Headliners 2015

[A Guy Called Matt]

Lenny Krevis - world tour.......http://www.lennykravitz.com/tour/ - it could happen....

Take That?

Foo Fighters?

Swift?

Florence?

Lenny?

I may cry...

Lenny Kravitz as headliner? Your not serious are you?

[neil999]

Lenny Kravitz as headliner? Your not serious are you?

he'd have to play 'are you gonna go my way' 15 times...

[CaledonianGonzo]

As long as he brings his scarf.

[BonScott]

Lenny Krevis - world tour.......http://www.lennykravitz.com/tour/ - it could happen....

Take That?

Foo Fighters?

Swift?

Florence?

Lenny?

I may cry...

All we need now is One Direction

[found home in 2009]

They absolutely are. This idea that there's some filter to maintain the alternative nature of the place is long gone. The festival market is as competitive as any other.

Although pop acts make a lot of money, do they appeal to the type of people willing to camp in British weather for 5 days to see music they like? T in the Park decided to have Rihanna headline for their 20th anniversary (in 2013), ticket sales were much slower than previous years and this year pop acts were conspicuously missing amongst the headliners.

There is so much going on at Glastonbury and music taste is so subjective that I try not to complain about acts I don't like playing Glastonbury. However, I feel that when I buy a ticket without knowing the line up I'm pressing a certain trust in the festival, and booking someone like Take That to headline would erode some of that trust for me.

[Space Shanty]

Complaining that Glastonbury isn't being forward thinking or diverse by not booking Take That is like complaining that Glasto doesn't have a fucking McDonalds stall.

Great analogy.

There is a serious point in relation to the 'every genre deserves its place' stuff.

For a lot of hard-working bands or solo acts who have struggled for years to get traction in the music industry, an appearance at Glasto is gold dust, the ultimate opportunity, a potentially career-defining moment. It's reward for years on the road playing gig after gig in ramshackle venues, without mass marketing, financial backing or high-profile managers and agents.

For the likes of Take That, a rabble brought together by auditions to sell nonsense to the masses, like so many other mainstream acts, Glasto isn't a reward. They were handed huge exposure on a plate. Their place hasn't been earned in any way and it won't make any difference to their careers. It's a travesty having manufactured garbage take the opportunity of an act that would do anything for the same opportunity.

There are many ways for Glasto to be diverse and to reach out to all markets.

You can easily reach out to the mainstream without drilling a hole in the bottom of the musical barrel and scraping the shit out from underneath.

That's what this would amount to

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Although pop acts make a lot of money, do they appeal to the type of people willing to camp in British weather for 5 days to see music they like? T in the Park decided to have Rihanna headline for their 20th anniversary (in 2013), ticket sales were much slower than previous years and this year pop acts were conspicuously missing amongst the headliners.

There is so much going on at Glastonbury and music taste is so subjective that I try not to complain about acts I don't like playing Glastonbury. However, I feel that when I buy a ticket without knowing the line up I'm pressing a certain trust in the festival, and booking someone like Take That to headline would erode some of that trust for me.

But they do appeal to the additional throng that come in for the Sunday only. And much more importantly they appeal to the BBC2 audience tuning in. That big audience is the best advertising they get and keeps the festival in the public eye as the biggest and best. Personally I have nothing against TT - I'd agree with you it's kind of a pointless arguement when there's so much else to do.

But it's the Friday before Christmas - I'm at work but would rather sit and moan on an Internet forum than finish a report.

[russycarps]

But they do appeal to the additional throng that come in for the Sunday only. And much more importantly they appeal to the BBC2 audience tuning in. That big audience is the best advertising they get and keeps the festival in the public eye as the biggest and best. Personally I have nothing against TT - I'd agree with you it's kind of a pointless arguement when there's so much else to do.

But it's the Friday before Christmas - I'm at work but would rather sit and moan on an Internet forum than finish a report.

the "additional throng" are in the minority. It's absurd to suggest the festival should cater to their tastes to this degree. I understand that putting metallica on the sunday is not a good idea, but to think only the most banal of all pop acts will appease them is ridiculous.

The fact there is so much else to do is not the point. The point is the headliners of glastonbury are the flag bearers for the whole festival. Take that are at the very bottom of the pile of people who deserve that prestige. They are the lowest of the low. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

The amount of people meekly accepting take that as potential headliners is saddening.

[LondonTom]

But they do appeal to the additional throng that come in for the Sunday only. And much more importantly they appeal to the BBC2 audience tuning in.

