100 replies to this topic

[DR OK]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

Why do you think they'll prove all the doubters wrong now, when they weren't able to do that before, and PD hasn't been able to do that both solo and with that shambles?

Are you a fan of nirvana?

[eFestivals]

DR OK, on Mar 23 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

Are you a fan of nirvana?

Are you a fan of irrelevances?

[arcadiaany1]

another peace of info that makes libertines more like back in the summer after reading the NME had a festival poll on who should headline festivals next year the libertines topped the survey with 16% of votes secound being paul mcartney 11% who isnt rely right for readings target audiance considering that NME has a very large readership and it would be a giant coup for reading and leeds if they got them also the fact carl and pete have been on good terms for a while suggest that this may have been in the pipeline for a while but has only come to head after the daily star article and the other rumours

[DR OK]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 07:12 PM, said:

Are you a fan of irrelevances?

Sadly not   Was just trying to make the point that just cause one of the band members is a bit of a waste of space doesnt mean the band cant be good. I love both bands but both pretty troubled!

[mike46]

I hope beyond hope this it true, (the Libertines are one of the best bands of all time IN MY OPINION) and I'm also a big Doherty fan, yes the drugs and that side are stupid, b

I'm really inclined to believe this, despite the influx of people 'in the know' since Keese46's post things do seem to point to it. If the Daily Star is true (never thought I'd say that) then it would be the first time in 6 years the whole bands been together.

Plus the NME bum the libs, they also steal stories from these boards...yet there is still no story on the website...even though XFM have already mentioned something today,surely has to be a sign.....

Ahhhh i'm stupidly excited

[eFestivals]

arcadiaany1, on Mar 23 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

considering that NME has a very large readership

:lol;

It has a tiny, tiny readership.

[eFestivals]

DR OK, on Mar 23 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Sadly not   Was just trying to make the point that just cause one of the band members is a bit of a waste of space doesnt mean the band cant be good. I love both bands but both pretty troubled!

I agree, it doesn't. So it's irrelevant.

A band can be good if they're good and someone watching thinks they are. Yet while some might think them good, others very definitely won't.

So they won't convince "all the doubters" this time (if there is a 'this time') any more than they did the first time around.

[Chavmeisterdeluxe]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

:lol;

It has a tiny, tiny readership.

And getting more tiny by the week. Such a terrible magazine nowadays.

[DR OK]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

I agree, it doesn't. So it's irrelevant.

A band can be good if they're good and someone watching thinks they are. Yet while some might think them good, others very definitely won't.

So they won't convince "all the doubters" this time (if there is a 'this time') any more than they did the first time around.

You argue an annoyingly good point sometimes. It just gets on my tits some people on the board who think they're crap because of one of the band members rep.

[Chavmeisterdeluxe]

To be fair to Doherty (who is quite clearly a waste of space), I've seen Libertines 4 times, twice with, twice without him and they were far superior with him.

[eFestivals]

DR OK, on Mar 23 2010, 07:37 PM, said:

You argue an annoyingly good point sometimes. It just gets on my tits some people on the board who think they're crap because of one of the band members rep.

I think they're crap cos they were very crap the two times I saw them (post Pete), and as for the one time I saw Babyshambles, well, it don't get any worse than that.

As for on record: nowt new, nowt different, nowt special.

[biglewhill]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

As for on record: nowt new, nowt different, nowt special.

Couldn't agree more.

[Role Model]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

I think they're crap cos they were very crap the two times I saw them (post Pete), and as for the one time I saw Babyshambles, well, it don't get any worse than that.

As for on record: nowt new, nowt different, nowt special.

quite a shambles


you might say

[biglewhill]

Role Model, on Mar 23 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

quite a shambles


you might say

haha, oh lord  

[YumYum]

ive never seen the libertines,  but i have seen Pete solo, DPT and Babyshambles.
DPT was an amazing gig, Carl is a very talented man . . .
as for the two shows involving Pete, musically its not perfect, but the man has a stage presence,
at the acoustic show he really got into it,
just him an acoustic and a small 02 academy crowd.
Libs will be amazing!

[Bradders]

eFestivals, on Mar 23 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

A band can be good if they're good and someone watching thinks they are.

Even Springsteen?  

Libertines won't win over all the doubters if they headline. Maybe a few. But there aren't many bands people feel so strongly about one way or the other, so they clearly are something different and special, for that reason alone.

Also I've seen Libertines twice, never with Pete, they were quite good both times. I've seen Carl solo, who was very good but that was mostly down to the tiny venue and great atmosphere. Dirty Pretty Things once and I can barely remember anything about them, must've been dull. And I've seen Babyshambles twice, first time absolutely comically dreadful, second time quite boring. I still think the full line-up of the Libertines will be exceptional, when they're together they just have something (I can't think of a better word, so...) magical.

[likelyladtom]

I must be lucky, as I've seen Pete 5 times (2 with Babyshambles, 2 'solo' with full band, and once on his own with an acoustic), and each time he has been on good form.

[dunny]

DR OK, on Mar 23 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

Sadly not   Was just trying to make the point that just cause one of the band members is a bit of a waste of space doesnt mean the band cant be good. I love both bands but both pretty troubled!

Kurt and pete aren't really comparable, Kurt was a troubled man who turned to heroin as it was the only thing that helped the pain he had in his stomach from a undiagnosed medical condition. He never tried to glamorise his addiction and use it to boost his career, he has been quoted speaking out against drugs. Pete on the other hand is a grade A ****.

[DR OK]

doesnt matter whether you choose to or not though its still what they're both notorious for. Whats to say if doherty died then he wouldnt be put in the same class?

[redcarsgofaster]

dunny, on Mar 23 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

Kurt was a troubled man who turned to heroin as it was the only thing that helped the pain he had in his stomach from a undiagnosed medical condition.

do people actually believe this?