Garrett_Salas

Ed Sheeran is on a completely different level to George Ezra. His last two albums were absolutely massive worldwide. Still doesn't mean he couldn't headline, but he's some way off the last two pop headliners in Sheeran and Adele.

I've literally never accused you of shutting down debate, I'm really not sure what your point is here? I've made my points and arguments pretty clear and obvious.

I stand by that - I think the best case scenario (whataboutery) and the worst case scenario (trying to shut down debate) are a tacit form of not condemning. I'm not saying they're endorsements.

That's why I said at best... and at worst... Besides, I never implied it was endorsing his actions. I said that I felt by using that line of argument, they were tacitly not condemning it. If someone doesn't think it should be condemned, then fair enough - say it and we'll have a separate argument. EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the non-underage issue here. I'm sure we can all agree that that is a very serious offence.

That's not what I'm saying at all, also thanks for the weird and condescending tone of your argument. Refer to the top point of my post, we're literally in a thread talking about these issues. Saying stuff like "I'm not shocked" or "It happens all the time" is at best a form of whataboutery ("Well Ryan Adams does it, but so one else does...") and at worst implying that it's not worthy of a discussion. People are right to be frustrated when people come into discussions about serious topics and start saying it.

Well, it tacitly is.

My word, how can people fail to grasp this? It's not about being shocked or whatever - of course, yeh we know that bad stuff happens is so we're hardly shocked. I'm not shocked when I hear about a car bomb in Afghanistan. But then again, I don't search on twitter for people discussing an attack and start spouting that it's not shocking to me. We are literally in a topic talking about abuse and gendered power structures in music and the last few pages are people just saying that it doesn't shock them as if it some way is an argument for their point of view.

I don't want to be "that guy" but for all of those people discussing ideas about litter picking, doesn't the litter get picked up by the cleaning teams anyway? (I'm not saying that makes it acceptable or in any way excuses people), but isn't the real problem to produce less litter in terms of the environment? (maybe I've missed the point of this thread though). Regardless of who picks it up, it ends in the same landfill.

I think this will be my last post on this thread, but whilst you can see from my previous ones I don't have a lot of time for people defending his actions, I do think there is a valid point in here. Moving past the initial condemnation, how should society deal with these cases? I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation for criminals so it should logically extend to cases outside the law (again though it should be remembered that he IS under investigation from the FBI). For criminals we have prisons, probation and the whole infrastructure behind that to facilitate and monitor rehabilitation. In society we don't have that. It's something I've thought a lot about but still don't really know. On the one hand you have this belief in rehabilitation and whilst it sounds a bit crass, some incentive for reflection and becoming a better person. If you're 'cancelled' regardless of how you respond and try to make amends you're just going to have a lot more situations where people dig in deeper when called out and continue. I guess the counter argument to that would be whilst it's fine for him to be 'rehabilitated', he had a position of fame and power and he abused it and that he's lost that privelege. He can still live his life but he doesn't have a given right to have people give him record deals, promote him and give him stages to play on.

Stuff like this just reinforces how many people come into these arguments in bad faith. The bloke literally joked about being seen potentially as a paedophile and asked her on numerous occasions to prove her age. He knew there was a significant chance she was underage, but still proceeded.

I'm not sure why it being a surprise or not makes any difference to the point I made? I don't follow him closely, and yes he may be extremely toxic towards everybody, but right now we're specifically talking about him targeting these (in most cases young) women. It's important firstly as it involves sex and, like it or not, it changes things and adds an extra layer of pain and damage to people. Its also important as it fits into the wider context of metoo, and specifically that the gatekeepers and power balance is titled so heavily towards men in music. This is a serious problem and when you conflate it with just someone doing these things as he's a 'bad guy's you damage the ability of these stories to change that. As someone said on twitter - every young woman in the music industry will have a story of similar happened to them, while most male performers are oblivious to it.

I'm sure we could all look back in our own lives and be embarrassed/ashamed/regretful of things we've done to people especially when relationships are involved. But, having read the article, this does not seem like he was just being an asshole to women. He appears to have systematically pursued a strategy of using females he found attractive and then, once they were no use to him any more at best ignored them and at worst actively hindered their career. That's not okay. With regards to the underage girl, you'd hope (but feel imagine it unlikely) that it would be dealt with by the legal system. For everything else, the legal system doesn't cover so to stop this type of behaviour it needs social condemnation and people to stand up and say it's wrong.

Having thought about it, you'd have to think they're some way off making that leap to pyramid headliner. Trying to think of somewhat similar bands/artists that headlined recently and their pathway - Foals don't seem to fit into any of them. Stormzy is in there as he represents a significant culture in British music (and Britain?) today. Mumfords and AM had ridiculous first album success. Someone like Arcade Fire have just a monster of critical backing. The band they'd probably be most similar to is Kasabian in that they're homegrown and have grown in stature over a good amount of time and have climbed their way up bills. But by the time Kasabian were announced they had 3 number 1 albums and a genuinely massive single. The Florence route seems the most likely right now. I was there for their sub slot in 2016 and it was flat, I don't think it was anything about their performance or setlist etc. I just think given what they rely on for their performances, a diluted crowd, just wasn't going to work.

Looking on the APE forum it seems that it's likely to be Mumfords on that last day there, which would have fit Tame Impala perfectly. It is a bit curious that they have no UK festivals or even shows up yet - how many more biggish festivals are there still to announce? TRNSMT? Lovebox/Citadel (They played last year).

Seems to be quiet on them but they're in Europe that weekend. Headlining other is the only placed they'd fit but I guess this year there are better candidates which is a shame as I'd love them. EDIT: Sorry weekend before