220 replies to this topic

[airds]

KaleidoscopeEyes, on Mar 30 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

Agreed L&R are looking so much better than Glasto right now. I'm pretty gutted.

I tend to wait until after glasto has announced their line-up before I compare them, seems only fair  

[russycarps]

grumpyhack, on Mar 29 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

Saw Arcade Fire a few years ago at Glasto.  They weren't bad but The Who came on after them and just blew them out of sight and you realised AF weren't really quite ready to be a true headline band.

Completely wrong on both counts.

Arcade Fire played Friday, The Who sunday.

Arcade Fire put in an amazing set, The Who just an OK set.

Arcade Fire are more than ready to headline glastonbury. I would much rather see them up there instead of the ghastly Muse this year.

Tit

[ampersand]

russycarps, on Mar 30 2010, 09:55 AM, said:

Arcade Fire are more than ready to headline glastonbury. I would much rather see them up there instead of the ghastly Muse this year.

bollocks. they're not even ready to headline t in the park!

muse at least have a decent sized back catalogue and sold out stadiums behind them.

[ethereal]

Just took the plunge and bought saturday ticket for Reading, surprised they're still going.

[Langdale Wolf]

Toilet Duck, on Mar 30 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

3 words that would make me envious.....Band of Horses.

Absolutely.  Still haven't given up hope of them playing at Glastonbury, but I'd say the chances are slim to remote now.  

russycarps, on Mar 30 2010, 09:55 AM, said:

Completely wrong on both counts.

Arcade Fire played Friday, The Who sunday.

Arcade Fire put in an amazing set, The Who just an OK set.

Arcade Fire are more than ready to headline glastonbury. I would much rather see them up there instead of the ghastly Muse this year.

Tit

Absolutely spot on.  Arcade Fire would piss all over Muse, but I believe this has been covered in another thread, so I'll leave it there.

Yup - I will accept that R/L have Arcade Fire and Band of Horses and this makes me very jealous, but I am very pleased there are no Libertines at Glastonbury (THE most overrated band in recent history), G'n'R would just be uncomfortable viewing and I don't care either way about the rest.

It's better than V's line up (by far) purely because of AF and BoH.

But we've got Stevie, U2, Ray Davies and a f**k load more than anyone else.  I wouldn't swap the Glastonbury line up at all.

[Joem]

russycarps, on Mar 30 2010, 09:55 AM, said:

Completely wrong on both counts.

Arcade Fire played Friday, The Who sunday.

Arcade Fire put in an amazing set, The Who just an OK set.

Arcade Fire are more than ready to headline glastonbury. I would much rather see them up there instead of the ghastly Muse this year.

Tit

Couldn't agree more! Think Arcade Fire are more than ready to start headlining. At Glasto in 2007 (BEFORE BJORK FOR THE RECORD), they were incredible! An absolute highlight that year...and i'm sure the 60 odd thousand in the crowd with me would agree.

Hoefully the opportunity Reading have given AF will prompt more festivals to do so in the future!

[ampersand]

ethereal, on Mar 30 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Just took the plunge and bought saturday ticket for Reading, surprised they're still going.

how much for a saturday ticket? there still any for leeds. i'm very tempted.

[russycarps]

ampersand, on Mar 30 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

bollocks. they're not even ready to headline t in the park!

muse at least have a decent sized back catalogue and sold out stadiums behind them.

with all due respect ampers old boy, you are a huge mick hucknall fan so your opinion must be viewed with extreme suspicion  

ps havent JLS just sold out some massive venues, would you be happy to see those knobheads up there??

Edited by russycarps, 30 March 2010 - 09:19 AM.

[ampersand]

russycarps, on Mar 30 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

with all due respect ampers old boy, you are a huge mick hucknall fan so your opinion must be viewed with extreme suspicion  

ps havent JLS just sold out some massive venues, would you be happy to see those knobheads up there??

wembley > secc

and just for the record, i don't think simply red could headline glastonbury either

nothing against arcade fire, but they have two previous albums, and one new one to come? don't care how good you think they are, they aren't that big.

