I do not feel qualified to comment objectively on the music (better than rap) but I was surprised at the lack of "special effects". Some balls and few weak lasers was all I saw.
Coldplay (often described as boring!) started with fireworks, had a fantastic laser display (units positioned all around the field) and finally projected stuff on the big sloping sides of the stage.
Ok special effects is not everything but I thought more had been promised.
That surprised me as well but they let the music do the talking and it was certainly heard!! I thought they nailed it... pyro and fancy lights are nice to enhance a performance but they're no substitute for great music. Maybe if Coldplay spent less time thinking about the visual element of their shows and more time writing songs, they would be a better band? (And I say that as someone who once LOVED Coldplay, but I think they've lost their way on the last couple of albums)
I second this! I think 'tallica and Arcade Fire have made for the best Friday and Saturday headliners for a good while. No current British band could top what either of them have done.
Used to like them but have they done anything really good in recent years? Or did they become all arty and too clever for most people to enjoy??
Well, In Rainbows was one of the best albums they've ever made. The King of Limbs not so much, but they are still one of the most popular bands in the world, are still making interesting music and have an exceptional assortment of songs from their back-catalogue that would go down very well at Glastonbury.
That surprised me as well but they let the music do the talking and it was certainly heard!! I thought they nailed it... pyro and fancy lights are nice to enhance a performance but they're no substitute for great music. Maybe if Coldplay spent less time thinking about the visual element of their shows and more time writing songs, they would be a better band? (And I say that as someone who once LOVED Coldplay, but I think they've lost their way on the last couple of albums)
agreed the music was explosive enough without any additional gimmicks. It sounded amazing on my new LG 5.1 system too. Thankfully I live in a detached house
Who ever said there was controversy over Metallica headlining Glastonbury anyway? My impression is that it was something made up by the media to give people something to argue about.
Well, In Rainbows was one of the best albums they've ever made. The King of Limbs not so much, but they are still one of the most popular bands in the world, are still making interesting music and have an exceptional assortment of songs from their back-catalogue that would go down very well at Glastonbury.
In Rainbows is brilliant, but I think people are quick to dismiss it as one their best because the album seemed so effortless. King Of Limbs felt unfinished, they should have spent another six months with that album and really fleshed it out.
I know they're not British but I'd personally put Tv On The Radio up near the likes of Radiohead. If they were bigger I'd say put them as headliners, or better yet get Portishead back and put them on the Pyramid rather than The Other Stage like last year.
I thought Metallica were brilliant. I don't know if there is a metal or rock band that could top them. I'm sure the Iron Maiden fans are going to suggest them but for me I think it would have to be AC/DC. I don't know if they are up for it.
I only like Radioheads 'The Bends' album. Such difficult music to get into to be honest.
The one thing that annoys me is that critically Thom Yorke and Radiohead are lyrical geniuses, yet when Coldplay write obscure stuff (A Rush of Blood, Viva La Vida) they don't get the same recognition, yet if Radiohead had wrote those particular albums they would be 5 star rated etc etc.
That surprised me as well but they let the music do the talking and it was certainly heard!! I thought they nailed it... pyro and fancy lights are nice to enhance a performance but they're no substitute for great music. Maybe if Coldplay spent less time thinking about the visual element of their shows and more time writing songs, they would be a better band? (And I say that as someone who once LOVED Coldplay, but I think they've lost their way on the last couple of albums)
Coldplay's latest album is actually very , very good IMHO. The previous one was a little hit and miss though, I agree .
Who ever said there was controversy over Metallica headlining Glastonbury anyway? My impression is that it was something made up by the media to give people something to argue about.
I know, everyone I know was excited about them headlining They seriously kicked ass, Fade to Black was just amazing. Probably one of their best live performances in recent years.
Used to like them but have they done anything really good in recent years? Or did they become all arty and too clever for most people to enjoy??
I noticed on Spotify that Creep is massively ahead for plays than anything else Radiohead have ever done. It seems for a lot of people in the world, they're still "that Creep band".
