PDA

View Full Version : Please oh Please don't bring Radiohead back



faxman75
09-27-2007, 09:21 AM
Please. A very dreary band. Yawn. I would almost rather see Weezer. Almost.

dontfeedthebird
09-27-2007, 09:34 AM
worst thread ever.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
09-27-2007, 09:35 AM
wait...weezer over Radiohead? man...I don't even know what to say...

algunz
09-27-2007, 09:52 AM
I kind of agree with ya, Fax. I love Radiohead, but I've seen them a few times now and there are so many other bands that I'd like to see.

tklint24
09-27-2007, 11:36 AM
NO, forget that, PLEASE BRING RADIOHEAD. They are arguably the greatest band ever.

algunz
09-27-2007, 11:40 AM
arguably

invisiblerobots
09-27-2007, 11:53 AM
Radiohead saved music.

Boourns
09-27-2007, 12:07 PM
Radiohead > all
-June issue of Scientific Proof Magazine

Seeing Radiohead and Portishead on the same stage would be the greatest event in history.

captncrzy
09-27-2007, 01:17 PM
Meh

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 01:29 PM
You know, actually... Radiohead might have saved music. Shit sucked in 2000 except for Kid A.

algunz
09-27-2007, 01:45 PM
You forgot about Bon Jovi's Crush.

summerkid
09-27-2007, 01:50 PM
You know, actually... Radiohead might have saved music. Shit sucked in 2000 except for Kid A.

This is true looking back only Stankonia and The Moon and Antarctica and the Sigur Ros album are the only ones worth a damn.

edit: De Stijl too.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 02:01 PM
Plus OK Computer came out at a pretty shitty time too, didn't it? I don't even really remember. Either way, I'd give them a 25 percent credit for good music returning after that dark period just after grunge fell.

faxman75
09-27-2007, 02:15 PM
NO, forget that, PLEASE BRING RADIOHEAD. They are arguably the greatest band ever.


Music is subjective therefor Poison is arguably the best band ever. To me, Radiohead is arguably the worst band ever. I mean, don't you want a band that really fucking rocks to close the show? York or whatever the fuck his name is whines alot in his songs.

Tylerdurden31
09-27-2007, 02:16 PM
This is true looking back only Stankonia and The Moon and Antarctica and the Sigur Ros album are the only ones worth a damn.

edit: De Stijl too.

I would like to add White Pony to that list

Tylerdurden31
09-27-2007, 02:17 PM
Music is subjective therefor Poison is arguably the best band ever. To me, Radiohead is arguably the worst band ever. I mean, don't you want a band that really fucking rocks to close the show? York or whatever the fuck his name is whines alot in his songs.

not necessarily....I sure as fuck wouldn't want Poison or KISS closing the show.

Rage closed...plus fuck...Coachella's not about "rocking"

faxman75
09-27-2007, 02:17 PM
Radiohead > all
-June issue of Scientific Proof Magazine

Seeing Radiohead and Portishead on the same stage would be the greatest event in history.


Or not. I would rather see Wilco, Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers a reunited Pink Floyd, Daft Punk replay their 2006 performance, Bush reunited ok, you get the point, just about everyone. Lets see, Neko Case, Jenny Lewis, Uncle Tupelo reunion, hmm the Flaming Lips even.

faxman75
09-27-2007, 02:21 PM
not necessarily....I sure as fuck wouldn't want Poison or KISS closing the show.

Rage closed...plus fuck...Coachella's not about "rocking"

Again, it's different for everyone. I think Coachella is all about rockin'. To me it's 3 days of rock. Apparently you think Poison and Kiss rock. However, I don't. Not in 2007 at least. That may have been cool at coachella 1987 though. So i don't understand why you assume rockin' means two washed up hair metal bands.

To me, rockin' is the latest White Stripes. I fuckin' rock out to that shit. Rage was a good headliner, so was Tool. I"m not a huge fan of either but they were much better headliners than the damn Chili Peppers.

luckyface
09-27-2007, 02:25 PM
There was lots of great stuff that was released in the late 90's/early 2000's. It just might not have been totally mainstream. To think that Radiohead saved music is a joke. Music was fine before and will be fine after Radiohead.

With that said, OKC and Kid A are both fantastic albums. Let's just not get ridiculous here.

Tylerdurden31
09-27-2007, 02:28 PM
Again, it's different for everyone. I think Coachella is all about rockin'. To me it's 3 days of rock. Apparently you think Poison and Kiss rock. However, I don't. Not in 2007 at least. That may have been cool at coachella 1987 though. So i don't understand why you assume rockin' means two washed up hair metal bands.

To me, rockin' is the latest White Stripes. I fuckin' rock out to that shit. Rage was a good headliner, so was Tool. I"m not a huge fan of either but they were much better headliners than the damn Chili Peppers.

I was completely going overboard with KISS and Poison...but you mentioned Poison first.

While The White Stripes, Rage and Tool do rock, Radiohead has been known to rock every now and then.

Bud Luster
09-27-2007, 02:32 PM
I really dislike Radiohead. Dreary and whiney to say the least. I really would like to have them on the bill though. I loved 04 when they were booked alongside The Pixies. The rest of the Polo Fields were virtually abandoned during thier sets. I got to see all of the acts I wanted to see up close and personal and well as uncrowded. Namely Boozoo Bajou. Fucking great imo...

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 02:42 PM
I would like to add White Pony to that list

White Pony is when I stopped being a Deftones fan. God I miss the Adrenaline days. Those shows were fucking insane. I've never seen a pit go as shithouse as when Engine No. 9 came on. To this day that song makes me want to do the most violent things in the world.

PassiveTheory
09-27-2007, 02:51 PM
Eh, I would see Radiohead if there wasn't anything good opposite them on the Main Stage, and given the penchant for Coachella organizers to not put any other act of value up against them (seriously, I haven't heard anyone talk about any band who was opposite Radiohead's set that year, whatsoever), I would be reduced to seeing them...

The only reason I would see Radiohead is if the organizers wanted to put them before Portishead on the mainstage. It's either sunset or end of the night for Portishead, as far as I'm concerned, and if Radiohead bumps them out of either spot, I would be incensed...

The problem with having Radiohead as the headliner is that it would make the festival all about THEM for ANOTHER year, instead of other quality bands like Portishead or My Bloody Valentine. And in terms of bands mentioned in this thread? I would SO see Wilco before Radiohead, you couldn't get me faster to the stage opposite Radiohead if you tried...

summerkid
09-27-2007, 02:59 PM
Eh, I would see Radiohead if there wasn't anything good opposite them on the Main Stage, and given the penchant for Coachella organizers to not put any other act of value up against them (seriously, I haven't heard anyone talk about any band who was opposite Radiohead's set that year, whatsoever), I would be reduced to seeing them...


Living Legends, MSI, Da Lata, and Mark Farina were your choices if you didn't want to watch Radiohead in 2004. You don't have to see them if you really don't want to in 2006 i walked away from Tool and went back to my tent. Fact is though Radiohead headlining Coachella would be great for the festival whether you like them or not. I really hope Coachella can get them we shall see.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 03:07 PM
Oh Christ, who cares whether or not you don't like Radiohead? It's not like they're fucking Limp Bizkit or something and you'd have real justification to be like, "FUCK this band, fuck them in their ass! I can't believe all these assholes are making this shit popular!" They're at least trying to make interesting music, with melodies and moods and content, whether or not you like the sound. And as a live act they're good enough people to give their fans a real show--at least two hours (usually more like 2.5 to 3 from what I hear), great light show, etc. They've influenced a lot of the great bands of today whether or not you like them themselves. So who gives a fuck?

summerkid
09-27-2007, 03:11 PM
Oh Christ, who cares whether or not you don't like Radiohead? It's not like they're fucking Limp Bizkit or something and you'd have real justification to be like, "FUCK this band, fuck them in their ass! I can't believe all these assholes are making this shit popular!" They're at least trying to make interesting music, with melodies and moods and content, whether or not you like the sound. And as a live act they're good enough people to give their fans a real show--at least two hours (usually more like 2.5 to 3 from what I hear), great light show, etc. They've influenced a lot of the great bands of today whether or not you like them themselves. So who gives a fuck?

seriously, this is not a band you get upset about if they were to headline Coachella just go see someone else. For god's sake its fucking Radiohead i can't believe we are having this argument on here.

