being on stage for over two hours, so that's not really an issue is it?[b] I just wish they would trim the fat on a few of the songs to make space for others from what must arguably be one of the best back catalogues in the history of music[/b]. At the prices they charge for tickets, I don't think that's too much to ask.
[/quote]Haven't seen it yet, I'll watch it later, but...
A live (as in, being there) set, is a whole different thing from a telly set ( ). A song that feels long and drawn out while sitting in front of our tellys, may feel like it's only just got started when actually in the audience.

[White Cloud]

Music apart, its incredible how painfully thin these guys are. McCartney falls into the same category. Normal people are not emaciated in this way.

They must live on fags.

Edited June 30, 2013 by White Cloud

[skankdelvar]

Having seen some truly dire Stones performances over the years, I'd have to say they're having something of an Indian summer this time round.

Much tighter and more grooving; Woody taking it seriously for a change; wiry, taut guitars instead of the bludgeoning we've come to expect. A much more open sound and they all looked considerably happier compared to previous outings.

Some might say that the Stones are no more than a pub band and they'd be right. A pub band blown up to the Nth degree, playing to the limits of their fairly restricted abilities and all the better for that. When you throw in a back-story that's the greatest soap opera ever and the natural affection one feels for bad Grandads, it's no surprise that the average punter will have a soft spot for them.

Set against all this, critical assessment of their worth is almost impossible. If the Stones 'aren't all that', well, compared to what? To weigh the Stones against other bands at Glastonbury is like comparing the Pyramids with a local mini-cab company. One is a dominating edifice from history to which all the world's tourists may flock, the other a here-today, gone-tomorrow commercial operation of narrower, more specific scope and intent.

If - by their nature - the Stones are incomparable to other bands, it follows that they may only be measured against themselves. While they may lack the edge and bite of their heyday, they do a better job than most of giving the punters a return on their cash. Perhaps because they can usually be seen to be trying harder than most, a principle which they have embraced from Day 1 albeit with chequered results.

Ladies and Gentleman, the greatest pub blues band in the world.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited June 30, 2013 by skankdelvar

[discreet]

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1372596225' post='2127493']Music apart, its incredible how painfully thin these guys are.
McCartney falls into the same category. Normal people are not emaciated in this way.[/quote]

You can't be too thin or too rich. And that's the thing... if you're rich you know you can eat wherever you like whenever you like, so half the time you don't bother. When you're poor, you're thinking about food [i]all the bloody time[/i] and then when you [i]can [/i]afford it, you buy jam, cake, crisps, sweets, KFC, McD, and so on and so forth. Because healthy food is expensive and doesn't give you the same instant gratification.

Having said that, Eric Pickles is in no way poor and yet you could scoop him out and use him as a houseboat. So what do I know?

Edited June 30, 2013 by discreet

[Dad3353]

Just watched the show via UTube, and honestly, agreeably surprised. I'm not the most avid of fans (although respect for the career they've forged themselves...), but that was, globally, an honest, high pressure performance, giving pretty much exactly what was expected of them, I should think. I've certainly seen worse extracts of their mega-tours. I'm glad not to have 'suffered' Glastonbury, with all it's charms (I have great memories if early '70s, but no longer for me, I'm afraid...), but don't regret the hour spent watching that. As a 'senior' myself, I can confirm the difficulties that can occasionally hinder one's abilities on stage. None of that for them. Well done, old sons; well done.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Dad3353

[the boy]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1372593318' post='2127464']

As I said, I am also a fan and they were more than decent. Their age didn't seem to be an obstacle to being on stage for over two hours, so that's not really an issue is it? I just wish they would trim the fat on a few of the songs to make space for others from what must arguably be one of the best back catalogues in the history of music. At the prices they charge for tickets, I don't think that's too much to ask.
[/quote]
Nope.......that's not an option. To ask the Rolling Stones to edit their music to suit your taste is the height of arrogance. Unless of course you are Beelzebub😈, the keeper of their souls and the guy responsible for their meteoric rise to fame. Assuming you are not the aforementioned dark lord then I simply cannot entertain the notion that the Stones should shorten or edit their songs in any way to suit your inability to appreciate something in its entirety. Would you ask da Vinci to trim a few apostles from either side of the 'last supper' as it strained your neck to look completely from left to right and appreciate the complete scene, after all you're not an owl. Nuff said, you k ow how I feel.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='squire5' timestamp='1372591346' post='2127448']
Charlie has an odd drumming style.He tends to miss hitting the hi-hat every time he hits the snare.
[/quote]

It's a great feel - also employed by Levon Helm and Jim Keltner, amongst others.

