[rexclark]

thomasowen, on Jan 25 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

They weren't safe bets in the way Metallica or Kings of Leon were safe bets but there is no way they were risks. The people that book the bands don't take risks, they would have known exactly what they were doing when they booked those bands. All three were very big at the time they played, they may not have pleased everyone but there was still a lot of people watching them.

Is booking a band that you have no chance of knowing if they will be popular at the time of the festival not a gamble? Sometimes it pays off and the band grow in stature and you look great for giving them a chance like The Strokes. Sometimes it fails and by the time of the festival the popularity of the band has dipped like with The Darkness.
If it's not a gamble then the organisers have to be 100% certain that the headliners will be popular and attract a big crowd, this doesn't always happen.

I'll ask you this, if it's not a gamble having acts like The Strokes, The Pixies, The Darkness or Razorlight headlining then why did none of the other big fests book them as headliners?

This post has been edited by rexclark: 25 January 2010 - 02:55 PM

[thomasowen]

rexclark, on Jan 25 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Is booking a band that you have no chance of knowing if they will be popular at the time of the festival not a gamble?

All the indications were that those bands would be popular at the festivals. For example Razorlight were selling out arenas, and they had a number one album and single. At the time Reading and Leeds had an audience made up largley of people who liked that type of music, so they were not a risk in my opinion. Why weren't they as well recieved as most headliners? Because they aren't brilliant live, they didn't have a lot of material and there was good competition on the other stages.

Quote

If it's not a gamble then the organisers have to be 100% certain that the headliners will be popular and attract a big crowd, this doesn't always happen.

Then of course every headliner is a gamble of sorts, no-one is ever going to be certain how well a band will go down. I'm not saying those three bands were risk-free headliners, but I certainly wouldn't call thm risky headliners. You have mentioned Daft Punk playing - they are what I would call a risk because R&L's audience is primarily not a dance audience, but there is a strong possibility they would crossover well.

Quote

I'll ask you this, if it's not a gamble having acts like The Strokes, The Pixies, The Darkness or Razorlight headlining then why did none of the other big fests book them as headliners?

Because Reading's audience is more specific than say Isle of White and V (I mean that they are more into a specific type of music whereas V goers are probably more casual fans) and they probably were more confident of those bands going down well. Aslo those other festivals probably had better bands to headline.

[rexclark]

thomasowen, on Jan 25 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

Then of course every headliner is a gamble of sorts, no-one is ever going to be certain how well a band will go down. I'm not saying those three bands were risk-free headliners, but I certainly wouldn't call thm risky headliners. You have mentioned Daft Punk playing - they are what I would call a risk because R&L's audience is primarily not a dance audience, but there is a strong possibility they would crossover well.

Well surely if there is an element of risk they're taking a slight gamble? There are bands that have played and are completely risk free such as Metallica, The Killers etc...

[thomasowen]

rexclark, on Jan 25 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

Well surely if there is an element of risk they're taking a slight gamble? There are bands that have played and are completely risk free such as Metallica, The Killers etc...

Of course some bands are more of a gamble than others, but that still doesn't mean they're a risk in any meaningful way. Even Metallica have a tiny element of risk - eg Reading's audience have got a lot younger and less metal orientated. And The Killers weren't a disiumlar proposition to Razorlight - both had number one albums, arena sell outs etc (although The Killers also had a bsides album and are a much more respected band). So yeah, no band is a sure thing but I would also say no band in as long as I can remember has been a real risk.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree

[rexclark]

thomasowen, on Jan 25 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

Of course some bands are more of a gamble than others, but that still doesn't mean they're a risk in any meaningful way. Even Metallica have a tiny element of risk - eg Reading's audience have got a lot younger and less metal orientated. And The Killers weren't a disiumlar proposition to Razorlight - both had number one albums, arena sell outs etc (although The Killers also had a bsides album and are a much more respected band). So yeah, no band is a sure thing but I would also say no band in as long as I can remember has been a real risk.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree

Fair enough.

