Reading Festival 2011

[mjsell]

Personally, I think Kasabian are 'quite a good band' but that's like saying 'my local chippy is quite a good chippy' or 'they've managed to cut away half of the tumour on my brain, which is quite good'.

They're not as exceptional as critics have you believe - and whilst they take influences from all of the right places, they tend to ignore the ideas behind their influences and make a deliberate attempt to be commercial, which is the opposite to the ideals the bands they listen to had.

[pink_triangle]

Offspring should be at least above sliknott

Are franz big enough to be that high on mainstage these days? I'd let them headline NME, and put jimmy mid stage.

[pink_triangle]

Theres no way we will get a line up like foos, muse and green day. They would cost substantially more than this years headliners as (guns and roses excluded) they have had more uk commercial success and festival headlining pedigree. From a business viewpoint it would make no sense for the organisers to fork out for these 3.

Edited May 16, 2010 by pink_triangle

[Vieuphoria]

As cool as it would be... Killing Joke aren't popular enough to headline any time. They would be be low main if anything. Sonic Youth would be a superb headliner, but i can only see them getting aboiut 4th main. NIN will hopefully headline next time their back. You've got to find a good balance between credible and popular enough. Killing Joke are so cool, but nobody knows them. Sonic Youth are incredible, but are very much a cult thing nowadays. NIN would be the only one with a decent enough balance. Plus as good as it was, you can't always look to the past, you need to start feeding in newer bans to headline at some point.

[XrtVra]

Are you saying Sonic Youth would be as big a draw as the Cribs or Cypress Hill? I reckon they could sub-headline! I would want them to headline but realistically, that wouldnt happen. Subheadlining to REM, Muse, The Strokes, etc?

[Vieuphoria]

I dunno. Maybe not new bands, but bands of the last 10 years or so that have been huge, but not headliners. I would personally love for a band like Yeah Yeah Yeahs to headline one day. I think they have the artistic relivence, and potential popularity to become headliners. QOTSA are another one i would assume. Weezer are a band who have done anything and everything to be big enough to headline, they just aren't which is wierd.

There are also tonnes of bands out there who are utterly superb but will never get the chance to be anywhere near the top half of a lineup even they they deserve it. Soulsavers for insance.

[Vieuphoria]

Oh and as much as you hate them.... The Libertines are definatly headliner worthy.

[Vieuphoria]

ummm i think although one might hate to admit it.... Young people in the 90s like the grunge stuff, the britpop stuff, the rave stuff, the triphop, the alt/indie stuff etc etc etc.

Now they go for the "emo" stuff, the dubstep, the dnb stuff, and the poppunk stuff, or the mainstream indie stuff.

So although it's a bit shit, what was influencal back than. Is now not so because younger ones dont care. Which is a shame. The only constant from the last 20 years is The Prodigy.

[XrtVra]

Nobody now is really doing anything in music.

Edited May 16, 2010 by rbranigan

[Vieuphoria]

maybe a new thread is needed.

Small bands who have potential to headline in the coming years.

[XrtVra]

Perhaps

I think times are changing. The world now has a lot more bands cropping up, with alot more ways to hear them - the internet in general is obviously more popular then ever, and with the likes of youtube, spotify, last.fm, its very easy to hear new bands.

For this reason, bands are getting more of a fair share of exposure, and arent becoming what you could consider the "most popular" bands in the world - muse, coldplay, etc. Along with that, the charts are filled with more hip hop, more r&b, more female solo artists, more reality show winners - with less chance for newer bands to get number ones and therefore increase their popularity.

If I had to put money on anyone in say, december, to headline leeds 2011, based on the fact they had to be under 10 years old, and were going to get a big break, it would probably be Vampire Weekend or MGMT, but I don't think either of their albums is going to get the exposure needed.

In 2009 there wasn't a single "rock" band that got a number 1 single

In 2008 there was Coldplay, and Kings of Leon

In 2007 there was Kaiser Cheifs

In 2006 there was Arctic Monkeys, Razorlight, My Chemical Romance

In 2005 there was U2, Stereophonics, Oasis x 2, Arctic Monkeys

Im not saying they need number ones to headline L/R, but these are the kind of bands (Artic Monkeys, Razorlight, Kings of Leon) who have taken that spot in the past.

[pink_triangle]

But then surely if you think with your wallet, your best bet would be to go in complacent knowing 85,000 people will buy tickets whatever the line-up and just shove any old band on?

[pink_triangle]

In 2009 there wasn't a single "rock" band that got a number 1 single

In 2008 there was Coldplay, and Kings of Leon

In 2007 there was Kaiser Cheifs

In 2006 there was Arctic Monkeys, Razorlight, My Chemical Romance

In 2005 there was U2, Stereophonics, Oasis x 2, Arctic Monkeys

[mooseman]

It is quite strange to see bands pop out of nowhere and become massive in the way the arctic monkeys did with the whole myspace thing, the killers with there album hot fuss and razorlight. The only recent band to come out of nowhere i guess is florence and the machine.

[mooseman]

Florence and The Machine is a gradual build up of years of effort and a barricade of BBC-supported publicity. With her, it was a classic case of girl from a privaleged background begging daddy for a singing voice but failing to realise in the process that money couldn't buy her a soul, and her music is fueled by the insecurities and fear she has of being found out as a fraud.

She's going to be around for a long time because she has an army of publicists, producers, television studios, critics and just about everybody else in the music industry behind her. She cannot fail because they won't allow her to.

I know there was a gradual build up over years like any other band, but then all of a sudden she was all over the place.

Anyway... what we need is a rant.

