2019 festival

[Twice]

8 minutes ago, Andre91 said:

I think this is the worst post I've ever read on here. But, of course, all the guys your age who you know are a completely accurate representation of R&L's audience... 

The 1975 would be an extremely popular headliner and would alienate nobody. Anyone who says any different is only trying to convince themselves otherwise. They're a MASSIVE, current band and will logically headline major festivals next time around. 

Id like to point out that whilst my own personal hatred for them makes my posts ranty ive never actually argued what youre arguing against. Like what you want to like and dislike what you want to dislike. The first post i made i said the predictions were scaring me and ive never put across that nobody is allowed to like them. Ive made it pretty clear im talking anecdotally and never tried to claim i am the exact definition of readings demographic.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

9 minutes ago, Mattymooz said:

And 1975 are a R+L staple. I can't see them going to Glasto or TRNSMT or somewhere else for their first headline performance of a major festival

 

tbf they've played Glastonbury as many times as they've played R+L, and there's that story Matty loves to tell about how Melvin wouldn't touch them until 2013 when the hype around them became inescapable. Although I do agree with you, they're destined to headline R+L first out of the 'big ones', it'll be one of those "we used to go to Leeds growing up and now we're headlining woah how did that happen" things.

[Twice]

7 minutes ago, Mattymooz said:

The 1975 are in an interesting position where they produce pop very eloquently and have a slightly rock tinge to it (Similar to CHVRCHES and Fickle Friends). This means that they get a pretty decent following of both Pop fans (mostly teenage girls) and rock fans (mostly blokes). Admittedly most of the die hard fans are probably going to be the Pop people, but they definitely have a large following

And you'd be wrong about them being unpopular with everyone else. They had a huge crowd when they played last year and most people I know who don't like them can at least appreciate the talent they have. Plus theres always gonna be other headliners. Just because the 1975 isn't for you doesn't necessarily mean you wont want to go and see some other act who are headlining a different stage, not every headliner has to cater exactly to you.

Again, they were very popular last year, and they're the kind of band with a lot of hype around them with a lot of people and will definitely sell tickets. The big question imo is what year are they gonna headline. Album out in 2018 means healine either 2019 or 2020 imo, and I think they'd fit in well whichever year they're booked.

And 1975 are a R+L staple. I can't see them going to Glasto or TRNSMT or somewhere else for their first headline performance of a major festival

 

Clearly I'm misstaken about their demographic, although if you say 'the 1975' the first thing to pop into my head will forever be loads of screaming young teenage girls shouting 'matty!!' Disappointing for me nonetheless though. Id definitely be looking at the TRNSMT lineup that year or try for Glastonbury tickets for the first time.

[Gucci Piggy]

33 minutes ago, Twice said:

Why? Nothing against you if you like the 1975, but i genuinely cannot stand anything about them and so i really cant justify myself spending a significant amount of money on a weekend ticket for a festival where they hold such a high slot, when there are other festivals ill be able to attend with a different headliner. Their target audience seems to be young teenage girls judging from their very in your face image (not that theres a problem with that, although a young teenage girl i'm not) and irritating album titles. They headlined NME last year too - i feel like theyd need to play a high spot on mainstage before they can come in to headline.

Because it's one headliner at a 3 day festival with several stages. Just go see someone else when they're on? I've had amazing times at festivals headlined by absolute dirge like Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Kasabian (twice), Eminem and Green Day (twice, even though I stupidly saw them once). Not going to a festival out of protest against one headliner just seems baffling unless it's someone you have a huge, justified problem with (like if a festival were to book a rapist to headline or something).

Also the "how dare they win that brit award over Biffy fucking Clyro". It's a terrible awards ceremony aimed at a mainstream audience where 99% of the winners are shite. Plus it wasn't their decision to win it, they were picked to do so. Plus Biffy Clyro are worse than The 1975 now.

