Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Bestival 2012 Headliners


Guest Paul ™

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 802
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

*gulp*... Johnny Marr said if the current government stands down, The Smiths would reform. Between now and May will give us time to start a revolution. Or wait... *gulp*... lots of speculation as to whether or not the original Guns N Roses line-up are reforming after the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. Neil Young & Crazy Horse are back together...

Surely though, if the May announcement is for the Friday headliner, it can't be anybody 'that' big can it? Saturday and/or Sunday tends to be the big one at Bestival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... hatred of Morissey vs hatred of current govt....

That's sort of a reverse incentive, I'd far rather see Johnny Marr performing Smiths songs or just playing in another band than pay to see that twat Morissey.

Neil Young would be fantastic. But surely not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morissey is a complete an utter twat. A momental dickhead. A twatface. A c**tmonkey. I love the Queen is Dead, but every single thing Morissey has done since then is whiny, self-indulgent twattish arrogant psuedo-moralistic dirge. He's a a shitface. If people like his music fair enough, I can see that he had talent, but if anyone tries to claim that he's not a fucktard, they're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take him and his attitude over 50 Ed Sheerans any day of the week. I don't agree with about 99% of what he says but at least he's actually saying something; don't have to agree with it to laugh at how reactionary it is occasionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's partly down to this perception of Morrissey and general feel that everybody loathes him that I think he's great - I mean he's been doing it for 30 years; you'd hope people would be used to it by now. Aside from being a great lyricist and having a musical legacy that a lot of 50 year old musicians could only dream of having, he's also a massive and utter bastard; and what we lack now in the world of music are massive and utter bastards. I'd take him and his attitude over 50 Ed Sheerans any day of the week. I don't agree with about 99% of what he says but at least he's actually saying something; don't have to agree with it to laugh at how reactionary it is occasionally.

Edited by kaosmark2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are just too sensitive nowadays. Morrissey himself said it's not hard to be controversial now in pop music and then he comes out with something comparing what happened last year in Norway to the production process of McDonald's food. Could you see somebody like Adele opening her mouth up for anything other than her manager-booked, bi-daily check-in at the bulimia clinic? And the need to get a response and some justification from those offended when these people say something offensive is hilarious.

Morrissey's a great character and I love him dearly. Without him, the world of music would be a much more sterile place. Would love to see him at Bestival too; would give me an excuse to try and hug him again like I almost did in Manchester on his 45th birthday. Everybody should try to hug Morrissey at some point in their lives.

Edited by Dave The Hedgehog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty ridiculous arguement, you wouldn't respond to the old racist down the pub with "well at least you've got the balls to say your opinions!". Just because Ed Sheeran (and most other popstars) are boring doesn't mean that Morrisey's alternative, spouting shit and being a dickhead, must be the right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty ridiculous arguement, you wouldn't respond to the old racist down the pub with "well at least you've got the balls to say your opinions!". Just because Ed Sheeran (and most other popstars) are boring doesn't mean that Morrisey's alternative, spouting shit and being a dickhead, must be the right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Morrissey, aside from not being afraid to open his mouth where all around him daren't say anything interesting, he is a lyrical genius and his music especially with the smiths (although his more recent stuff is some of his best) will be remembered and talked about for decades to come.

And how can you not love the ritualistic live shows where grown men throw themselves at him repeatedly, it really is something to behold.

And I'd love to see him at Bestival, I don't particularly think it will happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulp would be immense.... wonder who else it could be. I'm expecting a reunion, or an arena tour. We'll have to keep our eyes out for tour dates or reunion hints.

Seeing as the band will be Friday night, it can't be that huge. That's why I'm going with The Knife. Perfect.

Edited by Joe-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically we have no idea of who the other headliners will be?

My only issue with that (generally the unpredictability is good) is that Bestival normally throws up some good bans. Respected bands, good musicians etc.

But when I get there, I find there's less that I really want to see, or can persuade my group to see, than normal. I wouldn't mind one or two more 'safe choices' in there - a Pulp or a Prodigy headlining just to make sure I don't end up being left with a headliner who I've seen twice already during the year but who no-one else is interested about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...