trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I agree Laz. And I think it won't have any impact on ticket sales since most of the Coachella tickets are already sold. It would get them in front of a young crowd without the intense pressure of Glastonbury.
I'll talk about U2 as often and as in-depth as you like.
I think that it would be a smart move to place them in a festival environment like that. I am assuming that being with Live Nation means fresh, less antiquated thinking and thus things like Coachella would be more in play. Putting them in front of people that potentially might not like them, or even really know their music, cannot hurt them in any meaningful way that I can think of.
I agree Laz. And I think it won't have any impact on ticket sales since most of the Coachella tickets are already sold. It would get them in front of a young crowd without the intense pressure of Glastonbury.
The only other problem I could think of it that there are usually two headliners each night that overlap with set times. It's possible they might not want to risk competing with a potential big draw like OutKast or whoever and wind up with a smaller crowd.
It'd be a great move from a buzz standpoint, and as this will be my first Coachella I'd be all aboard, but since they're exclusively with Live Nation in the US it's pretty unlikely Goldenvoice would be allowed to book them.
A thought I had re: Coachella this week had to do with the Grammys being bumped to January and Daft Punk actually performing. The typical Coachella lineup announce could coincide with their performance and a tour announcement. A dude can dream.
but what would coblr do if U2 and Outkast play the same time? I'm scared.
And cause it's a really good album.
but what would coblr do if U2 and Outkast play the same time? I'm scared.
So I watched the les miserables movie, and overall did like it. I'm not so sure how much of that was on its actual merits rather than the fact that it's les miserables. The excessive close-ups were a tad annoying, and I'm still on fence regarding the whole on set singing--probably slightly more pro than con, being that it was something different (it's not as if I haven't already heard polished versions of those songs a million times before anyway), and that it did work most of the time.
I actually didn't mind Russell Crowe at all. At least he acted well, where some of the better singers seemed to be lacking. I'm with cori on being somewhat disappointed in Hugh Jackman (and I'm a Hugh Jackman fan, I even watched that Oklahoma production several years back, and I hate that musical). Bring Him Home was definitely the worst of it, though. Between them not knocking the song down so he could actually sing it well, his tendency to belt everything the same nasally sort of way really fucked with probably one of my favorite things in the entire musical. Speaking of people who have sung it fantastically in the past, Colm Wilkinson as the bishop was totally made of win. Marius was pretty awesome (although I really dislike the blonde with the creepy eyes that played Cosette), and they pulled off the sweeping epic fail of the student revolutionaries really well.
I liked what they did with the placement - Fantine singing I Dreamed a Dream made much more sense after becoming a prostitute. And Do You Hear the People Sing being where it was (flash mob!) was fantastic.
I actually didn't mind Russell Crowe at all. At least he acted well, where some of the better singers seemed to be lacking.
At any rate, a cori post from that thread which I agree with entirely:
I didn't know about that beforehand and was thrown off slightly at first, but it worked quite well.
Yeah, I freaked out a bit when they didn't go into Do You Hear. There was a mini-riot in my brain.