T in the Park 2013

[craig94]

Ok taking all that into consideration and looking at all the acts it does actually make sense and there is a lot of good in this announcement as said rhianna is the biggest selling artist right now along with Mumford braking sales records everywhere ( they are just not the kind of band I would listen to) of monsters and men, jake bugg, alt-j and the script have all had a fantastic year so makes sense they would be there and they are very good acts to see live from what I've heard so all in all think all the negativity stems from we all got excited yesterday about maybe having green day and now it seems unlikely they will be there

[Wanderer1995]

I was shaking my head (and fist) at the Rihanna announcement, but I'm sure it is a booking that will shift a lot of tickets. The rest of the acts announced interest me, so I'll consider a ticket nearer the time. I have probably been going to this festival for too ling anyway, so maybe this is a good year to take a break. It certainly isn't the legendary 20th anniversary lineup that was being whispered about, but then why should that ever have made a difference?

As for the commercial argument, I completely agree that a business has to adapt or it will fail and must sell what consumers will buy. However, the other critical part of commercial success is repeat business and I struggle to see how leading with a Stone Roses announcement last year and Rihanna this year builds a repeat customer base. I don't believe chasing the latest cash band wagon is any more sustainable than continuing to sell an outdated product. That said, it was probably the Roses that was the deviation from the long term strategy and possibly a mistake.

[mrtourette]

It certainly isn't the legendary 20th anniversary lineup that was being whispered about, but then why should that ever have made a difference?

[guitarbhoy1888]

the email sent out makes me think that the script are subbing ...

that will be the tip of the ice berg ... theyre 3rd at best

[eFestivals]

It's a good question about what makes an act 'deserving'.

It's also a good point that it's alright chasing the most popular acts, but if 10 years ago those acts were of a genre supported by fans who were likely to go to and enjoy a festival atmosphere (even before they knew that band were playing) whereas now the popular acts have less fans likely to attend (certainly more than once) and enjoy a festival then it's a risky game.

How many times can (say) Foo Fighters sell tickets to the same people? No matter who the band, there's always a limit to the tickets they can sell to the same people. Eventually demand dies away.

Sometimes a band is lucky enough to attract new fans from new kids that have reached the age of gig-going - but the numbers of bands like that are very small. While some people mightn point to Sabbath and say "look at them, still shifting loads of tickets even after 40 years", tho people are forgetting that 20 years ago no one gave a fuck about them and they were playing in pubs to 50 people.

For ten+ years the T line-up was chock-full of endless indie landfill. The only question that really needs asking around that is why the fuck it took over ten years for people to wise up to just how mind-numbingly dreadful it all was. Could a T line-up of endless indie landfill from ten years ago sell today's T tickets? Not a hope in hell, you only have to look at the places those acts are playing now to see that the demand has evaporated.

However as Neil says festival organisers aren't idiots, everyone likes to think that they can second guess them but they will have all kinds of sales information and customer feedback to point to the best direction to go in. It's unlikely they said to themselves "indie rock is serving us well, but let's try some mainstream pop stuff just for the hell of it".

exactly. What they're doing won't have been randomly plucked out of the air.

here they have fucked up is by allowing themselves to be left behind, and not better develop the new T goers by moving onto the current music trends sooner than they did (something that nearly all festivals are guilty of) - but that's because the people running the fests are so strongly wedded to indie landfill and the like themselves.

It's much like 1976, where new music came thru and the old guard knew nothing of it, and it caused a changing of the guard. Promoters like Harvey Goldsmith were left far behind and a new bunch came in and cleaned up. Promoters now are trying to not let that happen to them.

[zahidf]

I was shaking my head (and fist) at the Rihanna announcement, but I'm sure it is a booking that will shift a lot of tickets. The rest of the acts announced interest me, so I'll consider a ticket nearer the time. I have probably been going to this festival for too ling anyway, so maybe this is a good year to take a break. It certainly isn't the legendary 20th anniversary lineup that was being whispered about, but then why should that ever have made a difference?

As for the commercial argument, I completely agree that a business has to adapt or it will fail and must sell what consumers will buy. However, the other critical part of commercial success is repeat business and I struggle to see how leading with a Stone Roses announcement last year and Rihanna this year builds a repeat customer base. I don't believe chasing the latest cash band wagon is any more sustainable than continuing to sell an outdated product. That said, it was probably the Roses that was the deviation from the long term strategy and possibly a mistake.

[eFestivals]

There were less people last year. there will be an awful lot less repeat visitors this year. If flushing out the old guard and flooding the festival with teens

but it always was flooded with teens, every year I went, anyway (2000, to 2005 I think).

If that changed then it was only because the music did not, so that teens were not attracted because it had nothing for them.

is what they see the future as then fair play to them. I'm sure they see it as a worthwhile gamble. But it is a gamble.

I agree, it is a gamble, because there is no guarantee of success.

But what is not a gamble is what happens if they don't try and move things on musically. What happens there is a certainty - T fades away due to lack of interest.

The only bet for a successful future is what they are doing.

Without the 20 year loyal fanbase

PMSL - get out of here.

I bet there's less than 0.2% of the attendees who've been for 20 years.

I bet there's less than 10% who have been for even each of the last 10 years.

Just as you don't do all your shopping in the toys or sweets section of a store as you once did, the crowd for T changes and moves on too.

I can't see it making commercial sense in the short term

it makes far more commercial sense than guaranteeing no audience by staying where they are.

[eFestivals]

No such thing as a loyal fanbase anymore.

there never was.

These aspects are over-sold to a ridiculous level.

[zahidf]

there never was.

These aspects are over-sold to a ridiculous level.

