My brother works with a guy who supplies all the trucks and scaffolding etc for the stages....and i happened to mention i was going to see Muse in September. Result!

I fly out to Cyprus at 6.00am on the Saturday....about 8 hours after the gig finishes. Oh dear. I missed out the first time they played Wembley so i gotta do this one!

Having a voice is better then being silent.

Doesn't stop it from being more than slightly pretentious to think that a pop star is going to change anything.

Maybe you like that pretention? Many do. I don't judge you for that...but call a spade a spade. I don't mean to knock the idea of engagement in social issues but instead the idea of Thom Yorkes opinion meaning more than anyone elses because he can write critically acclaimed music.

I don't doubt that Thom Yorke has a genuine social conscience. But he speaks opinions.

You can say that pop figures are good to get engaged...they bring attention. But that attitude is a result of the tabloid-culture that we live in which I wholeheartedly disagree with. "So and so is famous...so their opinion is newsworthy." Organizations now have to seek celebrities to become the "face" of their charity to glam it up a bit. These issues are not glamorous...and if you need a singer of a pop group to tell you that nuclear energy in not clean or that third-world poverty is an issue...then you have been living under a rock. I have yet to have had a celebrity bring to my attention any issue that I wasn't already aware of from watching actual news...where they talk to actual people involved in the actual issue on a more concrete level than they heard about it and performed at such and such a benefit concert or flew out for a tour of a aid camp somewhere.

When world issues come up of great importance it frustrates me that so much is made of the opinions of the likes of Madonna, Thom Yorke, Bono, Angelina Jolie what they think should be done about the AIDS issue, Nuclear power, or third-world poverty. It is partially the fault of the media who should be doing their jobs and finding some real experts...rather than reporting on the personal opinions of pop stars.

Well, you said it yourself. This the media's fault. They ask Thom (or any celebrity) his opinion on "x" issue, they answer it, and then it is reported. Thom isn't the one touting his opinion as the ultimate form of thinking, he is simply using his higher profile to make people more aware of a certain issue. I can't speak on Thom's behalf, but I doubt he thinks he can make any more of a difference then any one else (which is why it is more important on his part to spread awareness instead of focusing solely on his contribution to the aid). Bono on the other hand...

Best band in the world? Gotta be The Rolling Stones, The Who, U2 and Beady Eye!

are you taking the piss? hahaha I reached the end of that sentence and burst into laughter. I mean, come on, I love the guys and all, but let's be real, we haven't even heard a song yet. ;D

I HIGHLY disagree.

Muse are pretentious. So are U2. So are Coldplay.

KOL don't do anything for me at all. Don't see the appeal there whatsoever.

Kasabian, while I like, lack the lyrical prowess to be considered anywhere near amazing. Sure, Oasis didn't have the genius aspect that Morrissey possessed, but at least their lyrics spoke to a generation. I don't think "The troops are on fire", a line from one of their biggest hits, is meaningful in anyway to anyone.

Arctic Monkeys, while my opinion vacillates with them, have most certainly faded from the global perspective since their debut.

While I know Los Campesinos are no where near the aforementioned contenders for the biggest band, they are the best of the bunch in my opinion. And by quite some distance.

What I'm trying to say is that the rock music scene is in such shambles right now that there are no *new* big bands, but just rather mediocre groups around.

Shame, really. But with technology going the way it is, will another 1960s Beatles, 1970s The Jam or Jimi Hendrix, 1980s U2 or The Smiths, 1990s Oasis, ever emerge again? I'm not quite sure....

You might want to re-think that as an Oasis fan.....You just admitted that it's worth selling out. That's the one thing Oasis, and most of us followers hate about 'bands.'

Also, being a huge band (I don't mean neccessarily the biggest at the current moment, but rather the amongst the biggest historically) is about the right time and right place.....If Oasis formed in 2007, and DM was released in 2010, I'd very much doubt they would have been the success we know them to be now.

For whatever reason, and it can be debated whether it's technology, generational shifts, even as simple as crap bands, or any other reason, the world isn't ready to embrace another musical movement.

I don't care if Muse has 20 number 1's in in the world, or whatever. Look at the Backstreet Boys, they outsold Oasis. But where are the now? Just another forgotten boy band fad.

Being the biggest today doesn't mean you will be remembered tomorrow. And for every band out there now, only U2 will have that successful legacy (maybe Coldplay) but that's because of their longevity (and subsequent early success and critical acclaim) and nothing else.....

ken what you dinnae half talk some pish. Don't get me wrong I fucking hate Muse, terrible band who should be put in a rocket and fired as far into the galaxy as far away from my ears as possible but you really should shut it.

Nothing else to say, actually, this post resumes what I think, Arcade Fire and Radiohead are the best bands right now ( actually, I think AF is the only band that will be remembered as the band of the decade, along with The Strokes, maybe, they both kick Muse's ass ).
I truly hope 2010 is going to be remembered as the year Arcade Fire made it really big, they've already released one of the best debuts ever, I'm sure The Suburbs is going to be the best album since their debut.