I'm not a 1975 fan so it's nothing to do with that. They're a massive band who appeal perfectly to the R&L audience and would draw a huge crowd (from what I read they unsurprisingly drew an absolutely monstrous crowd to the NME stage last year opposite Biffy Clyro).

Maybe it would be weak to have two new headliners in them and Twenty One Pilots; we'll have to see how their trajectories go over the next two years. I'm very sure The 1975 will be there by then, though, and Twenty One Pilots will be thereabouts (maybe a co-headline with someone like BMTH to strengthen it up)

[Twice]

10 minutes ago, Will-2609 said:

Because it's one headliner at a 3 day festival with several stages. Just go see someone else when they're on? I've had amazing times at festivals headlined by absolute dirge like Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Kasabian (twice), Eminem and Green Day (twice, even though I stupidly saw them once). Not going to a festival out of protest against one headliner just seems baffling unless it's someone you have a huge, justified problem with (like if a festival were to book a rapist to headline or something).

Also the "how dare they win that brit award over Biffy fucking Clyro". It's a terrible awards ceremony aimed at a mainstream audience where 99% of the winners are shite. Plus it wasn't their decision to win it, they were picked to do so. Plus Biffy Clyro are worse than The 1975 now.

I'm not a 1975 fan so it's nothing to do with that. They're a massive band who appeal perfectly to the R&L audience and would draw a huge crowd (from what I read they unsurprisingly drew an absolutely monstrous crowd to the NME stage last year opposite Biffy Clyro).

Maybe it would be weak to have two new headliners in them and Twenty One Pilots; we'll have to see how their trajectories go over the next two years. I'm very sure The 1975 will be there by then, though, and Twenty One Pilots will be thereabouts (maybe a co-headline with someone like BMTH to strengthen it up)

Ohhh sorry, im quite a sarcastic person and i forgot that doesnt translate well over text. I assumed that proclaiming 'how dare they' would be enough to make it look like the humorous jest it was supposed to be but clearly not haha. 

Honestly the headliners are a big part of a festival for me, they dont have to be strong but i at least have to like them. I like the massive crowds and mainstage at dark so id rather go to a festival where id like to see all three headliners. 

But yeah, i do seriously doubt that both 1975 and top will headline in the same year, although i do reluctanctly agree that theyll probably both headline at some point haha.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Twice

[Mattymooz]

Just now, Twice said:

Ohhh sorry, im quite a sarcastic person and i forgot that doesnt translate well over text. I assumed that proclaiming 'how dare they' would be enough to make it look like the humorous jest it was supposed to be but clearly not haha. 

Honestly the headliners are a big part of a festival for me, they dont have to be strong but i at least have to like them. I like the massive crowds and mainstage at dark so id rather go to a festival where id like to see all three headliners. 

I imagine that would happen fairly rarely though surely? Just given the variety in the genres of the headlining acts...

[Twice]

7 minutes ago, Mattymooz said:

I imagine that would happen fairly rarely though surely? Just given the variety in the genres of the headlining acts...

Youd be surprised, i might have just given off a very different impression but i actually like lots of types of music. Ill be seeing all three headliners this year, as i did last year, as i did at benicassim this year. Even so, id probably see an act i didnt like as much headlining main stage over an act i prefer on another stage. The atmosphere for headliners on mainstage is unmatched, i love it. As long as i dont despise the headliner i'd see them.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Twice

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, Twice said:

the atmosphere for headliners on mainstage is unmatched.

Very much not a fact.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Zac Quinn

[Twice]

4 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Very much not a fact.

I never said you had to agree.

[dentalplan]

32 minutes ago, Twice said:

But yeah, i do seriously doubt that both 1975 and top will headline in the same year, although i do reluctanctly agree that theyll probably both headline at some point haha.

By 2019, The 1975 will be one of the biggest bands in Britain and Twenty One Pilots will be one of the biggest bands in the world. I know people say there's risk about promoting untried headliners but I think it'll be a no brainer by that point and there'd be more risk in some tried and tested headliners like Kings of Leon and Paramore.

