Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Rolling Stones at Glastonbury


Pin

Recommended Posts

I watched on BBC2 last night and I thought it dreadful. I'm glad I hadn't paid a wad of money to stand sandwiched in a crowd 300 yards away and listen to it.

 

It seemed to me that the whole thing was held together by Charlie Watts, the keyboard player, the bassist and some superb horn playing. As for the rest of them I have heard much better in amateur Pub bands. Yes, they might have "mojo" but not much else these days - not last night anyway.

 

But it seems most people enjoyed it from the feedback of those present and newspaper reports so perhaps I am just being curmudgeonly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glastonbury isnt the music festival for me, there just arent enough bands I like there. I watched them on iplayer this morning and yeah, I couldnt say I was enthralled by their playing. Although I watched arctic monkeys on youtube and they did a great set

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the worst glosto for years ,and there have been a few stinkers.Apart from Elvis it was lame to say the least. Considering its roots you would think there would have been at least one big name rock band. [thumbdn] The Stones I just dont get it,never have, never will.I wouldn,t even go and see them in pub. Know 3 hrs of Rush would have been a different story [biggrin] In a recent interview Geddy was talking about the possibility of some festivals.Bring it on. [biggrin][thumbup] [thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought for a long time that the Stones were past it. It's all media hype. I thought Mick Taylor was totally amateur. Like a school kid playing. They're just an image now. Jagger was awful. But they're the Stones. So, who are we to comment. They've paid their dues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought for a long time that the Stones were past it. It's all media hype. I thought Mick Taylor was totally amateur. Like a school kid playing. They're just an image now. Jagger was awful. But they're the Stones. So, who are we to comment. They've paid their dues.

Yes they have. You still have to give it to them, they are still around even though they are way passed their prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think one should play, whatever one loves to play, as long

as it's possible, to do so. But, realistically, I don't expect that to

be any mandate, or guarantee, on/of acceptability, or relevance, by other's.

 

 

CB

 

Very cool observation Charlie!! [thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm watching the Stones, at Glastonbury, on YouTube...seems fine, to me.

But then, I LIKE the Rolling Stones, and have seen them, several times, in

the last 50 years.

 

Mick's energy, and voice seem outstanding, for a 70 year old (July 26th, this year)!

He has very little "warble," or gravel, that a lot of his peers, seem to

have, nowadays. So...GO MICK!! [thumbup] What other band, from that era

has lasted 50 years, of pretty much constant playing and touring??! VERY FEW,

if any!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say I just watched it and though never a big Stones fan, I disagree with almost everybody so far given that the OPs observation about Charlie Watts holding the whole thing together now is very accurate. To me it looked and sounded much better than the Utube American tour clips with the guest girl singers.

The new old Stones work a different way to the old young Stones if you see what I mean; it used to be driven by Keef's guitar in tandem with Watts, now it's Watts and the bass - c'mon, that is a fabulous rhythm section. Watts still totally swings and has a wide, easy backbeat and Darryl "is such a monster" to quote Branford Marsalis. Did you notice the Mustang bass?

I thought Mick Taylor was ok and even Keef's solos fitted though rhythmically he didn't do nearly as much as he used to in the classic years. He does as little or as much as he wants. They were never virtuosos. The image was always bigger than the music.

As for Jagger, he is one of life's greatest opportunists and his singing was no better or worse than it ever has been; he works hard at feeling (if not staying) young - he's in great shape, 8 mile runs every day - perhaps it's ridiculous but who is going to tap him on the shoulder and say "time's up"? And who wants to feel old if you can still feel young, with some work? Anybody?

On the other hand they're not really a band like they used to be, they are celebrity legends, icons, and that's where it becomes meaningless. I don't think any 'current' rock band will be any different (i.e. retired - it's not a career with a pension) when they get to that age though I can easily see Grace Slick's point - the absurdity of it. Rock and roll is not only a rebellious youth culture these days; it's also establishment, accepted, ubiquitous on the airwaves. But it's still above all excitement and they certainly excited the audience.....you can be old and still get excited!

Regards to all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that the BBC always makes a mess of the sound when doing Glastonbury. I watched Chic the other night and you could barely hear Nile Rodger's guitar. They totally messed up the sound for U2 a couple of years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to hear these opinions...I thought it was just me who thought they were poor. Tbh I think most of the guitar work came from off stage..I couldn't notice any change in sound when Keith was taking a rest between playing which seemed a lot of the time to me !Jagger just looked like a pathetic prancing old fool I thought and the 2000 years Nos was awful! Ronnie was the stand out for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched on BBC2 last night and I thought it dreadful. I'm glad I hadn't paid a wad of money to stand sandwiched in a crowd 300 yards away and listen to it.

 

It seemed to me that the whole thing was held together by Charlie Watts, the keyboard player, the bassist and some superb horn playing. As for the rest of them I have heard much better in amateur Pub bands. Yes, they might have "mojo" but not much else these days - not last night anyway.

 

But it seems most people enjoyed it from the feedback of those present and newspaper reports so perhaps I am just being curmudgeonly.

 

 

Well done Pin for being the first in on the Stones Glastonbury performance.

 

Did you hear Mark Radcliffe for the BBC's first statement at the break, he said 'that was rubbish' then said 'only joking'twice. Was it a Freudian slip? I think so. It was rubbish the band never seemed to pull together, maybe it's the al fresco venue but as we know the band can get it right.

 

I couldn't see what Mick Taylor was doing in his solo but we've all been there, Oh bugger I'm in the wrong key,now that's not right I'll give it another try, Fortunately Ronnie Wood saved the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...