Of late, when I've not been sharpening razor blades, stock piling large, life-de-hancing quantities of pharmaceutical pills and/or checking out the lethality of the natural gas feed to the oven, I've been thinking about Mick Jagger.
Now, I appreciate that he never thinks about me, but then again he doesn't know me as, after all, I am a non-entity in a world full of non-entities whereas he is Mick Jagger. Therefore there is no reason why he should think about me. Lucky break for him I say.
Anyway, regardless of that, I've been thinking about him in the past few days, mainly because of the whole Glastonbury thing and, specifically, his decision not to let the Beeb show more than an hour of the Stones' headlining spot on the televisual broadcasting device. And having thought about it quite a lot, I still can't really understand why he wouldn't let the whole slot be broadcast.
I believe that his stated reason was that he didn't want those who had paid to sit and adore him at close (well, close-ish) range feel cheated by those who hadn't paid to sit and adore him at close (ish) range but instead sit and adore him on their televisual broadcast devices in the comfort of their own homes.
This reason sort of works. Except that... seemingly none of the other bands and artistes appeared to have any problems with the Beeb showing whatever they wanted of their sets. So why should dear old Mick take such a stance. After all, only so many people can fit into Glastonbury and no doubt more people wanted to be there than there were tickets (no doubt a fair few were conned out of their money with fakes) so I'm sure more people made every effort to pay to see him but were thwarted.
And another thing... Glastonbury is generally a young person's game as far as being a spectator is concerned and the long-term die-hard Stones' fans can generally be classed as being outside the bracket of 'young person' so actually attending Glastonbury for them is/was probably a little unrealistic. But they would have fuelled the Stone's bank accounts in the past over many, many years with their own hard-earned cash; they would have paid their dues. And yet... the old faithfuls were denied the opportunity to see Mick running about like a loon at full moon for the full 2½ hours because of the '1 hour only' decision.
It just seems ever so churlish and perhaps just a little mean.
And not at all in the spirit of Glastonbury.
Although I might be being naïve. Probably.
Anyway, whatever it might be - churlish, mean, defender of the paying fan or simply shrewd business sense in the event of a Stones at Glastonbury DVD of the whole gig emerging at some point in the future - it prevented a lot of people from seeing the Stones in all their glory in a day and age when such an opportunity is somewhat limited.
Personally I found it particularly irksome when Mick said during the televised hour "if you're seeing the band for the first time, come and see us again". Chance would be a fine thing - or perhaps a better than average chance would be a fine thing. It's not like a Stone's gig happens every year and even when they do happen the tickets are not entirely affordable. Well, that could be just me of course. Cheapskate is my middle name after all.
Anyway, I'll stop (not entirely) criticising Mick now - after all, he's got to pay the rent too. Plus, on the highly unlikely off-chance he reads this I wouldn't want him to lose sleep over the inconsequential ramblings of a non-entity he doesn't know.
Oh, and for what it's worth Mick, I enjoyed the hour I saw although Simonitov didn't go much on it but then he's not a huge fan of blues bands as such - so he was actually quite pleased by the '1 hour only' decision. Result.
Hey ho.
More importantly though, in closing and because it tenuously involves Glastonbury, why did two women shout the following words from their doorstep at Simonitov and I the other evening as we walked along the streets of Basinga Stakes discussing the relative merits of age with regard to certain, specific areas: "Oi! You're too late! Glastonbury's finished!"
No, me either.
:)
Steve B
Now, I appreciate that he never thinks about me, but then again he doesn't know me as, after all, I am a non-entity in a world full of non-entities whereas he is Mick Jagger. Therefore there is no reason why he should think about me. Lucky break for him I say.
Anyway, regardless of that, I've been thinking about him in the past few days, mainly because of the whole Glastonbury thing and, specifically, his decision not to let the Beeb show more than an hour of the Stones' headlining spot on the televisual broadcasting device. And having thought about it quite a lot, I still can't really understand why he wouldn't let the whole slot be broadcast.
I believe that his stated reason was that he didn't want those who had paid to sit and adore him at close (well, close-ish) range feel cheated by those who hadn't paid to sit and adore him at close (ish) range but instead sit and adore him on their televisual broadcast devices in the comfort of their own homes.
This reason sort of works. Except that... seemingly none of the other bands and artistes appeared to have any problems with the Beeb showing whatever they wanted of their sets. So why should dear old Mick take such a stance. After all, only so many people can fit into Glastonbury and no doubt more people wanted to be there than there were tickets (no doubt a fair few were conned out of their money with fakes) so I'm sure more people made every effort to pay to see him but were thwarted.
And another thing... Glastonbury is generally a young person's game as far as being a spectator is concerned and the long-term die-hard Stones' fans can generally be classed as being outside the bracket of 'young person' so actually attending Glastonbury for them is/was probably a little unrealistic. But they would have fuelled the Stone's bank accounts in the past over many, many years with their own hard-earned cash; they would have paid their dues. And yet... the old faithfuls were denied the opportunity to see Mick running about like a loon at full moon for the full 2½ hours because of the '1 hour only' decision.
It just seems ever so churlish and perhaps just a little mean.
And not at all in the spirit of Glastonbury.
Although I might be being naïve. Probably.
Anyway, whatever it might be - churlish, mean, defender of the paying fan or simply shrewd business sense in the event of a Stones at Glastonbury DVD of the whole gig emerging at some point in the future - it prevented a lot of people from seeing the Stones in all their glory in a day and age when such an opportunity is somewhat limited.
Personally I found it particularly irksome when Mick said during the televised hour "if you're seeing the band for the first time, come and see us again". Chance would be a fine thing - or perhaps a better than average chance would be a fine thing. It's not like a Stone's gig happens every year and even when they do happen the tickets are not entirely affordable. Well, that could be just me of course. Cheapskate is my middle name after all.
Anyway, I'll stop (not entirely) criticising Mick now - after all, he's got to pay the rent too. Plus, on the highly unlikely off-chance he reads this I wouldn't want him to lose sleep over the inconsequential ramblings of a non-entity he doesn't know.
Oh, and for what it's worth Mick, I enjoyed the hour I saw although Simonitov didn't go much on it but then he's not a huge fan of blues bands as such - so he was actually quite pleased by the '1 hour only' decision. Result.
Hey ho.
More importantly though, in closing and because it tenuously involves Glastonbury, why did two women shout the following words from their doorstep at Simonitov and I the other evening as we walked along the streets of Basinga Stakes discussing the relative merits of age with regard to certain, specific areas: "Oi! You're too late! Glastonbury's finished!"
No, me either.
:)
Steve B