BTW the Olympics are always about the city. That's why these are known as the 'London Olympics', not the 'British Olympics' - in exactly the same way that everyone remembers Beijing, Athens, Sydney, Seoul etc, not China, Greece, Australia etc. It also explains why there will never be an Olympics in Birmingham, Manchester or any other regional British city.

you name a regional city in your list though, Sydney.

also what about other regional cities who have hosted the games like, Munich, Montreal, Los Angeles, Atlanta.

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

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'.



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.



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 [ipersonally[/i 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.

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

Quote ="Scooter Nik"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: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rock

Quote ="Scooter Nik"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: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rock

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

Sign at Hackney Wick station:

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.
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.

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 e 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

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

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.



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).



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.



It's [ibecause[/i 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.



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.



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.

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

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?
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?


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.

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


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

There was plenty of music in the show that I didn't like either. But I expected that. You can't do a medley of notable British music spanning the last several years and leave out artists who, like them or not, were/are hugely popular and/or iconic.

Having said that, I'm not entirely convinced that One Direction/Tinie Tempah/etc. qualified under those criteria. But I'm prepared to accept that my knowledge of the latest crazes is extremely limited.



Overall I enjoyed the show, as did my 18 year old son (mainly into Alternative bands) and my 16 year old daughter (a [ibona fide[/i Rock Chick). It's a small cross-section but perhaps indicates that the appeal was wider than some think.

And on Dally's issue of the 'musical generation gap' - I share more than half my iTunes collection with my daughter and a decent portion with my son. Some things are timeless.

As I said, calling something by a different name doesn't change its basic nature. You wouldn't film any other 'party' and broadcast it to the world. I'm sure plenty of actual parties took place after the closing ceremony, but this was a concert that was labelled a party.



Glad you mentioned that, actually. I have been to many parties with live music. I've even provided the live music at several (hundred) parties. On each occasion, the quality of that live music was a big factor (the biggest factor, even) in whether or not people enjoyed the party. Conversely, I most certainly haven't been at a party with live music where we weren't allowed to make judgements regarding the quality of that music purely because it was a party.



But Queen were good. Jessie J was not. I can't comment on her in general as this is the first thing I've (knowingly) heard her sing, but it was a very poor version of the song. She obviously can sing, but she should never have been allowed anywhere near 'We Will Rock You'.



He was poor. His voice is shot and he was marginally out of tune in places.



Eh? Where did I say I wasn't happy that Bowie wasn't there? I merely stated that he wasn't, without expressing an opinion either way. I'd sooner the organisers picked people who can actually still cut it. Tom Jones, for example, is of a similar age, but still has a fairly formidable voice (or he did have, last time I heard him).



You're being silly again. I would leave a pub if they played [ionly[/i One Direction and singers/groups/bands of a similar ilk. Of course I wouldn't get up and walk out if one song came on. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing.



They [uare[/u rubbish [iand[/i they don't cater to my tastes. There are plenty of excellent singers out there who don't cater to my tastes. George Michael, for example: I don't like the vast majority of his stuff, but I rate him as easily one of the best vocalists of his generation. He's a phenomenal talent. The Spice Girls are manufactured guff.



I'm not moaning. I'm expressing an opinion on the concert. If I was organising it, I'd probably have included at least some of the same names - certainly the likes of One Direction and Take That - because that's the way to guarantee to broadest appeal. I'm merely stating that I didn't find the experience very fulfilling, and that certain elements of the show I feel could have been handled better or omitted altogether (the Queen/Jessie J thing and Davies, for example).



But that wasn't the point. The point was that calling something a 'party' when it's obviously a concert, doesn't make it a party.

If everyone liked the same thing it would be a bloody boring world.

But the "usual suspects" (whomsoever they may be) would be happy!

I agree with Rock God.
As much as I saw, before I went off to watch something else, was a poor mish-mash of MOR.
If it was a party, that partially explains it, parties don't tend to be spectator-friendly.

Furthermore, I didn't like the opening ceremony either, that was random, overblown and appeared to have been a way of spending the budget rather than doing somethig impressive.

Am I really that bothered? Not really, because an awful lot of people thought they liked it ... and I had already expended a huge amount of admiration on the organisers, volunteers and (most of all, of course) the athletes.

A great Olympics that I shall remember for the rest of my sentient life.
The ceremonies? I have almost forgotten them already.

The Closing Ceremony was a mixed bag but then so far as I can remember the same can be said of all the Olympic Closing Ceremonies I have seen. They are supposed to be a party for the athletes, a celebration of what's gone and not an introduction to the city holding the Games. Ours was done on half the budget of the Opening Ceremony and with no time to speak of to prepare. The genius was in investing in the pixels as they definitely saved the day on many occasions. What was left of the audience by the end seemed to be enjoying it and from the participation levels I'd say most of the audience was British, which wouldn't be surprising because there is nothing to keep any foreign visitor in the country once the sports are done.

It would have been good to see fewer old timers who have long since passed their best (assuming they ever had one) but as the idea was to showcase music from a 50 year period and given the lack of time to prepare mass dance arrangements or extravagant sets, it did ok. And I really did enjoy Always Look on the Bright Side of Life! Pity the ceremony couldn't have finished with that really. It would have captured us Brits perfectly.



The Opening Ceremony was a fantastic and original piece of theatre which set our expectation levels somewhat high. The Closing Ceremony was never going to reach those levels and it was an entirely different beast. In no way did it spoil my enjoyment of all that went before or undermine my sense that in spite of my own misgivings, London managed to pull off probably the best Olympic Games in a very long time. And who'd have thought they'd only have about two days in which rain was part of the weather experience after all that crappy stuff we had during May, June and July and are about to get again!

As Ray Davies is one of my many rock heroes, it was absolutely brilliant to have him singing THE iconic London song in the flesh. The crap about his performance suffering because he's pushing 70 is just that - crap. He certainly wasn't helped by the sound system, but as someone who's listened to and loved that song ever since it was released, I reckon i am qualified to judge and that it was a very decent rendition, live and at the mercy of the stadium PA.

It's interesting to hear what others have to say, here';s one US critic:
"I caught Ray Davies on a live stream early Sunday afternoon and it was a breathtaking bittersweet read on a defining work that was voted the "Greatest Song About London" in a British radio poll in 2004 (37 years after the single's release).
Two British pop icons -- the Jam's Paul Weller and Damon Albarn of Blur, Gorillaz, etc. -- have called "Waterloo Sunset" their favorite song of all time.
So have I and I'm not even British.
When the Kinks were inducted to the UK Music Hall of Fame in 2005, Pete Townshend said of "Waterloo Sunset," "It's just divine. It's a masterpiece."
He's right on both counts.
And Davies' performance did a brilliant job of capturing the essence of that masterpiece."

Indeed it did. If you want the record instead, don't listen to live music.

Compared to McCartney's mangling of Hey Jude at the Jubilee, it truly was magnificent

There's definitely a skill to playing a televised live gig. The singers that came off worst seemed to be those that tried to deliver a bouncy, singalong, performance which is probably great if you are actually there but on television just highlights any weaknesses in the singer's voice. Particularly if that voice has naturally weakened with age.

The Who tried to deliver that type of performance when they appeared on the Superbowl half time show a few years ago and were excruciatingly awful. On Sunday they were more restrained, concentrated on just delivering the song and were a vast improvement. But possibly not that exciting if in the actual stadium.

I got fed up of watching it live, so I watched it later on i-player and fast forwarded the bits I didnt want to listen to. Maybe we all should have been there.