Ill_Eagle
09-27-2007, 03:30 PM
Where the fuck is ThomThom when you need him?

SecretAgentX-9
09-27-2007, 04:32 PM
weezer circa 1996 > Radiohead

other than that, NO

betao
09-27-2007, 04:34 PM
Where the fuck is ThomThom when you need him?

he read the title of this thread and then went on a spree of mass murder.

he'll probably be here tomorrow.

PassiveTheory
09-27-2007, 04:35 PM
seriously, this is not a band you get upset about if they were to headline Coachella just go see someone else. For god's sake its fucking Radiohead i can't believe we are having this argument on here.

Again, the problem being that GV showed that they aren't willing to put anyone worth validation against Radiohead. If MSI is the only act out of the ones that were put up against Radiohead that I can even remotely recognize, then that shows that once Radiohead's on the bill the whole fucking festival becomes about nothing BUT Radiohead, and that's just intolerable. They're good, they're more sufferable as a headliner than Rage (even though I like Rage more), but they don't deserve that kind of distinction.

Hell, even Rage had Infected Mushroom and the Lemonheads opposite them, but god forbid anyone put any act of value against Radiohead...

GRANTED, if GV wanted to make me suffer through to see Portishead, I would have to see Radiohead... Damnit.

betao
09-27-2007, 04:39 PM
Plus OK Computer came out at a pretty shitty time too, didn't it? I don't even really remember. Either way, I'd give them a 25 percent credit for good music returning after that dark period just after grunge fell.

I'm going to have to disagree, mainly because it all depends on what you're into. OK Comp came out in 1997 - other albums of the year include Prodigy's legendary "Fat of the Land", Chemical Brothers' "Dig Your Own Hole", The Crystal Method's "Vegas", more less known is Primal Scream's "Vanishing Point". In my opinion, it was a great time for music.

Then again, its all about opinion.

betao
09-27-2007, 04:46 PM
Again, the problem being that GV showed that they aren't willing to put anyone worth validation against Radiohead.

GV had to do that because a majority of the fans that were at the festival wanted to see Radiohead, and THEN a few other bands. If you put someone who is fairly well known against a big name, theres more chance of a fan having a conflict than if you were to put someone completely unknown against a big name. GV had to do it that way to please the majority of fans. Sorry if you weren't one of them.

An example of bad scheduling is like Virgin Fest this year - headliners were The Police and Smashing Pumpkins. Alot of people came to see the Police and a few other bands, one of them being Modest Mouse. But they put Modest Mouse on the same time as the Police, and fans were pissed as hell. Same for day 2 - they put Smashing Pumpkins and 311 against each other, 2 bands that alot of fans wanted to see. People were pissed because they paid alot of money to see both bands, not have to choose between them. Thats why you put a completely unknown band against a headliner.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm going to have to disagree, mainly because it all depends on what you're into. OK Comp came out in 1997 - other albums of the year include Prodigy's legendary "Fat of the Land", Chemical Brothers' "Dig Your Own Hole", The Crystal Method's "Vegas", more less known is Primal Scream's "Vanishing Point". In my opinion, it was a great time for music.

Then again, its all about opinion.

Right, well I meant music where people play instruments.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 05:06 PM
And I'd be amazed if Radiohead was a bigger focus in 2004 than Rage was this year. Only evidence I can think of being the ticket sales. But GV scheduled some decent shit against them. Also wasn't Kraftwerk playing at almost the same time as Radiohead? Also who gives a fuck? Maybe it was a fluke.

disgustipated
09-27-2007, 05:11 PM
Thats why you put a completely unknown band against a headliner.

Wrong. You put bands like 311 against SP to cut down on the number of people at each stage. If you were to continually put no-name bands against larger acts you would have all 60,000 people at the same stages all day.

Conflicts are a good thing, sometimes.

amyzzz
09-27-2007, 05:16 PM
Radiohead '08.

betao
09-27-2007, 05:24 PM
Wrong. You put bands like 311 against SP to cut down on the number of people at each stage. If you were to continually put no-name bands against larger acts you would have all 60,000 people at the same stages all day.

Conflicts are a good thing, sometimes.

yes sometimes, but just about everyone I met at V-fest was pissed at fairly big names playing at the same time (especially SP vs 311). Some people would rather see both bands in a large crowd than have to choose between them. Its a rough debate, because either way you do it you have downsides.

betao
09-27-2007, 05:26 PM
And I'd be amazed if Radiohead was a bigger focus in 2004 than Rage was this year. Only evidence I can think of being the ticket sales. But GV scheduled some decent shit against them. Also wasn't Kraftwerk playing at almost the same time as Radiohead? Also who gives a fuck? Maybe it was a fluke.

kraftwerk played right after them from what I heard.

only ACL could pull some stupid poo like kraftwerk vs radiohead.

invisiblerobots
09-27-2007, 05:28 PM
And I'd be amazed if Radiohead was a bigger focus in 2004 than Rage was this year. Only evidence I can think of being the ticket sales. But GV scheduled some decent shit against them. Also wasn't Kraftwerk playing at almost the same time as Radiohead? Also who gives a fuck? Maybe it was a fluke.

Kraftwerk started up after Radiohead. I tried to make my way to the Sahara at that point but it was totally packed. I eventually gave up trying to get in to see them and made my way back to the parking lot. I still hate myself for not trying harder but it had been a very long day.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 05:35 PM
Pumpkins vs. 311 = everybody loses.

Rather, everybody's a loser.

betao
09-27-2007, 05:36 PM
Pumpkins vs. 311 = everybody loses.

Rather, everybody's a loser.

the other option was M.I.A.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 05:42 PM
I tried listening to her album the other day. Ugh. I hope her live show is somehow leaps and bounds better than her album.

betao
09-27-2007, 06:08 PM
I wouldnt know, I have yet to listen to her. I was at v-fest, and I decided to watch SP at the end of the night. They were.. ok I guess. nothing special. I know you hated them though, Randy. I spent most of my time at that fest in the dance tent.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 06:26 PM
All I'm saying is no Zero, three ballads in a row, and no encore = fuck you forever, whatever band you are.

I only went over to the dance tent to find some e. It looked so sad after having seen the Sahara. That entire festival just felt almost depressing to me because I looked at all these kids and was just like, "Wow... they think THIS is a music festival."

betao
09-27-2007, 06:31 PM
well, it was my first music festival experience (im a youngin, yeah), and I had a great time. I live on the east coast, so my music options are limited. Chances are I wont be going to coachella next year, im going to brazil for a couple of weeks in january and my finances are going towards that, plus as a freshman in college money is very valuable to me. But I would love to go to coachella, im sure it would blow V-fest out of the water.

RotationSlimWang
09-27-2007, 06:46 PM
Oh dude, do what you have to. Coach isn't really all that expensive. All you gotta do is find a way to put away like twenty bucks a week until then and you'll have a fucking blast. It DESTROYS Virgin.

Boourns
09-27-2007, 07:15 PM
Jesus Christ. What the fuck is wrong with you freaks? It's like Rap/Rock times ten in here.

betao
09-27-2007, 08:38 PM
Oh dude, do what you have to. Coach isn't really all that expensive. All you gotta do is find a way to put away like twenty bucks a week until then and you'll have a fucking blast. It DESTROYS Virgin.

i'll take your word for it, I was impressed by the acts I saw at V-fest, but I was expecting more from the festival itself. And ending at 10 PM? Not cool, unless it gets dark at like 6.

rage patton
09-27-2007, 08:57 PM
I tried listening to her album the other day. Ugh. I hope her live show is somehow leaps and bounds better than her album.

I really cant fuckin stand M.I.A.

betao
09-27-2007, 11:48 PM
I fucking hate the red hot chili peppers. Most overrated band in music history.

fixed.

crazzz2007
09-28-2007, 12:42 AM
I fucking hate Radiohead. Most overrated band in music history.

you have absolutely no taste in music.

oh, and you might as well kill yourself.

superfiction
09-28-2007, 01:11 AM
fixed.

hahaha

RotationSlimWang
09-28-2007, 03:54 AM
Is it more immature to be a fanboy or an anti-fanboy? Honest question.