[kev1664]

The question is are there any risks anymore at,this point in time? Reading and Leeds sells out first day and when more tickets are released they go quickly too.

The festival provides so much diversity in there acts there is always something else on to see.

Whether the acts are recieved well or not is another matter. I think these are the two risks you are discussing.

I believe they could have the milky bar kid headline and it wouldn't effect sales. It wouldn't go down,too well but its not q risk to the festival.

[rexclark]

kev1664, on Jan 25 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

The question is are there any risks anymore at,this point in time? Reading and Leeds sells out first day and when more tickets are released they go quickly too.

The festival provides so much diversity in there acts there is always something else on to see.

Whether the acts are recieved well or not is another matter. I think these are the two risks you are discussing.

I believe they could have the milky bar kid headline and it wouldn't effect sales. It wouldn't go down,too well but its not q risk to the festival.

It will sell out, but for how long? TITP was another festival that would sell out in minutes no matter who headlined but now it doesn't sell out so quickly. Festival are a growth industry and with more choice now if R&L don't get the booking right people will get fed up and go elsewher, perhaps not now but eventually.

[kev1664]

rexclark, on Jan 25 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

It will sell out, but for how long? TITP was another festival that would sell out in minutes no matter who headlined but now it doesn't sell out so quickly. Festival are a growth industry and with more choice now if R&L don't get the booking right people will get fed up and go elsewher, perhaps not now but eventually.

That is very true, I don't think it will be this year, but it will happen.

I think a lot of the reason it sells out is down to it being trendy to go to the festival, reading and leeds being more trendy as its one of the major festivals and the fact that they like to attract the most popular bands of the time, wether it be high up or just spread around the festival.

I think it will become less trendy to go to festivals for a lot of these people, lets hope when R & L come out of the other end of the trendy phase they will still pull in the people to attend the festival.

I'm hoping some of the problems that have been caused in recent years of the festivals are being phased out. The whole 'rioting' comes to an end, not that there are really riots, just a few idiots acting up doing stupid things like burning tents and aerosols. Then of course the scumbags who will steal from people when they arn't in there tents etc are phased out. I know it can't happen completely but it could be improved on.

Wen't off on a bit of a tangent there LOL

[pink_triangle]

rexclark, on Jan 25 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Is booking a band that you have no chance of knowing if they will be popular at the time of the festival not a gamble? Sometimes it pays off and the band grow in stature and you look great for giving them a chance like The Strokes. Sometimes it fails and by the time of the festival the popularity of the band has dipped like with The Darkness.

I personally think some people are altering history a little when discussing the darkness headline set. Their popularity had not in my opinion started to dip when they played the festival. When they played, they were still huge evidenced by the huge amount of people who watched them. Their set wasnt amazing but i think some festival snobs are too harsh on it. They may have been lacking in songs but the crowd enjoyed singing along to the singles. I certainly felt it went down better than the pumpkins or pixies who played more technically accomplished sets and had far bigger back catalogues.

[rexclark]

pink_triangle, on Jan 25 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

I personally think some people are altering history a little when discussing the darkness headline set. Their popularity had not in my opinion started to dip when they played the festival. When they played, they were still huge evidenced by the huge amount of people who watched them. Their set wasnt amazing but i think some festival snobs are too harsh on it. They may have been lacking in songs but the crowd enjoyed singing along to the singles. I certainly felt it went down better than the pumpkins or pixies who played more technically accomplished sets and had far bigger back catalogues.

I loved The Darkness's set on the Main Stage in 03, but by 04 they started believing the hype and thought they were more than a very good novelty act. I never seen them in 04 as I was bored with them by then but I heard plenty of bad reports on them from other people, from what I heard they barely had enough songs to fill a set as I'm sure a few people on here have said. Not long after there headline performance theere career started going downhill. This isn't opinion it's fact. I'm glad you enjoyed there set but it is undeniable they were a weak headliner and I'm sure the most people would've agreed after the festival.

