Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
poortom

Watching the Stones

30 posts in this topic

After watching The Rolling Stones live on TV the other night from Glastonbury it reminded me of watching The Walikng Dead, at least when i saw Led Zeppelin at The O2 in 2007 they blew me away with their stage presence and their performance, i know its been 6 1/2 years since that unforgetable night, but i think they could still bring that awesome presence to audiences again, without showing themselves up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking immediately after the band came off stage, festival boss Eavis called it "the high spot of 43 years of Glastonbury".

Continue reading the main story
"They finally did it, and it was fantastic. My God, did they deliver."
He seemed to enjoy it. My thoughts did turn to Zeppelin (as they often do) and I wondered if the British media would be getting their knickers in such a twist if Zep headlined - and the answer - unfortunately, is no. Would Zep go down well with a Glastonbury crowd who just want some songs they can sing along to while they get inebriated? I'm not so sure.
It was quite funny when the camera panned from the (almost) 70 year old members of The Rolling Stones, to the under 20 year old hipsters singing along to Satisfaction; a song that was probably released before their parents were born. Keith in particular is so slow these days that he appears to be in slow motion. But fair play to 'em. If they're still alive in 10 years they will still be bashing out the hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eavis would say that as he handed out £400.000. A snip one would say. Apparently they were hampered by the notorious Glastonbury shit sound. In fact most bands sound very much the same, unless it's a dance act like Orbital. I failed to watch any of it. I find it sterile watching (onTV) numerous bands doing their greatest hits to glammed up kids who sing along to every fucking word.

Glastonbury lost it's identity in the late 80's early nineties when it sold out to the corporate masses and stopped allowing travellers onto the site. File under "has been"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eavis would say that as he handed out £400.000. A snip one would say. Apparently they were hampered by the notorious Glastonbury shit sound. In fact most bands sound very much the same, unless it's a dance act like Orbital. I failed to watch any of it. I find it sterile watching (onTV) numerous bands doing their greatest hits to glammed up kids who sing along to every fucking word.

Glastonbury lost it's identity in the late 80's early nineties when it sold out to the corporate masses and stopped allowing travellers onto the site. File under "has been"

here here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who find fault with The Rolling Stones' Glastonbury performance are in the minority. For a band in their 50TH YEAR (!) they nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you were watching Steve?

I don't think Keith was even playing half the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After all these years they finally got round to asking us?" Utter bollocks. Eavis has tried for years to get the old wankers on but they always refused. Especially when bands played for free as the proceeds went to CND. Oh of course that was when bands cared and would play for their supper at a great festival IT ONCE WAS.

I can't comment on the bands performance as I was "parking the car" but from what some reports have said it was far too quiet and sluggish. This from the Sunday Times:

"The night began as a good Stones gig that suffered from too much expectation - and poor sound that meant much of the crowd moaned it was far too quiet. Jumping Jack Flash was an excellent opener but, for the next 40 minutes, not even Mick's wiggling hips could hide the disappointment in the air......

But soon,a too-slow Wild Horses saw folk begin to drift away to other stages"

No change there then from what I witnessed at Leeds' Roundhay Park back in 1982. They were really dull then but unfortunately there was no other stage to drift off to, so we got back in the van, mid set, and went back to the pub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how Mick adopts an overtly cockney/mockney accent when he is addressing the filthy unwashed commoners in between songs, yet in interviews, Sir Mick's voice becomes more gentrified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After all these years they finally got round to asking us?" Utter bollocks. Eavis has tried for years to get the old wankers on but they always refused. Especially when bands played for free as the proceeds went to CND. Oh of course that was when bands cared and would play for their supper at a great festival IT ONCE WAS.

I can't comment on the bands performance as I was "parking the car" but from what some reports have said it was far too quiet and sluggish. This from the Sunday Times:

"The night began as a good Stones gig that suffered from too much expectation - and poor sound that meant much of the crowd moaned it was far too quiet. Jumping Jack Flash was an excellent opener but, for the next 40 minutes, not even Mick's wiggling hips could hide the disappointment in the air......

But soon,a too-slow Wild Horses saw folk begin to drift away to other stages"

No change there then from what I witnessed at Leeds' Roundhay Park back in 1982. They were really dull then but unfortunately there was no other stage to drift off to, so we got back in the van, mid set, and went back to the pub.