[devilman]

Interesting to see the loyal fanbase argument chucked out of the window but it certainly has been true for years, maybe not at other festivals but definitely at T. It has had the Scottish vote and people were even proud of "their" festival. True enough though, it has to adapt to survive and if returning fans weren't floating it then new ones will have to do. I think it will really suffer though. It bothers me not that it's gone in a different direction, unlike last year when my loyalty, as always, meant I bought an early bird ticket and was then served up with mostly pish.

[eFestivals]

The only big festival with a loyal fanbase i woudl say is Glastonbury. Medium festivals need to have the line up, though more loyalty than a reading or T say. Some smaller ones ( Beautiful Days, EOTR) may be different though, and probably is more dependent on repeat business.

i'd agree - Glasto is the only big one with a solidly loyal fanbase - but even that could evaporate in an instant, as got proven with the Jay-Z year.

The smaller fests aren't really selling via the bands they have, so they're a bit different. They sell as 'an event' rather than "the chance to see Rihanna".

[Gingo]

Disappointing from my own personal tastes however i would go and see mumfords, of monsters and men, jake bugg and probably rihanna for a bit if there was nothing better on so i suppose that is not bad for an announcement and iv not listened to alt j so that could be another

I never really got myself hyped up that much however so im not as disappointed as i could have been

[eFestivals]

Interesting to see the loyal fanbase argument chucked out of the window but it certainly has been true for years, maybe not at other festivals but definitely at T. It has had the Scottish vote and people were even proud of "their" festival.

There's a difference between Scots being loyal to something Scottish and T having a loyal fanbase.

Scots voted for Michelle McManus and David Snedden in their millions, to be loyal to Scotland - but it didn't have them go out and buy their records, did it?

So T was regarded as 'the' Scottish festival, but that didn't mean it had a strictly loyal fanbase at any point. It only takes a look at the posts made here over the last 13 years to know it's not true - people were dipping out at all points for any reason you can think of, because getting on with what they wanted to do with their lives was ultimately and unsurprisingly more important than an event that just happens to take place in Scotland.

[eFestivals]

Interesting to see the loyal fanbase argument chucked out of the window but it certainly has been true for years, maybe not at other festivals but definitely at T. It has had the Scottish vote and people were even proud of "their" festival.

There's a difference between Scots being loyal to something Scottish and T having a loyal fanbase.

Scots voted for Michelle McManus and David Snedden in their millions, to be loyal to Scotland - but it didn't have them go out and buy their records, did it?

So T was regarded as 'the' Scottish festival, but that didn't mean it had a strictly loyal fanbase at any point. It only takes a look at the posts made here over the last 13 years to know it's not true - people were dipping out at all points for any reason you can think of, because getting on with what they wanted to do with their lives was ultimately and unsurprisingly more important than an event that just happens to take place in Scotland.

[thefaultinourstars]

Certainly not to my taste, I will not be going. What I will say is that the headliners are very female-orientated. I don't know a single male Rihanna fan, and Mumford are certainly more popular amongst girls. Dunno if that explains why everyone here is so upset, cos we're just about all guys.

Horrific announcement though.

[devilman]

T has always had landfill. Not necessarily indie but of whatever genre was selling at the time. What it always had though was balance and quality. They've sold out now and it's nearly all landfill of whatever radio 1 is playing. Rock werchter will sell out a long time before T does and the crowd will have a a lot of British people in it. Look at teh line up, it's not landfill, it's quality bands that can actually play instruments and sing. If it works for them why can't it work over here?

[eFestivals]

What it always had though was balance and quality.

To you, maybe.

To me I've always seen it as completely dominated by pop dross, no different to how you've seen it for the last couple of years. How a person views it is 100% dependent on where they're coming from.

You didn't see that pop dross as pop dross because it was *your* pop dross, and that made it somehow credible in your own mind. The stuff you're now seeing as pop dross is credible to a younger generation than you.

That's how things have always worked and will continue to work.

[mrtourette]

T has always had landfill. Not necessarily indie but of whatever genre was selling at the time. What it always had though was balance and quality. They've sold out now and it's nearly all landfill of whatever radio 1 is playing. Rock werchter will sell out a long time before T does and the crowd will have a a lot of British people in it. Look at teh line up, it's not landfill, it's quality bands that can actually play instruments and sing. If it works for them why can't it work over here?

Edited December 4, 2012 by mrtourette

[blue6field]

There's no doubting the popularity of the 2 headliners! They're not my cup of tea but will shift loads of tickets.

Remember someone on efests talking about arcade fire at Hyde park a couple of years ago.

They stated that a huge chunk of the crowd buggered off after Mumford and sons and left before arcade fire.

They are a huge draw at the moment.

There could be a show stopper of an announcement still to come!

[craig94]

There could be a show stopper of an announcement still to come!

[blue6field]

Optimistic but we can hope that the undercard or the 3rd headliner is good but I think 3rd headliner is almost certainly the killers

[frankblack]

I'm glad at the announcement - it couldn't have been any worse.

Now I can spend my cash on decent festivals/shows, starting with Bruce Springsteen.

[KeithDelBasso]

I'm glad at the announcement - it couldn't have been any worse.

Now I can spend my cash on decent festivals/shows, starting with Bruce Springsteen.

[kevinboyle82]

I love T. Every arsehole in Glasgow goes there for the weekend and I can have a night out in peace

[thetime]

Because bands charge more to play in the UK, and they can put bands that you think are quality on lower down the bill because they aren't as popular in Europe, which makes the line-up look strong to us.

Also I think (although this is probably a shocking generalisation) that UK festivals tend to have more depth than a lot of the European ones that are lauded for having quality line-ups.