In a lame attempt for legitimacy, Shaun Ponsonby writes a supposedly mandatory article about Glastonbury, and looks at the major differences between two of 2017’s headliners.
Well, I guess I should talk about Glastonbury, shouldn’t I?
I have to, you see. We’re a music/arts site, after all, so talking about Glastonbury is mandatory this week. We need to desperately attempt to shoehorn references in everywhere we can in some vain, half arsed attempt to feel legitimised, despite the fact that most of our readers don’t give anywhere near as much of a shit as we assume they do.
The contrast between the self-appointed “serious” music press and the more mainstream publications in regards to the headliners is fascinating, and I don’t know if I side with any of them.
Obviously, the mainstream publications are too chicken shit to say anything remotely critical about anyone for fear that they won’t get as many press passes to the festival. They’re all bigging up Ed Sheeran because his management told them to, despite the fact that he is a mediocre talent at best.
In reading comments around this year’s Glastonbury, I discovered something I never knew; some people really hate Foo Fighters, and I don’t know why.
I mean, I know they’re not the greatest band in the world, but they’re not the worst either. They’re hardly a band worth hating. I basically see them as a post-grunge power pop band. Cheap Trick by way of Pearl Jam, even if they’re not as good as Cheap Trick or Pearl Jam.
They have no masterpieces, but I never get the feeling that they’re trying to make a masterpiece. Why does everything have to be a masterpiece? They’re corny and shamelessly crowd pleasing. So what? Why do people pretend to be above stadium schtick?
I can fathom Foo hatred as little as I can fathom pure Foo devotion. The appeal of Foo Fighters appears to be enthusiasm. They look like they’re having a blast on stage, it’s infectious if you’re not too stuck up yourself to let yourself fall into it. They may never have made a great album, but they’re always fun to watch. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Fun on stage, a good Greatest Hits album…nothing to despise.
I’d take it over Radiohead – a band eulogised as Gods by most quarters of the good taste arbiters. So ridiculously are Radiohead overrated by the music press that it always comes across as hype, something the band themselves strike me as being uncomfortable with.
First of all, let me say I have nothing against Radiohead. Radiohead do what Radiohead do. I do, however, find them boring to listen to and even more boring to watch. It is true that if we were all a little more like Thom Yorke, there would be no more wars, but that is only because none of us would be charismatic enough to convince people to go to war. I can’t even imagine the tedium of watching them from the back of a field.
And that’s the contrast between these two headliners; Thom Yorke and Radiohead belong to the critics, Dave Grohl and Foo Fighters belong to the people. That is why Thom Yorke’s Wikipedia entry has a section labelled “Artistry”, but Dave Grohl’s doesn’t. It is why Foo Fighters have no problem saying they like decidedly uncool bands, as opposed to Radiohead who famously proclaimed “We all HATE progressive rock music“, despite releasing several albums that are clearly inspired by prog rock in some regard.
Neither are going to convert any new fans at Glastonbury, which might render this whole article pointless.
But then most of the Glastonbury articles are pointless. But at least Cosmic Slop made it’s lazy attempt for legitimacy. We pretty much know what’s going to happen step by step over the whole weekend anyway, right down to Eavis labeling it the best Glastonbury ever. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, is it Foo Fighters fans?
Anyhow, Cheap Trick are better than both of them.
“Oasis are reuniting at Glastonbury” rumours are rife again. Give it up, it’s not going to happen, and it would be shit if it did.
Huw Edwards’ News at 10 Broadcast began with around four minutes of silence the other night due to a “technical difficulty“, as Edwards stared longingly into the camera lens. It seemed more like a commentary on how the country is feeling, to be honest.
How wrong is it to criticise the quality of something that was done for charity?