I like how Mick adopts an overtly cockney/mockney accent when he is addressing the filthy unwashed commoners in between songs, yet in interviews, Sir Mick's voice becomes more gentrified.

@chillumpuffer: The quip about finally being asked was Mick's attempt at humility; everyone knows they are the biggest rock n' roll band in history.

@Pagesbow: Mick is a master showman and top-notch frontman. I like how he addresses audiences around the world in their native languages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mick is easily a better frontman than Plant but Zep edges the Stones as a live band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Mick a better frontman than Robert? Is it Mick's vocals, personality, looks, connection with the audience?

Geezer: I am not in any way denigrating your statement, I would just like to know how you arrived at your opinion. :drinks:

Edited by pottedplant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Mick a better frontman than Robert? Is it Mick's vocals, personality, looks, connection with the audience?

It's not that Mick Jagger's a better front man than Robert Plant, Mick Jagger is quite simply the greatest rock n' roll front man of them all! Of course there are numerous front men who are better vocalists - to include Robert Plant - but no one matches Jagger for his swagger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like the Maroon 5 song said, 'You've got to move like Jagger'. Mick Jagger has kept himself remarkably fit over the years, no doubt because of his late father's physical education background.

Much as I am not the biggest fan of Queen's music, Freddie Mercury was also a great frontman.

It's not that Mick Jagger's a better front man than Robert Plant, Mick Jagger is quite simply the greatest rock n' roll front man of them all! Of course there are numerous front men who are better vocalists - to include Robert Plant - but no one matches Jagger for his swagger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I am not the biggest fan of Queen's music, Freddie Mercury was also a great frontman.

I'm not the biggest fan of Queen's music either, but there's no question Freddie Mercury was a great vocalist and an excellent front man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, I totally get what you're saying. I have seen the Stones live a few times and Mick puts on a really good show, no doubt about it. However, and this is just a personal observation, putting individual up against individual, Mick's swagger, and I do love his swagger, never gave me the absolute physical, emotional and total sensory response that Robert Plant did when I saw Zeppelin live. I guess it's the difference between great swagger and showmanship and the tremendous force of beauty and vocal ability. Of course, being female makes the difference on this one, I believe. :yesnod:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Brown, Elvis Presley, Freddie Mercury and Mick Jagger are all much better than Plant as a frontman. This is not even a discussion.

but no one matches Jagger for his swagger.

James Brown matches and surpasses Jagger. Edited by Geezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Brown matches and surpasses Jagger.

I've got dozens of James Brown releases - official & unofficial - and completed a pilgrimage to see where he grew up in Augusta, GA. I am a rabid James Brown enthusiast, have been for years. Having said all that, James Brown is not nearly as famous as Mick Jagger. Hell, I've even encountered Michael Jackson impersonators who didn't know who James Brown was. When it comes down to it - who is the biggest rock n' roll star in history? - the answer is obvious to me: Michael Philip Jagger. I suppose Elvis and Michael Jackson still give him a run for his money in some quarters.

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an overall artist, I think James Brown destroys Mick Jagger. He basically created a genre himself and has a huge influence.

But I was talking about them as frontmen and I think Brown has a slight edge there too.

Edited by Geezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an overall artist, I think James Brown destroys Mick Jagger. He basically created a genre himself and has a huge influence.

He destroys Jagger? You must be kidding. Jagger is one half of the Jagger/Richards juggernaut that has provided the soundtrack to the lives of the Boomer Generation. Mick has also moved effortlessly across many genres...rock, folk, r&b, disco and country.

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way. James Brown is a household name in three different genres. His influence is way too big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely hate what the term "frontman" means - when I'm at a concert, I am not there to see the singer running around on stage (Jagger), talk politics (Bono), play with snakes (Cooper), practice karate (Roth), or to see a rabbit pulled out of a hat.

I am there to watch, listen, and take in what all musicians are doing musically, including the singer. IMO, Plant did exactly what I'd want from a singer. He did it right - it wasn't preconceived. What he did was influenced by the what Jones, Bonham and Page were doing.

Edited by Amstel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rolling Stones nailed it. I’m not the biggest fan of the Stones, but they earned my respect at that gig. Sympathy for the Devil had a strong running flow to it. And for the record, Mick set the template for front man that all others have had to try and follow and I’m not even a fan of Jagger. Unlike Elvis, Mick never got fat. He kept himself in great shape proving he actually cares and when he steps on stage, he is dressed the part always proving that he believes in giving it 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0