It's kinda like that old Zen koan: a gay man sucks cocks; a homophobe is offended by it; who is the bigger ******?

RotationSlimWang
09-28-2007, 04:02 AM
i'll take your word for it, I was impressed by the acts I saw at V-fest, but I was expecting more from the festival itself. And ending at 10 PM? Not cool, unless it gets dark at like 6.

Oh god, the 10 PM thing SUCKED. Especially because the one drug I had enough of was acid and acid doesn't really work that well until the sun goes down, so I got to do what I consider actually enjoying a concert basically only during Modest Mouse (who I'd never really listened to) and Interpol plus four Velvet Revolver songs. Then Smashing Billy Corgan's Pumpkin Fucking Head went and blew the right of my night.

But dude, if you remember the excuse for a lightshow going on behind Smashing Pumpkins, look up some footage of RHCP at Coach this year. It's practically the same thing, except RHCP's big board of red, white, and blue lights was at least 5 times as large. SP's was what, maybe 30 feet wide and 20 feet tall tops? RHCP's spanned the entire width and height of the back of the stage AND the fucking ceiling. I can't even be sure what the dimensions of the main stage are, but I would have to guess that that light board was 60 or 70 feet wide and close to a 100 feet tall, not even counting the fucking ceiling. Only thing that kept me interested in their set.

Shit like that is why you gotta go to Coachella at all costs.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
09-28-2007, 06:13 AM
Radiohead > all
-June issue of Scientific Proof Magazine

Seeing Radiohead and Portishead on the same stage would be the greatest event in history.

Word....followed by Aphex Twin....

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
09-28-2007, 06:18 AM
Oh Christ, who cares whether or not you don't like Radiohead? It's not like they're fucking Limp Bizkit or something and you'd have real justification to be like, "FUCK this band, fuck them in their ass! I can't believe all these assholes are making this shit popular!" They're at least trying to make interesting music, with melodies and moods and content, whether or not you like the sound. And as a live act they're good enough people to give their fans a real show--at least two hours (usually more like 2.5 to 3 from what I hear), great light show, etc. They've influenced a lot of the great bands of today whether or not you like them themselves. So who gives a fuck?

Right in so many ways....thank you sir....

brando4n82
09-28-2007, 06:25 AM
I would like to add White Pony to that list

Fo Sheezy. Even though they dont belong at Coachella, Im down

brando4n82
09-28-2007, 06:27 AM
I tried listening to her album the other day. Ugh. I hope her live show is somehow leaps and bounds better than her album.

From what ive seen on youtube, her live show doesnt look soi hot, but i Love her new album, it fucking ROCKS!

betao
09-28-2007, 01:26 PM
Oh god, the 10 PM thing SUCKED. Especially because the one drug I had enough of was acid and acid doesn't really work that well until the sun goes down, so I got to do what I consider actually enjoying a concert basically only during Modest Mouse (who I'd never really listened to) and Interpol plus four Velvet Revolver songs. Then Smashing Billy Corgan's Pumpkin Fucking Head went and blew the right of my night.

But dude, if you remember the excuse for a lightshow going on behind Smashing Pumpkins, look up some footage of RHCP at Coach this year. It's practically the same thing, except RHCP's big board of red, white, and blue lights was at least 5 times as large. SP's was what, maybe 30 feet wide and 20 feet tall tops? RHCP's spanned the entire width and height of the back of the stage AND the fucking ceiling. I can't even be sure what the dimensions of the main stage are, but I would have to guess that that light board was 60 or 70 feet wide and close to a 100 feet tall, not even counting the fucking ceiling. Only thing that kept me interested in their set.

Shit like that is why you gotta go to Coachella at all costs.

Yeah, the 10 PM thing was rough. I dont do drugs, so I cant really relate to the acid problem you had, but seriously, music is more fun at night in the dark. You've got me seriously debating coachella, but i'd have to save money to fly, maybe get a hotel or camp (whichever would be cheapest, i dont have any real camping equipment), and all of the money im saving right now is going towards a trip to brazil in january. I guess most of it will depend on how much money I save. we'll see.

faxman75
09-28-2007, 04:34 PM
you have absolutely no taste in music.

oh, and you might as well kill yourself.


You do the same.

Thank you for your time.

RotationSlimWang
09-28-2007, 05:19 PM
Yeah, the 10 PM thing was rough. I dont do drugs, so I cant really relate to the acid problem you had, but seriously, music is more fun at night in the dark. You've got me seriously debating coachella, but i'd have to save money to fly, maybe get a hotel or camp (whichever would be cheapest, i dont have any real camping equipment), and all of the money im saving right now is going towards a trip to brazil in january. I guess most of it will depend on how much money I save. we'll see.

hahaha, I can't believe I'm selling you on coming to Coachella when you hang out on the Coachella board. You see how crazy we all are. But look, if you don't do drugs and you keep an eye out for deals on flights and you find someone from LA who wants to go or maybe from the board specifically (seems like an obvious choice). There's plenty of people who had to camp alone this year--I'm sure you can find one to maybe pick you up from the airport to split the costs of a bigger tent and gas. Camp living is pretty cheap. Don't buy any merchandise and the trip cannot possibly cost that much. Somebody that doesn't deal drugs to pay for the trip or spend money on drugs there give the kid an estimate. But it can't be more than 500 bucks if you play it tight and search for flights well. If you can't squirrel away 400-500 bucks by almost May, Brazil aside, well, fuck. Work an extra shift for ten weeks at the most and you're there.

betao
09-28-2007, 06:19 PM
Hah I wouldnt call it selling me to coachella, the one thing that will sell me more than anything is the lineup, and the decision to go to coachella will be made once I see the line up. The only thing that will make me go without a doubt would probably Boards of Canada playing, but thats just as likely to happen as say the Smiths getting back together. It's hard for me to save money too, because I dont really have a job. My parents wont let me work my first semester of college, want me to focus on school first and foremost (and I cant really argue, they are paying a majority of my tuition). But we'll see what happens in October (my bday is the 21st), and then we have Christmas, and my family knows im going to Brazil, and they know that the only thing I want/need is money. So maybe I can save some that way. And if I did do coachella, yeah i'd play it tight as hell.

mimi3000
09-28-2007, 10:45 PM
I kind of agree with ya, Fax. I love Radiohead, but I've seen them a few times now and there are so many other bands that I'd like to see.
So I'VE never seen Radiohead live...while I'm watching Radiohead, you can go see some other band you'd like see, more room for me ;]

Amneeziac
09-28-2007, 11:13 PM
Radiohead will be headlining Coachella 2008. If you aren't happy with this, do not attend. Believe me when I say that you will not be missed.

mimi3000
09-28-2007, 11:25 PM
Radiohead will be headlining Coachella 2008. If you aren't happy with this, do not attend. Believe me when I say that you will not be missed.

Werd. yo!

arya.
09-29-2007, 12:29 AM
wow.

r u retarded?! lol. Radiohead would OWN coachella.

captncrzy
09-30-2007, 04:24 PM
Radiohead will be headlining Coachella 2008. If you aren't happy with this, do not attend. Believe me when I say that you will not be missed.

Last time I checked, Coachella isn't called "The Radiohead Festival".

Not that anyone here would give a shit if you missed them or not.


Just sayin..

Amneeziac
10-02-2007, 08:49 PM
Last time I checked, Coachella isn't called "The Radiohead Festival".

Not that anyone here would give a shit if you missed them or not.


Just sayin..

When did I say Coachella was called "The Radiohead Festival" ? I want them there, so instead of saying "Radiohead might be headlining Coachella 2008," I just cut out the "might" because it's not as fun to say.

Nor did I ever claim that anybody would care if I missed them, if in fact they played. What is it that you get out of putting words into other peoples' mouths and then insulting them for no apparent reason?

Just wonderin.

captncrzy
10-03-2007, 08:18 AM
When did I say Coachella was called "The Radiohead Festival" ? I want them there, so instead of saying "Radiohead might be headlining Coachella 2008," I just cut out the "might" because it's not as fun to say.

Nor did I ever claim that anybody would care if I missed them, if in fact they played. What is it that you get out of putting words into other peoples' mouths and then insulting them for no apparent reason?