[Twice]

15 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

By 2019, The 1975 will be one of the biggest bands in Britain and Twenty One Pilots will be one of the biggest bands in the world. I know people say there's risk about promoting untried headliners but I think it'll be a no brainer by that point and there'd be more risk in some tried and tested headliners like Kings of Leon and Paramore.

Definitely, but bumping an act is always a risk and i doubt they'd bump two acts up to headline in the same year.

Saying that though, are paramore really considered tried and tested headliners? They coheadlined under qotsa in 2014 last time they played. Similarly KOL have gone a fair way past their peak in popularity regardless but there are plenty of bands who are safer headline options than those two who could headline.

Looking at past lineups its always been one bump headliner and two more established headliners, save for this year where theyve opted for 3 established headliners and a shit undercard.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Twice

[dentalplan]

7 minutes ago, Twice said:

Definitely, but bumping an act is always a risk and i doubt they'd bump two acts up to headline in the same year.

What I'm saying is that it won't be a risk because the acts are selling better than most established headline bands at the minute.

Like I was saying in the other thread yesterday, their pitfalls in recent editions - as you've alluded to - have been going with acts that seem like easy headliners and not realising that peeps have moved on.

[Mattymooz]

I mean I would consider both KOL and Paramore more popular than Kasabian atm. Twenty One Pilots imo is a bigger risk as they don't have an as wide of an appeal as the 1975. They're in a similar place to Imagine Dragons imo where they have cornered the teenage rock-pop market but nobody older listens to them that much. I guess as R+L focuses more at the post GCSE age range that won't matter as much (and they'll at least be subs next time they play) but I'm not sure they'll make outright headliners

[Twice]

35 minutes ago, Mattymooz said:

I mean I would consider both KOL and Paramore more popular than Kasabian atm. Twenty One Pilots imo is a bigger risk as they don't have an as wide of an appeal as the 1975. They're in a similar place to Imagine Dragons imo where they have cornered the teenage rock-pop market but nobody older listens to them that much. I guess as R+L focuses more at the post GCSE age range that won't matter as much (and they'll at least be subs next time they play) but I'm not sure they'll make outright headliners

Im not sure to be honest, Kasabian have lost a lot of momentum for sure but i still hear the likes of Fire and Club Foot about quite often, whereas now i think about it i cant remember the last time i heard sex is on fire.

I saw kasabian at benicassim this year anyway and i was surprised at just how good their live shows are, a lot of people told me they were good live but i wasnt expecting that. Definitely going to be a draw for anyone whos seen them before. KOL and Paramore could very well be just as good live, i havent seen them, but i never heard quite the same levels of praise as i did for Kasabian.

Yeah i could definitely see top getting a sub spot in the near future and headlining down the line,  but a 1975 headline will definitely come before top headlines.

35 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

What I'm saying is that it won't be a risk because the acts are selling better than most established headline bands at the minute.

Like I was saying in the other thread yesterday, their pitfalls in recent editions - as you've alluded to - have been going with acts that seem like easy headliners and not realising that peeps have moved on.

True, but i still think theres a massive appeal to having an act whos got experience headlining a festival on the bill. Seeing an act headline for the first time does too, but establishing yourself as a big festival name takes time and regardless of an acts real world popularity i still think theres a lot of value in established festival names. Theres a balance I suppose.

I think the problem we've got at the moment is that a lot of the rock type big festival acts are past their prime and not many are rising to these acts' past level of popularity in the studio to make them enough of a draw to be bumped. Either that or these acts lack the oasis style arrogance that makes me believe that they are able to be bumped up to headline. Its why i think royal blood are quite a good act to bump, theyve got that seemingly forgotten arrogance on stage. I dont exactly look at a band like top and think "yeah theyd own the mainstage if they headlined it".

