2019 Headliners

[Quark]

9 minutes ago, Odessa said:

Honestly a lot of discussion about headliners on here boils down to "I think they're shit so they're not suitable to headline". Foo Fighters are utter dirge but I didn't say they shouldn't be playing cos they haven't had a hit in x years. And if Green Day can't headline then looking at recent years, Florence, Kanye, Kasabian, Arcade Fire, Arctics and Mumfords weren't big enough either.

Pretty much bang on my point after last year mate.  But, y'know, it's the internet. No-one's ever bloody happy.

On 8/23/2017 at 12:34 PM, Quark said:

The never-ending quandary over headliners.

Big well-known established band - too predictable

Newer band currently ruling the world - not enough back catalogue

Established band with high quality but not chart-troubling - won't pull a crowd

Band with guitars - why do we always have a guitar band?

Rap / hip hop / grime act - not right for Glastonbury / Kanye didn't work

Popular band smashing the charts - too mainstream / bland / poppy

Previous headliner guaranteed to put on a show - safe option

 

[Quark]

2 hours ago, Madyaker said:

I’d rather count floaters in the long drops. Are you lads serious?? Green Day are fucking shite. Thankfully it’s unlikely as I don’t think they’d do it for the comparatively small money that glasto offer headliners.

So we'll mark you down as a "Maybe" then?

[Winslow Leach]

5 minutes ago, Odessa said:

Honestly a lot of discussion about headliners on here boils down to "I think they're shit so they're not suitable to headline". Foo Fighters are utter dirge but I didn't say they shouldn't be playing cos they haven't had a hit in x years. And if Green Day can't headline then looking at recent years, Florence, Kanye, Kasabian, Arcade Fire, Arctics and Mumfords weren't big enough either.

I hate Green Day and Foos but the latter were still a significantly better booking for the festival than the former would be.

I mean I could go through each of those and say why they were probably a better booking in the specific year that they played, but I seriously do not care about Green Day enough to bother. 

 

[Odessa]

sorry wifi is playing up, ignore this

Edited May 17, 2018 by Odessa

[Odessa]

7 minutes ago, Winslow Leach said:

I hate Green Day and Foos but the latter were still a significantly better booking for the festival than the former would be.

I mean I could go through each of those and say why they were probably a better booking in the specific year that they played, but I seriously do not care about Green Day enough to bother. 

Foos were a significantly better booking for the festival than most headliners would be though. 

How were 2014 Kasabian and Arcade Fire better bookings than Green Day would be? I'm especially struggling with those two.

[Gucci Piggy]

1 minute ago, Odessa said:

Foos were a significantly better booking for the festival than most headliners would be though.

2014 Kasabian and Arcade Fire were better bookings than Green Day would be in what sense?

Relevancy that didnt take place over a decade ago.

Don't think anyone was arguing that Green Day aren't big enough, were they? If so then yeah that's dumb of course.

I hate Kasabian as much as I hate Green Day but they were probably the most obvious Glasto headliner there was in 2014. I know I was predicting them pretty much from the off.

Same with Mumford, I'd rather watch Green Day than them but they were an obvious Glasto headliner in 2013 in the same way Ed Sheeran was last year.

Despite being pretty naff, Foos are basically the quintessential noughties rock band and them headlining Glasto always felt like an eventuality. From what Neil's said in the past it sounds like they were considered on an almost yearly basis until 2015 and it may have just been Michael's concerns over crowd safety that stopped it happening before then.

[CaledonianGonzo]

5 minutes ago, Odessa said:

How were 2014 Kasabian and Arcade Fire better bookings than Green Day would be? I'm especially struggling with those two.

They weren't good bookings - but I'm not sure the argument should be "We've had shit bookings before so it's okay to have them again"

 

Especially when, as this thread's proven, Kid Rock's more popular.

Edited May 17, 2018 by CaledonianGonzo

[Gucci Piggy]

Arcade Fire in 2014 was the exact type of booking we all moan about them not making every year when they book the likes of Muse and Coldplay to come back for a 3rd or 4th time.

Yeah they probably didn't get a massive crowd but it was a new headliner, someone more interesting than your standard arena rock bands, and it was actually a good band that play good music.

[dentalplan]

38 minutes ago, Quark said:

Pretty much bang on my point after last year mate.  But, y'know, it's the internet. No-one's ever bloody happy.

I can't see a way that the next few years aren't more daring and potentially upsetting when it comes to headline choices. There's only two at the moment, Fleetwood Mac and Arctic Monkeys, that seem roundly pleasing and there's no guarantee either will appear. Future looks like they're either going through the bottom of the repeats bucket, promoting new bands as headliners, bringing in rock bands that headline elsewhere regularly but are a bit long in the tooth, or - probably more likely - a headline trio dominated by pop and rap acts.