[3] Its about time Glastonbury had Rock and Metal headlining! It's a far bigger genre than many people recognise - some of the lead up coverage has been embarrassing, trying to make out that Metal fans are a rare breed. Very patronising.
Yup, you'd hope that at least one of the BBC presenters mentioning Metallica have sold 120 million records would make everyone think a bit.
1] the comments about a lack of pyro and effects - just perhaps, they didn't need it?? Maybe when a band goes OTT with all of that, its covering up the songs....Metallica just basically plugged in and played their socks off.
2] I do quite like Kasabian but if I was them, I would phone in sick today, they have no chance of topping the Metallica performance.
3] Its about time Glastonbury had Rock and Metal headlining! It's a far bigger genre than many people recognise - some of the lead up coverage has been embarrassing, trying to make out that Metal fans are a rare breed. Very patronising.
4] Despite the fact that no-one would have bought a ticket knowing Metallica would headline, the place was packed and there was plenty of noise coming back and lyrics being sung - which surely proves that more people like them than the press realised?
5] They completely justified their status - they are the biggest of the three headliners by far. Anyone who moaned about them topping the bill needs to get a life sorted out and go and attend a festival where they can sit happily in their slippers and cardigans.
6] Only gripe - it's 'Glaston-bree' James, not 'Glaston-berry'!!
I completely agree with you on all points, particularly number 2.
I don't mind Kasabian, but they must've been watching last night with their heads in their hands, shitting themselves.
That photo has been the main piece of evidence on social media and all over the place as a reason to get Metallica dropped from the festival and the people behind the campaign clearly just made it up...and of course those who didn't want them to play were more than happy to sell the lie to get their own way too.
Having watched Metallica on Saturday evening and read through the comments on here I thought I'd add my thoughts.
1. Metallica delivered a "safe" set perfectly tailored to their audience.
2. As usual they delivered!
3. Pyro - The lack of pyro, certainly during One, was surprising!
4. Whiskey In The Jar - Metallica have always done a cover version during their set from a band that has influenced them. I've heard them do covers by Anti-Nowhere League, Diamond Head, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, Queen etc.
5. Diamond Head - Lars has always decribed them as a major influence in his decision to form the band after seeing them live.
6. Roll on this weekend and Sonisphere!!!
2] I do quite like Kasabian but if I was them, I would phone in sick today, they have no chance of topping the Metallica performance.
6] Only gripe - it's 'Glaston-bree' James, not 'Glaston-berry'!!
I'm no fan of Kasabian, but I thought they quite comfortably eclipsed Metallica.
Not once, ever, in my entire life, have I heard anybody call it Glaston-bree.
3] Its about time Glastonbury had Rock and Metal headlining! It's a far bigger genre than many people recognise - some of the lead up coverage has been embarrassing, trying to make out that Metal fans are a rare breed. Very patronising.
4] Despite the fact that no-one would have bought a ticket knowing Metallica would headline, the place was packed and there was plenty of noise coming back and lyrics being sung - which surely proves that more people like them than the press realised?
They probably also overlook the fact that many metal fans like a whole lot of stuff other than metal (so a bunch of them may have been at Glastonbury either way), or that a bunch of fans who are not hardcore metal do like some metal and this might include Metallica.
Maybe if Coldplay spent less time thinking about the visual element of their shows and more time writing songs, they would be a better band? (And I say that as someone who once LOVED Coldplay, but I think they've lost their way on the last couple of albums)
That's because they've run out of Catherine Wheel tracks to copy, water down and play through a wet dishcloth.
Notts TV has just reported that officially, Jake Bugg actually had a bigger crowd watching him than Metallica, so that he was really the headliner on Saturday. Not a joke but based on the most accurate estimates possible, apparently.
Notts TV has just reported that officially, Jake Bugg actually had a bigger crowd watching him than Metallica, so that he was really the headliner on Saturday. Not a joke but based on the most accurate estimates possible, apparently.