Just wonderin.


Do you not know how to read your own fucking post? I believe you said,


"Radiohead will be headlining Coachella 2008. If you aren't happy with this, do not attend. Believe me when I say that you will not be missed"

So if we're not happy about Radiohead, we shouldn't attend, and that you wouldn't miss us. What exactly am I getting wrong here, Sherlock?

Brent
10-07-2007, 01:59 PM
I'm sorry. WEEN? Over Radiohead? Jesus. I just...I just don't even...[brain malfunction]...efwhfbwmyji

futureperfect
10-08-2007, 12:32 AM
Radiohead should do their own tour, forget coachella, and not do anything ever off the horrible two albums after Kid A.
I was a fan and even met them back when Pablo Honey came out, saw them with R.E.M in 95 and 3 times after that but they have not been exciting for awhile.
Id be more impressed if Thom Yorke played in a tent and did his solo record now thats more interesting

amyzzz
10-09-2007, 12:43 PM
I'd like to see Thom Yorke solo too, but word is, he won't tour for his solo stuff.

ThomThom
10-09-2007, 01:06 PM
Passive, seriously, enough with the fucking "I will only see Radiohead if they open for_____" horse shit, they will NOT open for anybody at a major music festival. I mean seriously man come on already!

ThomThom
10-09-2007, 01:10 PM
he read the title of this thread and then went on a spree of mass murder.

he'll probably be here tomorrow.

You know me all too well Betao, that's exactly what I was doing...A little rat poison here, a little Anthrax there. Knowhatimsayin?

betao
10-09-2007, 01:48 PM
Oh indeed I do. You ready for tomorrow?

ThomThom
10-09-2007, 02:26 PM
Oh indeed I do. You ready for tomorrow?

I have been waiting nearly five years for tomorrow, I haven't had a good nights sleep for a week because of tomorrow, in other words...You bet your fucking ass I am ready for tomorrow!

betao
10-09-2007, 04:23 PM
haha yeah yea nice. I'm ready for tomorrow too. I'm not planning on alot of sleep tonight.

amyzzz
10-09-2007, 05:04 PM
I'll probably forget about Radiohead until I get on the board tomorrow. And then I'll pester my husband to figure out how to d/l it.

PassiveTheory
10-11-2007, 05:56 PM
Passive, seriously, enough with the fucking "I will only see Radiohead if they open for_____" horse shit, they will NOT open for anybody at a major music festival. I mean seriously man come on already!

Oh ho, so basically, if Pink Floyd were to reunite, Radiohead would get top billing over them? Talking Heads? R.E.M.? Please... And it's not like major bands haven't had other bands play after them (i.e. Black Star after Nine Inch Nails in 04', Tiesto after RHCP in 07', etc.) at the festival. Why is Radiohead exempt from that rule, because Thom Yorke is some sort of sanctimonious religious figure? fuck no.

With the advent of In Rainbows, I can't help but wholeheartedly wish that Radiohead isn't headlining Coachella this year, for the reason that capncrazy brought up; it isn't the fucking Radiohead Festival, and no, unlike what Randy will tell you, the festival WON'T lose credibility if Thom Yorke's massive fucking ego bows out of getting ONLY an hour and a half to play...

RotationSlimWang
10-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Excuse me, but where in the hell do you get off saying that Thom Yorke has a massive ego? The man is about as mild-mannered and not an asshole rock star as anyone has ever been when that huge a success.

Have shitty taste if you want, but saying Thom has a huge ego is absurd. The man barely has any self-esteem to begin with.

crazzz2007
10-11-2007, 06:27 PM
Oh ho, so basically, if Pink Floyd were to reunite, Radiohead would get top billing over them? Talking Heads? R.E.M.? Please... And it's not like major bands haven't had other bands play after them (i.e. Black Star after Nine Inch Nails in 04', Tiesto after RHCP in 07', etc.) at the festival. Why is Radiohead exempt from that rule, because Thom Yorke is some sort of sanctimonious religious figure? fuck no.


Black Star did not have top billing over NIN. Tiesto did not have top billing over RHCP. The fact that a band goes on after another band does not mean anything at Coachella. Radiohead will NEVER be a non headliner at any show, EVER.

Somewhat Damaged
10-11-2007, 06:58 PM
Oh ho, so basically, if Pink Floyd were to reunite, Radiohead would get top billing over them? Talking Heads? R.E.M.? Please... And it's not like major bands haven't had other bands play after them (i.e. Black Star after Nine Inch Nails in 04', Tiesto after RHCP in 07', etc.) at the festival. Why is Radiohead exempt from that rule, because Thom Yorke is some sort of sanctimonious religious figure? fuck no.

Of course Radiohead wouldn't get top billing over those bands (although they definitely would warrant top billing over R.E.M.). The reason for that would be because no sane promoter would schedule Radiohead and groups like Pink Floyd or Talking Heads on the same day. Why blow your wad scheduling two headliners in one day when you can space them out over two? You've been making some really stupid arguments lately; perhaps you should focus more on your studies than this board.

Just sayin'.

PassiveTheory
10-11-2007, 07:50 PM
Black Star did not have top billing over NIN. Tiesto did not have top billing over RHCP. The fact that a band goes on after another band does not mean anything at Coachella. Radiohead will NEVER be a non headliner at any show, EVER.

I was making two separate points, that was my second one. I didn't say that Black Star and Tiesto were billed higher than their respective headliners, I said (which is fact) that they played afterwards. Opening does not constitute headlining, because technically RHCP opened for Tiesto and NIN likewise for Black Star, especially in the sense that I was pushing my original argument (that I would only sit through Radiohead if someone I wanted to see was playing AFTER them) which was ALSO taken in erroneous context.

But ThomThom's fucking blatantly oblivious point suggests that no one could ever headline over Radiohead, which isn't true. There are bands (which I mentioned) which could headline over Radiohead (but for the same reasons that Somewhat said, wouldn't).

As for Thom Yorke's ego? I know I've read on this board reports that he favors Bonnaroo over Coachella due to getting a 3 hour time slot there, thus basically putting down Coachella for trying to be diverse and not be "the fucking Radiohead show"... Also, with another album out, a Radiohead headline act would mean an even more extensive show for Yorke and crew, taking away time from bands I want to fucking see. And I've already brought up the fact that if Radiohead were to headline Coachella again, it's not like GV would think to put any fucking worthwhile acts against them (MSI and a bunch of nameless acts in 04' is all I need to say), thus, again, making it "the fucking Radiohead show". It's one thing to be a headliner I'm not thrilled to see, but to make the entire festival evening all about ONE band is fucking idiotic... Hell even Rage had Infected Mushroom and the Lemonheads against them...

orbit
10-11-2007, 09:33 PM
So you want Radiohead playing against Maroon 5?

I'm with you on that.

i_like_cake530
10-11-2007, 09:36 PM
Oh ho, so basically, if Pink Floyd were to reunite, Radiohead would get top billing over them? Talking Heads? R.E.M.? Please... And it's not like major bands haven't had other bands play after them (i.e. Black Star after Nine Inch Nails in 04', Tiesto after RHCP in 07', etc.) at the festival. Why is Radiohead exempt from that rule, because Thom Yorke is some sort of sanctimonious religious figure? fuck no.

If Radiohead is at Coachella, then they will headline. That is a fact. If Pink Floyd, Talking Heads, and R.E.M. all headlined, then Radiohead wouldn't be at Coachella, simple as that.

PassiveTheory
10-11-2007, 09:59 PM
So you want Radiohead playing against Maroon 5?

I'm with you on that.

We're talking Coachella-possible bands, there no fucking way they'd have Maroon 5 at the festival. Not every single band you like is a Coachella possible band either, I'd bet.

ThomThom
10-11-2007, 10:03 PM
I love you too Passive

summerkid
10-11-2007, 10:13 PM
I don't get this "Radiohead show" thing Lee. In 2004 I believe it was every bit as much the "Pixies show" as it was the Radiohead show and the Living Legends aren't some no name group. Now I don't know what the lineup was like at Coachella that year, but Aesop Rock and Murs are in the Living Legends.