[Donnyboy]

I was a bit pissed when I watched it and enjoyed it all the better

[Dad3353]

[quote name='squire5' timestamp='1372591346' post='2127448']...He tends to miss hitting the hi-hat every time he hits the snare...[/quote]
[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1372603763' post='2127574']
It's a great feel - also employed by Levon Helm and Jim Keltner, amongst others.
[/quote]

...and not that easy a style to adopt..! I've tried it often, and never managed to make it 'natural'. It gives a nice, syncopated 'lift', but it's a bit like someone limping in a three-legged race when I do it. Well done, that man, I say...

[BigRedX]

[quote name='timmo' timestamp='1372546366' post='2127153']
If you want the look perhaps One Direction is going to be more your thing. I would take the music over the look anyday
[/quote]

If you are going to appear on stage you should also look good and put on a performance as well as play some decent music. Otherwise you might as well leave the musical instruments at home and just play the recordings through the PA.

[Woodinblack]

It seems from here that how good you think it is depends on whether you are a fan or not. I am not, I feel not much about them either way, just an old group that was never really that relevant to me. I saw about 15 minutes of it and turned over, I thought it was quite bad, even for them.
I am guessing if you liked them you would see something different.
Of the two people I know at glastonbury who mentioned them, one really enjoyed the set and the other didn't, but the first one was a lot more drunk!

On the other hand, I am even less of a fan of Chic, but watched their whole show, that was great (especially the bass player).

[White Cloud]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1372601199' post='2127548']
You can't be too thin or too rich. And that's the thing... if you're rich you know you can eat wherever you like whenever you like, so half the time you don't bother. When you're poor, you're thinking about food [i]all the bloody time[/i] and then when you [i]can [/i]afford it, you buy jam, cake, crisps, sweets, KFC, McD, and so on and so forth. Because healthy food is expensive and doesn't give you the same instant gratification.

Having said that, Eric Pickles is in no way poor and yet you could scoop him out and use him as a houseboat. So what do I know?
[/quote]
Very true indeed............

[the boy]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1372606460' post='2127612']
It seems from here that how good you think it is depends on whether you are a fan or not. I am not, I feel not much about them either way, just an old group that was never really that relevant to me. I saw about 15 minutes of it and turned over, I thought it was quite bad, even for them.
I am guessing if you liked them you would see something different.
Of the two people I know at glastonbury who mentioned them, one really enjoyed the set and the other didn't, but the first one was a lot more drunk!

On the other hand, I am even less of a fan of Chic, but watched their whole show, that was great (especially the bass player).
[/quote]
I really don't see the point of this post. Of course how good you think they are depends on whether you are a fan or not. If you are not a fan you are hardly gonna say " watching the stones here, they are excellent but I think they are sh*t". Of course you would see something different if you liked them. As for you liking chic less but watching them more, what does that quantify, other than my level of confusion?

[Woodinblack]

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1372607646' post='2127623']
I really don't see the point of this post. Of course how good you think they are depends on whether you are a fan or not. [/quote]

I didn't say that, I said that posts on how good they were here depended on whether you were a fan or not. I have seen some groups I didn't like that I thought were really good live and vice versa.

I don't particularly like the rolling stones in general, but I have seen gigs they have done which were good, and didn't think that at glastonbury they did well [i]for the rolling stones[/i].

[the boy]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1372608478' post='2127633']


I didn't say that, I said that posts on how good they were here depended on whether you were a fan or not.
[/quote]
No you didn't.