85 replies to this topic

[blackcockerel]

strummer77, on 17 November 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:

Neither have Pulp

You're forgetting the last album there. Well I hope you are and aren't saying it was crap!

[strummer77]

blackcockerel, on 17 November 2010 - 07:07 PM, said:

You're forgetting the last album there. Well I hope you are and aren't saying it was crap!

Nah was just a joke because they've been split up. Hoped noone would notice.

Can't see Foos below them though, think Foos are bigger.

[rexclark]

strummer77, on 17 November 2010 - 07:16 PM, said:

Nah was just a joke because they've been split up. Hoped noone would notice.

Can't see Foos below them though, think Foos are bigger.

Foos are bigger. but things don't always work out that way at Glastonbury.

[strummer77]

rexclark, on 17 November 2010 - 07:43 PM, said:

Foos are bigger. but things don't always work out that way at Glastonbury.

True true. Normally though.

[lharris92]

Bort, on 17 November 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

They better not.  A headlining set is essential to the Pulp at Glasto experience.  A short set surrounded by drunks that are just waiting it out to be up close for the Foos?  f**k that.  And they haven't had a good song in at least a decade.

But doesn't Foo Fighters at IoW make them less likely for Glasto?  They usually only share one or two main acts, if any.

a debate within itself, because all that shows is people have different opinions on songs/artists etc. anyway i wouldn't be suprised if glasto did have the foos playing, and well they would most likely headline but as some people have said it is also possible that they could sub

[Lynne Scratch Perry]

If the Foos do headline Sunday, what's the odds they finish with For All the Cows?! Nice and pertinent.