Jump to content

Glastonbury


wolfie
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of my sons has just got back from Glastonbury as a Rolling Stones convert. He said it was one of the best live performances  he has ever seen. Just confirms my long held belief that they are the greatest rock and roll band in the world.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who asserts that any elderly musician or group is as good as they were when they were in their prime is actually demeaning them, whether they be rock, classical, jazz, or whatever.  It is rather like saying that Bobby Charlton is as good a footballer now as he was when he played for England. It just isn't possible.

In the case of the Rolling Stones, of course, it makes little difference. They were rubbish when they started, they were rubbish in their prime and they are rubbish now. The fact that they still have the energy to strut around the stage may be remarkable, but it does nothing to hide the fact that musically they are crap.

They have prospered because of a lamentable lack of musical education among the public. If they are legendary, it is because they have shown that you CAN fool most of the people most of the time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are trying to convince people that you are musically educated but if I asked you to compare the great classical composers and the Mercury Music Prize winning bands, I bet you couldn't tell the difference between your arts and your Elbow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Adam, to my ears the Rolling Stones were crap in their early days and always have been, to allow geriatrics such as those drugged up cretins to play before tan audience is an insult to the publics intelligence, but hey! what do I know I'm stone deaf!. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:  :lol: You have a way with words Adam and have still got your great and vast dislike of most music I see :lol:

 

I must admit I don't particularly like the Rolling Stones though and never have done... well to be honest I just don't like gormless Mick Jagger and the way he moves as he/it makes my skin crawl. 

 

My other half has always liked their music though but said he had to switch over when he was watching when they were on as they were not too good and were making him cringe.  I guess the atmosphere is not the same watching at home on a laptop as it is if you are there though (in fairness to Wolfie's son and Francine so as not to hurt their feelings)..... but one things for sure I'm not googling their Glastonbury slot to see their slot and the prancing 'creepy' for myself as I've only just eaten my tea.    :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who asserts that any elderly musician or group is as good as they were when they were in their prime is actually demeaning them, whether they be rock, classical, jazz, or whatever.  It is rather like saying that Bobby Charlton is as good a footballer now as he was when he played for England. It just isn't possible.

 

Rubbish Adam.  What about The Eagles for example? 

 

OK so they were probably around 10 years later than the Rolling Stones but age wise there's only a couple of years between Jagger and Henley.

 

The Eagles were great in their 'prime' (as you like to call it) and are just as good, if not even better, now. 

 

I know you probably don't like them due to your limited tastes but thought I'd mention them as an example.......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzy

You can't have it both ways. If the Eagles really are better now, then they are in their prime now!  I wouldn't know, because as far as I am aware I have never heard them!  But at least you picked up the main point of my original post - that whatever your taste in music (or just about anything else) there comes a point when even the best of us go into decline. From the look of them, the Rolling Stones have been in decline for many years. The Daily Mail summed it up pretty well when it described them as the "Living Dead."

Incidentally, I refute your assertion that I have a limited taste. I like all GOOD music, whether it be classical, jazz, folk or pop. It is just crass pop/rock music which relies more on flashing lights, dry ice, electronic gimmicks and performers leaping about the stage like lunatics than on musical ability that I dislike. And it is because of the limited musical education of the masses that they get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I refute your assertion that I have a limited taste. I like all GOOD music,

Doesn't everyone? what is Good is down to interpretation. Music is like women, some prefer blondes, some brunettes, ones no worse than the other, it's all down to preference. Algy likes CCR, who I think are crap, Diz likes the Eagles, and I like the Rolling Stones, oh and Caro Emerald. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't everyone? what is Good is down to interpretation. Music is like women, some prefer blondes, some brunettes, ones no worse than the other, it's all down to preference. Algy likes CCR, who I think are crap, Diz likes the Eagles, and I like the Rolling Stones, oh and Caro Emerald. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

 

Can't agree, Wolfie. In fact, I would turn your comment on its head and say: "The fact that you DO like it, doesn't make it good."

There are quite a few pieces of music which I like, but which I know, are crap. I am unsure why I like them, but often nostalgia comes into it. Certainly musicality does not!

I had a friend who thought all music was crap other than classical - but he loved "Moon River" because he met his wife at a dance when the band played it.  It became "their song."  He liked it - but musically, he accepted it was rubbish.

Personally I would say "Moon River" - rubbish though it might be - is a good deal better than anything the Rolling Stones have done, although it does nothing for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is because of the limited musical education of the masses that they get away with it.

 

That is nothing more than an insult, not only to other people on this forum but also to people generally.

 

 

‘music is whatever someone thinks is music’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is nothing more than an insult, not only to other people on this forum but also to people generally.

 

 

‘music is whatever someone thinks is music’

 

I would say it was more an insult to our education system.

 

Music may well be whatever someone thinks is music, but it may not be (and frequently isn't) good music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't everyone? what is Good is down to interpretation. Music is like women, some prefer blondes, some brunettes, ones no worse than the other, it's all down to preference. Algy likes CCR, who I think are crap, Diz likes the Eagles, and I like the Rolling Stones, oh and Caro Emerald. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

Wolfie, I enjoy all types of music including some of the Eagles tracks, and I a have an appresiation of Jazz especially New Orleans, blues, dixeyland, heres a video of the greatest clarinetist of all times, George Lewis, I went to see him many years ago when he played the Free Trade Hall in Manchester.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfie, I enjoy all types of music including some of the Eagles tracks,

So do I alg, unfortunately Adam thinks that the music we like ain't music and that's because we ain't educated like him.

 

I bet the evening do at a wedding is a riot with him. Imagine the DJ asking for requests and Adam pops up with ' have you got Beethovens 5th' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The only good thing about regurgitating the same insulting argument is that it increases the post count.  This forum is riddled with repetition, fortunately Adam's only come occasionally.

"Repetion is the formula for perfection", you only have to look at homo sapien for confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfie

 

Apart from the Rolling Stones, I don't know what music you like. I have never said it "ain't music" I just know it isn't good music. I have also never claimed to have a superior education, although from the comments of some I am beginning to think I have!

 

Your childish comment about Beethoven marks you as an inverted snob and suggests you are someone who ridicules anything you don't understand.

 

Algy.  I too like George Lewis. I didn't hear him at the Free Trade Hall but I did hear many of the other jazz greats there. Also the Halle of course.

If rock groups could include the clarinet, sax, trumpet, trombone, piano, etc, in their line-up they might stand some chance of producing decent music.  But because they have largely restricted themselves to electric guitars, bass guitars (a far inferior instrument to the string bass) and drums, the music is bound to be shallow, lacking in harmony, lacking in swing and in fact lacking of everything other than sheer volume. To that they inevitably add a vocalist who can't sing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If rock groups could include the clarinet, sax, trumpet, trombone, piano, etc, in their line-up they might stand some chance of producing decent music. 

Adam, you will be pleased to know that The stones 'Can't always get what you want' featured

  • Bobby Keys on  saxophone
  • Tim Reis – keyboards and saxophone
  • Al Kooper on piano and French horn
  • oh and  'The London Bach Choir' all 220 members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...