Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:04 am  

EHW wrote:

too many drug addicts and paedophiles in it for my tastes. "inspire a generation" to do what exactly?

I must've missed the Gary Glitter and Jonathan King duet

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:43 am  

Scooter Nik wrote: The Who were the top UK band of their era? Really? I would imagine that there were several other contenders - including The Dave Clarks Five, The Troggs and The Small Faces who would argue with that, and that's without including The Beatles. The difference is that The Who are still around (after a fashion), and that is the important part. Exactly. The Beatles and Rolling Stones were stratospherically above them. For some other names that many would consider as good / alot better than The Who: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rock

Scooter Nik wrote: The Who were the top UK band of their era? Really? I would imagine that there were several other contenders - including The Dave Clarks Five, The Troggs and The Small Faces who would argue with that, and that's without including The Beatles. The difference is that The Who are still around (after a fashion), and that is the important part. Exactly. The Beatles and Rolling Stones were stratospherically above them. For some other names that many would consider as good / alot better than The Who: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rock

[John_D]

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:50 am  

Dally wrote:

Exactly. The Beatles and Rolling Stones were stratospherically above them.

The Stones were asked to perform. Said no. So not sure what else the organisers could have done. See also Bowie, David.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:15 am  

John_D wrote:

The Stones were asked to perform. Said no. So not sure what else the organisers could have done. See also Bowie, David.

so if Bowie says NO why have a 5 minute segment of his greatest hits.

There were many more bands or artists who could have used that slot which would have been better

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:23 am  

Sign at Hackney Wick station:

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:25 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Whatever it was 'advertised' as, it wasn't just a 'party'. The event was being broadcast to the world, and was designed to be seen by as wide an audience as possible. On those grounds, it was always going to be judged and critiqued as more than just a 'party'.

If you want to invent your own criteria to judge it, which is different to what it was actually advertised as and tried to be then I can see why you are so upset. I think it was a terrible fishing show, and an awful documentary on the building of the pyramids.

It was a mish-mash of middle of the road pap. Take That, The Spice Girls, One Direction, Pet Shop Boys, Elbow. Russell fooking Brand, FFS. If I was at a 'party' and they were playing that sort of sh*te, I'd go home.

An The Who, and Ray Davies, and Bowie, and Queen.

Going to a party but leaving because the music was ‘too middle of the road’ for you, hardly helps your argument that you aren’t a miserable f*cker.

As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the games and have never watched either an opening or closing ceremony to anything before, so I had no pre-conceived ideas of what to expect. Hardly cynical, then. The ceremony wasn't to my tastes, so I personally didn't enjoy it. It obviously appealed to some people, which is fair enough. What I object to is the inference that if you didn't enjoy it, you must automatically be a miserable f*cker, and it's not just that the event didn't cater to your tastes. And if you can't see that, you're obviously a thick c*nt.

But you aren’t arguing that it didn’t cater to your tastes. I don’t like Annie Lennox, one direction, Jessie J does my head in but im not cynical enough to decide that because it didn’t, in its entirety cater to my tastes it was ‘It was a mish-mash of middle of the road pap.’ Or the sort of poop I would leave a party to avoid.

You did have pre-conceived ideas, you have told us you did you have decided that despite it being advertised as a party, despite the director outright saying she planned at as a party, despite it being a bit cheesy and everyone accepting that it was a party, YOU have decided it wasn’t a party and wasnt a success because it didn’t meet some yet to be declared esoteric standard of music.

Frankly your argument is that contradictory that its almost a compliment for you to think I’m thick

[John_D]

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:48 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

so if Bowie says NO why have a 5 minute segment of his greatest hits.

There were many more bands or artists who could have used that slot which would have been better

*shrug* Appen he gave permission for that but turned down a PA. The bit on the news this morning didn't make that clear

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:59 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If you want to invent your own criteria to judge it, which is different to what it was actually advertised as and tried to be then I can see why you are so upset. I think it was a terrible fishing show, and an awful documentary on the building of the pyramids.

It's not my own criteria, you silly man. Whether it was advertised as a 'party' or not, it featured loads of live music from professional musicians. Sort of like a 'concert', if you will. On those grounds, it will be judged differently to how a 'party' (featuring no live music from professional musicians) would be judged. And using facile straw man arguments about fishing shows and documentaries just makes you look stupid.

SmokeyTA wrote:

An The Who, and Ray Davies, and Bowie, and Queen.

Didn't see The Who, so can't comment. Ray Davies was poor, Bowie wasn't actually there, and, whilst Queen are obviously excellent musicians, the version of 'We Will Rock You' with Jessie J was not very good (to be kind).

SmokeyTA wrote:

Going to a party but leaving because the music was ‘too middle of the road’ for you, hardly helps your argument that you aren’t a miserable f*cker.

I probably wouldn't get up and leave an actual party (if it was someone I cared about) because the music was pap, but I'd certainly leave, say, a pub if they were playing cack like One Direction.

