2013 Headliners

[Vieuphoria]

Yep. They've never done that on an album or at a gig before.

[The Nal]

Really? You honestly didn't think Bono was incredibly corporate?

[Vieuphoria]

I agree.

[jump]

Really? Do making money through advertising one way is fine, but another is bad. Even though they are pretty much the same thing. Both get the same make the same impact. Just one is a newer idea than the other really. It's being happening in films for decades, there are some amazing films with product placement in. But that's fine because it's accepted I guess. But those dastardly pop stars aren't artists if they do it, and their songs aren't songs either.

[chriseede]

Re: movies. People don't attached themselves to movies, or they shouldn't anyway, like people attached themselves to songs.They've been advertising in movies since the first ever movie.

[Vieuphoria]

Yes, one is when you are told you are being sold to so you can make a decsion to enage in it or not the other isn't. Product placement is a dishonest practice in general, I've not said anything about the quality of product being effected but lacking artist merit and where have I said it's ok for films to filled with ads?

[Justiceforcedave]

Because it's their choice to make money however they wish. There is nothing morally wrong with it really, and it's easy for me to avoid. I don't particularly enjoy listening to advert, so I don't. But I don't think those people that do are wrong for doing so, nor the people who make the music are somehow evil. They just aren't.

[jump]

I agree that it isn't a desirable thing to do. But do you honestly think because I hear the Black Eyed Peas mentioning Apple on the radio, I'm going to go buy all of the Apple products. I don't think people are that stupid. I think it'd be arrogant to suggest people are stupid enough to buy something because they heard it in a song. But I do understand that people may be influenced or even get higher exposure to said product, but to suggest that is wrong is to suggest ALL advertising is wrong. Just a question... is it not also subliminal advertising for a bands track to be playing over an advert? Is that not also dishonest and wrong? What is the difference between a company advertising through a musicians songs, and a musicians advertising subliminally through a companies advert.

Again, I try to avoid things that are obviously just vehicles for products. But let's be fair a tar everyone with the same brush and not be snobby about it.

[Ed209]

These fucks can do what they like. If they want to advertise pepsi, nike and ipods in their music and videos then they can do that, there's nothing stopping them. Just don't expect me have any respect for them or to treat them like a credible artist. And that includes me thinking they shouldn't be anywhere near the worlds largest performing arts festival

Doing stuff for charity doesn't mean I have to respect them. So many celebrities think its a way of "buying" our respect. Bullshit. Doing stuff for charity doesn't stop someone being a prick.

[Vieuphoria]

If people aren't stupid enough to buy something off a song then why are artists being so well paid to mention them and why are companies like Apple spent/spend millions on doing so? As I've already said acts like Black Eyed Peas have younger fanbases who are impressionable.

Where have I said all advertising is wrong? I've already said repeatedly deceptive advertising like product placement is wrong.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Vieuphoria

[The Nal]

I think ALL advertising is almost always wrong, with the exception of maybe people like Lydon/butter who used the money to finance the new album and tour.

Deceptive advertising is immoral and vulgar and these c**ts should be scratched off the artistic list for ever. Im very much with Bill Hicks on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgUWTquztGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv2qLOiioPc&feature=related

Edited June 25, 2012 by The Nal

[Vieuphoria]

I love Bill Hicks, he's fantastic. I agree with him on the most part.

But let's face it advertising is part of life. It's how we get to go to festivals and such. It might not be good, but that is how it works. Until we lose capitalism, we're stuck with it. If you're that bothered by it, let's join and start some kind of revolution. But I doubt any of us can actually be bothered to change anything. That said, I also don't think it's fair to say "these people who advertise are worse than these people who advertise". I find it strange that the billion pound company is advertising through the songs of the millionaire pop star is worse than the pop star who uses their songs in the adverts for billion pound companies. Either way they are using each other to get to their target market. It's not good, but why are we being snobby about who is wrong. When in fact are they really that different, just one happens to be richer.

[Whittick]

Glasto: Lady Gaga, Rolling Stones, Killers/ Kasabian.

IOW: Rush, Arcade Fire, RHCP

Reading: Biffy, Pearl Jam, Killers.