[ethereal]

ampersand, on Mar 30 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

how much for a saturday ticket? there still any for leeds. i'm very tempted.

£89 all-in. I think only the weekend tickets had sold-out for both.
They're easy to sell-on if you change your mind.

[Mardy]

Arcade Fire are f**king great, for sure, but big enough to headline? I don't reckon so.

Headliners need to be the sort of band you mention in the office on the Monday morning and people have heard of them. Now I like AF, but they're not that big.

[Langdale Wolf]

ampersand, on Mar 30 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

wembley > secc

and just for the record, i don't think simply red could headline glastonbury either

nothing against arcade fire, but they have two previous albums, and one new one to come? don't care how good you think they are, they aren't that big.

You seem to be saying that in order to headline Glastonbury, you need to be mega-huge with at least 4 albums behind you.

The following only had 2 (or fewer) albums at the time they headlined Glastonbury:

Travis
Arctic Monkeys
The Killers

I'm sure there are others.

Arcade Fire would do a MUCH better set than any of those (although Travis were enjoyable, they still wouldn't be a patch on AF).

You have to bear in mind that Arcade Fire are fabulous live, much more impressive than any of the shite the Arctics or the f**king Killers could even dream of being.

Surely a headliner just has to be an extremely impressive live act with a big enough following to warrant an appearance on the main stages?  if you don't think AF are either of these, I'm afraid you're totally wrong.

They're not even close to being one of the biggest bands around, but to say they couldn't headline is absolute nonsense.

Edited by Langdale Wolf, 30 March 2010 - 09:29 AM.

[ampersand]

Langdale Wolf, on Mar 30 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

You seem to be saying that in order to headline Glastonbury, you need to be mega-huge with at least 4 albums behind you.

The following only had 2 (or fewer) albums at the time they headlined Glastonbury:

Travis
Arctic Monkeys
The Killers

I'm sure there are others.

Arcade Fire would do a MUCH better set than any of those (although Travis were enjoyable, they still wouldn't be a patch on AF).

You have to bear in mind that Arcade Fire are fabulous live, much more impressive than any of the shite the Arctics or the f**king Killers could even dream of being.

Surely a headliner just has to be an extremely impressive live act with a big enough following to warrant an appearance on the main stages?  if you don't think AF are either of these, I'm afraid you're totally wrong.

They're not even close to being one of the biggest bands around, but to say they couldn't headline is absolute nonsense.

i don't think arctic monkey's should have headlined either. the killers are/were huge though and just about got away with it. arcade fire are not.

with your criteria, dizzee rascal could headline. i remember him having a huge crowd last year and being recieved well. but we both know how shit that would be.

[sifi]

Coldplay headlined after just one album.

[cejx]

Langdale Wolf, on Mar 30 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

You seem to be saying that in order to headline Glastonbury, you need to be mega-huge with at least 4 albums behind you.

The following only had 2 (or fewer) albums at the time they headlined Glastonbury:

Travis
Arctic Monkeys
The Killers

I'm sure there are others.

Arcade Fire would do a MUCH better set than any of those (although Travis were enjoyable, they still wouldn't be a patch on AF).

You have to bear in mind that Arcade Fire are fabulous live, much more impressive than any of the shite the Arctics or the f**king Killers could even dream of being.

Surely a headliner just has to be an extremely impressive live act with a big enough following to warrant an appearance on the main stages?  if you don't think AF are either of these, I'm afraid you're totally wrong.

They're not even close to being one of the biggest bands around, but to say they couldn't headline is absolute nonsense.

with the exclusion of  the tedious Travis - I guess the AM and Killers had a reasonable back catalogue in terms of radio friendly 'hits', and in terms of album sales (regardless of each only having 2 albums when headlining), both absolutely trounce Arcade Fire several times over.

Arcade Fire are great live, but whereas I don't really like any of the aformentioned acts, I could see both Killers and AM and sing along.  I simply don't think that AF have a large enough following.

