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 😎

Headliners 2016


thewayiam

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

2 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

There's still only 12 notes no matter what you're playing them on. The creativity & diversity that the Beatles showed over the space of 7 years on 13 (if you count Yellow Submarine) albums was extraordinary. 

McCartney was 28 when they split. 28 with that body of work behind him. Unbelievable. 

Do you really think they would have better if they had a synth? 

 

No mate they would not and I think what I have been trying to say has maybe come across wrong (Not like me that is it? :-) )

I like bands who push boundaries and The Beatles did that. You will get no criticism from me in regards to The Beatles. 

Do I think the Beatles would have been better if they had access to sequencers, samplers, synths? Damn right I do and I think they would have fully embraced them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I am an electrical engineer mate. I am always going to veer towards the groups who pioneered sound synthesis using electrical components rather than the ones who pluck strings or bang a stick on animal skins.

Listen to Abbey Road then. Maxwells Silver Hammer, I Want You Shes So Heavy, Here Comes the Sun and Because all feature an early custom made Moog. Played by George, John and Paul across the the 4 tracks. 

Even as far back as Tomorrow Never Knows they were experimenting with tape loops, vocals through organ speakers etc. Can't get much more pioneering than that from a major group.

Or give "Electric Sound" by George Harrison a spin. 100% Moog. Released May 1969. Its fairly unlistenable these days but certainly ticks the "pioneered sound synthesis using electrical components rather than the ones who pluck strings or bang a stick on animal skins" box. A big green tick, done in magic marker and a smiley face beside it. 

 

Sorry, anyway, Coldplay.......

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Listen to Abbey Road then. Maxwells Silver Hammer, I Want You Shes So Heavy, Here Comes the Sun and Because all feature an early custom made Moog. Played by George, John and Paul across the the 4 tracks. 

Even as far back as Tomorrow Never Knows they were experimenting with tape loops, vocals through organ speakers etc. Can't get much more pioneering than that from a major group.

They were totally pioneering mate. Fair play to the Beatles, they were ahead of the game and they deserve all the accolades they get. 

The thing is though how would you categorise their music? For me they were a group that remained within the confines of Rock/Pop music. You could never accuse the Beatles of being house, hip hop, disco and so on.

When I mentioned New Orders and Depeche Mode as being more diverse I meant in the way they seem to have mutated through more genres, not that they were more experimental or ground breaking.

 

edit - Have got to go looking at Bathrooms, will give that George Harrison album a listen later.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HoTWire said:

I'm indifferent to both, they are effectively equal.

Whilst we're here: I also think LCD Soundsystem are not very good.  The Libertines are only famous because everything else was shittier than them.  Arcade Fire are okay.  ELO are uninteresting.  Blur haven't made a good album (but some good songs) since Modern Life Is Rubbish.  The Stone Roses are terrible live (I've seen them three times across the years, always bad).  Whoever headlines Glastonbury it'll have little to no bearing on whether you have an enjoyable festival.

Clearly Ozric Tentacles should headline Pyramid on the Sunday, with Jean Michael Jarre's 80's light show.

U OK HON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The thing is though how would you categorise their music? For me they were a group that remained within the confines of Rock/Pop music. You could never accuse the Beatles of being house, hip hop, disco and so on.

True, but that music didn't exist then. They pushed the boundaries as much as they possibly could. And some of it sounds a bit dated at times now. Not a whole lot of it mind you. Same as some of New Order and Depeche Mode sounds a bit dated now. As some early hip hop does etc.

Anyway, Jim Morrison said it better than I could. 1969.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

They were totally pioneering mate. Fair play to the Beatles, they were ahead of the game and they deserve all the accolades they get. 

The thing is though how would you categorise their music? For me they were a group that remained within the confines of Rock/Pop music. You could never accuse the Beatles of being house, hip hop, disco and so on.

When I mentioned New Orders and Depeche Mode as being more diverse I meant in the way they seem to have mutated through more genres, not that they were more experimental or ground breaking.

 

edit - Have got to go looking at Bathrooms, will give that George Harrison album a listen later.

 

 

I simply don't see New Order or Depeche Mode as being more diverse and genre-spanning than the Beatles. I won't say you're incorrect again, but I will say that I disagree to a colossal degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

the best music defies categorising. What's Strawberry Fields Forever, or Tomorrow Never Knows? It's not rock or pop, by any stretch of the imagination. 

Creating music because it fits a category or genre, is the most pointless exercise possible

Exactly. The Beatles are at a level whereby trying to stick them into a defined genre is utterly pointless. They've basically got their own category "sounds like the Beatles".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ericlered said:

Again I'm writing this as a huge New Order fan, but.... I cannot see how anybody, and I mean anybody could prefer Barney as a frontman to Ian Curtis.

Mind boggling.

 

I never mentioned who is the better frontman even though neither of them can sing. All I said was that I find Joy Division utterly depressing

7 minutes ago, theDandy said:

 

I simply don't see New Order or Depeche Mode as being more diverse and genre-spanning than the Beatles. I won't say you're incorrect again, but I will say that I disagree to a colossal degree.

I would say that Depeche Mode more so than New Order. From bubblegum pop, electro, diso, goth, grunge, rock, house, techno, they have covered it all

5 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

you really believe they covered more 'ground' than The Beatles?

I think they have covered more genres. I do not think they are more ground breaking, I would like to clarify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Speaking of Beatles/classical guitar

 

 

These are both wonderful. Apologies for not being able to embed the same as everybody else on here, but the there's a gentleman on Youtube who has an account called 'Troubleclef' who does brilliant song covers through classical guitar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbizWzKZowo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I would say that Depeche Mode more so than New Order. From bubblegum pop, electro, diso, goth, grunge, rock, house, techno, they have covered it all

Can you give me examples of each in song? I'm genuinely intrigued now, I've never really had Depeche Mode down as being so diverse. Certainly nowhere near the Beatles, in my eyes pretty much nobody does when it comes to variety of music within their discography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gnomicide said:

Is it ok to point out at this stage that Depeche Mode & New Order are both shite?

No.

I dunno about New Order but not Depeche Mode.

Edit: I want you to know that your post sounded like my dad. My dad's favourite artists are Meatloaf, Elton John and Il Divo.

Edited by Will-2609
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, theDandy said:

These are both wonderful. Apologies for not being able to embed the same as everybody else on here, but the there's a gentleman on Youtube who has an account called 'Troubleclef' who does brilliant song covers through classical guitar:

Lovely! 

Not a fucking patch on this lad though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

I would say that Depeche Mode more so than New Order. From bubblegum pop, electro, diso, goth, grunge, rock, house, techno, they have covered it all

 

I like their first album.  Unfortunately that band effectively split up afterwards, and I've not enjoyed any Depeche Mode or Vince Clarke material as much as that first album.  I think it triggers early childhood memories in me (born 1978)

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...