Edited May 17, 2018 by dentalplan

[Winslow Leach]

14 minutes ago, Odessa said:

Foos were a significantly better booking for the festival than most headliners would be though. 

How were 2014 Kasabian and Arcade Fire better bookings than Green Day would be? I'm especially struggling with those two.

Neither of those come from a scene the festival has avoided booking like it's the plague.

[Odessa]

Just now, Gucci Piggy said:

Arcade Fire in 2014 was the exact type of booking we all moan about them not making every year when they book the likes of Muse and Coldplay to come back for a 3rd or 4th time.

Yeah they probably didn't get a massive crowd but it was a new headliner, someone more interesting than your standard arena rock bands, and it was actually a good band that play good music.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that booking and I'd rather them than Green Day too. But not really my point.

4 minutes ago, Gucci Piggy said:

I hate Kasabian as much as I hate Green Day but they were probably the most obvious Glasto headliner there was in 2014. I know I was predicting them pretty much from the off.

Does that make it good though...? Or better than Green Day? They were touring a stinker of an album and had peaked years earlier. They'd have been a good headliner in 2009/10 imo.

And the relevancy argument doesn't apply to Green Day if it doesn't apply to Muse. All I'm trying to say is I don't see any reasons based off past headliners to suggest it shouldn't happen. 

 

[Quark]

1 minute ago, dentalplan said:

I can't see a way that the next few years aren't more daring and potentially upsetting when it comes to headline choices. There's only two at the moment, Fleetwood Mac and Arctic Monkeys, that seem roundly pleasing and there's no guarantee either will appear. Future looks like they're either going through the bottom of the repeats bucket, promoting new bands as headliners, bringing in rock bands that headline elsewhere regularly but are a bit long in the tooth, or - probably more likely - a headline trio dominated by pop and rap acts.

I don't see that either of those would be roundly pleasing. FM would fall in the "old and past it" bracket, plus the question of whether Lindsey Buckingham would be playing, and AM are one of the played too recently / regularly bands. 

Personally I'd be happy with FM as an option.  I'm not a massive AM fan so would be fairly indifferent, but I wouldn't be spitting feathers about them.

It's my favourite paradox on this board.  Everyone's too cool to be at the Pyramid for headliners, but everyone's got an opinion on what should or shouldn't be there

I think they should go with more left field choices personally.  Glastonbury never sells out on the basis of the headliners anyway, so why not have a crack?  The worst that happens is the twitter trolls come out from under their bridges and self entitled Glastonbury fanboys like us get to have a good whinge

[CaledonianGonzo]

12 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

probably more likely - a headline trio dominated by pop and rap acts.

I suspect that this is what the future holds, aye. But then Glastonbury should be reflecting the culture at large, rather than throwing out lifelines to midrange spacefillers purely because they happen to be holding guitars.

[Gucci Piggy]

2 minutes ago, Odessa said:

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that booking and I'd rather them than Green Day too. But not really my point.

Does that make it good though...? Or better than Green Day? They were touring a stinker of an album and had peaked years earlier. They'd have been a good headliner in 2009/10 imo.

And the relevancy argument doesn't apply to Green Day if it doesn't apply to Muse. All I'm trying to say is I don't see any reasons based off past headliners to suggest it shouldn't happen. 

 

I didn't say it was good. You asked in what sense was it a better booking than Green Day.

They were touring a shit album, but would Glasto have known that when they booked them? It came out the month of the festival. In 2009 Kasabian subbed Glasto and I'm pretty sure their first major headline slot was R&L in 2012. Glasto was on a fallow year then so had to wait until their next tour. Maybe 2009 would have been fine, I don't remember exactly how big they were then, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an obvious booking in 2014 that couldn't really be argued. They were one of the biggest current bands in the UK at the time who'd headlined everywhere except Glasto, and they were certainly still relevant in 2014.

The relevancy argument does agree to Muse. They were an awful booking in 2016 and I'd rather have seen Foals given the slot. However Muse are pretty much a house band for them now which is probably why they were booked again in 2016, and the fact they're British may have helped. I think they're a bit more relevant than Green Day, anyway.

[Gucci Piggy]

10 minutes ago, Quark said:

I think they should go with more left field choices personally.  Glastonbury never sells out on the basis of the headliners anyway, so why not have a crack?  The worst that happens is the twitter trolls come out from under their bridges and self entitled Glastonbury fanboys like us get to have a good whinge

A few years of leftfield headliners and less people watching on TV will certainly see the number of people trying for tickets fall.

I do somewhat agree with what you're saying though and think they can afford to have at least one risky booking each year. In 2015 Florence and the Machine should have been bumped up over booking The Who (if possible); in 2016 Foals should have headlined over Muse or Coldplay; in 2017 The xx could have headlined but they did get 3 headliners that you couldn't really argue with so I'll give them that.

I think Stormzy next year would be a perfect choice for this if he has a new album out by then.

