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 😎

2019 Headliners


rzwodezwo

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

You mean the first ever blues single to get to number one in the UK charts? That Little Red Rooster?

Its painful to listen too. I can't get through the rolling stones singing a blues song without cringing 100 times over. idk maybe just me..

That fact that it was a number 1 single just says it all really.

Edited by Xeph1995
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I guess so.

I mean, the Stones are still obviously nice middle class boys from the Home Counties, but I think their credentials on that front are about as good as it gets.

Comparatively speaking, The Doors are pure brexit. The Donald Trump of sixties rock bands.

I guess well have to agree to disagree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Xeph1995 said:

Its painful to listen too. I can't get through the rolling stones singing a blues song without cringing 100 times over. idk maybe just me..

That fact that it was a number 1 single just says it all really.

I don’t get it. It’s not like Blues was an excursion for the Stones - it was very much their thing.

Your grievance seems to be that The Beatles and Stones were the most popular and want to demonstrate that you’ve heard blues in its more natural forms and you’ve heard more sixties music than those dominating the charts. I assure you, so has everyone else interested in Macca on here but they appreciate him as a songwriter regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

I don’t get it. It’s not like Blues was an excursion for the Stones - it was very much their thing.

Your grievance seems to be that The Beatles and Stones were the most popular and want to demonstrate that you’ve heard blues in its more natural forms and you’ve heard more sixties music than those dominating the charts. I assure you, so has everyone else interested in Macca on here but they appreciate him as a songwriter regardless.

I mean your completely off the mark here to be honest, I just don't think the Beatles are very good. Almost certainty everyone here as heard the same music as me? there all pretty big names and its been what close to 60 years i don't really understand your point of view.

Edited by Xeph1995
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember being on a Christmas night out and the vibe in the back room of the pub getting progressively spoiled when someone in the front bar put on the Best of The Doors and seemed intent in letting it play out in full.

Eventually one punter got sufficiently riled to shout out 'What c**t put on The fucking Doors?' just as someone with a man-perm, bare chest and leather trousers came in to clear the glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I remember being on a Christmas night out and the vibe in the back room of the pub getting progressively spoiled when someone in the front bar put on the Best of The Doors and seemed intent in letting it play out in full.

Eventually one punter got sufficiently riled to shout out 'What c**t put on The fucking Doors?' just as someone with a man-perm, bare chest and leather trousers came in to clear the glasses.

That is actually really quite funny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the Beatles is that they were the perfect storm of initially being a group of young lads for the girls to swoon over, who evolved into an incredibly eclectic act where they covered as much musical ground in one album as some bands do in a career. All in eight years.

They were the biggest band in the world and they were real* innovators. And most importantly, this musical adventurousness was matched by an innate gift for melody that's rare, yet they had it in at least two of their songwriters. A truly remarkable phenomenon. And Paul McCartney was responsible for at least for 1/3** of their success.

* I recognise that due to their massive popularity, they have eclipsed their influences to a point where it appears that they invented musical ideas they were copying. But, still.

** This involves a very complicated formula that I'm not going to explain right now, but it doesn't look good for Ringo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Xeph1995 said:

I mean your completely off the mark here to be honest, I just don't think the Beatles are very good. Almost certainty everyone here as heard the same music as me? there all pretty big names and its been what close to 60 years i don't really understand your point of view.

Fair enough. I can’t tell you what you like or why you like it or anything, it’s just what I gleaned from what you said about Rolling Stones having a no. 1 blues song.

It’s just I used to think very similarly about The Stones and The Beatles, saying they were overrated and actually not that good, and used to think it was pointscoring to know and appreciate other bands from their era (Floyd, Doors, Cream, etc.) instead when I was in fact owning myself devastatingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say the Beatles were 'too white' is particularly odd when pretty much all of their initial influences were black - The Shirelles, Ray Charles, Chuck Berry, Phil Spector's early (female black) bands, Little Richard, Isley Brothers, Barrett Strong... OK also other rock&rollers like Elvis and Carl Perkins, but they really brought the black american RnB sound to a much wider influence with many covers of those artists, playing on the same bill as those artists when they toured the UK and Hamburg, and many of their early songs were very much in the same mold

So many other major bands of the 60s were much much whiter than them, Herman's Hermits, Freddie & the Dreamers, Cliff Richard / The Shadows - the Beatles stood out so much specifically because of their american black soul / RnB influences, obtained partly by being based in a port where the records were coming over on ships from the US every week

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

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

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...