Is Glastonbury behind the curve?

[KryziF]

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

Edited July 13, 2014 by KryziF

[Guy Incognito]

The way I see it Glasto often give bands the opportunity to become huge mega stars by giving them headliner status. You could argue that whilst being big, Arctic Monkeys became a massive and even bigger band after headlining. The same could probably be said for Coldplay in 2011 and I have a feeling the same could happen to Arcade Fire this year. Mumford & Sons and Jay-Z could also be seen as big risks upon announcement/

I think we often look back and don't consider how they bands were before they headlined as we now see them as truly massive bands who can easily headline festivals worldwide and thus don't consider the risk taken upon booking.

[swede]

Haha , Glastonbury behind the curve ! I took a newbie this year, before he went he said this would be his only year to do it. Before we'd even got to the opening ceremony on the Wednesday he turned to me and said " it's already better than Leeds and I haven't even watched a band yet, I'm coming back next year"

When a festival can inspire that response on the first day I'd say it's well ahead of the curve

[Meatball]

I'm fairly sure we will never see the pyramid and other for anything other than Friday Saturday Sunday due to the licence. Be a good idea for some where though.

[KryziF]

The same could be said for Coldplay in 2002

[UEF]

Yeah I doubt Coldplay needed or recieved much of a leg-up in 2011.

Have heard absolutely zero chatter about Arcade Fire since the festival. I still think that was a duff booking.

[Guy Incognito]

apologies yeah meant 2002. Arcade Fire seem to be causing much more of a stir than they did before. I know of plenty of casual fans who have become avid fans over the past couple of weeks. I guess we'll only be able to truly tell within a year or two how much their status will really rise.

[Migraine]

I think the op would be surprised by the number of people that don't venture far from the main stages not everyone that goes is quite as enlightened and to some it is 'just another music festival'. I don't think that a risk needs to be taken on pyramid headliners simply due to the number of other stages that there are. In the last three years I think the only band that I have actually gone down to see at the pyramid was the stones and that really doesn't bother me.

[KryziF]

I think the op would be surprised by the number of people that don't venture far from the main stages

Edited July 13, 2014 by KryziF

[CHRLY]

Fixed it for you

[Ruwise]

I think with the number of alternative stages at Glastonbury to make the Pyramid stage look well attended they do need to have an artist with a good catalogue of hits. I don't really like artists with one album headlining because at that stage they still have a lot of filler songs in their set. I am happy for them to embrace any genre. I'd love to see some more female headliners but they do need to be popular enough to occupy that top slot.

[GeoHall]

Interesting, I wonder what the next band will be that will headline off their second album?

[Drinky]

Given how big they've become since, it's easy to forget how much of a punt the Coldplay headline slot was in 2002. They hadn't released a Rush of Blood to the Head at that point, In My Place had only been on the radio for a week, it was a good two years after Parachutes had come out and by and large most punters thought the only reason they were headlining over Faithless was because they'd been such big supporters of the Eavii charity projects in the previous year (going with Emily on an Oxfam trip, agreeing to headline Michael's FarmAid gig after everyone else turned him down, etc).

There weren't a huge number of headline quality bands around at the time - V had Stereophonics too (hence why they weren't officially announced until the week before G started) and Travis (who'd only recently done Glastonbury)... Reading and Leeds had Pulp (again, recent headliners at G), The Prodigy (again), Guns 'n' Roses (Leeds only and unlikely to be booked for Glastonbury anyway)...

Putting all those things together, you can see why Coldplay got the gig, but it's hard to imagine another band headlining the festival before their second album comes out in future.

[Amy Lawn]

Acts just don't get as big anymore due to the internet. 15 years ago, bands could get real traction because of the massive amounts of people that got their music from the same sources, NME/Melody Maker and the Radio. Today Spotify, Bandcamp, etc. mean that you can sample hundreds of artists at your fingertips rather than having to pay for a CD or swapping mixtapes. There are millions of music websites rather than just a handful of magazines and newspapers that have monopoly. People also have infinite access to older artists' back catalogues, so their music can get out there without people having to poke around record shops for second hand copies, or the record label worrying about there being enough interest to go to another pressing of the records. The type of person purely getting their music from Radio 1 is still there, and hasn't changed habit, so pop artists still get massive in the same way, but for alternative acts, the lightening in a bottle effect wont be there in to the same degree anymore. People's tastes are more varied, the big upswing in the amount of music stages is a product of this.