Admittedly, I wasn't there - but I find that a little hard to believe, purely on the basis of the relative size of the arenas of the two stages.
Comments
That surprised me as well but they let the music do the talking and it was certainly heard!! I thought they nailed it... pyro and fancy lights are nice to enhance a performance but they're no substitute for great music. Maybe if Coldplay spent less time thinking about the visual element of their shows and more time writing songs, they would be a better band? (And I say that as someone who once LOVED Coldplay, but I think they've lost their way on the last couple of albums)
Iron Maiden? Black Sabbath?
Well, In Rainbows was one of the best albums they've ever made. The King of Limbs not so much, but they are still one of the most popular bands in the world, are still making interesting music and have an exceptional assortment of songs from their back-catalogue that would go down very well at Glastonbury.
agreed the music was explosive enough without any additional gimmicks. It sounded amazing on my new LG 5.1 system too.
In Rainbows is brilliant, but I think people are quick to dismiss it as one their best because the album seemed so effortless. King Of Limbs felt unfinished, they should have spent another six months with that album and really fleshed it out.
I know they're not British but I'd personally put Tv On The Radio up near the likes of Radiohead. If they were bigger I'd say put them as headliners, or better yet get Portishead back and put them on the Pyramid rather than The Other Stage like last year.
The one thing that annoys me is that critically Thom Yorke and Radiohead are lyrical geniuses, yet when Coldplay write obscure stuff (A Rush of Blood, Viva La Vida) they don't get the same recognition, yet if Radiohead had wrote those particular albums they would be 5 star rated etc etc.
Coldplay's latest album is actually very , very good IMHO. The previous one was a little hit and miss though, I agree .
I know, everyone I know was excited about them headlining
That's his 'gimmick'. A boring one as well
I noticed on Spotify that Creep is massively ahead for plays than anything else Radiohead have ever done. It seems for a lot of people in the world, they're still "that Creep band".
Yup, you'd hope that at least one of the BBC presenters mentioning Metallica have sold 120 million records would make everyone think a bit.
I completely agree with you on all points, particularly number 2.
I don't mind Kasabian, but they must've been watching last night with their heads in their hands, shitting themselves.
It's great to see some people actually realising why metal is so popular - I've always thought you understand it best in a live setting.
That photo has been the main piece of evidence on social media and all over the place as a reason to get Metallica dropped from the festival and the people behind the campaign clearly just made it up...and of course those who didn't want them to play were more than happy to sell the lie to get their own way too.
Too bad.
1. Metallica delivered a "safe" set perfectly tailored to their audience.
2. As usual they delivered!
3. Pyro - The lack of pyro, certainly during One, was surprising!
4. Whiskey In The Jar - Metallica have always done a cover version during their set from a band that has influenced them. I've heard them do covers by Anti-Nowhere League, Diamond Head, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, Queen etc.
5. Diamond Head - Lars has always decribed them as a major influence in his decision to form the band after seeing them live.
6. Roll on this weekend and Sonisphere!!!
I'm no fan of Kasabian, but I thought they quite comfortably eclipsed Metallica.
Not once, ever, in my entire life, have I heard anybody call it Glaston-bree.
They probably also overlook the fact that many metal fans like a whole lot of stuff other than metal (so a bunch of them may have been at Glastonbury either way), or that a bunch of fans who are not hardcore metal do like some metal and this might include Metallica.
I enjoyed Basement Jaxx a few years back. Not really my type of music but they had two or three that I knew and a good stage show.
Yes, can't bear anything after OK Computer.
Muse have done similar but not as drastic so i've kept with them.
Notts TV has just reported that officially, Jake Bugg actually had a bigger crowd watching him than Metallica, so that he was really the headliner on Saturday. Not a joke but based on the most accurate estimates possible, apparently.
How funny! Everybody I know has always said Glastonbree, just as we say Banbree, Aylesbree, Newbree etc. Perhaps it's a local accent thing.
Admittedly, I wasn't there - but I find that a little hard to believe, purely on the basis of the relative size of the arenas of the two stages.