Originally Posted by Olls~:
“I gave up after the first minute and went to bed
They sounded awful.”
“I gave up after the first minute and went to bed
They sounded awful.”
So did I!
Were Blur that bad at the Brits?
2 of 2
Originally Posted by lumiere:
“I thought they were pretty terrible. And not just Damon Albarn, the band seemed a bit shaky too. Watching it back again, Girls & Boys wasn't that bad (although it wasn't that good either) but Song 2 and Parklife were a mess. It was a bit like watching drunken karaoke which was a shame because I really like Blur. Or at least I really like Damon Albarn. Not so keen on Alex James.”
“I thought they were pretty terrible. And not just Damon Albarn, the band seemed a bit shaky too. Watching it back again, Girls & Boys wasn't that bad (although it wasn't that good either) but Song 2 and Parklife were a mess. It was a bit like watching drunken karaoke which was a shame because I really like Blur. Or at least I really like Damon Albarn. Not so keen on Alex James.”
I wanted to marry Alex as a teenager lol and Damon would have been my bit on the side.
I did not see the Brits. I was such a huge Blur fan in the 90's, they took up the best part of my youth!!
I am not going to bother watching the performance I will just remember them live from the 90's (when they were 5hit hot) and listen to their records.
Originally Posted by Dirty Rooster:
“They were terrible.
It looked to me as if they thought they were above rehearsing, didn't bother, tried winging it and failed horribly.
Get orf my rubbish awards show!”
“They were terrible.
It looked to me as if they thought they were above rehearsing, didn't bother, tried winging it and failed horribly.
Get orf my rubbish awards show!”
My take on it also, they looked like they hadn't rehearsed since their last set of reunion gigs years ago.
I do agree that the lack of a standing section at the Brits doesn't help the atmosphere, but that affects all artists.
I didn't think they were that bad. I enjoyed their performance.
Blur like many other good bands have never been about pitch perfect singing.
It's more about the songs, the energy, and how it works overall.
I also think that nowadays there is a trend to celebrate perfect vocals in perfect tune. That is not what I believe Blur were ever all about, nor why so many people liked them in the first place.
Having said that to me it sounded like the mikes were too low, and yes they did appear to have been under rehearsed. I also felt that the sound didn't sound beefy enough as though the way that the equipment was set up was more at fault. Could have sounded a bit more bassy.
But there was nothing that made me think that they were bad. I kind of expected what I got.
Girls and Boys
Song no. 2
Parklife.
Did anyone truly expect those particular songs to be delivered with Adele-like quality vocals? Or did anybody truly think they were supposed to be?
It depends on what you like, but just taking the songs alone I think they were better than anything else I watched on that Brits show.
Were they under par? They possibly were, but I think it was really meant to be about a celebration of them.
From what I was reading yesterday it was made to sound as though they could barely play their instruments. I personally enjoyed their spot.
Blur like many other good bands have never been about pitch perfect singing.
It's more about the songs, the energy, and how it works overall.
I also think that nowadays there is a trend to celebrate perfect vocals in perfect tune. That is not what I believe Blur were ever all about, nor why so many people liked them in the first place.
Having said that to me it sounded like the mikes were too low, and yes they did appear to have been under rehearsed. I also felt that the sound didn't sound beefy enough as though the way that the equipment was set up was more at fault. Could have sounded a bit more bassy.
But there was nothing that made me think that they were bad. I kind of expected what I got.
Girls and Boys
Song no. 2
Parklife.
Did anyone truly expect those particular songs to be delivered with Adele-like quality vocals? Or did anybody truly think they were supposed to be?
It depends on what you like, but just taking the songs alone I think they were better than anything else I watched on that Brits show.
Were they under par? They possibly were, but I think it was really meant to be about a celebration of them.
From what I was reading yesterday it was made to sound as though they could barely play their instruments. I personally enjoyed their spot.
To be honest every time a Rock / Indie band have been on at the Brits its been poor. The setup just doesn't really cater for that sort of music well at all. As other have commented the mix wasn't quite right either.
I do agree it was an under par performance too and Albarns voice was iffier than normal.
I do agree it was an under par performance too and Albarns voice was iffier than normal.
2 of 2
