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 😎

BBC Coverage 2022


Cooter

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

You make it sound like you know me and my skin colour and the fact I've never been called anything racist and project privilege on to me? If only you knew. It's all rather presumptuous of you. It sounds like you go around making a lot of presumptions, especially on who is allowed to say a word, based on their skin colour.

Call me old fashioned, but banning words in art, based on a person's skin colour sounds kinda... racist?

Also, I don't think this video is really about the topic you think it is. She's asking him why NWA include so many n-words in their music, not if it's okay for white people to say it or not.

I could go on, but there's a lot of moving the goalposts in your post. The original topic wasn't about it's use in songs, it was about whether white people are allowed to say it or not, even if it's a lyric in a song and it's said without malice or intent to harm anybody.

I hear it all time. Why bring race into it is often leveled back when any challenge is made.

The clip is perfectly valid as to why the songs/some artists might be using the word... and the intent and why therefore it's in songs and not okay to be used without any consideration on this basis.

And those who think it's okay to put a time-limit on the impact also fail to get it.  The worst thing we can as a society do is pretend that these things don't exist.

If you think that honestly the repetition of the words in the songs is purely art, but disregarding the route of the message in the first that's the issue.

Edited by Peroni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, willgooneday said:

 

I mean it was audible on the telly enough that some were singing it. I don't know I'd never use the N word as a white man, a bit like as a gay man I'd never want a straight person to use the F word regardless of whatever the context for it in the song lyrics was. I'm not denying that Kendrick is clearly an incredibly talented showman and artist but his crowd clearly wasn't that big when you think of what Diana Ross or McCartney pulled - although they were clearly into. Fair due to them but I'll honestly never get that kind of music. I was told by people how amazing it would be but all I saw was some well choreographed dancing and some f'ing and blinding their head of. I'd have been at Pet Shop Boys any day of the week. 

Honestly after I got home from holiday, I was watching it last night as the mother turned it on generally and I thought how many times is it basically swearing rap. If it was before 9pm, that show would jave come across awfully for the amount of cutting words the bbc would have needed to do. Fair if people like him, but his crowd shown that not only wasn't he people's favourite  choice but a poor Sunday choice. You van have 5k-20k people watching an act and it'll look a great crowd if they are all into that. That is what you get at academies and arenas all over the country because it's actual tours but that doesn't mean it was right for that spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Peroni said:

I hear it all time. Why bring race into it is often leveled back when any challenge is made.

The clip is perfectly valid as to why the songs/some artists might be using the word... and the intent and why therefore it's in songs and not okay to be used without any consideration on this basis.

And those who think it's okay to put a time-limit on the impact also fail to get it.  The worst thing we can as a society do is pretend that these things don't exist.

If you think that honestly the repetition of the words in the songs is purely art, but disregarding the route of the message in the first that's the issue.

1. I made the statement, 'why bring race into it?' before you made your challenge.

2. The clip is talking about its use in songs in general and why it's so often used. I don't give a damn if it's in songs, or being used - that wasn't the original discussion.

3. Words' meanings do change over time. People use it as a greeting now, a form on kinship - I don't think they're using it to denigrate one another.

4. Yes, words in songs is art. Who disregarded the route of the message or the word itself? Literally, show me the message where people disregarded that?

5. All I'm saying, is that if you ban white people from saying a "black person's word", then you ma'am are the one who needs to take a look in the mirror about your prejudices.

6. Kendrick came out and admitted he was hypocritical of the same thought you're pushing now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, verrymerry said:

What the fuck happened in this thread while I was out 😂

barry decided to tell people what's what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peroni said:

Was about to say the same.  I'd better shuffle my lazy real life experience of discrimination away. As Apparently society has moved on 😒

is it moving on when 6music censor bob dylan's use of the n word in the anti-racist 'hurricane'.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meanwhile on the coverage, just watched the whole of Turnstile, brilliant.

Also just watched Amyl & the sniffers, outstanding.

Honestly, if I'd been there this year and knew of these bands before I think I would have spent most the fest in the JP tent. Obviously popping around site to see Mik now and then!

Also, Young Blood, wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

There were probably more than that in the pit alone. It’s fine to dislike someone without resorting to silly nonsense like implying he had a smaller crowd than Robert Plant. 

So go and tell whoever it is that is implying that then lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, panda97 said:

Didn't realise BBC decided to censor Olivia Rodrigo's performance and cut out the whole speech/song with Lily Allen from the set uploaded to iplayer, pretty spineless of them

Defo cut, i went looking for it earlier. Found it on YouTube though, absolute genius moment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Skelts said:

Defo cut, i went looking for it earlier. Found it on YouTube though, absolute genius moment 

yeah iconic moment, find it weird that they cut it from iplayer but uploaded it to youtube, at least it is available somewhere I guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rose-Colored Boy said:

No. 

Im bemused. Its ok to sing along to every song and every lyric but if you're not black then you can't use that word. Honestly not being obtuse just very bewildered. 

Whilst on this train of thought, are there other words in other songs that its ok for the artist to sing but not for the audience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watching some footage on iPlayer at home... Have they cut lots of bits? I feel like Sam Fender has a lot of his moments where he was talking to the crowd cut from the upload. Also there seems to be sets missing. I can't find Charli XCX or Confidence Man for some reason.

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...