[Rose-Colored Boy]

32 minutes ago, Twice said:

 Either that or these acts lack the oasis style arrogance that makes me believe that they are able to be bumped up to headline. Its why i think royal blood are quite a good act to bump, theyve got that seemingly forgotten arrogance on stage. I dont exactly look at a band like top and think "yeah theyd own the mainstage if they headlined it".

So now that's confusing because the criticism most often levelled at The 1975 is that Matty is unbearably arrogant. How can unedifying arrogance be held up as one of the key reasons your Liam Gallaghers etc were elevated to god-like status, but at the same time be something which supposedly puts people off The 1975? Is it because Matty's fans don't copy Matty being an arse like Liam's fans copy Liam being an arse, so it's seen as less effective/justified/necessary when coming from Matty? Is it just because people don't like the fact he refers to himself as 'Matty'? Dunno.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Zac Quinn

[Steve1000]

37 minutes ago, Twice said:

Im not sure to be honest, Kasabian have lost a lot of momentum for sure but i still hear the likes of Fire and Club Foot about quite often, whereas now i think about it i cant remember the last time i heard sex is on fire.

I saw kasabian at benicassim this year anyway and i was surprised at just how good their live shows are, a lot of people told me they were good live but i wasnt expecting that. Definitely going to be a draw for anyone whos seen them before. KOL and Paramore could very well be just as good live, i havent seen them, but i never heard quite the same levels of praise as i did for Kasabian.

Yeah i could definitely see top getting a sub spot in the near future and headlining down the line,  but a 1975 headline will definitely come before top headlines.

True, but i still think theres a massive appeal to having an act whos got experience headlining a festival on the bill. Seeing an act headline for the first time does too, but establishing yourself as a big festival name takes time and regardless of an acts real world popularity i still think theres a lot of value in established festival names. Theres a balance I suppose.

I think the problem we've got at the moment is that a lot of the rock type big festival acts are past their prime and not many are rising to these acts' past level of popularity in the studio to make them enough of a draw to be bumped. Either that or these acts lack the oasis style arrogance that makes me believe that they are able to be bumped up to headline. Its why i think royal blood are quite a good act to bump, theyve got that seemingly forgotten arrogance on stage. I dont exactly look at a band like top and think "yeah theyd own the mainstage if they headlined it".

If a newbie is bigger and would sell more tickets than an established name, then why would an established name be better?

Well your in luck as The 1975 certainly are big enough to be bumped and if I had to put money on any current British band rising to the popularity of say the Arctics it would be them. I like Royal Blood but I think they will fall off post album 3

2 hours ago, Mattymooz said:

The 1975 are in an interesting position where they produce pop very eloquently and have a slightly rock tinge to it (Similar to CHVRCHES and Fickle Friends). This means that they get a pretty decent following of both Pop fans (mostly teenage girls) and rock fans (mostly blokes). Admittedly most of the die hard fans are probably going to be the Pop people, but they definitely have a large following

 

This is extremely generalised and not really true. It's not as if they're the first pop rock band ever in existence as well, and a BROAD following doesn't necessarily mean a LARGE following, see Rammstein, Slipknot etc

Edited August 3, 2017 by Steve1000

[Steve1000]

Also @Twice The 1975 have more critical acclaim than Royal Blood and probably a lot of what you and I listen to

Edited August 3, 2017 by Steve1000

[Gucci Piggy]

We only need one Matty headlining this festival.

 

[Twice]

26 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

So now that's confusing because the criticism most often levelled at The 1975 is that Matty is unbearably arrogant. How can unedifying arrogance be held up as one of the key reasons your Liam Gallaghers etc were elevated to god-like status, but at the same time be something which supposedly puts people off The 1975? Is it because Matty's fans don't copy Matty being an arse like Liam's fans copy Liam being an arse, so it's seen as less effective when coming from Matty? Is it just because people don't like the fact he refers to himself as 'Matty'? Dunno.

