Is Glastonbury behind the curve?

[kalifire]

Now hear me out on this. I have absolutely no doubt that the team of advisers/bookers at Glasto are very aware of the respective genres they all represent and on top of who is who and which artists have fresh momentum, but sometimes I can understand the criticism that Glastonbury headliners represent the established, safe categories where everything is assuredly reliable. Even Jay-Z, Glasto's arguably most risky main-stage booking, had a huge catalogue of recognisable hits and a reliable history of solid live shows.

Now we're in an era where barely days pass from Glasto Monday before the Eavii assure us that quality headliners are in the bag for next year. I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with that; a lot can happen within ten months and I'd love to see greater risks being taken and belief demonstrated in the quality of new artists rather than having headliners need to have released several hit albums. I understand why they do it, but it's not experimental; it's not risk-taking, it's safe and assured. Some would say dull.

Nobody goes to Glastonbury for the headliners. If they did, it wouldn't sell out in October. There's no need to play it safe with the headliners and every reason to roll out the red carpet to fresh blood. Enough time passes between announcement and gates open for the majority to familiarise themselves with artists they've not heard already and even if there isn't, there is beauty in discovering a new act for the first time at a headline slot. I'd hate to think anyone was pandering for media attention and large crowds. Glastonbury is big enough to forget about that.

What do you think? Are Glasto right to keep playing it safe? Or is there scope for something a little more adventurous?

Edited July 13, 2014 by kalifire

[Cooter]

No, I quite agree. However this year was almost slighltly nearly refreshingly different with the lack of Jayzees and U2s with the likes of Arcade Fire and Metallica. Yea still massive and huge but for me it felt like someone somewhere suddenly realised after a decade or so that the festival doesn't need it and in fact has sometimes been more bad than good.

Personally I don't believe it should have headline slots at all but because nowadays it has to sell itself as a clean perfect smooth running slick machine I fear that is a thing of the past.

[Cooter]

Double post madness

Edited July 13, 2014 by Cooter

[bexj]

The problem with new acts is that a) they don't have enough material to fill a headline slot and they don't have the experience to work the crowd and to fill the vast cavern that is the Pyramid stage - and by fill I mean have the stage presence rather than play to a packed field. I think both of those things are important for a headliner act, that said I dont believe it's all about Stones/Bowie/U2 type acts either.

[UEF]

The Killers and the Arctic Monkeys are 2 of what I would consider to be 'new bands' at the time of headlining that managed it. I must admit I was against the idea of both at the time but in retrospect see the Eavis wisdom at work.

[musky]

Safe, assured, dull. Although I doubt they'd describe it like that it's what many people want from the Pyramid stage. Let them have it, it keeps them from under my feet on the rest of the site.

I do think that although they like to say the headliners are in the bag every summer they rarely seem to be in reality. It usually turns out that they're talking to quite a few acts, and things are only inked in much later. I'm not sure how much later they could leave it before trying to book a band that is likely to be busy over the summer anyway.

Edited July 13, 2014 by musky

[eFestivals]

Nobody goes to Glastonbury for the headliners. If they did, it wouldn't sell out in October.

I'm not sure the two are as remote as you wish to believe.

People will by that ticket because they trust Glastonbury to deliver something at around the same level of the year before.

One weak year would most likely see a significant drop in sales the following year - and in fact, I'm expecting tickets to be easier to get this October, precisely because of that.

[THEBOILERMAN]

I'm not sure the two are as remote as you wish to believe.

People will by that ticket because they trust Glastonbury to deliver something at around the same level of the year before.

One weak year would most likely see a significant drop in sales the following year - and in fact, I'm expecting tickets to be easier to get this October, precisely because of that.

We can but hope

[FuzzyDunlop]

People will by that ticket because they trust Glastonbury to deliver something at around the same level of the year before.

One weak year would most likely see a significant drop in sales the following year - and in fact, I'm expecting tickets to be easier to get this October, precisely because of that.

Edited July 13, 2014 by FuzzyDunlop

[eFestivals]

We can hope, but do you think Metallica's success will mean a few people who never fancied glastonbury give it a go? Especially with the rumours of ACDC?

the ACDC rumours are crap, and that'll become clear.

And why would a metaller go next year, when Glasto is the least likely of any time ever to have a metal headliner?

[FuzzyDunlop]

the ACDC rumours are crap, and that'll become clear.

And why would a metaller go next year, when Glasto is the least likely of any time ever to have a metal headliner?

Edited July 13, 2014 by FuzzyDunlop

[eFestivals]

Because as you point out people are so short sighted that one "weak" year for headliners sees a drop off in people applying. I had a few metal fans ask me how glastonbury was who would never normally be interested. 1 said "its never really appealled before". Not that I expect them to try for a ticket, but some might?

well, I guess it's always possible that some metallers have become more open-minded as they've said Glastonbury should be by booking a metal band.

But given how many decades metallers have been saying they're open minded whilst staying open to only metal, I don't think that's going to be a big number, do you?

[FuzzyDunlop]

Maybe not.

