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 bona fide 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 only 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 are rubbish and 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.