#641

I was there too, and went to watch Doves headline the New Bands stage halfway through - so can’t have been fully in to it. Was very keen to see Doves though.

1 Like
#642

Th drummer pissed me off to be honest. Overplayed and was more prominent in the songs than he needed to be.

#643

I was there and it was magic, it was just being put under Bowie’s spell. The man had charisma like I’ve never seen. He was telling great little stories between songs and had everyone eating out of his hand.

It was only when I listened to the live album I found it really empty, which has dulled one of my best Glasto experiences :confused:

I’m afraid of Americans is great though, so :stuck_out_tongue:

#644

It was very showbiz, and he was ill so… yeah, not his best show. The ‘Station… ‘ cuts are fab though. I saw him 4 years earlier at Phoenix and he was extraordinary. Very much an unusual set, with only about a third of it obvious bangers. Loads of album tracks and covers. More like a grunge-y, art-punk affair.

2 Likes
#645

I’ve been telling people that Bowie was a bit shit at Glastonbury for 20 years, it’s such a relief to find other people saying the same. By this reckoning, the Springsteen backlash is pencilled in for 2029, can’t wait.

1 Like
#646

Erm, excuse me but I thought the broad opinion on Springsteen was that he bored the piss out of everybody (I mean what else do you expect from him lol)? Well before my Glastonbury-going time but I’ve definitely had loads of conversations with randoms who’ve talked it down. I distinctly remember before The Rolling Stones came on and the anticipation was palpable there was a guy cracking on saying it was like this before Springsteen and the enthusiasm just fizzed away. Then this year my friend’s dad was weighing up whether to go to The Cure saying maybe they’ll be good but They’re at risk of going Springsteen and playing a long set list for the fans and boring everybody else.

#647

Oh, well if that’s the case then that’s fine. The people I was with bloody loved him, then I got back and everyone I spoke to said he looked great on the telly, so I’ve always assumed he was generally considered a success. My main memory is of standing in drizzle listening to a song a bout a man called Outlaw Pete that went on for approximately three hours, then by the time he got round to the hits he was too knackered to sing them.

1 Like
#648

My memory of it is being at my mates house, playing Pokémon Platinum in her room, hearing her dad loudly drunkenly singing along and necking a big bag of cans of Tetley’s in the living room below. Happy days.

3 Likes
#649

How was that Cure set received? I loved it but I’ve been a Cure fan for a very long time now.
The people around us didn’t seem to be having as much fun as we were.

1 Like
#650

I can only speak for our group but it seemed pretty universally loved. I was at the front on my own and I’d class it as probly the best Glastonbury show I’ve seen and I’m a big fan. The rest of the group were at the back. Most of them know the hits but weren’t massively bothered, and actually weren’t planning on seeing them at all but we were all so fucked by the Sunday that nobody could be arsed leaving their spot at the Pyramid all afternoon. I know at least 4 of them actively didn’t want to see them because they’d seem them at Reading or Bestival and were bored by it. All of them who saw that Glastonbury show were blown away, and said the crowd back there were all really into it, when often you get people at the back of Pyramid headliners getting smashed and paying no attention no matter how good it is.

2 Likes
#651

I watched it on telly and it looked fantastic, one of the few sets I really wish I’d been there for in the almost 10 years since I last went. Not even a Cure fan, there was just something about it.

4 Likes
#652

Good to hear :slight_smile:

#653

Can imagine the Springsteen set was tough going for a festival crowd who were not big fans, there’s a fairly long hitless section in the first half of the set

sketch-1593430048394
sketch-1593430048394714×1399 88.9 KB

Don’t think they’d really done many (any?) festivals before then, and didn’t do anything to adjust the set to make it more general-audience-friendly.

3 Likes
#654

The set list was a mess and it wasn’t his finest hour tbh. Saw him a couple of years later and he was fantastic

1 Like
#655

Think he was ill on the day as well which meant his vocals were a bit off. Even as a relatively big fan that highlighted section at the end of a festival day would have me struggling a bit.

#656

It’s a shame a lot of larger US artists don’t quite ‘get’ Glastonbury and how to tailor their setlist towards it. I watched Janet Jackson last year and it was basically a set of deep cuts when it could’ve been a brilliant reminder of how great she is.

#657

It divided our group a little bit, with a few lesser fans saying it was a bit long, no audience engagement at all and weighted to bigger fans in the middle. I personally thought it was unbelievable and a few of the more casual Cure fans agreed that they’d been fully immersed in it. I took this to be a victory for the Cure on points.

1 Like
#658

Beyonce started with Crazy in Love and Single Ladies, got the crowd on board straightaway, never lost them. Jay Z did the same with the Wonderwall thing going straight into 99 Problems. Both were so good, exemplary headlining tactics

3 Likes
#659

Honestly, the atmosphere at that Beyoncé set went up about 100% in the first minute, and barely came down at all (even if I thought the middle was a bit flat).

Jay Z wasn’t a great set I don’t think, although it was all about the EVENT, and he got the whole Glastonbury thing in a way a lot of headliners don’t.

On Springsteen, I was there, wasn’t a big fan of his. Loved it even if it was 30 mins too long.

Stones were dull for my money. Loads of tunes but they didn’t really get it, although Jagger says he loved it.

#660

yip, really like springsteen but his set took a long time to get going.