SmokeyTA wrote:

But you aren’t arguing that it didn’t cater to your tastes. I don’t like Annie Lennox, one direction, Jessie J does my head in but im not cynical enough to decide that because it didn’t, in its entirety cater to my tastes it was ‘It was a mish-mash of middle of the road pap.’ Or the sort of poop I would leave a party to avoid.

It's because it was a mish-mash of middle of the road pap that it didn't cater to my tastes. That's not to say I don't like any MOR music, but the likes of The Spice Girls (to name but one example) were rubbish the first time around, without wheeling them out for something like this. I guess my emphasis is more on 'pap' than 'middle of the road'. I love Waterloo Sunset, for example, but Davies did such a poor version as to leave me unimpressed. I like Madness enough to have played professionally with a Madness tribute band, so I would have found their performance quite enjoyable. The problem was that the parts that would have interested me were so few and far between, it wasn't worth enduring the rest of it.

SmokeyTA wrote:

You did have pre-conceived ideas, you have told us you did you have decided that despite it being advertised as a party, despite the director outright saying she planned at as a party, despite it being a bit cheesy and everyone accepting that it was a party, YOU have decided it wasn’t a party and wasnt a success because it didn’t meet some yet to be declared esoteric standard of music.

See my comments above. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. You can call any concert a 'party' if you so choose. That doesn't stop it being a concert any more than me calling my 406 Estate a 'sports car' will enable it to win the British GP.

SmokeyTA wrote:

Frankly your argument is that contradictory that its almost a compliment for you to think I’m thick

I don't actually think that (or didn't before your little gem about fishing programmes/pyramid documentaries), I just thought we were just slinging around needless insults for no apparent reason. Like labelling someone a 'miserable f*cker' because their view happens to differ from your own.

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:12 am  

It wasn't a party - there was no "Tiger Feet".

Re: Closing ceremony. : Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:23 am  

Rock God X wrote:

It's not my own criteria, you silly man. Whether it was advertised as a 'party' or not, it featured loads of live music from professional musicians. Sort of like a 'concert', if you will. On those grounds, it will be judged differently to how a 'party' (featuring no live music from professional musicians) would be judged. And using facile straw man arguments about fishing shows and documentaries just makes you look stupid.

It is your own criteria. You are, with seemingly no hint of irony, arguing that it should be judged as something else to what it presented itself as. It is you has decided it is a ‘concert’ yet the organisers and the director hasn’t tried to put on a concert, they tried to put on a party. To avoid confusion they told us this is what they aimed to do, why you want it to be something else and why you have decided to judge it as something else god along knows.

BTW, have you never been to a party with live music?

Didn't see The Who, so can't comment. Ray Davies was poor, Bowie wasn't actually there, and, whilst Queen are obviously excellent musicians, the version of 'We Will Rock You' with Jessie J was not very good (to be kind).

Yet my niece loved Jessie J and loved her performing a rock song she knew with a bunch old men with funny hair she didnt know. As much as i could happily have done without Jessie J, she could have happily done without Queen.

Ray Davies wasnt poor, Ray Davies was a 68 year old man, there isnt a lot the organisers can do about Ray Davies' age. Now considering you werent happy that Bowie wasnt there (his choice) what could the organisers do other than either a) put Ray Davies out there as he is, or b) ignored him?

I probably wouldn't get up and leave an actual party (if it was someone I cared about) because the music was pap, but I'd certainly leave, say, a pub if they were playing cack like One Direction.

And you are trying to argue you arent a miserable f*cker, yet you would stand up and walk out of a pub because one direction came on. What carefree and happy company you must be.

It's because it was a mish-mash of middle of the road pap that it didn't cater to my tastes. That's not to say I don't like any MOR music, but the likes of The Spice Girls (to name but one example) were rubbish the first time around, without wheeling them out for something like this. I guess my emphasis is more on 'pap' than 'middle of the road'. I love Waterloo Sunset, for example, but Davies did such a poor version as to leave me unimpressed. I like Madness enough to have played professionally with a Madness tribute band, so I would have found their performance quite enjoyable. The problem was that the parts that would have interested me were so few and far between, it wasn't worth enduring the rest of it.

but the spice girls arent rubbish, the just dont cater to your tastes. FOr many people the Spice Girls will have been the highlight and they could take or leave madness, for you the other way around. Rather that moaning that not everything was to your tastes why not be impressed that they managed to cater for something as unbelievably diverse as spice girl fans and madness fans

See my comments above. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. You can call any concert a 'party' if you so choose. That doesn't stop it being a concert any more than me calling my 406 Estate a 'sports car' will enable it to win the British GP.

Similarly, you wouldnt really criticise your 406 estate for being a rubbish rally car when it was advertised as a family car, you bought it to be a family car and it does a perfectly servicable job as a family car