amazing headliners, weak lineup or

[thetime]

theres been an awful lot of talk about headliners lately on this forum, alot more than previous/

would you prefer weak healiners and a good solid lineup through the days or wonderful headliners and a weak lineup. Seems people are obsessed with the headliners and not the festival lineup on a whole.

in the weak lineup camp myself.

[Dave The Hedgehog]

Neither.

A good festival would be one that has both strong headliners and a strong line-up throughout the days. If a festival deliberately puts a crap band onjust to appease the headliner, it strikes me as being a bit cynical and kind of indicative of the throwaway attitude people have now to bands that could potentially be better than the headliners - indie vs. the mainstream, etc. It also takes away the potential of finding a goldmine like I did last year with Warpaint, Caribou and Health.

Also, if all of the money is being spent on the headliners, I won't be putting £200 down on a ticket if the headliners are relatively weak. You pay good money to get something good and if they're just a load of shit, it defeats the object. You don't put money down going to a gig just to see the support bands, do you? No matter how good they are.

I want a good solid set of headliners (2 will do) and a line-up that gives me plenty of variety and choice. If that doesn't happen, I simply won't put my money down on a ticket.

[thetime]

Neither.

A good festival would be one that has both strong headliners and a strong line-up throughout the days. If a festival deliberately puts a crap band onjust to appease the headliner, it strikes me as being a bit cynical and kind of indicative of the throwaway attitude people have now to bands that could potentially be better than the headliners - indie vs. the mainstream, etc. It also takes away the potential of finding a goldmine like I did last year with Warpaint, Caribou and Health.

Also, if all of the money is being spent on the headliners, I won't be putting £200 down on a ticket if the headliners are relatively weak. You pay good money to get something good and if they're just a load of shit, it defeats the object. You don't put money down going to a gig just to see the support bands, do you? No matter how good they are.

I want a good solid set of headliners (2 will do) and a line-up that gives me plenty of variety and choice. If that doesn't happen, I simply won't put my money down on a ticket.

[Flaminglippy]

theres been an awful lot of talk about headliners lately on this forum, alot more than previous/

would you prefer weak healiners and a good solid lineup through the days or wonderful headliners and a weak lineup. Seems people are obsessed with the headliners and not the festival lineup on a whole.

in the weak lineup camp myself.

[**shandy**]

When looking at festivals, I would look at one or two headliners to see if I want to go (RATM in 08 and Blink in 10) and look at the rest of the line up around, chances are people are not gonna like every headliner or every act on the stage, so I'd prefer strong alternatives. For example the Libertines and Arcade Fire cost a lot for the festival to book, where a lot of my ticket money would have gone, but I've never been a fan of the band, but I understand many people are so fair play. Instead, I had just as good time watching crystal castles, enter shikari and Ash.

[Dave The Hedgehog]

I'd go for a strong line up and smaller headliners...look at IOW, has Foos, Pulp, Kasabian & KOL...but with a couple of exceptions the rest of the line-up is pisspoor...you don't pay close to £200 to sit in your tent getting trollied until 9pm when the first decent band comes on

[thetime]

Personally, I think when you go to the festival you make the most of it whatever it is, no matter how good or bad it is. It's like me with Glastonbury - I have my reservations about the place but if I had the chance to go to it, I'd still try to make the most of it. I mean the fact you spend £200 on a ticket is enough to get you out of your tent and think, "well, f**k it, I've spent all of this money so I might as well go out and see the sights" - at least in an ideal world it would. If you spend £200 just to sit around all day (or complain about it), you might as well have just stayed at home and watched it on telly.

People find things to do, don't they? The only time I was bored last year at Leeds was on Wednesday and Thursday when nothing was happening. That was the worst part. If there was one thing I'd change about the place it'd be giving people things to do on the days before the festival starts properly - but when it started, I wasn't bored once. I always had something to do or something to see.

[Joe-]

Weak headliners strong line-up for me.

If it was a weak line up it'd be like Isle of wight this year and I'd spend most of the day sitting around the campsite.

Theres lotsa stuff to do around headliner times, like DJ's and stuff.

[micawber]

Mmmmm. I get the gist of the argument, but I think that it is flawed. More money doesn't necessarily equate to strong headliners (perhaps in name but certainly not in performance), just as less money doesn't necessarily result in weaker line-ups. Anyone who loves music isn't going to have their heads turned by names on paper.