Might not be quite what you mean by leftfield but I think they should lean more this way than they currently do.

[Odessa]

Tbh I think I've lost track of what I was even trying to argue so I'll leave it there hahaha. 

[dentalplan]

1 minute ago, Gucci Piggy said:

The xx could have headlined

Damn this is the best argument against new headliners that could have been proffered.

[CaledonianGonzo]

The  'improve the festival by booking weaker headliners so that fewer people go' method would never ever backfire.

[Gucci Piggy]

Just now, dentalplan said:

Damn this is the best argument against new headliners that could have been proffered.

Be naff but I still think they could have been given a shot.

[Quark]

1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I suspect that this is what the future holds, aye. But then Glastonbury should be reflecting the culture at large, rather than throwing out lifelines to midrange spacefillers purely because they happen to be holding guitars.

I don't think Glastonbury "should" reflect anything; it generally grew on the basis of current yet slightly non-pop bands, right?  They certainly weren't chart monsters. Happy to be corrected. 

With the whole change in how we distribute and listen to music, I do think there's a case to argue that the midrange is where most things are going to sit, purely because things aren't so dominated by physical sales and charts.  We have access to such a wider range of music now that the number of newer bands who would be considered a big catch is shrinking, purely because our attention is spread so much more thinly.  Hence the return to big bands of yesteryear.

Just a train of thought really. But yeah. Let's keep it interesting at least. I'd rather have an interesting range of stuff to watch than catching the same merry go round of bands ad infinitum

[dentalplan]

1 minute ago, Gucci Piggy said:

Be naff but I still think they could have been given a shot.

Yeah I'd support it and probably even watch it. I just like to rustle jimmies.

1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The  'improve the festival by booking weaker headliners so that fewer people go' method would never ever backfire.

But they can't keep booking stronger headliners, realistically, after last couple of years. And there was a time when the acts didn't have to be the biggest in the world or even in the UK and it still sold enough to continue another year.

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The  'improve the festival by booking weaker headliners so that fewer people go' method would never ever backfire.

Not like you to deliberately misinterpret a post for a good quip Calgon

I'd argue that keeping booking the same bands would be weaker, no? 

5 minutes ago, Gucci Piggy said:

A few years of leftfield headliners and less people watching on TV will certainly see the number of people trying for tickets fall.

I do somewhat agree with what you're saying though and think they can afford to have at least one risky booking each year. In 2015 Florence and the Machine should have been bumped up over booking The Who (if possible); in 2016 Foals should have headlined over Muse or Coldplay; in 2017 The xx could have headlined but they did get 3 headliners that you couldn't really argue with so I'll give them that.

I think Stormzy next year would be a perfect choice for this if he has a new album out by then.

Might not be quite what you mean by leftfield but I think they should lean more this way than they currently do.

I guess by leftfield I mean what wouldn't normally be considered "Glastonbury headliners".  So yeah, Stormzy would definitely sit there. Whether it's style, size or mass popularity, something that might not be expected.  I just don't want to be getting my ticket every year and knowing at least one of the bands I'll be seeing purely because they're always fucking there!!

[Hugh Jass]

13 minutes ago, Gucci Piggy said:

I didn't say it was good. You asked in what sense was it a better booking than Green Day.

They were touring a shit album, but would Glasto have known that when they booked them? It came out the month of the festival. In 2009 Kasabian subbed Glasto and I'm pretty sure their first major headline slot was R&L in 2012. Glasto was on a fallow year then so had to wait until their next tour. Maybe 2009 would have been fine, I don't remember exactly how big they were then, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an obvious booking in 2014 that couldn't really be argued. They were one of the biggest current bands in the UK at the time who'd headlined everywhere except Glasto, and they were certainly still relevant in 2014.

They were pretty big in 2009 but not huge, they subbed Springsteen IIRC. It was just around the time that WPLA (or whatever it was called) came out and Fire was everywhere. Bumping them up in 2009 would have been on a par with bumping Foals or The Xx right now I reckon.

[Winslow Leach]

18 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

midrange spacefillers

This is both an accurate description of Green Day and the perfect name for a band I now really want to see on a Sunday morning in Croissant Neuf.

[CaledonianGonzo]

3 minutes ago, Quark said:

I don't think Glastonbury "should" reflect anything; it generally grew on the basis of current yet slightly non-pop bands, right?  They certainly weren't chart monsters. Happy to be corrected. 

 

3 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

But they can't keep booking stronger headliners, realistically, after last couple of years. And there was a time when the acts didn't have to be the biggest in the world or even in the UK and it still sold enough to continue another year.

It's not the eighties any more though.  We'd see how long it lasted if they put Van Morrison back at the top of the bill.

I dont know if there's really a need to remedy anything as it isnt feeling especially broken at the moment.  The headliner pool isnt endless, but then it wasn't 10 years ago either.