[ghandi]

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.

[UEF]

I reckon Lady Gaga or Katy Perry would be a good shout. Gaga was awesome at 2PM on the Friday or whenever it was a few years ago - you could tell there was a star in the making there at just how she made an afternoon set feel like a headliner.

Doubt Glasto has the required cash for such acts though, so I don't know how receptive they'd be to it. Mind you, if they can convince Jay Z and Beyonce...

[robu]

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?

[Sawdusty surfer]

Sorry, but I think you're mistaking Glastonbury for other festivals. I've been going on and off since 1986 and although the crowd demographic has changed somewhat in that time (not as much as you'd think, actually)

[ICGenie]

apologies yeah meant 2002. Arcade Fire seem to be causing much more of a stir than they did before. I know of plenty of casual fans who have become avid fans over the past couple of weeks. I guess we'll only be able to truly tell within a year or two how much their status will really rise.

[swede]

My newbie friend turned to me after Arcadia Friday night and said "I can't believe the amount of detail this place has and how it's geared up to you just enjoying yourself and having a fucking good time, not like other festivals is it"

No it's not, that's what makes it the best.

[sedra]

In my view, having been to 16 Glastonbury's, the headliners for the pyramid need to have a minimum of 2 very good albums and create a sense of anticipation and ability to hold a crowd of 80,0000+. People who go to the pyramid ( not everyone) want to have a sense of occasion/quality/familiarity/appreciation of musicianship whatever. And bearing in mind the Tv and global coverage via internet etc need to have some kind of global appeal? The good thing is that Glastonbury can take

risks with other headliners on the other numerous stages- they don't need to take too many risks on the pyramid or can use the sub slots if they want. As we all know- it's never about the headliners for most of the people who buy tickets in October - it's an added bonus if it's someone you really want to see/haven't seen yet. It's a personal thing as with all music - and if it's not your thing ( like Metallica this year for me) then there is always something else. Glastonbury works, it's not like other festivals, let them do their thing - I expect it to be just as awesome next year.

[midnight]

Well, they booked Yoko Ono this year, and I'm still getting over my surprise about how much controversy she caused, with a whole thread of her own!

Must admit that I probably don't even know where the curve is, and I doubt I was ever ahead of it, but is there really a common consensus that the line up was weak this year? I had the ususal problems of clashes and wanting to over-extent myself. And in the weeks leading up to the event, when I was wailing and boring everyone I know about not having managed to get a ticket, I got quite a lot of sympathy from people who said, yes, what a shame, particularly as the line up is so good this year. Purely anecdotal, of course, but for once the pyramid did not have a single headliner I really wanted to avoid (unless you count Dolly Parton in).

Instead, I caught myself looking fondly at the mud, thinking, that might make the ticket scramble easier next time...

Edited July 13, 2014 by midnight

[Dom Wall]

Not a festival, but I think you can see how rapid bands can still rise with the likes of that 5SOS managing to do arena tours on the back of one single and a few twitter followers..

[found home in 2009]

I feel like the whole day is building up to the headliner and the Pyramid headliner isn't the slot to be taking chances with. They also get a long set so I believe a band doing it should have at least 2 albums so they have a few songs to choose between.

Across the weekend Glastonbury gives plenty of smaller bands chances every year and if they do well they tend to get a better slot/stage the next year.

Personally this year not a single headliner across all the stages appealled to me on Friday, which was a first. But the rest of the weekend (and the other 3 years I've been to Glastonbury) I've felt spoiled for choice so I definintely am not going to complain about their music policy.

Don't think many (if any) festivals can match Glastonbury for its range and strength in depth of music

[Babyquack]

Not a festival, but I think you can see how rapid bands can still rise with the likes of that 5SOS managing to do arena tours on the back of one single and a few twitter followers..