Coachella 2005

coldplay a headliner over bauhaus is so much worse than radiohead headlining over the pixies…the difference is that coldplay completely blows and at least radiohead is a decent act. i'm definitely not going this year although there are a handful of bands i'd really like to see. i'm just hoping that bauhaus and mercury rev do a full us tour in addition to the coachella gig.

whoever said it earlier is exactly right…i've seen arcade fire, secret machines, fiery furnaces, etc., on their recent stops in dc and guaranteed they'll be coming back. not going to spend $500+ this year to see them play a 30 minute set in the hot desert.

bummer day tho. i was hoping for a much better line-up.

Read BookerT's post.

In my high school, the rednecks who favored "nostalgia" music from the 70's like Zeppelin, etc. called people who listened to alternative music "faggots." Now, people are complaining that that which was once progressive is now "nostalgia."

it's not quite that. i love new order plenty, i listen to PC&L all the time, but that record came out over 20 years ago. i'd argue that these "progressive" bands exist presently more as money-making vehicles more than artistic endeavors. frank black admitted as much with the whole pixies thing. that's not to say that the pixies didn't put on a great show or that new order isn't capable of doing the same.

or maybe i did just mean what rhett said, he's never wrong.

All bands exist as money making endeavors. Even the crappy ones I listen to who don't make much money.

Originally posted by BookerT:

Read BookerT's post.

In my high school, the rednecks who favored "nostalgia" music from the 70's like Zeppelin, etc. called people who listened to alternative music "faggots." Now, people are complaining that that which was once progressive is now "nostalgia."

it's not quite that. i love new order plenty, i listen to PC&L all the time, but that record came out over 20 years ago. i'd argue that these "progressive" bands exist presently more as money-making vehicles more than artistic endeavors. frank black admitted as much with the whole pixies thing. that's not to say that the pixies didn't put on a great show or that new order isn't capable of doing the same.

or maybe i did just mean what rhett said, he's never wrong.

All bands exist as money making endeavors.

no shit. my point is that i'd rather see a band that's currently making its best music than a band that made good music 20 years ago.

who would you rather see in 2005, bobby bare jr. or, say, roger mcguinn?

You are right. I am just playing devils advocate. I actually agree with you on this one. I'd rather see the more relevant artists. As I said, I just think it's ironic that the musical trailblazers are now "nostalgia."

Originally posted by BookerT:

All bands exist as money making endeavors.

no shit. my point is that i'd rather see a band that's currently making its best music than a band that made good music 20 years ago.

who would you rather see in 2005, bobby bare jr. or, say, roger mcguinn?

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
All bands exist as money making endeavors. Even the crappy ones I listen to who don't make much money.

you really pride yourself on liking bands that no one else likes and dont make any money

why is that?

I was just joking.

95% of the bands I go see are at either Iota, Black Cat, or 9:30 Club, and are by nationally touring acts with records deals and radio exposure.

Doesn't mean they are as popular as Radiohead, but in the grand scheme of things, given how many bands there are out there, I think the bands I like are relatively popular.

Originally posted by sonickteam2:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
All bands exist as money making endeavors. Even the crappy ones I listen to who don't make much money.

you really pride yourself on liking bands that no one else likes and dont make any money

why is that?

Originally posted by BookerT:
who would you rather see in 2005, bobby bare jr. or, say, roger mcguinn?

come again?

Perhaps a more clearly defined example would be"Who would you rather see in 2005, Bobby Bare Jr or Bobby Bare Sr?"

Originally posted by Celeste:

Originally posted by BookerT:
who would you rather see in 2005, bobby bare jr. or, say, roger mcguinn?

come again?

I'm rather surprised that Queens of the Stone Age and Interpol aren't playing this year. I wonder if there's a chance they still still add a few names on.

Originally posted by bunnyman:
I'm rather surprised that Queens of the Stone Age and Interpol aren't playing this year. I wonder if there's a chance they still still add a few names on.

franz ferdinand too.

i told my girlfriend. she wants to go, but all the stuff we want to see is in the evening so we wouldn't have to worry about the heat if we went this year.
we want to see coldplay, new order and bauhaus as far as the bigger bands go. if they end up having their own shows (even if they are on the west coast) around that time i really feel like it'd be better to go to those than to go to coachella.

Given how many people I know going to Coachella and given how well-organized a festival it is, I am actually looking forward to just being there. I bet that neither night will sell out this year either. I don't think enough people will want to travel again this year and most of the folks that go will be West Coast since it's less of a big deal to travel. I think it's a great line-up, but you would be SHOCKED at how many people still haven't heard of Coachella (of course, those people probably would never travel to a festival across the country either). I personally hope that fewer people show up…that will mean easier to park and easier to get out when the show's over!

tegan and sara? wtf? that's just wrong! WRONG!

I'd go if it were on the east coast. The line-up does excite me as a whole like last year's.

Originally posted by lily1:
tegan and sara? wtf? that's just wrong! WRONG!

isnt it? and Thrice? not cool. in fact there are several question marks on that lineup.

But Bigyawn said they were one of the best of 2004!

Originally posted by lily1:
tegan and sara? wtf? that's just wrong! WRONG!

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
But Bigyawn said they were one of the best of 2004!

bigyawn didnt really mean that. Bigyawn is just in its early stages of life. sooner or later it will have enough courage to try and be a LITTLE different from all the other online magazine type sites…..that Tegan and Sara is like a modern Indigo Girls…

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
But Bigyawn said they were one of the best of 2004!

Hey, give us some credit - at least we didn't include garbage like the latest Old 97's record.

I bet if Tegan and Sara had Indigo Girls haircuts, they'd be nowhere in the indie press.

Originally posted by sonickteam2:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
But Bigyawn said they were one of the best of 2004!

bigyawn didnt really mean that. Bigyawn is just in its early stages of life. sooner or later it will have enough courage to try and be a LITTLE different from all the other online magazine type sites…..that Tegan and Sara is like a modern Indigo Girls…