[Vacant0]

rexclark, on Jan 26 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

I loved The Darkness's set on the Main Stage in 03, but by 04 they started believing the hype and thought they were more than a very good novelty act. I never seen them in 04 as I was bored with them by then but I heard plenty of bad reports on them from other people, from what I heard they barely had enough songs to fill a set as I'm sure a few people on here have said. Not long after there headline performance theere career started going downhill. This isn't opinion it's fact. I'm glad you enjoyed there set but it is undeniable they were a weak headliner and I'm sure the most people would've agreed after the festival.

Thats completely different to what you said earlier really.

They were still massive when they headlined - their popularity dipped afterwards and then completely crashed after that - and it maybe was a bit of a weak booking really due to lack of material ye - no idea how the set was recieved really as I didn't watch but I did wander past them and caught like 5 minutes of their set and the crowd looked pretty big.

This post has been edited by Vacant0: 26 January 2010 - 06:46 PM

[pink_triangle]

rexclark, on Jan 26 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

I loved The Darkness's set on the Main Stage in 03, but by 04 they started believing the hype and thought they were more than a very good novelty act. I never seen them in 04 as I was bored with them by then but I heard plenty of bad reports on them from other people, from what I heard they barely had enough songs to fill a set as I'm sure a few people on here have said. Not long after there headline performance theere career started going downhill. This isn't opinion it's fact. I'm glad you enjoyed there set but it is undeniable they were a weak headliner and I'm sure the most people would've agreed after the festival.

I agree reaction to them was mixed. However due to the size of the crowd, I would say more people (quantity not proportionally) enjoyed their set than the headline sets from smashing pumpkins, pixies or pearl jam. Does that make them weak headliners as well?

[rexclark]

pink_triangle, on Jan 26 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

I agree reaction to them was mixed. However due to the size of the crowd, I would say more people (quantity not proportionally) enjoyed their set than the headline sets from smashing pumpkins, pixies or pearl jam. Does that make them weak headliners as well?

In theory no, in practice yes. I love The Smashing Pumpkins but in hindsight they were a poor headliner in the sense they attracted a poor crowd for a headliner even though they have a superb back catalouge. I wasn't at Pearl Jam so can't comment but in the cases of The Pixies and The Smashing Pumpkins it was clearly because they were up against newer more popular bands in Kasabian and The Klaxond respectively. This goes to show that the demographic of the festival has shifted quite a bit over the years.

This post has been edited by rexclark: 27 January 2010 - 07:37 PM

[Gre]

rexclark, on Jan 26 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

from what I heard they barely had enough songs to fill a set as I'm sure a few people on here have said.

Ah yes, the infamous "Bring Me Some Meat" which had neither lyrics or an ending. Pitiful.

The hits were fun though, and they had a good stage show.

But overall - novelty band, no lasting appeal.

[rexclark]

Gre, on Jan 28 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

Ah yes, the infamous "Bring Me Some Meat" which had neither lyrics or an ending. Pitiful.

The hits were fun though, and they had a good stage show.

But overall - novelty band, no lasting appeal.

They were great in 03 though. Read today they might be reforming.

[tweemo freak]

thomasowen, on Jan 19 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

The thought did cross my mind. how does their live set up work?

I don't know, but i want to find out!

[craigb]

I think this post has been made gorillaz a rumour on leeds festival fan site

http://www.leedsfest.org/2010/02/could-gor...medium=facebook

[rexclark]

craigb, on Feb 8 2010, 02:15 PM, said:

I think this post has been made gorillaz a rumour on leeds festival fan site

http://www.leedsfest.org/2010/02/could-gor...medium=facebook

That sites a load of shite.

[craigb]

rexclark, on Feb 8 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

That sites a load of shite.

no shit lol, rumour from a forum post

[rexclark]

craigb, on Feb 8 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

no shit lol, rumour from a forum post

Half the rumours floating about everywhere originate here.