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 😎


Acid_Haze

Recommended Posts

and let's face it shall we? With true honesty? That's a list of shit songs.

And they're bad enough as the originals, so quite why anyone would want to hear bad metal versions of them I've no idea.

You're more than welcome to him. It says more about your ears than mine. :)

as i was reading this, Let's Go Crazy came on the radio.

You're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • FloorFiller

    1190

  • Rose-Colored Boy

    1060

  • Matt42

    1040

  • eFestivals

    1008

The Roses and Prince would both attract huge, but different, crowds.

The huge 'sing-a-long moments' would be around 5/6 songs for both, like it or lump it.

To be honest, you could make the same 'it'll only work if the crowd are over 30' argument for approximately half of the headline acts over the last 6/7 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think that's true.

The idea that no one under 30 knows any Roses songs

Not what I said..

Booking an act that would play a set made up largely of album tracks from the late '80's, when the organisers have been fairly open about wanting to entice a younger crowd to the festival, doesn't fit. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this whole thread brings up one of my greatest bugbears about the whole festival thing. I simply don't like 'big singalongs' - I still remember Oasis '95 being just awful because all I could really here were the dozens of burly blokes around me singing every word in tonelessly flat drones. Blur '09 was similarly marred - and I know I'm in the minority with that. I would much rather hear something unpredictable and transcendent than attend a team karaoke event.

And while I'm at it, I'm kind of fed up of the whole, 'I've not heard that many of their songs' attitude. Honestly, it's like a boring dad leaning into the room, asking 'Who's this then?' 'Nirvana' 'Never heard of 'em?' like that's some kind of caveat for acceptability. I hadn't heard that much Arcade Fire or Kanye, but that should not be a basis on which a headliner should be booked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I never understand this point of view (unless I've misread it) that the band have to be from 'your era' in order for you to be a big fan.

I agree with that.

But from the opposite end, if you lived thru it you remember how its goes (big with the mums, those who bought 2 singles a year, and Texas fans), while those who were five or have been told by Mum how great he is are buying the myth.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me that keeps forgetting we actually have two headliners confirmed. Like CONFIRMED, not TBC on the rumours page but actually confirmed by the festival.

On further thought, it's making me start to think the lineup won't be out this week. Theoretically 2 of the biggest names at the festival are out...

I still want the lineup, but I'm starting understand the 'greed' argument a little bit more.

Yes it's just you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me that keeps forgetting we actually have two headliners confirmed. Like CONFIRMED, not TBC on the rumours page but actually confirmed by the festival.

On further thought, it's making me start to think the lineup won't be out this week. Theoretically 2 of the biggest names at the festival are out...

I still want the lineup, but I'm starting understand the 'greed' argument a little bit more.

almost certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can believe it.

If you'd heard people banging on about how he only ever shits gold niggests and then you actually saw what he does, it's hardly a surprise that you'd be disappointed.

Prince is about as cool as Stevie Wonder dropping to his knees guitar-hero style, as he did.

To be fair, at Hop Farm he seemed to understand what was expected of a Prince festival set. If he tried to do all those weird, terminally dull funk/hard rock rearrangements of his songs at Glastonbury his set would tank catastrophically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what I said..

Booking an act that would play a set made up largely of album tracks from the late '80's, when the organisers have been fairly open about wanting to entice a younger crowd to the festival, doesn't fit. IMO.

They've already booked 2 headliners who are heavily aimed at under 30s.

Should they aim all headliners at the younger crowd?

The Roses album tracks are no ordinary album tracks either

Edited by Space Shanty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea i go to Glasto in a large group of about 25+ of us. all between 22-30, and Prince isnt relevent at all. However everyone likes or loves The Roses. Prince really isnt as popular as people are making out

And everyone I know likes Prince, or at least prefers Prince to the Stone Roses.

I know people who aren't big music fans who could name a couple of Prince songs who don't even know who the Stone Roses are.

It means nothing. Too much bias in the sampling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer you to almost all of the videos embedded here from his run of shows from last year.

Even some of you that drool when Prince farts said you got bored shitless with the endlessness of them.

no, there was no metal in those videos.

you clearly have no idea what you're talking 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

    • 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.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...