Jump to content
We've just launched our new store! Unique tees, mugs, bags, and more. 10% discount with code OPEN10

  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

before he dies, I'd love to see....?

Guest eFestivals

By Guest eFestivals
in Discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

To rephrase:

I don't believe that these people you refer to as fans are fans as they would not be bored at a Cure gig. Rather, by very definition of fandom, they would be angry that The Cure had not lived up to their expectations.

Yeah, but given that you're talking from a position of zero knowledge about this, your take means....? f**k all.

And when you do have more than zero knowledge you'll get to discover that your take is....? Just wrong. :)

And as I said, 'that's your opinion'.

And as I said, it's far more than JUST my opinion. It's the opinion of a huge chunk of the many thousands who've done what you haven't, and who actually have something of substance to base their opinions on. Unlike you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strudders Newbie

strudders

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nobody really

I was very fortunate to be at Frank Zappa's last gig in the UK before he passed and I have seen all of pink Floyd but not necessarily as one band.

I have seen all of Yes, and Rush many times...

Thinking on though, I must see Rush once more before they or I die just to be happy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7mKGYN4a6g

Edited by strudders
Link to comment
Share on other sites
beau1 Contributor

beau1

Posted
Posted (edited)

What Neil is effectively saying is that The Cure are a poor live act because he doesn't get them in the live atmosphere. It's about telling someone that Opera isn't worth going to see because you're simply not a fan of it.

I've seen The Cure three times, I am probably would Neil was call a hard-core Cure fan but thats not the point: The Cure are NOT a pop band, people go into their shows thinking they are going to get a typical festival-like jolly performance because thats the popular thing to do - The Cure do not do this, they just play the music and let that do the taking.

Some people probably find this 'Boring' and I can't argue against that but that doesn't mean they are a bad live act, nothing of the sort.

The Cure did have a 'going through the motions' phase throughout the mid-late 90s but that was it.

If they are a such a 'bad live act' then why do most of their gigs get 4/5 or 5/5 even when reviewers make the point that they don't play very much pop? If a band is going through the motions they DO NOT play 3 hour shows every night and have to play curfew fines after every show and festival appearance...

Oh and trust me Neil, there are not enough 'hard-core' Cure fans to make up the numbers they sold doing the 2007-2008 4tour. They still have pretty large tours and sell-out arenas and festivals with a mix of NEW fans and hard-core.

As for what Eavis said in 2004, well to be quite frank, that was bullshit. You don't book a band 3 times to headline your festival if they give 3 poor performances. The Cure probably asked to headline and he probably got annoyed at the cheek of it.

Edited by beau1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted

What Neil is effectively saying is that The Cure are a poor live act because he doesn't get them in the live atmosphere. It's about telling someone that Opera isn't worth going to see because you're simply not a fan of it.

:lol::lol::lol:

I've seen The Cure three times, I am probably would Neil was call a hard-core Cure fan but thats not the point: The Cure are NOT a pop band, people go into their shows thinking they are going to get a typical festival-like jolly performance because thats the popular thing to do - The Cure do not do this, they just play the music and let that do the taking.

Some people probably find this 'Boring' and I can't argue against that but that doesn't mean they are a bad live act, nothing of the sort.

The Cure did have a 'going through the motions' phase throughout the mid-late 90s but that was it.

:lol::lol::lol:

As for what Eavis said in 2004, well to be quite frank, that was bullshit. You don't book a band 3 times to headline your festival if they give 3 poor performances. The Cure probably asked to headline and he probably got annoyed at the cheek of it.

1. they didn't headline 3 times.

2. they were always below average when they played. And two of them were not in "the mid-late 90s", which blows your words out of the water.

3. Eavis (or Elbourne? I forget) was spot on. They said what they saw.

4. they didn't ask to headline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beau1 Contributor

beau1

Posted
Posted (edited)

:lol::lol::lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

1. they didn't headline 3 times.

2. they were always below average when they played. And two of them were not in "the mid-late 90s", which blows your words out of the water.

3. Eavis (or Elbourne? I forget) was spot on. They said what they saw.

4. they didn't ask to headline.

Edited by beau1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted (edited)

They have headlined three times, 1986 (although you claim above that the furs followed them, the furs played on the Friday, Cure on the saturday AFAIK), 1990 and 1995. Maybe your views have completely clouded over pure fact.

I was there. You weren't (from what you've said). The Cure played 2nd from top, during an lightning storm which was far more entertaining than they were. The rain started as they left the stage, and I got drenched standing there waiting for the next act ... It's possible that they were on a different night to the Furs, but that's not my memory of it.

edit: i just took a call from a guy who I've never spoken with previously, who just so happened to have been at Glasto '86. He said the Furs followed the Cure too.

Below average is an opinion, wasn't their 1990 headline performance recently voted by people who probably weren't even there as in the top 10 ever? Yes well...the facts speak for themselves.

corrected for you.

I can understand the 'boring' comment but that doesn't mean a bad live band.

I'm pretty sure I've not said "bad" at any point in this convo (tho I could be wrong) - I've certainly said on most occasions if not all something lesser than that.

As for the last point: I'd be very surprised if they didn't ask to headline as they never do a festival without headlining it.

In which case 'mad' can be added to their faults. :P

Edited by eFestivals
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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...