Jump to content

Headliner predictions 2017


swede
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, FloorFiller said:

Credible and critical acclaim goes out of the window when you're as big as Mumfords were at the time of them headlining. Seems odd looking back now but for a short period in 2013 they were the hottest band in the world, and Glastonbury got them at perfect time (or worst, depending on how you look at it, as I doubt they would've been booked in any of the following years or will be ever again)

Mumfords were big for sure, but not big enough to get a headline slot off the back of essentially one album, since the second one they were touring and clearly wasn't anything like as successful. They've never had a no1 single, the highest charting single from the debut got to no5. I think Glastonbury headliner slots should be (and usually have been) about something a little more substantial than just a flash in the pan. Usually bands that headline on their second album tour don't do very well - even the Arctics weren't a particularly strong booking in '07 and they'd been much bigger - when you've essentially got one huge album and another which people don't like as much you will struggle for material in a Glasto headline spot. 

Edited by arcade fireman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Mumfords were big for sure, but not big enough to get a headline slot off the back of essentially one album, since the second one they were touring and clearly wasn't anything like as successful. They've never had a no1 single, the highest charting single from the debut got to no5.

Lots of bands like Kasabian, Muse, and Metallica have headlined without ever having a number 1 single, singles aren't a big deal. Mumford & Sons sold colossal amount of those two albums, they couldn't have done anything but headline. And they had the whole "friends of the festival" thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dentalplan said:

I think it was the fact that it wasn't unique and was no longer a selling point that they abandoned it. I suppose they at least made a fist of being a stadium rock band instead of going down with the heycore thing. 

In hindsight, it's impressive that Glastonbury took the chance on the only year they were an appropriate, contemporary headliner. Same might end up happening to Sheeran but at this point he's definitely a 2013 Mumfords rather than a 2015 one.

I think another part of the reason for the change was that their sound ended up becoming pretty ubiquitous with many similar sounding acts in the chart, it might not of worked but i give them credit for trying as they could've very easyly ran it into the ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Wonderfully selective reading of the facts there :lol: I Will Wait is statistically their most successful song ever, even more so than The Cave and Little Lion Man

Christ. Arguing almost semantically over Mumfucks singles is actually a thing! Banjantics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Wonderfully selective reading of the facts there :lol: I Will Wait is statistically their most successful song ever, even more so than The Cave and Little Lion Man

But if the second album was truly a successful one, surely the other singles would've done a bit better than top 100? It's hardly a high bar. Of course the first single after a big debut is going to chart highly - anticipation is always big at that point.

But look at the Arctic's second album - Fluorescent Adolescent the second single still got to 5 and even the third single got to number 20. Mumford's second album sold only a bit over half what the first album did in the UK with the majority of sales being in the first week. I don't think there's any arguing their second album was a bit of a flop. Which was a big reason why they were such a weak booking. 

Edited by arcade fireman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, arcade fireman said:

But if the second album was truly a successful one, surely the other singles would've done a bit better than top 100? It's hardly a high bar. Of course the first single after a big debut is going to chart highly - anticipation is always big at that point.

But look at the Arctic's second album - Fluorescent Adolescent the second single still got to 5 and even the third single got to number 20. Mumford's second album sold only a bit over half what the first album did in the UK with the majority of sales being in the first week. I don't think there's any arguing their second album was a bit of a flop. 

Think you're going too far down the rabbit hole here. There second album was in every aspect a humongous success. It didnt matter that the singles didn't break the charts - if I remember correctly more than half the album placed in the singles chart(s) purely through album sales alone 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Christ. Arguing almost semantically over Mumfucks singles is actually a thing! Banjantics. 

:D

 

16 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

Think you're going too far down the rabbit hole here. There second album was in every aspect a humongous success. It didnt matter that the singles didn't break the charts - if I remember correctly more than half the album placed in the singles chart(s) purely through album sales alone 

Quite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

But if the second album was truly a successful one, surely the other singles would've done a bit better than top 100? It's hardly a high bar. Of course the first single after a big debut is going to chart highly - anticipation is always big at that point.

But look at the Arctic's second album - Fluorescent Adolescent the second single still got to 5 and even the third single got to number 20. Mumford's second album sold only a bit over half what the first album did in the UK with the majority of sales being in the first week. I don't think there's any arguing their second album was a bit of a flop. Which was a big reason why they were such a weak booking. 

Yeah I know what you mean, I think many people who liked their debut felt the 2nd album was just more of the same and got bored of it which tends to happen when following up a massively successful album. I think maybe the same could've happened with Adele's last album (although to a far lesser extent) and it'll be interesting to see if Ed Sheeran can avoid a similar fate with his new one (I have seen one or two comments saying his new songs aren't on a par with his previous stuff although I'm not sure that means anything).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, addicted2noise said:

Yeah I know what you mean, I think many people who liked their debut felt the 2nd album was just more of the same and got bored of it which tends to happen when following up a massively successful album. I think maybe the same could've happened with Adele's last album (although to a far lesser extent) and it'll be interesting to see if Ed Sheeran can avoid a similar fate with his new one (I have seen one or two comments saying his new songs aren't on a par with his previous stuff although I'm not sure that means anything).   

I've come to the conclusion that a great new album should still sound like the band, yet should somehow not sound like any of their old music. 

Mumfords managed to get it wrong both times. The second album literally sounded like a continuation of the debut and the third album had no recognisable identity as the same band.

In fact they pulled off a hell of a trick on the third album if you think of it - sounding nothing like their old work, but quite similar to lots of other people's. Landfill Stadium Rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2nd Mumfords album was the one that won the Best Album Grammy wasn't it? I know that's just an accolade at an American award ceremony but its the one award at the one ceremony that record labels seem to care the most dearly about. Probably won't have lost too much sleep that the album only stayed in the top 40 for one year rather than two with that under their belt. :P

Edited by dentalplan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Sales aside, they lost the zeitgeist - and in a world where no one really buys albums any more there's a lot to be said for merely capturing- and continuing to hold - the curiosity of the wider public.

Aha, so you're thinking the fact that Lentil Soup and the lads were a bunch of boring boarding school tosspots and no good for the tabloids brought about their fast demise? I'd say you might be onto something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...