[Politics] Elton John... Brilliant?

[MattBackHome]

It did for me. He seemed well past his best to me so I'm surprised by the reaction on this thread. I'm glad people enjoyed the set and he got the send off his career deserved.

Yep I agree. He's a shadow of the performer he was in e.g. Wembley 1985(?). He looked past in last time out in Hove and that was how many years ago? The songs themselves are obviously immortal and he could have cranked out another sets worth. Nice that people enjoyed it though, and you're right he does deserve a send off.

 

[Badger Boy]

Are you surprised by the unanimous 5* reviews from the mainstream and music press? Rolling Stone, NME, The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, The Times, The Telegraph, etc?

Of course not, there's no value in being a dissenting voice and taking everything into consideration it was extraordinary what he did and a fitting send off for a long and successful career.

 

[Icy Gull]

His voice may have been shot (it is) but his piano playing ability doesn’t seem to be impaired in the least. The faces of the audience during his set looked more joyful than any crocked old Glastonbury last day headliner I’ve seen. Easy to knock from an armchair but that crowd bloody loved it and they were the ones being catered for.

 

[Icy Gull]

Terrible singer. Over hyped but that’s pop music. I bet back in the 70s he never thought he would be invited to play Glastonbury.
Ps his parties are bloody loud. I used to live near him.

Yep, here’s proof of just how terrible he’s always been, how did he ever make it?

 

[herecomesaregular]

Yep, here’s proof of just how terrible he’s always been, how did he ever make it?

Thanks for posting. His best album imho.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Its not so much the old, but more the rich and refusing to admit that they're old. Glastonbury is just another thing ruined by gentrification. Loads of things that used to be alternative experiences for the young and disenfranchised are now 'Look at me! Aren't I cool! I'm there!' photo opportunities for the middle aged and wealthy. Too much disposable income and not enough imagination to originate something of their own. They price out the people who made these things exciting in the first place. In terms of the Pyramid Stage, they have not joined in, they have taken over, and now their money and entitlement means that their needs are prioritised. Every year there has to be one giant middle of the road name to keep happy those who are doing the modern version of 'the season'.

Next year Taylor Swift is expected. Now, I'm not a huge fan, but my kids and half of their generation would walk over hot coals to see her live. They'll have little chance of affording or getting a ticket, because it'll be swamped with rich old gits who will know none of her songs, but will be telling everybody at their dinner parties that, as it was only 300 quid, they thought they'd 'take a jaunt down in the 4 by 4 to see what all the fuss was about.'

What a load of garbage. This old git knows all of Taylor's songs and the kids will have to race me over those hot coals to get there. Also not likely that Taylor will play as Swifty is in Dublin on the Friday and Saturday.

As for the rest of the post, yes Glastonbury is expensive (cheaper than Download though) but it does represent value. The festival features a ludicrously wide selection of music, much of which I would consider targeted at people much younger than myself. For me it is unquestionably the best festival there is. It's incredibly diverse in terms of content and the sort of experiences that you can have there, it really isn't all about the music.

A lot of the people "who made it exciting in the first place" are now in their late 40s, early 50s and 60s and they are still going, so well done on the tedious stereotyping of attendees who maybe on the older side. In my experience, (8 Glastonbury's sadly not this year), the demographics are shifting yet again with far more young people attending than when I did my first one in 2009.

 

[Icy Gull]

Thanks for posting. His best album imho.

Agreed, Bernie went all Western with that album.

Hard to believe when you see him now but Elton was cutting edge 50+ years ago. I went right off him when he triumphed in America and went all glitzy and very commercial. Great back catalogue of commercial stuff I accept.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yep, here’s proof of just how terrible he’s always been, how did he ever make it?

Absolutely ! I ask myself the same question. Money and the desire for bland pop music I suppose.

 

[Stato]

What a load of garbage. This old git knows all of Taylor's songs and the kids will have to race me over those hot coals to get there.

Then isn't is obvious that I wasn't talking about you?

A lot of the people "who made it exciting in the first place" are now in their late 40s, early 50s and 60s and they are still going

I wasn't talking about individuals. I was talking about demographic groups.

If you first went in 2009, I'd guess that I'm much more of an old git than you are. I last went in the early 90s. It's a different thing now than it was then and I have no claim on it. Back then, it wasn't the summer gathering of all, it was just another music festival. The headliners weren't huge and, as you suggest most people were off somewhere else when they played anyway.

I'm probably taking this out unfairly on Glasto, but my complaint is that my generation and the one before it has never really got out of the way and let the youngsters have their time. We dominate culturally in a way that our parents didn't in the seventies and eighties. We leave little space uninvaded for our kids to do something to annoy us. Even when they do come up with things like drill, you just know it'll be a month or so before it's reviewed by a baby boomer in the Times Weekend Magazine. I just find our dominance irritating. I'm quite happy that the originators that @Thunder Bolt mentions should still be part of what the festival has become, but do wonder how many of them would have gone in 1970 had the headline act been someone who's first hits had been 53 years earlier? Al Jolson anyone?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Then isn't is obvious that I wasn't talking about you?