When I think of modern music - the idea of modern music, I mean - I think of one single band. The Darkness. Now, here's a band who had 'something' a bit different - a bit campy, nothing too serious... come to think of it, they were absolute shit. Their charm lay in the fact that they knew it. They sold millions of albums, they filled arenas and then... PUFF! They were gone. Nobody remembers them unless they're using them as examples of bands who came and suddenly went.

The darkness went because they were a one trick pony which people realised so stopped buying the illusion that they were good, different and a rock band.

They're a modern band in every sense of the word - built to be disposable. Built to fill the void when nothing is happening by providing some novel relief from the tediousness of it all.

Very few modern bands have the longetivty to be able to last in a musical landscape that changes and evolves every single second with the advent of some new fangled technology that works to the detriment of the music industry. The music industry can't keep up so they grab hold of whatever they can just to make a quick buck out of it, and then discard it casually like it's piece of tissue with snot hanging off it.

For me, when i think of modern "alternative" music I think of Arctic Monkeys, they came through myspace which was new and exciting and now they are evolving, maturing and taking there music in new directions which is what the music industry is about.

If you knew the amount of money the artists make in comparison to how much the major labels make out of them, you would be scared, and you'd feel cheated - but not as much as the artists do.

Everyone knows this, which is why alot of bands are releasing there own music on there own labels, and they make money in other areas anyway.

Edited May 16, 2010 by mooseman

[lharris92]

Perhaps

I think times are changing. The world now has a lot more bands cropping up, with alot more ways to hear them - the internet in general is obviously more popular then ever, and with the likes of youtube, spotify, last.fm, its very easy to hear new bands.

For this reason, bands are getting more of a fair share of exposure, and arent becoming what you could consider the "most popular" bands in the world - muse, coldplay, etc. Along with that, the charts are filled with more hip hop, more r&b, more female solo artists, more reality show winners - with less chance for newer bands to get number ones and therefore increase their popularity.

If I had to put money on anyone in say, december, to headline leeds 2011, based on the fact they had to be under 10 years old, and were going to get a big break, it would probably be Vampire Weekend or MGMT, but I don't think either of their albums is going to get the exposure needed.

In 2009 there wasn't a single "rock" band that got a number 1 single

Im not saying they need number ones to headline L/R, but these are the kind of bands (Artic Monkeys, Razorlight, Kings of Leon) who have taken that spot in the past.

[Vieuphoria]

The Darkness were very good for what they were

[XrtVra]

but surely the Christmas Number One counts - even though it isn't "pure rock"

[Nathan113]

Florence and The Machine is a gradual build up of years of effort and a barricade of BBC-supported publicity. With her, it was a classic case of girl from a privaleged background begging daddy for a singing voice but failing to realise in the process that money couldn't buy her a soul, and her music is fueled by the insecurities and fear she has of being found out as a fraud.

She's going to be around for a long time because she has an army of publicists, producers, television studios, critics and just about everybody else in the music industry behind her. She cannot fail because they won't allow her to.

Anyway... what we need is a rant.

When I think of modern music - the idea of modern music, I mean - I think of one single band. The Darkness. Now, here's a band who had 'something' a bit different - a bit campy, nothing too serious... come to think of it, they were absolute shit. Their charm lay in the fact that they knew it. They sold millions of albums, they filled arenas and then... PUFF! They were gone. Nobody remembers them unless they're using them as examples of bands who came and suddenly went.

They're a modern band in every sense of the word - built to be disposable. Built to fill the void when nothing is happening by providing some novel relief from the tediousness of it all.

Very few modern bands have the longetivty to be able to last in a musical landscape that changes and evolves every single second with the advent of some new fangled technology that works to the detriment of the music industry. The music industry can't keep up so they grab hold of whatever they can just to make a quick buck out of it, and then discard it casually like it's piece of tissue with snot hanging off it.

If you knew the amount of money the artists make in comparison to how much the major labels make out of them, you would be scared, and you'd feel cheated - but not as much as the artists do.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Nathan113

[ap3311]

To be fair I don't think Blink were booked over Soundgarden, I've read that both R/L and Download were after them but they said they weren't coming over here til next year at the earliest. And yeah Blink aren't exactly the best band ever but for a lot of people my age they were the band of their youth, in fact most people I know are saying Blink are the biggest draw of the festival for them. Not for me, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to reliving my childhood on that Sunday night.

It's sad that I can't think of any relatively new acts around now who could headline in 3-4 years time. There just doesn't seem to be anyone, especially when the closest thing to a music scene these days is "UK Funky".

Edited May 16, 2010 by ap3311

[Nathan113]

I could see maybe Gaslight Anthem being the only new band out there who might possibly become a headliner in the next decade or so.

[pink_triangle]

I cant see gaslight anthem headlining, Im not sure they have a huge uk selling album in them. They havent really converted the publicity from playing with springsteen at glastonbury to record sales.

[rockinthecasbah]

But then surely if you think with your wallet, your best bet would be to go in complacent knowing 85,000 people will buy tickets whatever the line-up and just shove any old band on?

That's what I mean by getting bands like Killing Joke, Nine Inch Nails and Sonic Youth - bands that could draw an audience (the last two in particular) wouldn't cost as much as, say, Green Day, and bring some integrity back to the festival. It's a gamble, for sure, but one worth taking? Maybe.

[Manic Man]

I bet this isn't the only time though that people have wondered "Where will the next good band come from?" and everything is doom and gloom for the industry.

I'm not denying that its a pretty relevant statement for now, but surely having Arcade Fire as a headliner is a step in the right direction.

[scottt]

On the whole new bands who could maybe headline one day, Vampire Weekend are about as big as i can think of.