PassiveTheory
10-11-2007, 10:18 PM
Granted, Murs and Aesop Rock are awesome. But, comparable-wise, I think Rage had the larger dent in it's possible audience via Lemonheads (fuckin' Evan Dando) and Infected Mushroom, than Radiohead did via MSI and Living Legends...

betao
10-11-2007, 10:23 PM
As for Thom Yorke's ego? I know I've read on this board reports that he favors Bonnaroo over Coachella due to getting a 3 hour time slot there, thus basically putting down Coachella for trying to be diverse and not be "the fucking Radiohead show"... Also, with another album out, a Radiohead headline act would mean an even more extensive show for Yorke and crew, taking away time from bands I want to fucking see. And I've already brought up the fact that if Radiohead were to headline Coachella again, it's not like GV would think to put any fucking worthwhile acts against them (MSI and a bunch of nameless acts in 04' is all I need to say), thus, again, making it "the fucking Radiohead show". It's one thing to be a headliner I'm not thrilled to see, but to make the entire festival evening all about ONE band is fucking idiotic... Hell even Rage had Infected Mushroom and the Lemonheads against them...

Just because a headliner at Bonnaroo has a 3 hour set time doesnt make the festival "all about them". Alot of artists at bonnaroo get 90 minutes sets and average longer than coachella because Bonnaroo is less bands spread out across more stages.

And sorry if you dont like it when "no name bands" play at the same time as the headliner with an extremely large fanbase. Its just the way festival organizers have to do it. They know that for a band like Radiohead, alot of people would want to see them and then some other big name acts. They have to please as many people as they can.



Hell even Rage had Infected Mushroom and the Lemonheads against them...


Alot of people were pissed about that RATM vs IM conflict.

summerkid
10-11-2007, 10:28 PM
Just because a headliner at Bonnaroo has a 3 hour set time doesnt make the festival "all about them". Alot of artists at bonnaroo get 90 minutes sets and average longer than coachella because Bonnaroo is less bands spread out across more stages.


Yeah, The Flaming Lips even got in trouble at the Roo for going on too early so they could get more songs in. The nerve of Wayne Coyne eh? egomaniac. :)

PassiveTheory
10-12-2007, 12:37 AM
Just because a headliner at Bonnaroo has a 3 hour set time doesnt make the festival "all about them". Alot of artists at bonnaroo get 90 minutes sets and average longer than coachella because Bonnaroo is less bands spread out across more stages.

And sorry if you dont like it when "no name bands" play at the same time as the headliner with an extremely large fanbase. Its just the way festival organizers have to do it. They know that for a band like Radiohead, alot of people would want to see them and then some other big name acts. They have to please as many people as they can.



Alot of people were pissed about that RATM vs IM conflict.

No, it doesn't, not in the contest of a festival like Bonnaroo. However, you toss in an extended Radiohead set the likes of which they got at Bonnaroo (which, chances are, they're going to want, regardless of GV's booking format) and you lose an extensive amount of variety.

It's not even that I don't like no name bands going against the headliner... I'd just like the SLIGHTEST BIT of creative alternative to Radiohead to be available!

You also validated my point with that RATM v.s. IM statement. If there was controversy created over IM's timeslot opposite Rage (which I thought sucked myself) then it goes to show that Coachella SHOULD be all about being able to provide the most diverse selection of groups across the board. In fact, GV did a damned good job of providing alternatives to the headliners this year (Gogol opposite Bjork, Blonde Redhead/LCD Soundsystem opposite RHCP, IM opposite RATM) and it would be a shame to see something of that changed because of a band with an "appeal" (more like fanaticism) like Radiohead possesses...

crazzz2007
10-12-2007, 01:33 AM
No, it doesn't, not in the contest of a festival like Bonnaroo. However, you toss in an extended Radiohead set the likes of which they got at Bonnaroo (which, chances are, they're going to want, regardless of GV's booking format) and you lose an extensive amount of variety.

It's not even that I don't like no name bands going against the headliner... I'd just like the SLIGHTEST BIT of creative alternative to Radiohead to be available!

You also validated my point with that RATM v.s. IM statement. If there was controversy created over IM's timeslot opposite Rage (which I thought sucked myself) then it goes to show that Coachella SHOULD be all about being able to provide the most diverse selection of groups across the board. In fact, GV did a damned good job of providing alternatives to the headliners this year (Gogol opposite Bjork, Blonde Redhead/LCD Soundsystem opposite RHCP, IM opposite RATM) and it would be a shame to see something of that changed because of a band with an "appeal" (more like fanaticism) like Radiohead possesses...

what the hell are you talking about?

drugks Gillespie
10-12-2007, 04:28 AM
I don't get this "Radiohead show" thing Lee. In 2004 I believe it was every bit as much the "Pixies show" as it was the Radiohead show and the Living Legends aren't some no name group. Now I don't know what the lineup was like at Coachella that year, but Aesop Rock and Murs are in the Living Legends.
Wrong. Aesop Rock has nothing to do with Living Legends. Different Aesop.Aesop Rock(aka Ace Rizzle) is from Def Jux with the likes of El-P, Mr Lif, RJD2, etc. Peace.

drugks Gillespie
10-12-2007, 04:36 AM
I've seen Radiohead at the hollywood bowl, coors amphitheatre, and coachella. Best live act in the world. Of course this is an opinion but one from someone who believes wholeheartedly in the power of music to transform a persons state of existence. I feel also that I should mention Tool in this respect. These two bands maintain an element of mystery and integrity thats almost entirely unique. Both of these bands have also felt the need to dedicate entire albums to the late Bill Hicks. For me everything has always been conected. sort of a jigsaw falling into place.

orbit
10-12-2007, 07:17 AM
what the hell are you talking about?

I think Passive wants conflicts like Radiohead v Prince, Spiritualized v Portishead, Chemical Brothers v Underworld.


Have you ever considered going to Lolla and ACL, Passive? Looks like those schedules would work for you.

RotationSlimWang
10-12-2007, 07:29 AM
I don't know why I'm bothering, but I'm going to abstain from taking this personally with Passive and just try an exercise in futility by reasoning with him for a moment.

Passive--why are you blaming Radiohead for what you see as Goldenvoice's scheduling failure? Radiohead said they like Bonnaroo better because of the longer set times because part of the reason their fan base is so rabidly loyal is that at their concerts Radiohead ALWAYS plays at least two hours, and 8 out of 10 times at least two and a half if not three (from what I gather--anyone who cares to dispute it please do) or more. The fact that Bonnaroo's extra long set times--which are granted to pretty much every headliner at that festival, even Tool got 2.5 hours though I'm sure they never intended to play particularly more than their standard 1.75--allow Radiohead to put on a show more like their normal shows rather than an abbreviated festival set is hardly a reason to hate them, and much less a reason to call Thom egotistical.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that claim about the man before. Not only is incredibly self-effacing, the man is fucking SCARED of the rest of the world, of people. Watch Meeting People Is Easy and try and tell me that that man is egotistical. If you want to hate their fans for being too narrow-minded (from your perspective), then fine. If you want to hate the music because of those fans, well, that seems silly to me. But don't fucking hate the musicians themselves--particularly for reasons that couldn't be any less true of their characters--just because of the fans.

ThomThom
10-12-2007, 09:12 AM
Randy,

Your talking to the same bag of fat that said he hated Kanye West "as a person" and has never been in the same room with the man. He just wants attention.

brando4n82
10-12-2007, 09:59 AM
Randy,

Your talking to the same bag of fat that said he hated Kanye West "as a person" and has never been in the same room with the man. He just wants attention.

Yes, I know, My name isnt Randy, but I dont think anyone needs to be in the same room as Kanye to figure out that hes weaker than mung.

betao
10-12-2007, 10:16 AM
You also validated my point with that RATM v.s. IM statement. If there was controversy created over IM's timeslot opposite Rage (which I thought sucked myself) then it goes to show that Coachella SHOULD be all about being able to provide the most diverse selection of groups across the board. In fact, GV did a damned good job of providing alternatives to the headliners this year (Gogol opposite Bjork, Blonde Redhead/LCD Soundsystem opposite RHCP, IM opposite RATM) and it would be a shame to see something of that changed because of a band with an "appeal" (more like fanaticism) like Radiohead possesses...

the acts are always diverse along the board. its just a matter of how well known they are. Yeah coachella had LCD vs RHCP, Gogol vs Bjork, and there were alot more people pissed about that stuff than people satisfied because it was a bold move or something. GV has to consider this and cater to the fan majority. It was bad scheduling (especially RATM vs IM) on their part because IM is a fairly well known band. No one wants to chose between than that. More people want a conflict like the headliner (a group that a majority of the people at that festival came to see) and a no name band that they most likely have never heard of. Rage vs IM, in my opinion, is bad scheduling; it may be bold, but bad scheduling like that is why people wouldnt go the next year.

drugks Gillespie
10-12-2007, 03:33 PM
Yes, I know, My name isnt Randy, but I dont think anyone needs to be in the same room as Kanye to figure out that hes weaker than mung.