I'd rather they didn't try to appease these sorts, to keep at least a healthy chance of getting a ticket alive

[tevaburger]

We turned a (dark) corner with Beyonce but the festival is so big now they need to book for the masses.

Take That would go down well. Sadly. Just as Beyonce did.

They're both fucking appalling acts mind you. Dogshit.

yep, Beyonce was the turning point, and i would argue it could have been with Kylie if that had happened in 05 (?)

[russycarps]

I always thought travis was a low point. I hated those turds.

[FloorFiller]

I always thought travis was a low point. I hated those turds.

and Stereophonics the following year. dark days they were

[Perks]

This thread is well depressing. Cant even believe that 1) take that are being talked about and 2) people actually think its a good idea! good grief

[Space Shanty]

and Stereophonics the following year. dark days they were

The Kooks subbing (I think) the Pyramid in 2007 was the absolute pits

[tevaburger]

Black Eyed Peas b4 McCartney was a disappointment...that could have been a great slot to fill. although it seems he (macca) or his team requested them?

[CaledonianGonzo]

The Kooks are infinitely more offensive than the idea that a consistently creative popstar like Beyonce should appear on the Pyramid.

[ICGenie]

I couldn't care less either way, but the idea that pop bands simply turn up at the top of the charts without having to work really fucking hard is nonsense, particularly in the 90s. You'll find bands like Take That were working 16 hour days, 7 days a week to "make it". Compared to that, gigging in a few grotty pubs must sound like a luxury.

At the end of the day, ALL massively successful bands are successful due to some clever or expensive marketing at some point, regardless of whether there was an advert to put them together at some point. Take That write their own songs and have pretty much been masters of their own destiny for over a decade.

The fact that people are losing their shit over the idea of Take That headlining just shows how much they've fallen for the NME "manufactured bands are bad" schtick...

[FloorFiller]

The Kooks subbing (I think) the Pyramid in 2007 was the absolute pits

and The Fratellis being deemed big enough to sub in 2008. even by the time the festival rolled around that seemed like a bad idea - never mind in hindsight

[Alan_C]

Surely if Take That were interested in doing festivals then V would be in for them throwing a bucketload of money at them?

[FloorFiller]

Surely if Take That were interested in doing festivals then V would be in for them throwing a bucketload of money at them?

they seem to be genuinely interested in doing Glastonbury though - not just festivals in general. i'm sure if they did do Glastonbury then they'd follow it up with other festivals in the following years

[ghostdancer1]

tbh, as a 3-piece i wouldn't see them headlining.

evening on the Pyramid would be where i'd have thought they'd be these days. around where Lily Allen and Ed Sheeran played this year.

and as this page shows, there's an awful lot of absolute dross that has played the Pyramid before, much of it i'd regard as worse than Take That.

[FloorFiller]

tbh, as a 3-piece i wouldn't see them headlining.

evening on the Pyramid would be where i'd have thought they'd be these days. around where Lily Allen and Ed Sheeran played this year.

and as this page shows, there's an awful lot of absolute dross that has played the Pyramid before, much of it i'd regard as worse than Take That.

nah, they're headliners. albeit, much less impressive headliners now than they would've been as a five piece, but headliners none the less

[FuzzyDunlop]

As much as Take That annoy me.. anyone but Ed Sheeran.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

the "additional throng" are in the minority. It's absurd to suggest the festival should cater to their tastes to this degree. I understand that putting metallica on the sunday is not a good idea, but to think only the most banal of all pop acts will appease them is ridiculous.

The fact there is so much else to do is not the point. The point is the headliners of glastonbury are the flag bearers for the whole festival. Take that are at the very bottom of the pile of people who deserve that prestige. They are the lowest of the low. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

The amount of people meekly accepting take that as potential headliners is saddening.

The Sunday crowd might be in the minority - but the TV audience and exposure for the festival isn't.

I don't like it either - but the pyramid on a Sunday night iisn't aimed at me. They're popular - let them go ahead and headline

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ted Dansons Wig

[kalifire]

Beyonce was only a 'turning point' for the minority of Glasto goers who are particularly precious about seeing the kind of music they personally want to hear. I think the widely held consensus is that she did a great job and was a class act. It's less likely that pernickety music fans are going to enjoy Sunday's headline act, but that's entirely their problem. The bookers don't pick crap artists, just acts that have a broader appeal and are therefore looked down on by some.

I enjoy the fact that each night is taking on its own character, and don't begrudge Sunday being more mainstream-friendly at all. There's usually a great alternative, so what's the problem?