It's such a pain in the arse. Fingers crossed for next year!!
It's such a pain in the arse. Fingers crossed for next year!!
Seen most of bands I wanted to see back in the early 80s - except for Siouxsie and Banshees and the Specials - lots of them at university - first gig I went to was the Skids, U2, early Duran Duran (they were appalling!) Madness, and Stranglers numerous times ... enough for me! Might have been good to see the Smiths, but they turned out to be a bit of a Morrissey cult and parody of themselves.
PS who on earth is Eddie Vedder?
Dorabella
Duran Duran were my first concert when I was 15! I thought they were wonderful!
Saw Duran Duran in 1994. Le Bon Bon was wearing a shocking pink jacket. Nick Rhodes (that gorgeous boy) was in the same building as me and I refrained from molesting him - which was a miracle, but the husband was with me at the time.
It wasn't the 'fab five' line -up (no Andy or Roger) but it was a good concert all the same..
Almost saw U2 but my friend changed her mind at the last minute and we ended up seeing Spandau Ballet...
Also seen Spear of Destiny twice at the Victoria Hall in Hanley. Had my fag packet signed by Kirk Brandon and my mother binned it thinking it was rubbish.
PS who on earth is Eddie Vedder?
A thought is harmless unless we believe it.
Saw Duran Duran in 1980 (they were supporting some band or other on the universities tour) - full New Romantic look as I recall and still thought they were awful...
Madness were good - met Suggs in the uni car park after concert and he signed my hand as I didn't have anything else to hand.. what a good looking bloke he was!
Saw U2 in 1984 - was meant to be going to Depeche Mode concert at London Lyceum, but boyfriend cancelled the tickets for U2 instead without telling me...
Dorabella
Some good tracks though from their early days? Plus there's that raunchy video for Girls on Film lol. (my dad liked that one)
Was it The Unforgettable Fire tour?Saw U2 in 1984 - was meant to be going to Depeche Mode concert at London Lyceum, but boyfriend cancelled the tickets for U2 instead without telling me...
And, that would have been end of relationship for me.
A thought is harmless unless we believe it.
Last week, the person (now as an adult) who was the nude baby boy underwater on the front cover of Nirvana's 1991 album 'Nevermind' decided to conduct a lawsuit over it 30 years on.
I'm surprised it's taken 30 years for said album cover image to be a major subject of controversy, especially as it was depraved from the off, and tantamount to child porn, and physical abuse, in the case of the poor child being dunked underwater for the photoshoot, unless said image was doctored, which probably would have been more difficult with the technologies of 1991.
Just imagine all the hoo-ha over said front cover image had that album been released brand new today?
Still, I always personally thought Nirvana were (and still are) one of the most overrated acts of that period anyway.
The man who is suing Nirvana (and everyone connected to that photograph) has suddenly decided to sue them after decades of choosing to re-create that album cover for his personal gain. Being 'that' baby was allegedly his chat up line in college. He also has a Nevermind tattoo on his chest which suggests pride in having been on the cover of such an iconic album. But his own words go further than to simply 'suggest' this..
This change of heart has coincided with a refusal from the surviving Nirvana members to take part in this bloke's art show? Smells like revenge to me..
The dude's allegedly suing the drummer before Dave Grohl, so before the Nevermind album was even made!
Maybe he's after the bloke who cleaned the bogs in the recording studio?
Anybody on a plane which happened to fly over the studio as Nevermind was being recorded?
Kurt's nan?
"It's strange that I did something for five minutes when I was four months old and it became this really cool iconic image. It's cool but weird to be part of something that I don't even remember"
The bloke's going to get some kind of pay-out because of the nature of the album cover and somethings can't be argued, but the story up until the art show rejectiondoesn't appear to be one of distress. It's of pride, fame, and of him personally making sure that nobody forgets that he was 'that' baby..
A thought is harmless unless we believe it.
Something very fishy about it all.
Probably some kind of cunning publicity stunt from either the person concerned, surviving former band members or perhaps even the record company as the album's 30 anniversary approaches exactly this month, and some kind of agenda to promote a possible 30th anniversary deluxe edition of the album, through 'faux outrage'!!
From what I understand the parents were paid for the use of the image, it wasn't a great deal, something like $200. And as Nora said, he's been reaping the rewards for years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)