Jo Whitely scrubbing up well for a 50+ year old.
Printable View
Jo Whitely scrubbing up well for a 50+ year old.
She gets better every year.
As for Radiohead, I am a fan and thought they were on form tonight. I don't get the 'pretentious' tag though. They're all clearly very talented, multi-instrument musicians as they regularly swapped between instruments. They also combine acoustic with electric effortlessly. They have a huge back catalogue and IMO have stood the test of time. I can't think how any band of that vintage can still appear 'new' :sherlock:
I liked the fact they threw in some of their more experimental stuff, such as Lotus Flower from King Of Limbs which I love.
Iggy pop about 10 years ago.....he is a legend....
https://youtu.be/DaaRdSSUn_8
It's a hectic few days, I couldn't deal with the shear amount of people. I like a bit of peace in my 40's....I could just about handle it late 20's/early 30's, in saying that a trip all the way down to the pyramid or gap year area as we called it was tough even back then.
The healing fields and areas up by the stone circle would be the only places I could cope with these days. It's too expensive nowadays get little change if a grand probably
Radiohead are technically excellent. There's no doubt about that.
For me, their later stuff lacks drive, passion, energy. There is the odd good song but a lot of self-indulgent dross. What you saw last night was an audience thinking they must like Radiohead, silent for the most part only coming to life with the songs they knew and wanted.
There's jut no comparison between Radiohead headlining a festival and say Iron Maiden. Maiden get a far greater crowd reaction.
There must be something wrong with me, because if I want to listen to music, I just turn on the radio. :shrug:
Absolute garbage. I walked away as did many others. If your headlining the Pyramid bang out your hits. They did the same a few years ago at The Park for a secret gig which was more understandable but last night was just poor. Maybe engage with the crowd too? Just came across as arrogant for me
My idea of hell.
However, enjoying watching/listening to it on tv with all my home comforts.
Probably would have enjoyed seeing Bobby Womack there a few years ago but thats about as close as I get to regrets and This event.
Is he bollocks!
Though he thinks he is, the arrogant 2wat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/enterta...ng-glastonbury
Look, Dizzy, you ain't headlining because you are (C)rap.
Contrary to a lot on here I like Radiohead. I was brought up on late 60s and early 70s psychedelic music and jazz fusion though so probably that's why. I think they put on a hell of a gig. Each to their own though.
And I find Elbow totally boring too.
Same thoughts as you 55 !
Churning out the same songs at every gig is not what rock and roll is about.
Where's the spontaneity the excitement ?
I'm not saying Radiohead were as exciting as some bands, but they do what they do because it feels right to them.
It's a bit like saying to Vincent Van Gogh, that in the commercial world that we wanted him to paint by numbers.
It ceases to be 'him'.
Jimi Hendrix when he headlined festivals that dwarfed Glastonbury, would often nearly half of his set of songs that had never been released and improvisations that were exactly that.
After a year or two of playing the 'hits' he wanted to move on as a progressive and innovative artist. He felt stifled and caged to be expected to play the same songs in exactly the same way.
Radiohead are one of the few bands who have the balls to have an similar philosophy.
British sea power live now :music: was watching turgid Jools Holland
Here is a live recording of the best band to EVER headline Glastonbury! Back in the days when it was a proper festival.
Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out, as the late great Timothy Leary once said !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq4Oe39nP4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq4Oe39nP4
Wild Beasts, a new band to me, thoroughly enjoyed their set :music:
Rock and roll is about getting the crowd going, entertaining...
Kiss are far from the best songwriters in the world, but give kick ass performances live.
Radiohead can do that at Glastonbury for the simple fact the audience is for the most part people there because it's Glastonbury, couldn't give a toss who the bands are.
There's no comparison between Hendrix and Radiohead...
Really enjoying Future Islands. The bloke is a nutter but an entertaining one with good toons
I've always fancied going but my wife won't have it even though we both love our concerts.
Her reason is the thought of filthy toilets and stinking showers, and the though of standing next to someone who hasn't washed for 3 days.
She's a Bettws girl ffs
I haven't seen a decent act yet on the Beeb. The standard of musicianship from most acts is appalling.
I would disagree with this but, it's subjective, there is a quote by Richie Blackmore on the inside cover of the Slade Alive LP which, he says, "they don't care about the notes and there is a public wanting that" I would suggest that this is applicable to Glastonbury, the people there just want a good time and have little interest in poor playing or a few bum notes here and there, when i go to watch my lad play, i'm always interested in his and the bands playing but would guess that i'm in a minority at a gig.
I can't stand enormous gigs and never go to one where watching the screen passes as actually seeing a band.
Anyway, my question is....don't people get pissed off when they can't see the stage because of a bloody great flag or two is in the way?
I went to see Santana last year and I was in the third or fourth row and the idiot in front of me decided to to hold his mobile phone up and record it all whilst looking at the gig on his screen rather than watch the gig. As his hands and phone was blocking my view the whole time I had to give him an almighty bollocking so that I could see the gig that I paid for.
Pretenders please retire FFS
The Foo Fighters are an awesome 'stadium rock' band. They didn't disappoint tonight.
I saw them a couple of years back at the Milton Keynes Bowl and they were incredible. One of the last proper rock bands and there won't be many more.
Quite impressive to think that Dave Grohl has been in two of the biggest bands of his generation.
Nirvana were dead in the water once Nevermind was released. Over produced, mainstream version of what Bleach was...
It would have been interesting to see what happened if Cobain had lived. In utero was woeful, product of someone no longer giving a sh*t. Would Nirvana have morphed into the musical style of Foo Fighters? Doubtful - probably would have imploded.
It's clear with hindsight that Grohl was head and shoulders far more talented than anyone else in Nirvana.
I agree with most of that; although I think that if Cobain hadn't blown his own brains out, Nirvana would've still had a few years at the top before they were found out. A generation of melancholic teenagers connected with them and it would've taken those teenagers to grow up to realise just how shit they were.
Musically poor and nonsense lyrically. As you say, Grohl's ability was far beyond the rest of the band. A perfect example is their Unplugged in New York album, where the most popular songs are cover versions. Watch Dave Grohl play drums in other projects post-Nirvana to see just how much he was held back.
The Foo's are perfect for him; big anthemic rock songs filled with loud guitar and heavy drums, they don't take themselves too seriously and aren't trying to be the voice of depressed teens. I could watch them all night!
Liam singing Dont look back in anger was entertaining, reminded me alot of Ian brown :hehe:
In Utero massively exposed them. Their Reading performance, Bleach - both were amazing. As I said, Nevermind came off as utterly over produced when it was the rawness of the live performances and Bleach that really made their name - that's why I don't think they'd have lasted past In Utero even if Cobain hadn't committed suicide.
It's not even Grohl's drumming talent - first Foo album, he played every instrument. Every f*cking instrument.That's just incredibly ridiculous because that album was amazing.
Your last paragraph sums up everything about the band and everything wrong with music today. There are very few good rock bands still going ( Maiden always deliver and don't have too many years left ) and nothing coming through. Grohl is still "young" at 48 but Pat Smear is 57...
EDIT: The problem is that music these days has gone the "write 'catchy' tune, perform with dancers etc" route. Pure rock musicianship where you engage the crowd, just not the done thing these days. Compare and contrast Foos with Radiohead's set. Radiohead came across as utterly self-indulgent, musically excellent lacking feel or passion. Got crowd reactions only with the "known" older songs. Grohl has had this audience in the palm of his hand since the start.
Was that the best headline act of recent years ?, outstanding