Kanye is such a little bitch. A decent producer at best. Fuck that guy . Watered down bullshit from a detached celebrity. Conceited. I did really enjoy the "Bush doesn't care about black people" on T.V. That was great and true but his music sux and he's a whinny pussy.

trivium1
10-12-2007, 03:55 PM
Well... I don't know their music enough to stick up for them. They should book The Kidney Thieves.

amyzzz
10-13-2007, 04:23 PM
I will be extremely disappointed and surprised if Radiohead doesn't headline this year.

park-man
10-14-2007, 03:13 PM
fuck weezer, they suck balls. radiohead would be so great.

PassiveTheory
10-14-2007, 03:57 PM
I think Passive wants conflicts like Radiohead v Prince, Spiritualized v Portishead, Chemical Brothers v Underworld.


Have you ever considered going to Lolla and ACL, Passive? Looks like those schedules would work for you.

No, I don't, that's just more banal extremism in terms of booking.

I do think that the potential talent pool for 2008 show will possibly be the largest we've ever had to draw from for the festival (MBV, Portishead, Underworld, Chemical Brothers, etc.) so that's the good thing.

I just want options, that's what I'm saying, and I'm just going by historical evidence that GV didn't book anyone interesting opposite Radiohead in 2004. Sure, given the talent pool possible for 08', chances are that there MIGHT be one good act opposite them, but the problem with not being enamored with the acclaimed "best band in the world" is that they are considered by many to be the best band in the world right now, and thus, GV is going to cater to the band.

Let me put this in bold so you can understand me:

Radiohead headlining in 08 is FAR from the worst thing that could happen.

But again, my issue is options, and the fact is why would GV want to book anyone against Radiohead? Why not just empty out the other stages and have one band playing? Is there a band playing today that is stupid enough to say that they are NOT influenced by Radiohead? That's what I'm frustrated about.

Also, Randy, thanks for abstaining from making it personal. I shouldn't have attacked Thom Yorke's character in the first place.

Amneeziac
10-14-2007, 04:05 PM
Radiohead has earned an extra long set, for sure. Let them start at 9, I don't think anybody would really mind. Just scamper off to the Sahara if you aren't into it.

ArcadeParade
10-14-2007, 08:17 PM
#1 band i want there is radiohead

Gongshow
10-15-2007, 10:51 AM
In Rainbows is really good!!!! Thank God they got back to the old sound. Anyway, I'd be shocked if they didn't headline this year. I will have completed my persoanlly band show trifecta if I see them live. I'll be the one with the blown mind.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
10-15-2007, 10:58 AM
No, I don't, that's just more banal extremism in terms of booking.

I do think that the potential talent pool for 2008 show will possibly be the largest we've ever had to draw from for the festival (MBV, Portishead, Underworld, Chemical Brothers, etc.) so that's the good thing.

I just want options, that's what I'm saying, and I'm just going by historical evidence that GV didn't book anyone interesting opposite Radiohead in 2004. Sure, given the talent pool possible for 08', chances are that there MIGHT be one good act opposite them, but the problem with not being enamored with the acclaimed "best band in the world" is that they are considered by many to be the best band in the world right now, and thus, GV is going to cater to the band.

Let me put this in bold so you can understand me:

Radiohead headlining in 08 is FAR from the worst thing that could happen.

But again, my issue is options, and the fact is why would GV want to book anyone against Radiohead? Why not just empty out the other stages and have one band playing? Is there a band playing today that is stupid enough to say that they are NOT influenced by Radiohead? That's what I'm frustrated about.

Also, Randy, thanks for abstaining from making it personal. I shouldn't have attacked Thom Yorke's character in the first place.

So...please who would you have headline?

Trick Loves The Kids
10-15-2007, 11:14 AM
personally I'd rather have radiohead than most other headlining bands because their fanbase is less obnoxious and i'm gonna be posted the fuck up in the sahara tent anyway

PassiveTheory
10-15-2007, 02:43 PM
So...please who would you have headline?

Eh, well, depends how logical/illogical you want my choices.

If we're talking batshit-crazy near-impossible reunion-esque headliners, easy:

The Smiths for the third night, or, if not them, the Talking Heads for the third night.

Now in terms of feasible headliners?

Night 1: Pearl Jam (w/ The Strokes as a sub-headliner, Moby in the tent)
Night 2: The Cure (w/ MBV as a sub-headliner, Chem Bros in the tent)
Night 3: R.E.M. (w/ Portishead as a sub-headliner [after R.E.M. on the main stage], and Underworld in the tent)

That's what I'd do.

captncrzy
10-16-2007, 07:14 PM
The real question is......








What would Brian Boitano do?

crazzz2007
10-21-2007, 11:17 PM
the acts are always diverse along the board. its just a matter of how well known they are. Yeah coachella had LCD vs RHCP, Gogol vs Bjork, and there were alot more people pissed about that stuff than people satisfied because it was a bold move or something. GV has to consider this and cater to the fan majority. It was bad scheduling (especially RATM vs IM) on their part because IM is a fairly well known band. No one wants to chose between than that. More people want a conflict like the headliner (a group that a majority of the people at that festival came to see) and a no name band that they most likely have never heard of. Rage vs IM, in my opinion, is bad scheduling; it may be bold, but bad scheduling like that is why people wouldnt go the next year.

IM is not a well known band. IM also happens to suck.

drugks Gillespie
10-22-2007, 02:48 AM
No, I don't, that's just more banal extremism in terms of booking.

I do think that the potential talent pool for 2008 show will possibly be the largest we've ever had to draw from for the festival (MBV, Portishead, Underworld, Chemical Brothers, etc.) so that's the good thing.

I just want options, that's what I'm saying, and I'm just going by historical evidence that GV didn't book anyone interesting opposite Radiohead in 2004. Sure, given the talent pool possible for 08', chances are that there MIGHT be one good act opposite them, but the problem with not being enamored with the acclaimed "best band in the world" is that they are considered by many to be the best band in the world right now, and thus, GV is going to cater to the band.

Let me put this in bold so you can understand me:

Radiohead headlining in 08 is FAR from the worst thing that could happen.

But again, my issue is options, and the fact is why would GV want to book anyone against Radiohead? Why not just empty out the other stages and have one band playing? Is there a band playing today that is stupid enough to say that they are NOT influenced by Radiohead? That's what I'm frustrated about.

Also, Randy, thanks for abstaining from making it personal. I shouldn't have attacked Thom Yorke's character in the first place.

Radiohead VS. Atmosphere, Ween, Prodigy, & Whogivesashit = Nice = no conflicts

drugks Gillespie
10-22-2007, 03:31 AM
faxman75= clueless-gay-***. ( no offense to gays, fags, or clueless people.)

Kool-Aid Man
10-22-2007, 03:39 PM
I think Passive wants conflicts like Radiohead v Prince, Spiritualized v Portishead, Chemical Brothers v Underworld.


Have you ever considered going to Lolla and ACL, Passive? Looks like those schedules would work for you.

Yeah, really. ACL would be stupid enough to have The Smiths vs Talking Heads.

As for headliner conflicts, the bands that play against the headliner need to be of different genres (hip hop and nu-metal or whatever MSI is vs Radiohead), so crossover appeal is minimalized (will never go away completely. Having nobody I wanted to see play against Tool and Depeche Mode was nice, but The Chemical Brothers and Spoon and Coldplay was a fucking trainwreck, especially since the first half of the day was a snoozer. Bjork vs Gogol vs DJ Shadow was also painful.