Its a different type of arrogance though isnt it. Liam Gallagher really isnt anything like Matty is he now, Liam Gallagher is such an arrogant arse its funny - it put his name in papers and boosted them to such a level that your nan would know his name, whereas Matty's arrogance is just irritating overconfidence.  Liam had character while Matty to me comes across as just fucking unbearably annoying. He's got quite a punchable face too but we wont talk about that. The difference to me is that lg is an arrogant arse whilst mattys trying to make people think hes am arrogant arse when hes actually the polar opposite and just playing an image.

Just look up that interview liam did where he was asked what his favourite type of potato is and tell me thats not gold haha.

Royal Bloods arrogance isnt even twatty arrogance, its just that they look confident and stern on stage rather than soft like a lot of bands nowadays. Just gives them a bit of an edge without being irritating.

24 minutes ago, Steve1000 said:

If a newbie is bigger and would sell more tickets than an established name, then why would an established name be better?

Well your in luck as The 1975 certainly are big enough to be bumped and if I had to put money on any current British band rising to the popularity of say the Arctics it would be them. I like Royal Blood but I think they will fall off post album 3.

No, thats my argument - would they actually sell more? Im not sure they would - nostalgia still sells tickets and if people have heard that x headliner was phenomenal last time they headlined it moves tickets. 

I hope Royal Blood change it up a bit next album for sure. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Twice

[Mattymooz]

TBH my issue with most of the rising band is that there 2nd album could literally just be B sides from there first album. I always loved how bands would go from a fairly genericish first album (Pablo Honey, Showbiz etc) and then on their 2nd really change it up and make it much more a unique sound (The Bends, Origins Of Symmetry). However 1975's 2nd album I thought (other than Somebody Else) sounded like a worse version of there first album. Catfish was at least consistent imo but I would still have no idea which album the song belonged to if you just played me a song.

That was my issue watching Catfish headline at Community, was that the set was so samey throughout that it got dull imo, unlike The Wombats who were on before who had an acoustic guitar ballad, the more electro-pop glitterbug stuff and Lets Dance To Joy Division esque songs.

Royal Blood's album at least took a few risks (Lights Out imo was a lot more poppy than previous work) and CHVRCHES second album was a lot more polished and refined than their first. 21P is at least very unique to start with, and people like Paramore almost have too wide of a range of songs (not sure how a lot of the stuff from their new album will mesh with stuff from RIOT and BNE)

Like you can call Muse's new stuff shit (which it is lets be honest) but at least there still experimenting and switching it up rather than just producing the same album over and over again. The Killers are another good example of how every album has a very different sound (though again imo nothing really matches their first 2 albums).

[Twice]

7 minutes ago, Mattymooz said:

TBH my issue with most of the rising band is that there 2nd album could literally just be B sides from there first album. I always loved how bands would go from a fairly genericish first album (Pablo Honey, Showbiz etc) and then on their 2nd really change it up and make it much more a unique sound (The Bends, Origins Of Symmetry). However 1975's 2nd album I thought (other than Somebody Else) sounded like a worse version of there first album. Catfish was at least consistent imo but I would still have no idea which album the song belonged to if you just played me a song.

That was my issue watching Catfish headline at Community, was that the set was so samey throughout that it got dull imo, unlike The Wombats who were on before who had an acoustic guitar ballad, the more electro-pop glitterbug stuff and Lets Dance To Joy Division esque songs.

Royal Blood's album at least took a few risks (Lights Out imo was a lot more poppy than previous work) and CHVRCHES second album was a lot more polished and refined than their first. 21P is at least very unique to start with, and people like Paramore almost have too wide of a range of songs (not sure how a lot of the stuff from their new album will mesh with stuff from RIOT and BNE)

Like you can call Muse's new stuff shit (which it is lets be honest) but at least there still experimenting and switching it up rather than just producing the same album over and over again. The Killers are another good example of how every album has a very different sound (though again imo nothing really matches their first 2 albums).