Rock Ness: Black Keys, Blink-182, Hot Chip

Bestival: Depeche Mode, Jay-Z, Black Keys.

Sonisphere: Iron Maiden, RATM, Avenged Sevenfold.

Download: Avenged Sevenfold, Van Halen, Guns N' Roses

Hop Farm: Eric Clapton, Peter Frampton, Elbow

V: Lady Gaga, Foo Fighters/ Muse

TITP: Killers, Eminem, Elbow.

HRC: Rush, Bon Jovi, Clapton.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Whittick

[Ed209]

I love Bill Hicks, he's fantastic. I agree with him on the most part.

But let's face it advertising is part of life. It's how we get to go to festivals and such. It might not be good, but that is how it works. Until we lose capitalism, we're stuck with it. If you're that bothered by it, let's join and start some kind of revolution. But I doubt any of us can actually be bothered to change anything. That said, I also don't think it's fair to say "these people who advertise are worse than these people who advertise". I find it strange that the billion pound company is advertising through the songs of the millionaire pop star is worse than the pop star who uses their songs in the adverts for billion pound companies. Either way they are using each other to get to their target market. It's not good, but why are we being snobby about who is wrong. When in fact are they really that different, just one happens to be richer.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Ed209

[rexclark]

Rock Ness: Black Keys, Blink-182, Darkness.

[The Nal]

However, if "art" has the advertising incorporated, then it ceases to be art, and is actually just a marketing tool. Financially they might have similar outcomes, but artistically they are poles apart.

Edited June 25, 2012 by The Nal

[Vieuphoria]

From an artistic viewpoint, there is a very clear distinction between incorporating advertising in your art, and using art in advertising.

If a piece of art is picked up by a company to be used, then it still hasn't lost its artistic integrity because there was never that original purpose for it.

However, if "art" has the advertising incorporated, then it ceases to be art, and is actually just a marketing tool. Financially they might have similar outcomes, but artistically they are poles apart.

[Whittick]

No chance, Rockness always has at least one dance headliner.

[Ed209]

I disagree. Neither show much merit at all. But both have the same outcome, so why the snobbery involved I don't know.

But either way.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Ed209

[the wonderwhy]

Glasto: Lady Gaga, Rolling Stones, Killers/ Kasabian.

IOW: Rush, Arcade Fire, RHCP

Reading: Biffy, Pearl Jam, Killers.

Rock Ness: Black Keys, Blink-182, Hot Chip

Bestival: Depeche Mode, Jay-Z, Black Keys.

Sonisphere: Iron Maiden, RATM, Avenged Sevenfold.

Download: Avenged Sevenfold, Van Halen, Guns N' Roses

Hop Farm: Eric Clapton, Peter Frampton, Elbow

V: Lady Gaga, Foo Fighters/ Muse

TITP: Killers, Eminem, Elbow.

HRC: Rush, Bon Jovi, Clapton.

[Gnomicide]

I should probably wait until after Wireless to say this, but:

After last night, I reckon someone will book Rihanna next year. I wasn't a fan before, but she converted me, bloomin' awesome. I don't know if she'd be considered a 'weak' booking for Glasto, but she'd certainly be an alternative if they can't get Gaga.

[rug568]

I should probably wait until after Wireless to say this, but:

After last night, I reckon someone will book Rihanna next year. I wasn't a fan before, but she converted me, bloomin' awesome. I don't know if she'd be considered a 'weak' booking for Glasto, but she'd certainly be an alternative if they can't get Gaga.

[gazza_20]

I should probably wait until after Wireless to say this, but:

After last night, I reckon someone will book Rihanna next year. I wasn't a fan before, but she converted me, bloomin' awesome. I don't know if she'd be considered a 'weak' booking for Glasto, but she'd certainly be an alternative if they can't get Gaga.

[the wonderwhy]

she was much better at v. at hackney her vocals sounded weak at times. glasto i don't see booking her, maybe v as that other guy said.

[Mouseboy11]

Fuck me, Rihanna is awful. Music is terrible and she can hardly sing. If she wasn't considered attractive (not my personal opinion) she wouldn't have a career. Jay-z signed her because he liked her when she was working behind a bar.