Next Announcement 2017 Thread

[OddRon]

I think everyone is hyping up the xx  to be bigger than they are, their new album is shite and they weren't the best when they made ambient peaceful stuff rather than slow disco, with the amount of festivals having them as headliner or sub I know they probably will be sub but Christ

[stuartbert two hats]

7 minutes ago, Keithy said:

No they didn't.

Roses not headlining is nothing to do with money anyway. 

Isn't it? I thought there was a poster on here who ended up in a pub with Mani and he said it was everything to do with money.

[thewayiam]

6 minutes ago, Keithy said:

No they didn't.

Roses not headlining is nothing to do with money anyway. 

Well they did because everyone on here was it's going to happen as Jagger won't accept the fee blah blah.

Nope, Mani didn't tell anyone a while back that they aren't doing it due to the fee, we'll see next time. They aren't on a 3rd reunion or whatever it is because money isn't wanted/Ian doesn't didn't need to pay for a divorce etc etc.

[thewayiam]

2 minutes ago, OddRon said:

I think everyone is hyping up the xx  to be bigger than they are, their new album is shite and they weren't the best when they made ambient peaceful stuff rather than slow disco, with the amount of festivals having them as headliner or sub I know they probably will be sub but Christ

They sold out 6/7 nights at Brixton....I don't think its hype. I don't like them at all but many do like the new stuff. It'll be a Pyramid sub/Other stage headliner but actually billed as one this time plus a secret set on The Park probably if true.

[Keithy]

19 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Isn't it? I thought there was a poster on here who ended up in a pub with Mani and he said it was everything to do with money.

It's a controversial opinion but IMO Roses not headlining is because they are not a band worthy of headlining the pyramid stage at any point since about 1996 and the Eavii haven't seen otherwise.

If it was all about money, they'd take the standard headliner fee and tv exposure and subsequent album sale boots. Surely 300k and album sales is more money than not playing and getting nothing.

[Gucci Piggy]

1 minute ago, Keithy said:

It's a controversial opinion but IMO Roses not headlining is because they are not a band worthy of headlining the pyramid stage at any point since about 1996 and the Eavii haven't seen otherwise.

If it was all about money, they'd take the standard headliner fee and tv exposure and subsequent album sale boots. Surely 300k and album sales is more money than not playing and getting nothing.

I'm pretty sure the Eavii have said recently they want them. Them not playing will surely be because of the money.

Edit: The problem is they most likely wouldn't let their set be broadcast and therefore wouldn't benefit from the TV exposure which makes up for the lower fee. They'd be taking a lower fee to play Glastonbury with no upsides.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Will-2609

[jparx]

The xx's new record is fine. People just have to categorise everything as amazing or shit with no middle ground. Stuff can't just be 'good' anymore.

I don't think they will play the Park stage, but I also don't think it's completely impossible if they are booked against Sheeran. I still thoroughly expect them to sub the Pyramid.

[Keithy]

Just now, Will-2609 said:

I'm pretty sure the Eavii have said recently they want them. Them not playing will surely be because of the money.

Eavii aren't asking them to do it for free though. If  they're in it just for the money then surely you'd take the 300k, primetime tv and album sales boost and be done with it.

[Gucci Piggy]

2 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Eavii aren't asking them to do it for free though. If  they're in it just for the money then surely you'd take the 300k, primetime tv and album sales boost and be done with it.

But instead of doing it they could just do another date of their own and earn millions? Or play another festival and earn twice as much? They won't take primetime TV, I assume, because they know how shit it'll sound.

[Keithy]

1 minute ago, Will-2609 said:

But instead of doing it they could just do another date of their own and earn millions? Or play another festival and earn twice as much? They won't take primetime TV, I assume, because they know how shit it'll sound.

As far as i can recall, they've been free every single Glastonbury recently so the 'in it for the money' band have decided to not play and sit and earn nothing at home? Nothing to stop them still playing other festivals or their own dates.

Your last sentance hits the nail on the head. Its one thing to sound awful at your own stadium gig in front of 50,000 pissed up adoring fans, it's a whole other thing to stink the place out on primetime tv.

Eavii might want them but it won't be as a pyramid headliner. 

[dentalplan]

5 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Eavii might want them but it won't be as a pyramid headliner. 

They do want them as a Pyramid headliner. You don't.

[evannn]

So if it's not the money, and it isn't that the Eavii don't rate them, are we to assume the Roses themselves just don't want to do it? 

 

[thewayiam]

35 minutes ago, Keithy said:

It's a controversial opinion but IMO Roses not headlining is because they are not a band worthy of headlining the pyramid stage at any point since about 1996 and the Eavii haven't seen otherwise.

If it was all about money, they'd take the standard headliner fee and tv exposure and subsequent album sale boots. Surely 300k and album sales is more money than not playing and getting nothing.

The only reason Radiohead are there is because they aren't and many on here reluctantly have agreed. 

