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

[rexclark]

Oaf for me.

[beau1]

Really? In all of the googling I did around this last week, the lightning storm was always described as "amazing" or similar, but The Cure's performance never was.

which is because those other performances were seen by hugely more people, and by hugely more people that post in places such as here.

except I've not really gone that far with my comments here tho, have I?

(I might have done once or twice - probably out of the boredom of arguing the fact - but in the main my comments have been along the lines of the "boring" you mention for other opinions expressed here).

Edited November 2, 2010 by beau1

[eFestivals]

As for other poor headliners, Happy Monday's 1990 and Stone Roses at Reading 1996 (?), people talk of those performances about those performances being 'bad' far more than they do about The Cure in 1990 or 1995.

Yep, the Monday's were atrocious.

But I've not said The Cure were bad - just underwhelming, just not worth seeing.

Which funnily enough the Monday's were - there's at least something to talk about from their performance, even if it's all negative.

[ampersand]

I hear he's doing a farewell tour in the summer.

[beau1]

Yep, the Monday's were atrocious.

But I've not said The Cure were bad - just underwhelming, just not worth seeing.

Which funnily enough the Monday's were - there's at least something to talk about from their performance, even if it's all negative.

[eFestivals]

You don't like The Cure, end of discussion.

You are 100% wrong.

I love The Cure. In 1986 I was as big a fan as it's possible to be.

None of that alters the fact that they bored me and my friends - and everyone nearby to us - absolutely senseless. It was as dull as it's possible for any band to be. A dullness they've managed to repeat twice more at Glastonbury ... and very many of their other shows, as the often expressed disappoint of their shows by fans gets to show.

Now, you can say that's just an opinion if you like, but if you're as big a Cure fan as you've suggested thru this thread then you'll surely know that it's a long way from being an isolated opinion. In fact, if I'm remembering rightly, you've already admitted as much in your first posts here.

I've seen thousands and thousands of bands thru the years. There's very few that manage 'dull' as well as The Cure have done on the occasions I've seen them - most manage a spark with their playing (even if they're out of time and out of tune), while the Cure are less interesting live than they are on record.

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[strudders]

Cure did headline 86....Saturday.

Evis questionnaire

There you learn something everyday...

[sifi]

Cure did headline 86....Saturday.

Evis questionnaire

There you learn something everyday...

[eFestivals]

Cure did headline 86....Saturday.

Evis questionnaire

There you learn something everyday...

While I'm not arguing whether they headlined or not that year, it's not something that can be believed cos it's Eavis saying it.....

When I was googling for something Glastonbury the other day - and it was quite possibly for Cure stuff around this thread's discussion - in the snippets of one of the results were words from Eavis, talking to the woman from Shakespears Sister - and telling her "no, you never headlined".

[beau1]

You are 100% wrong.

I love The Cure. In 1986 I was as big a fan as it's possible to be.

None of that alters the fact that they bored me and my friends - and everyone nearby to us - absolutely senseless. It was as dull as it's possible for any band to be. A dullness they've managed to repeat twice more at Glastonbury ... and very many of their other shows, as the often expressed disappoint of their shows by fans gets to show.

Now, you can say that's just an opinion if you like, but if you're as big a Cure fan as you've suggested thru this thread then you'll surely know that it's a long way from being an isolated opinion. In fact, if I'm remembering rightly, you've already admitted as much in your first posts here.

I've seen thousands and thousands of bands thru the years. There's very few that manage 'dull' as well as The Cure have done on the occasions I've seen them - most manage a spark with their playing (even if they're out of time and out of tune), while the Cure are less interesting live than they are on record.

[eFestivals]

Fair enough, I should have said you don't like The Cure live.

I wouldn't go as far as that even (for the past anyway - not sure I'd bother now). I put myself thru it three times, after all.

It's just that afterwards on each occasion I knew I might as well not have bothered.

Have you seen them outside of a festival atmosphere by the way?

nope.

Its not isolated opinion, of course not but its not a fact like you seemed to be stating earlier on in the thread. The Cure were regarded as one of the best live bands throughout the late 80s and early 90s, regardless of how their Glasto performances stacked up. They have been pretty on and off, i'll give you that but when they are good, they are very good.

Whether they were 'dull' or not, they still got booked twice more to headline which suggests they in fact weren't all that dull.

I'd say you're confusing popularity with something else.

Kings of Leon have headlined everywhere constantly for about three years now, and it's not held them back either.

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[beau1]

I wouldn't go as far as that even (for the past anyway - not sure I'd bother now). I put myself thru it three times, after all.

It's just that afterwards on each occasion I knew I might as well not have bothered.

nope.

I'd say you're confusing popularity with something else.

Kings of Leon have headlined everywhere constantly for about three years now, and it's not held them back either.