I wasn't talking about individuals. I was talking about demographic groups.

If you first went in 2009, I'd guess that I'm much more of an old git than you are. I last went in the early 90s. It's a different thing now than it was then and I have no claim on it. Back then, it wasn't the summer gathering of all, it was just another music festival. The headliners weren't huge and, as you suggest most people were off somewhere else when they played anyway.

I'm probably taking this out unfairly on Glasto, but my complaint is that my generation and the one before it has never really got out of the way and let the youngsters have their time. We dominate culturally in a way that our parents didn't in the seventies and eighties. We leave little space univaded for our kids to do something to annoy us. Even when they do come up with things like drill, you just know it'll be a month or so before it's reviewed by a baby boomer in the Times Weekend Magazine. I just find our dominance irritating. I'm quite happy that the originators that @Thunder Bolt mentions should still be part of what the festival has become, but do wonder how many of them would have gone in 1970 had the headline act been someone who's first hits had been 53 years earlier? Al Jolson anyone?

There was a music revolution in the late 50s and 60s, although even my generation appreciated Bing Crosby and Sinatra.

 

[Wozza]

I'm probably taking this out unfairly on Glasto, but my complaint is that my generation and the one before it has never really got out of the way and let the youngsters have their time. We dominate culturally in a way that our parents didn't in the seventies and eighties.

I hear what you're saying, but I can think of numerous examples where the opposite is true - eg Radio 5 dumbing down its live football coverage; BRIT Awards aiming for credibility when it used to be black tie and Phil Collins.

Also, there are festivals squarely aimed at/dominated by youth - Wireless, for example.

There's no sign the Eavis family want Glastonbury to change direction. But it would be tricky anyway given that tickets are sold before artists are announced.

BBC coverage (and good weather) over the last few years has made it look like a big V Festival.

BTW, if kids want to shake off their parents, they should try listening to something edgier than Ed Sheeran and Lewis Capaldi.

 

[Stato]

There was a music revolution in the late 50s and 60s, although even my generation appreciated Bing Crosby and Sinatra.

There was one in the first part of that century too. I'm just rewatching Ken Burns' Jazz series. Bing and Frank are too late by the way. Neither got popular until the 1930s. Either of them headlining in 1970 would have been the equivalent of someone from the late 1980s headlining this year. - The Stone Roses perhaps? Frighteningly, the equivalent of Elton headlining in 1970, would have had to have been successful in 1917.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I thought that was excellent. It's obviously catered around his age now, but i don't think that detracted and it was nice to see him promote new talent. Rocketman was brilliant.

It's a hell of a thing if an artists songs can ever emote - look at the audience there... all ages, everyone knowing the words. People crying their eyes out because the songs mean something to them, people getting engaged.

Notice a few people talk about autocue... he must have written thousands of songs in his life - surely better that he delivers the performance amazingly rather than proving that he can remember everything

Yep I agree. He's a shadow of the performer he was in e.g. Wembley 1985(?). He looked past in last time out in Hove and that was how many years ago? The songs themselves are obviously immortal and he could have cranked out another sets worth. Nice that people enjoyed it though, and you're right he does deserve a send off.

I saw him at Wembley in 75. People were streaming out after the 7th or 8th minute of Benny and the Jets. Myself included (I was there for the Beach Boys, Eagles, Joe Walsh and Rufus (they had a cracking singer - I wonder what became of her?).

That said, I'm looking forward to watching the recording. I saw a little bit of it and it looked decent. I'd say I dislike 80% of his oeuvre, but that still leaves a couple of dozen top tunes.

Couldn't care less about autocue. Pleased so many enjoyed it. Not cheated by incompetence. Unlike the Axl Rose performance.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There was one in the first part of that century too. I'm just rewatching Ken Burns' Jazz series. Bing and Frank are too late by the way. Neither got popular until the 1930s. Either of them headlining in 1970 would have been the equivalent of someone from the late 1980s headlining this year. - The Stone Roses perhaps? Frighteningly, the equivalent of Elton headlining in 1970, would have had to have been successful in 1917.

Stop it, you're making me feel very old.

 

[MattBackHome]

I'm just rewatching Ken Burns' Jazz series.

I love that series

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

I first saw EJ on 31/07/1971 at the Crystal Palace Garden Party 2

 

[Stato]

I love that series

It's made me realise that I still need more Louis Armstrong in my life. Now if he had been headlining Glastonbury in 1970...

 

[Stato]

I first saw EJ on 31/07/1971 at the Crystal Palace Garden Party 2View attachment 162795

That photo suggests that the Annabelles have been a long term problem.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

I thought he was superb. He's obviously past his best - isn't that obvious? he's in his late 70s. I thought musically though it was excellent. He's obviously 'match fit' as he's still on his massive world tour, so all the songs were tight. I thought Blondie were awful tho - DH didnt really seem to care much about being there.