[Gucci Piggy]

22 minutes ago, Keithy said:

As far as i can recall, they've been free every single Glastonbury recently so the 'in it for the money' band have decided to not play and sit and earn nothing at home? Nothing to stop them still playing other festivals or their own dates.

Your last sentance hits the nail on the head. Its one thing to sound awful at your own stadium gig in front of 50,000 pissed up adoring fans, it's a whole other thing to stink the place out on primetime tv.

Eavii might want them but it won't be as a pyramid headliner. 

It's about earning as much money as possible for as little work as possible. They'll have a minimum amount they're willing to play a show for. If I offer them a few hundred pounds on a free night of theirs to come and play some tunes for me and my mates would they do it? No, because it isn't enough to make them want to do it.

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, thewayiam said:

The only reason Radiohead are there is because they aren't

If Radiohead are there and they aren't can they be said to make a sound?

[Gucci Piggy]

2 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

The only reason Radiohead are there is because they aren't and many on here reluctantly have agreed. 

I don't agree. If they had to bin off any of the three headliners I assume it'd be Foo Fighters, as they know they'll probably be back next Summer, and if not they're here every few Summers anyway. God knows when Radiohead will next be doing destivals.

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, evannn said:

So if it's not the money, and it isn't that the Eavii don't rate them, are we to assume the Roses themselves just don't want to do it? 

It is about the money, I'm damned sure it is.

It's not that they won't take it, it's that *IF* they take it they'll reduce the fees of the other shows they're doing (which are pretty much 'it's difficult to see them elsewhere' if not fully exclusive), and Glasto's low fee makes it too much of a loss overall.

I reckon they'd be happy to take Glasto's lower fee, but only if it didn't impact into the fees of other shows - but it's always likely to with the few shows they prefer to do.

[chatty]

The Stone Roses actually sound better live now than they did in their prime tbf.  If it was all about bands sounding shit then surely Kanye wouldnt have been booked. 

[Gucci Piggy]

10 minutes ago, chatty said:

The Stone Roses actually sound better live now than they did in their prime tbf.  If it was all about bands sounding shit then surely Kanye wouldnt have been booked. 

I know lots didn't like Kanye's performance on the night but if you watch previously televised performances of his such as Coachella in 2011 or something he's bang on. There was no real worry of him sounding shit live beforehand.

[addicted2noise]

1 hour ago, OddRon said:

I think everyone is hyping up the xx  to be bigger than they are, their new album is shite and they weren't the best when they made ambient peaceful stuff rather than slow disco, with the amount of festivals having them as headliner or sub I know they probably will be sub but Christ

If you were to base an acts popularity on the amount of down votes you get for slagging them off on here I'd say The XX are not yet up there with Ed Sheeran or Coldplay but are not too far off either, it also depends on the level of the insult too I suppose.    

[Hugh Jass]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It is about the money, I'm damned sure it is.

It's not that they won't take it, it's that *IF* they take it they'll reduce the fees of the other shows they're doing (which are pretty much 'it's difficult to see them elsewhere' if not fully exclusive), and Glasto's low fee makes it too much of a loss overall.

I reckon they'd be happy to take Glasto's lower fee, but only if it didn't impact into the fees of other shows - but it's always likely to with the few shows they prefer to do.

They must be getting closer and closer to the law of dimishing returns now surely? This summer will be the fourth out of the last five that they've been doing gigs and there's still no sign of any new music. How many more times can they crank out the same set and still be stadium fillers? 

[dentalplan]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

They must be getting closer and closer to the law of dimishing returns now surely? This summer will be the fourth out of the last five that they've been doing gigs and there's still no sign of any new music. How many more times can they crank out the same set and still be stadium fillers? 

I think that's what they're waiting for. If they dug further into the kitty to get the Stones then fair enough cos they're not getting cheaper but the Roses are only gonna get cheaper and seemingly produce nothing worthwhile to differentiate from when they did cost too much.

9 minutes ago, addicted2noise said:

If you were to base an acts popularity on the amount of down votes you get for slagging them off on here I'd say The XX are not yet up there with Ed Sheeran or Coldplay but are not too far off either, it also depends on the level of the insult too I suppose.    

Blossoms must be huge then. And not just in Manchester!

[SwedgeAntilles]

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

If Radiohead are there and they aren't can they be said to make a sound?

Schrödinger's Paranoid Android

[jparx]

37 minutes ago, Will-2609 said:

I know lots didn't like Kanye's performance on the night but if you watch previously televised performances of his such as Coachella in 2011 or something he's bang on. There was no real worry of him sounding shit live beforehand.

I've seen Kanye a few times, and I was shocked by how bad he was at Glastonbury. I was expecting all sorts of bizarre things before the show, but I never imagined it would be a bad performance.

[Gucci Piggy]

20 minutes ago, jparx said:

I've seen Kanye a few times, and I was shocked by how bad he was at Glastonbury. I was expecting all sorts of bizarre things before the show, but I never imagined it would be a bad performance.

I enjoyed the set myself but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting better. Been waiting for him to do his own shows since then so I can see a proper set from him.