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 😎

Blur?


wozwebs

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't believe I won to be honest. The lady on the phone only decided to tell me it was for the 3pm show after I'd won mind, so that was a huge downer. There's only 6 hours a week of uni which I can't miss as I'd drop grades (plus an extra 14 on top of that), and it had to fall during those! I wonder what the location is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I won to be honest. The lady on the phone only decided to tell me it was for the 3pm show after I'd won mind, so that was a huge downer. There's only 6 hours a week of uni which I can't miss as I'd drop grades (plus an extra 14 on top of that), and it had to fall during those! I wonder what the location is.

surely you can miss one afternoon for goodness sakes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For now" ?

:D

Irrespective of whether you like their new material theyve a new album that will form the backbone of any new shows.

So Russy's point is utter cobblers. As is yours.

Perfectly willing to debate the quality of the stuff with you - but to be so dismissive and snidey about it is a dickmove. Atypical dickmove from you Scoot it has to be said. Youve been knocking Blur on eFests for years.

It really depends on the reception to the album. The Rolling Stones have released plenty of albums since the 80s, but have been a heritage act all that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on the reception to the album. The Rolling Stones have released plenty of albums since the 80s, but have been a heritage act all that time.

Can;t see the yoof grabbing and hold of the new tune and going with it. First one was good mind you. Both very obviously wearing their influences on their sleeves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can;t see the yoof grabbing and hold of the new tune and going with it. First one was good mind you. Both very obviously wearing their influences on their sleeves.

It's a guaranteed number one album mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does make me think - if an act plays mainly new stuff when the audience go hoping to hear the hits, are they a heritage act or not? I dunno. Russy is right about one thing, Radiohead really aren't a heritage act, (I reckon) most people who go to see them actually want to hear the new songs live. I was exceedingly happy with the set list at the MEN during the KOL tour. One OK Computer song, I think? Plenty of older songs, but most of the new album, really transformed. I can't think of any other band who has managed to get away with featuring new stuff heavily for so long.

It's not like Shakin' Stevens playing new songs and not playing Green Door, arrogant fucker. He certainly was heritage, even if he didn't think he was!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be fairly surprising / big news if Radiohead played a "classics" set. Much as i admire them for expansive and courageous stuff theyve put out in the last 15 years - people would lose their shit if they played "Anyone Can Play Guitar". Fair point Stuart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does make me think - if an act plays mainly new stuff when the audience go hoping to hear the hits, are they a heritage act or not? I dunno. Russy is right about one thing, Radiohead really aren't a heritage act, (I reckon) most people who go to see them actually want to hear the new songs live. I was exceedingly happy with the set list at the MEN during the KOL tour. One OK Computer song, I think? Plenty of older songs, but most of the new album, really transformed. I can't think of any other band who has managed to get away with featuring new stuff heavily for so long.

It's not like Shakin' Stevens playing new songs and not playing Green Door, arrogant fucker. He certainly was heritage, even if he didn't think he was!

if they headlined, they could play 6 songs off the album and ditch some of the old obscure stuff they played last time

i mean how many casual fans know popscene and oily water?

theres also loads of 'hits' they didnt play- MOR,on your own, sing(not really a hit but quite famous cos of trainspotting) stereotypes, charmless man etc etc

Edited by neil999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the pejorative term "heritage band" is someone from the 60/70s primarily. By definition "not" playing any of your old stuff is counterproductive and alienating for any band. Blur's setlist in 2012 was a lot different to the 2009 list with some stuff "Caramel" frinstance being debuted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does make me think - if an act plays mainly new stuff when the audience go hoping to hear the hits, are they a heritage act or not? I dunno. Russy is right about one thing, Radiohead really aren't a heritage act, (I reckon) most people who go to see them actually want to hear the new songs live. I was exceedingly happy with the set list at the MEN during the KOL tour. One OK Computer song, I think? Plenty of older songs, but most of the new album, really transformed. I can't think of any other band who has managed to get away with featuring new stuff heavily for so long.

It's not like Shakin' Stevens playing new songs and not playing Green Door, arrogant fucker. He certainly was heritage, even if he didn't think he was!

flaming lips are another band who's gigs are heavily weighted in favour of their newer stuff I'd say

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...