For example, I would rather have FNM + NIN and trade in RHCP (assuming comparative total costs)

Edited February 6, 2011 by micawber

[lharris92]

i'd want a mix between the two where there are fairly strong headliners (maybe one weak one) and a line up that is relatively strong

just saying, cause then it would make me want to go more

[Dave The Hedgehog]

Anyone who loves music isn't going to have their heads turned by names on paper.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Dave The Hedgehog

[RichieParf]

I'd rather strong headliners but if it means a situation like download's friday last year where there are like 5 bands on the main stage all day then you'd take a compromise I think.

[Dave The Hedgehog]

if it means a situation like download's friday last year

[VCK]

2009's line-up had 3 massive headliners and a line-up which a lot of people found to be weak as piss.

2010's line-up has 1 massive headliner and 2 that could be described as cult-ish and not quite on the same level as Arctics, Radiohead and KOL in terms of size, but the line-up looked brilliant.

I'd take The Strokes, MCR and Muse if it meant that we'd get another really solid line-up.

[micawber]

Who said people that go to Reading and Leeds are fans of music? Most are fans of popular culture and just go because it's Reading and Leeds - regardless of how good the bands are. A lot of people pay for the status and the oneupmanship, and the chance to be able to say "I'm going to Leeds"; they never turn around and add, "...to see shit bands."

[rexclark]

Recently I don't care much for headline acts, especially newer ones so I'd much prefer a strong undercard.

[thetime]

Recently I don't care much for headline acts, especially newer ones so I'd much prefer a strong undercard.

[Dan R]

Who was on?

[fuzzylogic]

Of the two I'd far rather have a strong undercard and weak headliners. Most often when I go too festivals and I'm asked who my favorite act of the weekend was It's usually someone who played at 3 or 4 int he afternoon.

The most fun times I have at festivals are usually during the day going from stage to stage watching different bands, rather that stood waiting for a headliner in the dark.

[fuzzylogic]

Of the two I'd far rather have a strong undercard and weak headliners. Most often when I go too festivals and I'm asked who my favorite act of the weekend was It's usually someone who played at 3 or 4 int he afternoon.

The most fun times I have at festivals are usually during the day going from stage to stage watching different bands, rather that stood waiting for a headliner in the dark.

[bennyk]

I prefer a festival with a solid, all round, good looking line up. For me 2 of the headliners can be weak and 1 that just stands out from the rest. For example, at Leeds last year, I saw Guns and Roses on the sunday night, but apart from that i didn't watch any other headline act. I enjoyed the day music a lot more.

Some of the more adventurous bands, with the appreciative crowd. (two door cinema club, the drums, Cribs, Sub focus, Kele, Crystal Castles etc) the list goes on.

There is a lot more to the festival than 3 'strong headline acts'

[Dave The Hedgehog]

Most often when I go too festivals and I'm asked who my favorite act of the weekend was It's usually someone who played at 3 or 4 int he afternoon.

[allan14]

i would far prefer weak headliners and the rest of the line up being stronger.. its about all the band not just the headliners and id prefer not to just see one band i like a day!!

[fuzzylogic]

Top 5 bands last year at Leeds for me were:

1. The Black Angels

2. Caribou

3. Health

4. Warpaint

5. Arcade Fire

3 of those were in the Festival Republic tent, 1 was in the Dance tent and Arcade Fire, of course, were headlining it. I won't deny that there were some pretty good bands on the main stage but I found the best ones to be in the smaller tents. Some great bands on the NME stage too. The point is, last year, they clearly didn't go mental with costs with the headliners (maybe Guns N Roses) so it allowed them to spread a lot of great bands over a lot of different stages at different times.

Last year at Leeds it was a progression of cost - Friday's headliner was relatively expensive but not as expensive as Saturday's, but both combined weren't as expensive as Sunday's. If they did the exact same thing this year and not tip the economic balance towards the headliners, you'd be left with another great festival - in other words, book a relatively popular band, a very popular band, and a legend, then spread the rest over smaller stages and insert a few other 'cool' bands on the main stage around mid-afternoon and tea time.

[purplehaze81]

This is a stupid question because it's too subjective. One person's dream line-up is another person's abysmal one.