And a lot of people would consider Infected Mushroom and The Lemonheads "noname bands"

Kool-Aid Man
10-22-2007, 03:41 PM
Eh, well, depends how logical/illogical you want my choices.

If we're talking batshit-crazy near-impossible reunion-esque headliners, easy:

The Smiths for the third night, or, if not them, the Talking Heads for the third night.

Now in terms of feasible headliners?

Night 1: Pearl Jam (w/ The Strokes as a sub-headliner, Moby in the tent)
Night 2: The Cure (w/ MBV as a sub-headliner, Chem Bros in the tent)
Night 3: R.E.M. (w/ Portishead as a sub-headliner [after R.E.M. on the main stage], and Underworld in the tent)

That's what I'd do.

The Smiths are more likely to play Coachella than The Cure, considering their Hollywood Bowl gig a few weeks later, get over it. THEY WILL NOT PLAY COACHELLA!

The Strokes and Moby aren't much of a draw nowadays.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
10-22-2007, 03:52 PM
Indeed that Bjork/DJ Shadow/Gogol was very painful, more so for the fact that I couldn't do a make up for DJ Shadow since he passed through Denver when Coachella was on its 3rd day this year...sigh....maybe I will never seen him live....

betao
10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
IM is not a well known band. IM also happens to suck.

IM may not be well known outside of the dance tent, but they are definitely not a completely unknown band.

and I thought they were great when I saw them last august.

MarkO
10-30-2007, 09:35 PM
..............The problem with having Radiohead as the headliner is that it would make the festival all about THEM for ANOTHER year, instead of other quality bands like Portishead or My Bloody Valentine. ........ ...

Outside of a few lunatics on this board, no one gives a fuck about MBV. Seriously. When was the last release, show, anything from these fuckers ??

Portishead have what one ? two ? albums. I have the first one. It's kick ass; I remember listening to it a lot ......................... back in '95 when they were relevant.

mavsbball
11-14-2007, 08:06 PM
how do you figure the Strokes aren't much of a draw?? They put on one of the best live shows and not to mention they are LOUD!! Unlike many new bands today.

ADrunkPoet
11-14-2007, 08:49 PM
No Radiohead = Serious bummer.

The festival will still be great though.

drugks Gillespie
11-21-2007, 07:56 AM
Don't rule Radiohead out just yet. They ARE touring the US in May this is CONFIRMED! Do you really think GV would let them slip through their fingers and tour the US a week later? Yeah fucking right. To all those that didn't want this to happen, SUCK IT. to Psychic Friend, I forgive you for playing with my heart so.

faxman75
11-21-2007, 08:15 AM
We shouldn't rule them out, no bands are confirmed, and you are forgiving PF though you have no confirmation or no idea if they will be there.

Maybe I don't have the emotional turmoil to be a radiohead fan. They seem very umm anxious or something.

PassiveTheory
11-21-2007, 10:02 AM
Outside of a few lunatics on this board, no one gives a fuck about MBV. Seriously. When was the last release, show, anything from these fuckers ??

Portishead have what one ? two ? albums. I have the first one. It's kick ass; I remember listening to it a lot ......................... back in '95 when they were relevant.

All that matters to me is that I never got the chance to see them in their prime, and there will always be Radiohead tours. That and I enjoy their music more than Radiohead's music.

drugks Gillespie
11-21-2007, 11:36 AM
We shouldn't rule them out, no bands are confirmed, and you are forgiving PF though you have no confirmation or no idea if they will be there.

Maybe I don't have the emotional turmoil to be a radiohead fan. They seem very umm anxious or something.

It's kind of like an addiction. I might need a twelve step program or something.
Anxious is an understatement.

pumpkin8880
11-28-2007, 10:52 AM
Wow, you are apparently not musically inclined WHATSOEVER!!!!!! Radiohead is probably one of the most innovative and talented bands of all time. U prolly listen to bands like Creed, and Nickelback. Please do us and the music industry all a favor and kill yourself..... immediatly. I didn't realize that there were people our there that were that musically naive. Don't get me wrong, its ok not to like a band, but at least admit that they are talented, but not your taste. Dumbass

brando4n82
11-28-2007, 10:58 AM
Wow, you are apparently not musically inclined WHATSOEVER!!!!!! Radiohead is probably one of the most innovative and talented bands of all time. U prolly listen to bands like Creed, and Nickelback. Please do us and the music industry all a favor and kill yourself..... immediatly. I didn't realize that there were people our there that were that musically naive. Don't get me wrong, its ok not to like a band, but at least admit that they are talented, but not your taste. Dumbass

So what you really are saying is that everyone should like Radiohead and appreciate them for the same reasons as you do?

I dont know what Fax's deal is, I like Radiohead a lot, but Coachella needs fresh acts, Radiohead played in 2004 so I am hoping they don't come back around til 2009. So I agree with Fax in that sense

bmoon99
11-28-2007, 10:58 AM
What I've been hearing from the industry:

Violent Femmes
Temple of the Dog
Tears for Fears
Talking Heads
and/or
Simple Minds

Also:

Outkast
the Verve
DJ Stretch
White Stripes
Foo Fighters
M.I.A.

J~$$$
11-28-2007, 11:03 AM
Steel workers industry?

suprefan
11-28-2007, 11:09 AM
What I've been hearing from the industry:

Violent Femmes
Temple of the Dog
Tears for Fears
Talking Heads
and/or
Simple Minds

Also:

Outkast
the Verve
DJ Stretch
White Stripes
Foo Fighters
M.I.A.


Industry has 2 right, possibly. One big one wrong.


Foo Fighters in austrailia coachella weekend. sorry, industry SUCKS at calling it.

brando4n82
11-28-2007, 11:13 AM
only one that makes sense, well i guess 2, MIA for sure, and why not, White Stripes..Supre, I'm guessing that big Wrong one is Tears for Fears, unless you were just referring to the Foo fighters

suprefan
11-28-2007, 11:20 AM
just foos, I am going with MIA for sure, the other one is a tossup. Stripes or The Verve

PassiveTheory
11-28-2007, 01:16 PM
Wow, you are apparently not musically inclined WHATSOEVER!!!!!! Radiohead is probably one of the most innovative and talented bands of all time. U prolly listen to bands like Creed, and Nickelback. Please do us and the music industry all a favor and kill yourself..... immediatly. I didn't realize that there were people our there that were that musically naive. Don't get me wrong, its ok not to like a band, but at least admit that they are talented, but not your taste. Dumbass

I hate you, go die in a fucking forest fire.

Mr.Nipples
11-28-2007, 01:28 PM
Steel workers industry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzxMZ786E2w&feature=related

F00FIGHTER20
11-28-2007, 02:45 PM
how do you figure the Strokes aren't much of a draw?? They put on one of the best live shows and not to mention they are LOUD!! Unlike many new bands today.


I SECOND THIS.....not to mention they usually sell out all of their shows...when they were touring....granted they don't play stadiums......living in NY i've been able to see them quite a few times......it never gets old.....very loud, very powerful....

drugks Gillespie
11-28-2007, 02:46 PM
I have one question for those of you who don't want Radiohead at Coachella. It is my belief that you have probably never seen them. Am I right?

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
11-28-2007, 03:41 PM
What I've been hearing from the industry:

Violent Femmes
Temple of the Dog
Tears for Fears
Talking Heads
and/or
Simple Minds

Also:

Outkast
the Verve
DJ Stretch
White Stripes
Foo Fighters
M.I.A.

the only feasible ones here are MIA, WS and The Verve

mvanwinkle
11-28-2007, 03:47 PM
I have one question for those of you who don't want Radiohead at Coachella. It is my belief that you have probably never seen them. Am I right?

It's not really that people do not want readiohead it is just they have realized that they will not be there this year so they have attempted to drop it already.

amyzzz
11-28-2007, 03:51 PM
We don't have to drop it until end of January. :thu

mvanwinkle
11-28-2007, 03:53 PM
ya I know amy, but life would be so much more simple.

suprefan
11-28-2007, 04:16 PM
I have one question for those of you who don't want Radiohead at Coachella. It is my belief that you have probably never seen them. Am I right?

I have seen them 11 times, I just dont think its the right ''time'' for it to happen. Also its too soon. Coachella 2009 please.