[General Lee]

jimmyt, on Mar 29 2010, 11:21 PM, said:

Once again I just love how many cool people there are pretending that The Libertines playing Reading isn't a big deal.  Hilarious.  I'm not saying you have to like them (but I'll bet most of you do) but to make out only Arcade Fire would be good on Glasto bill is basically bollocks.  Weezer, Cypress Hill, Libs (obv) AF (obv!), Dizzee, The Cribs, Modest Mouse, The Gaslight Anthem, Frank Turner, Foals, Delphic, Mumford & Sons and LCD Soundsystem would all be welcome additions to the Glastonbury line-up and some of them will be on it.  Reading has actually got a good line-up this year.  First for a while in my opinion.  Which is why I'm going even though I swore I wasn't going to.  But I'm not camping (I only live just at the top of the hill that overlooks it) because it's a crap festival with crap people.  But I would go mental being able to hear the bass from the libertines in my back garden and not be there.

Just because the line up for Reading is good for a change doesn't mean it could compare with even an average Glastonbury.  But that doesn't mean you have to pretend not to notice tthe significant and decent booking they've done.

Agreed. All those bands I would be happy to see at Glastonbury. I wouldn't go back to Reading because the campsites and atmosphere around them are terrible. But in your position being able to go home each night you've got nothing to lose.

[Langdale Wolf]

ampersand, on Mar 30 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

i don't think arctic monkey's should have headlined either. the killers are/were huge though and just about got away with it. arcade fire are not.

with your criteria, dizzee rascal could headline. i remember him having a huge crowd last year and being recieved well. but we both know how shit that would be.

My criteria is that a band has a decent following and are awesome live.  if you think the Killers 'got away with it', but don't think Arcade Fire could, then we're never going to agree.  The Killers were (and indeed are) complete tripe.

It's not about being 'huge', it's about being 'big enough'.  There's a difference, and Arcade Fire are 'big enough'.  I don't understand why you don't get this?

If Arcade Fire were to be announced as headliners, I would love to see the reaction on these boards.  It would be absolutely hilarious.

At some point, a band with the reputation/fan base like Arcade Fire need to make that step up, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them given a headlining slot very soon indeed.  They have to make the step up at some point.

I also think this argument could be applied to Elbow.

[ampersand]

ethereal, on Mar 30 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

£89 all-in. I think only the weekend tickets had sold-out for both.
They're easy to sell-on if you change your mind.

for a day? ouch! do they sell for cheap nearer the time like t in the park?

billy talent, limp bizkit, paramore, band of horses and blink 182 are all the same day aren't they? i suppose it's worth it for that. paid £30 ticket and £60 for a hotel to see limp bizkit last year.

[cejx]

Langdale Wolf, on Mar 30 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

At some point, a band with the reputation/fan base like Arcade Fire need to make that step up, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them given a headlining slot very soon indeed.  They have to make the step up at some point.

I also think this argument could be applied to Elbow.

I agree with the Elbow comment - both bands have the same kind of fan base - most folk know a couple of songs from each band, but its not enough to sustain a headline set.  AF can only make that step up when they produce an album thats widely received and also release singles which are given airplay.

Edited by cejx, 30 March 2010 - 09:43 AM.

[ampersand]

Langdale Wolf, on Mar 30 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

My criteria is that a band has a decent following and are awesome live.  if you think the Killers 'got away with it', but don't think Arcade Fire could, then we're never going to agree.  The Killers were (and indeed are) complete tripe.

It's not about being 'huge', it's about being 'big enough'.  There's a difference, and Arcade Fire are 'big enough'.  I don't understand why you don't get this?

If Arcade Fire were to be announced as headliners, I would love to see the reaction on these boards.  It would be absolutely hilarious.

At some point, a band with the reputation/fan base like Arcade Fire need to make that step up, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them given a headlining slot very soon indeed.  They have to make the step up at some point.

I also think this argument could be applied to Elbow.

i think they got away with it cos they are huge, much like kings of leon or kasabian or snow patrol.

others above agree that they are not big enough. even people who love them. as they say, i could ask everyone in my office, upstairs and downstairs and i would bet a lot of money that none of them have heard of arcade fire. they could do sunset no problem, but not headliners for me. not yet anyway.

i agree, they have to make the step up. i just think now is far too soon. see how this album does for them and their reputation. then perhaps after the next one they could step up.