Nailed it on the head. Lots of bands with brilliant debuts that fall off before they can truly establish themselves as headliners has left festivals short of current yet big headliners. Theres plenty of bands making their way up but not enough who are staying there meaning that all the acts people are saying are headline material always seem underwhelming.

[Steve1000]

The first bands to drop off are usually the blandest, most samey. Hence why we no longer need to worry about Mumfords and Imagine Dragons, and how the drop offs of Catfish, Bastille and Royal Blood( to a lesser extent) are inevitable

[Gucci Piggy]

22 minutes ago, Twice said:

Its a different type of arrogance though isnt it. Liam Gallagher really isnt anything like Matty is he now, Liam Gallagher is such an arrogant arse its funny - it put his name in papers and boosted them to such a level that your nan would know his name, whereas Matty's arrogance is just irritating overconfidence.  Liam had character while Matty to me comes across as just fucking unbearably annoying. He's got quite a punchable face too but we wont talk about that. The difference to me is that lg is an arrogant arse whilst mattys trying to make people think hes am arrogant arse when hes actually the polar opposite and just playing an image.

Just look up that interview liam did where he was asked what his favourite type of potato is and tell me thats not gold haha.

Royal Bloods arrogance isnt even twatty arrogance, its just that they look confident and stern on stage rather than soft like a lot of bands nowadays. Just gives them a bit of an edge without being irritating. 

Basically they're both arrogant arses but you like Liam Gallagher/Oasis and don't like Matty Healy/The 1975.

"Irritating overconfidence" could easily be describing Liam Gallagher. He's a talentless berk who was in a band with one or two decent albums (which weren't written by him) who swaggers around like he's up there with Mick Jagger etc., but that's what showmen do, and it works, and it's what Matty Healy is doing. Matty Healy's songs have certainly been more critically acclaimed than Liam Gallagher's, so he probably has more justification than Liam Gallagher for his arrogance.

Royal Blood are about the least edgy band in the world. Having band members who look they could beat you up doesn't give them an edge.

This whole topic is so meaningless anyway, none of this stuff has any bearing on whether a band should headline or not.

Tried to Google this potato interview and can't find it anywhere.

[Twice]

21 minutes ago, Will-2609 said:

Basically they're both arrogant arses but you like Liam Gallagher/Oasis and don't like Matty Healy/The 1975.

"Irritating overconfidence" could easily be describing Liam Gallagher. He's a talentless berk who was in a band with one or two decent albums (which weren't written by him) who swaggers around like he's up there with Mick Jagger etc., but that's what showmen do, and it works, and it's what Matty Healy is doing. Matty Healy's songs have certainly been more critically acclaimed than Liam Gallagher's, so he probably has more justification than Liam Gallagher for his arrogance.

Royal Blood are about the least edgy band in the world. Having band members who look they could beat you up doesn't give them an edge.

This whole topic is so meaningless anyway, none of this stuff has any bearing on whether a band should headline or not.

Tried to Google this potato interview and can't find it anywhere.

Oh definitely,  it is a matter of personal taste.

Very true again, i hate the 1975 and saying so has struck many nerves by the looks of it nobody seems to like my explanations of why. Ultimately i find them annoying and their music uninspired and boring but youre all welcome to disagree. Ill find the interview in a bit then you might get a good chuckle out of it.

Nah theyre not edgy in the slightest but i feel like their on stage attitude makes them a fair bit cooler looking than the average band. 

I didnt really mean for this tbh i just wanted to say id be disappointed if the 1975 headlined because i don't like them, i didnt quite realise my reasons for disliking them would become such a point of contention haha.

[Steve1000]

I don't like the 1975 but the reasons you are giving as to why they cannot headline are absolute w*nk

Edited August 3, 2017 by Steve1000