And how many times have you seen them?

daft$tar
11-28-2007, 04:25 PM
i didnt read this thread cuz i know its on big headache - but i agree - dont bring radiohead

tks

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
11-28-2007, 05:04 PM
We don't have to drop it until end of January. :thu

Damn Skippy!

drugks Gillespie
11-28-2007, 11:12 PM
I have seen them 11 times, I just dont think its the right ''time'' for it to happen. Also its too soon. Coachella 2009 please.



And how many times have you seen them?

3 shows all post Kid A.

cazzopazzo
11-28-2007, 11:20 PM
worst post ever. agreed.

Amneeziac
11-28-2007, 11:40 PM
I was just reading over this thread and it seems that all of the people who WANT Radiohead at Coachella want you to "kill yourself immediately" or "you're an IDIOT" if you don't want them there because "they r like the most innovative and best band EVER."

The fact that there are Radiohead fans this stupid and hostile is extremely troubling to me. This and this alone makes me NOT want RH for 08.

That being said, peace, love, and Radiohead at Coachella 2008! :D

gojilla
11-28-2007, 11:59 PM
if it weren't for a lil band like radiohead, folks like animal collective wouldn't exist, and we'd have more backstreet boys. of which, isn't backstreet a euphemism? regardless, it'd be cool to see radiohead again. the only other name i'd like to see more is aren't you so curious to know. that's the name. aren't you so curious to know. one of the dopiest ones i've seen yet. emule the latest self-titled. you can't regret.

bmoon99
11-29-2007, 08:48 AM
This is what I'm hearing from the industry:

Supergrass
Tears for Fears
Violent Femmes
Talking Heads
Temple of the Dog
The Verve
Birdy Nam Nam

Also notable:

Stone Roses
Spoon
M.I.A.
Oasis
Louis XIV
Ben Harper
The Bravery
Jamiroquai
White Stripes

childfacsimile
11-29-2007, 12:18 PM
Coachella is a big event. You don't have to watch them play. Go see some DJ in one of the tents.

childfacsimile
11-29-2007, 12:27 PM
We shouldn't rule them out, no bands are confirmed, and you are forgiving PF though you have no confirmation or no idea if they will be there.

Maybe I don't have the emotional turmoil to be a radiohead fan. They seem very umm anxious or something.

First and foremost, I fully respect your decision to not like Radiohead. I don't think they are for everyone. But it's comments like "they seem anxious or something" and "yorke is so whiney" that make me think you haven't spent any actual time listening to their music. I don't mean listen to it once and if it isn't one of those catchy little songs that is easily digestible then you never listen again. I personally want something more than just wallpaper music that you can ignore. I'm not trying to convince you to love them....it'll only make you hate them more. I'm just professing my frustration at everyone who insists on calling it "music to slit your wrists to". How unoriginal.

Blackvelvet
11-29-2007, 01:04 PM
This is what I'm hearing from the industry:

Supergrass
Tears for Fears
Violent Femmes
Talking Heads
Temple of the Dog
The Verve
Birdy Nam Nam

Also notable:

Stone Roses
Spoon
M.I.A.
Oasis
Louis XIV
Ben Harper
The Bravery
Jamiroquai
White Stripes

Interesting, where did you hear this?

F00FIGHTER20
11-29-2007, 01:18 PM
Temple of the Dog......they made one album...if anything, it would be Pearl Jam w/special guest Chris Cornell......still i don't think that would ever happen.

anonimouse
11-29-2007, 05:58 PM
I would rather see Bush reunited ok, you get the point,

wow i just threw up

rage patton
11-29-2007, 07:53 PM
holy hell is the thread ever full of noobs...

Listen everyone. Not to crush your dreams... but these people who have "insider info" and are posting posibilities, don't trust them. Unless they have a legitimate source to back it up, it is most likely nothing more then speculation.

The only people you can trust are here when it comes to bands confirmed/confirmed NOT to be there are Psychic Friend and The Daft Radiohead Punk. Or even better... just wait till the line up is released. Till then, take everything with a grain of salt.

That is all.

suprefan
11-29-2007, 08:47 PM
This is what I'm hearing from the industry:

Supergrass
Tears for Fears
Violent Femmes
Talking Heads
Temple of the Dog
The Verve
Birdy Nam Nam

Also notable:

Stone Roses
Spoon
M.I.A.
Oasis
Louis XIV
Ben Harper
The Bravery
Jamiroquai
White Stripes


You are sure quick to change names on your lists of things huh? After people prove your theories wrong and everything, you changed it up, so after seeing Foo Fighters out of the picture you just filled it in.




Interesting, where did you hear this?

This person is just yanking your chain.





THE ''INDUSTRY'' KNOWS NOTHING, GET OVER IT

elChurro
12-04-2007, 11:29 AM
Please. A very dreary band. Yawn. I would almost rather see Weezer. Almost.

is this reverse psychology?... yea goldenvoice, you better not bring them radioheads back!?!

familyguy420
12-09-2007, 04:13 PM
Radiohead > all
-June issue of Scientific Proof Magazine

Seeing Radiohead and Portishead on the same stage would be the greatest event in history.

i full heartily agree:)

familyguy420
12-09-2007, 04:16 PM
is this reverse psychology?... yea goldenvoice, you better not bring them radioheads back!?!

hah hah hah thats funny, must be :yyablo

futureperfect
12-10-2007, 08:00 PM
Seeing Portishead would be great i saw them once and it was mind blowing. Radiohead not so much any more i came and saw them in 93 in small club had a blast hanging with some drunk brits. then in 95 with R.E.M then even on the OK Computer tour they were great after Kid A they just became boring and being a real fan is being critical they just arent the icing on the cake for everyone and i would much rather see something cool like bringing back a band like MBV that influenced Radiohead or Trying to get the Stone Roses or something other than that. For those that missed Radiohead in their heyday which was the Bends-OK Computer then im sorry. If you have never seen them and want to see them one time then may you have an out of body experience dont think that will happen here again. But knock yourself out. All the criticism and hate either way is just boring. Lets have a "bands more interesting and not have Radiohead to define Coachella thread"

peace

chucky canuck
12-26-2007, 08:52 PM
This is what I'm hearing from the industry:

Supergrass
Tears for Fears
Violent Femmes
Talking Heads
Temple of the Dog
The Verve
Birdy Nam Nam

Also notable:

Stone Roses
Spoon
M.I.A.
Oasis
Louis XIV
Ben Harper
The Bravery
Jamiroquai
White Stripes


Wow! What a bunch of (mostly) tired old bands.

Don't turn Coachella into an oldies show

ghettojournalist
12-29-2007, 12:22 AM
since it's known that Radiohead will tour the U.S. in the spring, if they tour in your respective town on a day coinciding with a Coachella day, then what will you do?

TickleMeElmo
12-29-2007, 02:01 AM
Well, chances are if they AREN'T playing Coachella, their tour would probably start afterwards.

ghettojournalist
12-29-2007, 02:06 AM
Well, chances are if they AREN'T playing Coachella, their tour would probably start afterwards.

if they tour the U.S. only in May, then sure.
they are touring overseas in June and beginning of July, so any other U.S. dates would have to be in April or May at least.

chucky canuck
12-29-2007, 04:27 PM
Well, chances are if they AREN'T playing Coachella, their tour would probably start afterwards.


Rumour (and it 's only a rumour at this point) is that RH may play the Sasquatch festival.

If so, I'll be heading to WA instead of CA.

Botrocker
12-29-2007, 04:38 PM
good

ShyGuy75
12-29-2007, 05:08 PM
A little birdy just told me that Radiohead is playing Coachella.

Everyone just calm down now.

rage patton
12-29-2007, 05:14 PM
Rumour (and it 's only a rumour at this point) is that RH may play the Sasquatch festival.

If so, I'll be heading to WA instead of CA.

We have been talking about this for months here. I think if Radiohead don't play Coachella, and I don't think they will, the Radiohead will be at Sasquatch.

I will be going to both either way.

thepriceofgas
01-14-2008, 10:17 PM
Dreary? Fuck that! They made more music after "Creep" ya know.
Fuck's sake...

hippiesarah
01-14-2008, 10:32 PM
Radiohead fits coachella better then you can fit in your pants.