You say the rumours of ACDC are piffle (and I don't doubt you) but most music fans get info from the media. If they champion the rumour, unfounded or otherwise - it spreads.

My mates were convinced that prince was playing til about 10 days before metallica were announced. They got that through the normal channels.

(I did try to put them right though!)

Edited July 13, 2014 by FuzzyDunlop

[Midnight Man]

I can't see Glastonbury turning into Downloadbury any time soon and thank god for that. I saw Neil Young last night at BST - having never been to one of those events before, lordy what an eye opener!

Soulless, corporate venue with exclusive seating, Fosters and Strongbow at £5.50 a pint, 10pm curfew. Reminded me what a precious experience Glastonbury is and for all the changes people object to - mobile phone charging, off site camping etc - it is still unique and not to be taken for granted.

I'm sure the headliners will be fine!

[frostypaw]

I think the OP is right - but they're not far off it. I too would rather see a bit more bravery in headline acts, though there were some quite unusual choices this year that did well

It would suck if it were to become a greatest-hits festival, but it seems unlikely still. There simply aren't that many bands that fit the criteria and you can't keep repeating the same bands.

So a worry, but I think we're mostly safe

[Babyquack]

I'm not sure I agree with the OP here - they took the 'risk' in booking Mumford & Sons last year. The band had never headlined a festival before, sure they were doing TitP a few weeks later but it was still the first year they were truly considered 'headliners'. Surely is Glasto is 'behind the curve' they would have waited a few years for the band to headline other fests first, then come round and do Glasto when they're a more established headliner no?

Wasn't Beyonce's headline show in 11' the first festival she headlined in the UK?

Okay, sure Glasto doesn't do the whole 'bump up new bands' kind of deal that R&L or TitP do but to say they're 'behind the curve' is a bit far fetched imo

[KryziF]

I'd argue that Glastonbury could book "the next big thing" headliners a year before hand. Of the bands that have done headline slots early in their careers coldplay, killers, Arctic monkeys, Mumfords, kings of Leon, the pattern has been for them to have a huge debut album and then to headline as they are touring the second album. That's plenty of time for glasto to book them a year out.

Surely the problem is actually the lack of popular new guitar based music around at the moment but music is cyclical and it'll come back.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Surely the problem is actually the lack of popular new guitar based music around at the moment but music is cyclical and it'll come back.

[DJL]

I agree to some degree but i think they have done well to have largely popular headliners in recent years despite only having 4 of the last 18 returning for a 2nd time (i think - blur, muse, coldplay, arctic monkeys?).

As we've discussed here before there aren't many acts around at the moment that you could realistically see make the step up. Of the acts i like that potentially could i'm not sure who i would actually want to - I love hot chip but i'd rather see them with a good crowd on the other than a sparse one on the pyramid and foals i'd probably prefer as a good sub.

Of the newish headliners elsewhere none of biffy, calvin harris, timberlake, bruno mars or two door cinema club would interest me, i preferred black keys as a glasto sub and i think i would have thought the same about outkast. Disclosure got a fairly small crowd on west holts and rudimental would need a very big second album to pull it off.

Like them or not in turns of 1st time glasto headliners I can see us getting 1 or 2 of gaga, florence or possibly kanye/rihanna at some point over the next few years, plus maybe a rockier headliner or two (foo fighters, acdc and maybe even a green day or pearl jam), some 'legends' (fleetwood mac, madonna, stone roses), inevitable daft punk and prince rumours and perhaps someone that comes from nowhere.

I think that's a fair spread (though i'd happily be enjoying myself elsewhere for most) but admittedly very far from cutting edge (this is the pyramid after all!)...

[DJL]

...and sadly there hasn't been a debut album in years i could see immediately headlining the pyramid.

[drewsstrat]

Forgetting the headliners, Glasto always gives an artist a second chance further up the bill if they go down well. Mumfords probably a good example of a band being bumped up over the years. Other festivals do not have the number of stages available to take a punt on new talent.

Regarding metal. I for one would love to see a 'rock/hm' stage replace just one of the countless DJ dance stages (nobody seems to mention this...) I'd much rather real music of the heavy variety than someone spinning discs

[KryziF]

It doesn't need to be guitar based. It just needs to be credible. Daft Punk or the prodigy could have done it as a new artist. Avicii cannot.

Edited July 13, 2014 by KryziF

[zero000]

I think the OP is right - but they're not far off it. I too would rather see a bit more bravery in headline acts, though there were some quite unusual choices this year that did well

It would suck if it were to become a greatest-hits festival, but it seems unlikely still. There simply aren't that many bands that fit the criteria and you can't keep repeating the same bands.

So a worry, but I think we're mostly safe

[Meatball]

With it basically being a 5 day festival now I could see a possibility of the main stages (or at least the other) opening on the Thursday showcasing emerging talent with the headliner being the best of that bunch

[CaledonianGonzo]

If Glasto are behind the curve and TITP are ahead of it - then given what I've been watching this weekend I'll stick with being behind, thanks.