Quote ="JerryChicken"The only flat bit is when the Brazilians came on, which sort of shows where we're going in four years time, look past the samba, frilly shirts and [udancing like your drunk uncle at a wedding[/u and you're done. '" Or Boris even? www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content ... /bKCUN.gif If you must post a 2meg gif then link to it.

Quote ="JerryChicken"The only flat bit is when the Brazilians came on, which sort of shows where we're going in four years time, look past the samba, frilly shirts and [udancing like your drunk uncle at a wedding[/u and you're done. '" Or Boris even? www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content ... /bKCUN.gif If you must post a 2meg gif then link to it.

I thought it was cack. I've thoroughly enjoyed the event in general, but the closing ceremony did nowt for me. It's the first time I've watched either a closing or opening ceremony to any games, and it'll probably be the last. Think I'll just stick with the sport.

I've been around 50 years & am pretty sure the Rolling Stones have been fairly significant within British culture during that period. Far more so than Jessie J or Russell Brand. Otherwise it was ok.

It was falling flat until Eric Idle perked it up. The best two acts of the night were Idle and the video of Freddie Mercury - who even in 2D was more charismatic that the the rest the "great" British musical talent on show. The lighting, etc saved the day. In fact, after the two I've mentioned the Spice Girls were probably the next most entertaining act - which sums up how awful most of the others were. After putting Macca on after the cauldron lighting at the opening ceremony you'd have thought they's have learned a lesson - but once again we had the has beens - The Who. I suppose there was some sense in that - the uplifting two weeks were over and I suppose they symbolised the decay and lack of hope in an everday Britain living off past glories.

Loved the games, but decide not to watch the closing ceremony when I heard those two awful words uttered, 'spice girls'. Completely put me off, closing a games full of great talented athletes with a bunch of talentless drips.

What you have failed to take account of is the fact that The Who have been hugely succesful in both the UK and the USA since the mid 60s, they were for instance one of the first acts to be booked at the original Woodstock festival and one of only a few British acts AND the organisers who were on a limited budget (being all for love and peace man and not finance) paid for The Who to fly to the USA for literally a one night stand so that they didn't even bring any instruments with them apart from Keith Moons drumsticks - THAT how important they were in the USA at the time.

How important are they now in the USA ?

Which band provides all of the title, incidental and closing music to one of the most popular, probably definitive, crime drama series in the US in the last ten years ?

I'm sure you know the answer and its that popularity that keeps The Who still relevant today, still touring (even with only 50% remaining) and still earning the sort of income from the USA that most of the other acts on there last night would kill their grannies for.

Rather than symbolising decay and lack of hope they actually symbolise exactly the opposite and I hope that I'm able to work as hard as Roger Daltry when I'm his age (otherwise The Nationwide will be wanting my house keys).

Sat watching them now, I don't know what people where expecting?

What year was Woodstock? The world has moved on.

So what year is the cut-off date for the music that should be played?
I assume you objected to Jerusalem being played in the opening ceremony?


I'm amazed at the amount of negativity on this thread, what was the big problem with it all? It was a big party at the end of the games with a load of top British bands/musicians from past and present, presented in a fantastic venue.

Considering this thread was started a mere 20 minutes in to the ceremony, it just seems like some people were determined to think it was crap even before it had happened.

It was supposed to be a party for the Olympians but they were penned in and unable to even go the toilet, even though many will probably have had a few drinks beforehand. Most of the athletes were similar ages to my kids and will never have heard of The Who, et al. So, presumably, it was all about the middle aged baby boomers who could afford tickets and once again anti-youth (like just about everything in the UK these days).

I also found the bit about "fashion" with mention of Burberry, Victoria Beckham, etc most unseemly and cringeworthy promotion of these brands. They were even official sponsors were they? Breach of own rules?

What a set of miserable fokkers on here. It was a very entertaining closing ceremony, and as the moaners seem to be worried to death, poor things, about the impression it made on the world, please note that the reports across the globe are almost all positive, so you needn't fret.

