Rolling Stones at Glastonbury

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
I'm not a Stones fan...i never rated them as a live band back in the day...always preferred the Cream Led Zeppelin Jethro Tull type of rock. I thought they might struggle here but I have to say I thought they pulled it off...the songs actually sounded like they should. Most of the live stuff i've heard in the past has been dire imo...played too fast...sloppy etc.

Jagger is unbelievable for his age imo..he must be the best front man of all time.

What did you guys think?...ignoring the fact that they look ancient which is hard not to at their age.
 
Not much rock music i like but do have a lot of time for the stones and thought last night was superb.

I agree that they played the material well and the improvised Miss you was memorable. I actually think they are getting better from the bits ive seen over the years

Nice selection as well although i cant abide Start me up
 
Last edited:
Horrendous - especially Miss You, which is fairly **** to start off with.

Keith looked like one of the Golden Girls.

I'd be raging if I'd paid £100 to see them and got that tosh served up.
 
I thought they were absolute crap. And I'm a big Stones fan.

Jagger couldn't hit a note all night -- Tumbling Dice was embarrassingly shambolic.
Richards looks and moves like a mummified cast-off from Pirates Of The Caribbean.
Ronnie was okay, I s'pose.
The only redeeming aspect was Mick Taylor's guesting which injected a bit of class into the proceedings, along with Bobby Keys sax.

They're simply too old to strut it live anymore.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
Horrendous - especially Miss You, which is fairly **** to start off with.

Keith looked like one of the Golden Girls.

I'd be raging if I'd paid £100 to see them and got that tosh served up.
Click to expand...

not sure what you expect tbh...have you heard some of their older live stuff...some of that is dire

re faithfulness to the songs i thought they did well...Keith hardly actually plays any lead...Ronnie is the guitarist out of the two of them and Mick Taylor in his prime was better than both...Keith doesn't make a very good ornament either...but apart from that
 
icebreaker said:
I thought they were absolute crap. And I'm a big Stones fan.

Jagger couldn't hit a note all night -- Tumbling Dice was embarrassingly shambolic.
Richards looks and moves like a mummified cast-off from Pirates Of The Caribbean.
Ronnie reprises the same tired old licks, last night demonstrates that even that ability is diminished.
The only redeeming aspect was Mick Taylor's guesting which injected a bit of class into the proceedings, along with Bobby Keys sax.

They're simply too old to strut it live anymore.
Click to expand...

they have never been any good as musicians though...in the 70's they weren't in the top 5 rock bands..such was the standard then

for their level of ability i doubt they could better last night...like i said..listen to some of the stuff from 20/30 years ago..**** poor live then
 
Does it matter ec? They are not into boring soulless solos thankfully and are not a string quartet or john Coltrane

I think one of the great things about the stones is the looseness of the sound. Still the James brown influence there after all these years. Jb live was totally improvised and went everywhere. Fcking ace too

You are right about their older live stuff though. I had get your yayas out and it was unlistenable

Still I saw the clash a few times back in the day and when they were starting out you didn't even have a clue which bloody song they were playing
 
Last edited:
They're now allowing the first part of the set to be shown; think they've realised it was a big mistake not to show it.
 
edgt said:
This was the main question asked of The Stones at the press conference announcing their tour ....in 1983 !
Click to expand...
Tho' if it was considered a valid question back then, it must be even more of a relevance now thirty years on.
I dunno, there's something wrong-looking about a 70-y-o man singing rebellious rock n roll. It don't sit right.
Instead of singing Gimme Shelter, it should be Gimme Sheltered Accommodation.

(Like I said earlier, I love the Stones songs; but nowadays I would rather listen to them retrospectively as they were originally recorded rather than lasts nights reprisals).
 
So the great Nile Rodgers who's battling cancer and is getting on a bit too shouldn't have sung good times?

Don't think many would agree with that... Storming set and clear highlight

So log as people are enjoying and it works why shouldn't jagger perform? He's fitter than blokes half his age.

I find the claims that the set was "woeful" pretty odd but so what. At least it wasn't some miserable bunch of northern students droning on
 
Glastonbury is a great event with **** music. Year after year the line-up is wank. The Stones era was the 60s/70s and they've been a non factor for any discerning music fan since that time. I'd sooner spend two hours in Starbucks - pretty much the same corporate experience.
 
Euronymous said:
Glastonbury is a great event with **** music. Year after year the line-up is wank. The Stones era was the 60s/70s and they've been a non factor for any discerning music fan since that time. I'd sooner spend two hours in Starbucks - pretty much the same corporate experience.
Click to expand...

the line up may be deemed wank possibly because the music scene is wank?..possiblity?

I'm too old to pass opinion on some of the new bands..most of it looks shite to me..and its obviously not to other people.

one thing is clear..music is a personal matter isn't it really?...wank to someone is superb to someone else...everyone is arrogant about music..my choice is cool and if others don't agree they don't get it type of attitude.

Like I said..i've never been a stones fan...but they put a good show on..have some of the best known songs of all time..and make a lot of new bands look very ordinary. I think they have as much right to play Glastonbury as anyone.

I think Glastonbury now suffers..ooh its not cool to like it any more syndrome...its sold out etc...a bit like a cult group that suddenly gets popularity on a large scale and the original fans then turn away from it

Its clearly a very popular event and seems to me as an ignorant of new music to represent a fair variety of music...so not sure its as wank as you suggest Euro

In my lifetime i know of many excellent musicians that have never got or sought mass popularity but who are better at their craft than mainstream idols...i assume that is the case today with stuff you like Euro...its always been that way...we had the old grey whistle test in the 70's for "our" bands..and TOTP was there for the popular dross as we saw it..snobbery eh?
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
one thing is clear..music is a personal matter isn't it really?...wank to someone is superb to someone else...everyone is arrogant about music..my choice is cool and if others don't agree they don't get it type of attitude.
Click to expand...

I've never bought this. Some people just want a good tune in the background, some people want something more.

Personal taste is all well and good but everyone knows The Sopranos is better than Eastenders. Same rule applies for music, why shouldn't it.
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
I've never bought this. Some people just want a good tune in the background, some people want something more.

Personal taste is all well and good but everyone knows The Sopranos is better than Eastenders. Same rule applies for music, why shouldn't it.
Click to expand...

I think that the Eastenders comparison would hold if we were talking about some wishy washy pop throw away stuff but i think that many bands at Glastonbury would be further up the food chain than that..if we want to use that sort of comparison...which i'm not sure carries to music tbh. Many people would prefer Eastenders to the sopranos as well...are they lesser mortals for doing so?
 
Last edited:
The first song we heard on the BBC on Saturday night was actually the tenth song on the playlist, so it's no wonder Jaggers voice was starting to sound a bit jaded. Think it's a bit of an insult to those of use that were looking forward to seeing them.
 
Back
Top