U2’s 1987 album, The Joshua Tree album, saw the Irish band move from performing in arenas to stadiums, and since then they have never looked back. Well, when I say they have never looked back, I mean in terms of music. In real life Bono is looking over his shoulder consistently. You see, when he’s out in Africa on one of his ‘Save the World’ missions, he’s on edge that the Oromo tribe from Ethiopia are going to ambush him and subsequently threaten to kill him if he doesn’t take those stupid sunglasses off. Or if he’s sitting in the Western world and keeps the shades on, he’s constantly checking that the team he has in place to make sure that his head remains straight due to the enormous weight of his oversized sub blockers are doing their job. Either way, the sunglasses need to go.
Now, taking Bono and his sunglasses out of the equation for a moment; U2 have surfaced a lot in conversation through the music world this week, as they have been announced as headliners to 2010’s Glastonbury festival. Event organiser Michael Eavis revealed that they have been trying for years to get Bono’s band to play on his farm. Personally, I don’t see why he’s wasted his time.
Just like butter in the fridge, coals on a fire or a box of Vaseline on the set of any respectable adult movie, U2 have a place. And it certainly isn’t at Glastonbury. Sure, I hear the arguments that state that they are simply a rock & roll band, playing a rock & roll festival. However, I disagree with that whole heartedly. Just saying the word Glastonbury generates images and feelings of good times and good vibes. It’s a hedonistic festival that’s roots stem from days gone by when it was used as a meeting place for hippies to congregate and spread love like wild fire. I understand that things have changed, but the festival still keeps some of that cherished charm. Welcoming a rock & roll travelling salesman doesn’t represent that.
U2 don’t need Glastonbury, in the same way that Glastonbury doesn’t need U2. The Irish four-piece can pull in a mass-crowd off their own hype without having to use anything else as a platform. Like I stated previously, they have been playing stadiums the world over since 1987. However, the people that have been filling these stadiums are not the same people that will call a farm in Somerset their home for four days in June next year. With this in mind, I struggle to think why Michael Eavis thinks it’s a good idea to get them to play? On one hand I can understand why U2 would want to do it. Headlining Glasto would give them the opportunity to entertain their critics thus attempting to woo them round. Yet on the other, I think why the hell would U2 care what some people think? They’ve had such a successful career in their own right that they should just sit in their respective country mansions and sip Cognac whilst smoking a huge Cuban cigar. Eavis is another matter entirely. I’m totally perplexed as to why he even picked the phone up to their agent in the first place, let alone signed the contract.
2010’s Glasto is designed to be a celebration of the 40 years that the festival has been going for. And with U2, you have a band that hasn’t played the festival before. EVER. I’m still holding out for legendary acts like Bowie and The Who… That have.
Now, taking Bono and his sunglasses out of the equation for a moment; U2 have surfaced a lot in conversation through the music world this week, as they have been announced as headliners to 2010’s Glastonbury festival. Event organiser Michael Eavis revealed that they have been trying for years to get Bono’s band to play on his farm. Personally, I don’t see why he’s wasted his time.
Just like butter in the fridge, coals on a fire or a box of Vaseline on the set of any respectable adult movie, U2 have a place. And it certainly isn’t at Glastonbury. Sure, I hear the arguments that state that they are simply a rock & roll band, playing a rock & roll festival. However, I disagree with that whole heartedly. Just saying the word Glastonbury generates images and feelings of good times and good vibes. It’s a hedonistic festival that’s roots stem from days gone by when it was used as a meeting place for hippies to congregate and spread love like wild fire. I understand that things have changed, but the festival still keeps some of that cherished charm. Welcoming a rock & roll travelling salesman doesn’t represent that.
U2 don’t need Glastonbury, in the same way that Glastonbury doesn’t need U2. The Irish four-piece can pull in a mass-crowd off their own hype without having to use anything else as a platform. Like I stated previously, they have been playing stadiums the world over since 1987. However, the people that have been filling these stadiums are not the same people that will call a farm in Somerset their home for four days in June next year. With this in mind, I struggle to think why Michael Eavis thinks it’s a good idea to get them to play? On one hand I can understand why U2 would want to do it. Headlining Glasto would give them the opportunity to entertain their critics thus attempting to woo them round. Yet on the other, I think why the hell would U2 care what some people think? They’ve had such a successful career in their own right that they should just sit in their respective country mansions and sip Cognac whilst smoking a huge Cuban cigar. Eavis is another matter entirely. I’m totally perplexed as to why he even picked the phone up to their agent in the first place, let alone signed the contract.2010’s Glasto is designed to be a celebration of the 40 years that the festival has been going for. And with U2, you have a band that hasn’t played the festival before. EVER. I’m still holding out for legendary acts like Bowie and The Who… That have.