Anyone who's never heard of The Who hasn't much of an interest in music but putting one of our greatest ever rock bands on stage in a celebration of British music seems pretty fair to me. The millions watching around the globe for whom The Who are towering figures in their life soundtrack will have loved it. Thought putting Jessie J on with Queen was a masterstroke by whoever did it.

Brilliant Olympics, and a fine finish. I loved it all.

Did you read the rest of what I put - they were relevant because they are part of our musical heritage, they are still relevant because they are still part of our massive musical influence that we have on much of the world - did you notice how many of those atheletes, most of whom are 18-30 year olds were singing and dancing to "My Generation", a song that was written in 1965 and means as much to the current days 20 year olds (even if they only hear it first on CSI) as it did to my generation (see what I did there).

My daughter has a very large collection of CDs and she would not know The Who. To most of that generation it's just "ol;f fashioned" music - a bit like Bing Crosby was to The Who's generation of fans (but actually much more remote chronlogically speaking than Bing was to us).

What on earth are you on about? Are you seriously saying that only middle-aged people have heard of The Who? The vast majority of youngsters, even if they weren't quite sure who sung it, have heard of The Who and have heard their best songs. And that's discounting One Direction, Jessie J, Tinie Tempah and Taio Cruz who they most certainly have heard of.

I'll ask it again, what year is the cut-off point? And did you object to Jerusalem being played at the Opening Ceremony?

I can't believe you said that. Did you say that? Kettled Olympians? Can you actually be being serious?

How many athletes who wanted to go to the toilet were forcibly detained, then, and who detained them? How did they do it? Tasers? Dogs? I think we should be told.


It wasn't, it's just that you didn't realise that Tinie Tempah, Taio Cruz, Fatboy Slim, Kaiser Chiefs, Muse, Jessie J, One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Beady Eye and Emeli Sande are actually failry well-known contemporary artists of whom your offspring may indeed have heard however lacking their knowledge of rock legends may be.

The Who may be "rock legends" to you but they are wholly irrelevant to the average young person today. Woodstock was 43 years ago. That's two life times to lots of the Olympians. Assuming you are, say, mid-fifties (which would make you a youg Who fan) can you recall the greats of popular music from 110 years ago - broadly as the 19th century ended? Do you still listen to those legends?

Hang your head in shame for you have failed in your parental duty to give her a rounded education, my youngest is 20 yrs old and her iPod that she's got in Majorca at the moment has folders on it with Rod Stewart and The Who (who she learned about from CSI) on it - I of course ensured that only Mr Stewarts early output was included and not the discoe of latter years, for I am a discerning parent.

My eldest who is 24 has recently purchased the dvd of Quadrophenia which she loves after seeing it on tv, I don't really care if she views it as ancient history or not, fact is she loves the mod style and music represented on it, its still as relevant today, very much so.

On the other hand I share their music too, I don't like most of it but the bits that I do like is very good and never more so when young artists take a song from the 60s or 70s and put their own interpretation on it - everything is cyclical.

Anyone who's ever watched CSI Las Vegas (Who are you), CSI Miama (Won't Get Fooled Again) or CSI NY (Baba O'Riley) will definitely know The Who. Their music has featured in several cartoon shows, during the Superbowl Half-Time Show, several computer games, television adverts, etc, etc.

Regardless, the cyclical resurgence and ongoing popularity of 'Mod' culture - and the Quadrophenia film - all mean The Who have remained popular throughout the generations.

There's only one person to blame if your daughter hasn't heard of the greats. I grew up listing to Queen, Neil Diamond, Boney M, The Who, Elvis, Michael Jackson, ABBA, Led Zep, Rod Stewart, Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John, The Stones, The Bee Gees, The Beatles, Phil Collins, Stevie Wonder and christ knows who else, despite the fact many of them were well before my time - a wide range of music and I'm grateful to my parents for educating me.

That is totally irrelevant.

I do know where you are coming from though, but its because you haven't adapted yourself.

When I was 20 my father's musical tastes were very much from the 1940s and were as far away as what I liked as didn't matter, his music was totally irrelevant to me and I didn't want to listen to any of it despite the fact that more of the music than I cared to admit in the 60s and 70s was actually just recycled from the 40s and 50s.

Its not like that now though, clothing and music have done much to bridge the generation gap that existed bewteen my father and me and my daughters don't consider my musical taste to be beyond their relevance, our playlists are interwoven, we still have differing tastes but I don't automatically exclude the likes of Ed Sheeran just because he's not of my generation.

Its sad if you do.

The generation gap is as big as ever when looking up from the perspective of youth (rather than down from dodderyness). Always will be the same.

To quote Frank Skinner on his radio show on Saturday, when someone made a similar 'I wasn't even born then' type statement, 'You're confusing memory with knowledge'.

Despite the usual Daly Baiting, the idea of having the video sequences of British pop stars who did not turn up was ridiculous. The Daviud Bowie bit was hilarious here is one of our mosdt talented performers with his hits from about 1968 t0 82 ( after which he went shiite) but then he was not there. Surely it would have been better to have someone who could have turned up.

Did no one think to check wehether Ray davies could still sing ( was great and i love the song) but he has lost his voice.

Emili Sande rather than Adele.

Beady Eye were poor as well. should have asked Noel to come back and do it as oasis.

Loads of much better bands out there both historically and now.

It all seemed to be done on the cheap and in a hurry IMHO. It could of and should have been much better.

My other gripe was although it was the London Olympics it has been billed as the British olympics with emphasis on the rest of the UK but the end of the olympics seemed to be all about London

I really don't think it is, and certainly not in terms of music. As you pointed out, most young people in the 60's wouldn't have been seen dead listening to 20/30 year old music. Today that isn't the case with bands like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Sex Pistols, The Jam etc all being listened to by young people without embarrassment.
Even if it were the case, it wouldn't have mattered since there was plenty of music on offer from "current" artists.

Ah. "Relevance". That's what we need. Seriously, you should read and try to understand the other replies to your point.


Indeed it was, and it wasn't in the UK. But is there a point, other than you can do basic arithmetic? I'd bet most would know of it, and those that do wish they could have been there, but what is it you're trying to say?



2012 minus 110 = 1902. Can't be anything that old anyone today would have heard of. I mean, I could mention
Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance (1902)
Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumble Bee (1902)
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (1902)
The Entertainer by Scott Joplin (1902)
Bill Bailey, Won't You Please Come Home - 1902
Rachmaninoff's Concerto for Piano #2 - 1901

In the same era we had
Danny Boy (1913)
When Irish Eyes are Smiling (1912)
Give My Regards to Broadway - 1904
Colonel Bogey (1914)
Alexander's Ragtime Band - 1911
It's a Long, Long Way to Tipperary - 1912
By the Light of the Silvery Moon - 1909

Do you feel stupid enough yet, or shall I give some more examples? (You will have noted that it is by no means necessary to be in any way a "legend" to make an indelible imprint on musical culture) - have you or your offspring ever heard of, or indeed sung and know the words/tunes of any of these:

Amazing Grace - 1800
Jingle Bells - 1857
Old MacDonald Had A Farm - 1859
Camptown Races - 1850
Wedding March - 1844 (Mendelssohn, from A Midsummer Night's Dream)
William Tell Overture - 1829
Stars and Stripes Forever - 1897 (by Sousa)
When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again - 1863 (
Chopsticks - 1877
Can Can - 1858 (Offenbach)
When The Saints Go Marching In - 1896
Fur Elise - 1810 (Beethoven)
She'll Be Comin' 'Round the Mountain - 1899
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! - 1861
Alouette -1879
Swing Low, Sweet Chariot - 1872
Onward, Christian Soldiers - 1871
The Yellow Rose of Texas - 1858
O Little Town of Bethlehem - 1868
My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean - 1881
Blue Danube Waltz - 1867 (Strauss)
Au Clair de la Lune - 1811
Hail to the Chief - 1820
Barber of Seville - 1813
Beautiful Dreamer - 1860
Away In a Manger - 1887
Pictures at an Exhibition - 1887 (Mussorgsky)
I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen - 1876
Hark the Herald Angels Sing - 1855
Peer Gynt Suite - 1888

Do you give in, or do you want more?

I like Bobby Darin.

Dave Clark Five were good too!