Headliner predictions 2017

[Madyaker]

23 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's a hangover from 2008 think, the last time they took a risk, and the festival didn't sell out.

And we have to remember, the festival business plan is based around it selling out every year, so they're less able to take risks than it first appears. Plus the deposit/refund policy means that demand on October ticket day isn't necessarily indicative of real demand - the festival has a reputation for world-class headliners, if it doesn't deliver that there's still a chance they would get a lot of cancellations.

2014 was the first year they ended up with no world-class headliner since then, and that was purely by accident and having no other option. That the festival still sold out that year has probably given them some confidence but they have to be thinking that selling out every year still isn't a done deal.

The festival did sell out in 2008, the last tickets were sold on the friday of the festival. And the reason for sluggish sales was mostly the disatrous weather the previous year (and maybe the global recession and Jay Z's unwelcome performance from 07). How many registered and tried for tickets this year? It must have been hundreds of thousands. I think Glastonbury selling out every year is very much a done deal, hasn't it sold out every year since they built the superfence in 2001 or whatever?

 

I think they can afford to book risky headliners because everyone know's that there's 100 stages so if they don't like the headliners there's always something else to do. They can definitely afford to take a risk on one headliner each year.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

33 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

But a hypothetical line up of KENDRICK > (e.g.) FLEETWOOD MAC is still stronger than one where it's (e.g.) ROYAL BLOOD > KENDRICK

Not sure about this. That theory works in cases where there's a GOAT headliner who's never done it, but 2015 didn't look stronger as Foos/Kanye/The Who and Florence/Pharrell/Paul Weller as subs than it would've done with  Foos/Kanye/Florence and Libs/Pharrell/Alt-J in support. Not in the short term for people googling which festival looks the most exciting over a summer, and not in the long term in terms of Glastonbury's reputation for supporting up and coming bands.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Zac Quinn

[CaledonianGonzo]

I think 2015 is an odd picture generally - it's an outlier, at the less explicable end of things.  But that said, I'd still opt for the version with The Who.

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

The festival did sell out in 2008, the last tickets were sold on the friday of the festival. And the reason for sluggish sales was mostly the disatrous weather the previous year (and maybe the global recession and Jay Z's unwelcome performance from 07). How many registered and tried for tickets this year? It must have been hundreds of thousands. I think Glastonbury selling out every year is very much a done deal, hasn't it sold out every year since they built the superfence in 2001 or whatever?

I'm still suspicious if it did sell out in 2008 or that was just marketing, to be honest. And yes there may have been other factors, but if you look at the list of headliners, 2009 saw the first case of having one "world class" headliner every year - Springsteen, Stevie, Beyonce/U2, Rolling Stones.

[Gucci Piggy]

38 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

But a hypothetical line up of KENDRICK > (e.g.) FLEETWOOD MAC is still stronger than one where it's (e.g.) ROYAL BLOOD > KENDRICK

I know, and I'm not saying it'd be stronger if they booked more up and comers to headline, and as I said it's easy for us to say this when it isn't our livelihoods on the line. I can understand why the Eavii would rather book the up and comers below bigger headliners.

But major festivals have the power to create headliners and give up and coming acts a boost to the top level.  In 2004 they could have booked The Darkness to headline with Muse subbing them (similar to TITP who had The Darkness headlining the main stage and Muse headlining the 2nd stage), and it'd have been bigger, but they'd have missed out on an opportunity to give an up and coming act that boost to the top level and a performance that'd go down in Glastonbury history.

Glastonbury, on account of selling out in advance every year, is the best-placed festival to do this, but they've stopped doing it in recent years.

And it also depends on who the bigger acts being considered are. If it's Fleetwood Mac who've never played before then fair play, go for it. If it's Radiohead returning after a 14 year absence then go for it. If it's fucking Muse or Coldplay in 2016, headlining for the umpteenth time, only a few years after their previous appearance, touring a shite new album, then no thanks. If it's The Who returning with no new material, to play the same set they've already done in a Glasto headline slot, then no thanks.

Again, as I said, I know it would result in weaker lineups, and I understand why Glastonbury opts for the biggest acts it can get, as it's their festival that's on the line if things go tits up. But as a punter and someone interested in the music scene in general I'd rather see up and coming acts given the chance to prove their worth at the top level.

[Wooderson]

Methinks The Darkness got a bump due to Bowie getting a lollypop in his eye.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Yeah - I'm maybe not the best person to have a rational argument about this as I'm generally not that impressed by whether or not something is new.  Up and coming acts don't interest me purely by dint of their novelty factor, and I don't think it's the festival's job to give a boost to the career of a middling band by giving them a headline slot instead of someone who's proven their ability to bring home the bacon.

And this is when I point to the line-up of the Friday in 2008, which is by some distance the most contemporary day's worth of music ever scheduled onto the Pyramid Stage, and by some distance also the worst.

But the point about Coldplay and Muse last year being a safe and boring set of headliners is well founded.  I'm not going to defend that.  I'm not a monster.

 

 

 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, Will-2609 said:

Glastonbury, on account of selling out in advance every year, is the best-placed festival to do this, but they've stopped doing it in recent years.

I'm not sure this so true - yes, it's lower risk for Glastonbury as it's likely it can sell out regardless of line-up. But if that gamble didn't pay off, the festival would be fucked. Glastonbury isn't set up in such a way that it could sell 2/3rds of the tickets one year and still keep on going. It makes a very small amount of profit, and then gives most of that away.

Whereas the likes of Reading don't need to sell out in the same way, they're set to make a tidy profit at a much lower number of sales. 

[Gucci Piggy]

10 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Methinks The Darkness got a bump due to Bowie getting a lollypop in his eye.

Yeah they were in that slot as a replacement, but the point still stands that Glastonbury could have similarly booked The Darkness in a higher slot than them, like how it ended up at TITP. They were the bigger act.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm not sure this so true - yes, it's lower risk for Glastonbury as it's likely it can sell out regardless of line-up. But if that gamble didn't pay off, the festival would be fucked. Glastonbury isn't set up in such a way that it could sell 2/3rds of the tickets one year and still keep on going. It makes a very small amount of profit, and then gives most of that away.

Whereas the likes of Reading don't need to sell out in the same way, they're set to make a tidy profit at a much lower number of sales. 

Which is the price you pay for Glastonbury being such a charitable event, I guess. They should have more confidence in themselves, though - particularly comparing things to 2008, I would hope the Eavii aren't so badly out of touch with how much the world has changed in the last 10 years to still be looking to 2008 as a relevant comparison. And even if the world hadn't changed since then, nobody is suggesting they book a trio of iffy headliners all in one year, like happened in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2009 and 2007. You can still have your boring Coldplay etc bookings to make sure the thing sells out. Just give one headline slot a year to a Frank Ocean, a Foals, a Florence, even if they don't strictly meet every metric, just to make the top of the bill feel exciting. That's all we want.

[FuzzyDunlop]

1 minute ago, Zac Quinn said:

Which is the price you pay for Glastonbury being such a charitable event, I guess. They should have more confidence in themselves, though - particularly comparing things to 2008, I would hope the Eavii aren't so badly out of touch with how much the world has changed in the last 10 years to still be looking to 2008 as a relevant comparison. And even if the world hadn't changed since then, nobody is suggesting they book a trio of iffy headliners all in one year, like happened in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2009 and 2007. You can still have your boring Coldplay etc bookings to make sure the thing sells out. Just give one headline slot a year to a Frank Ocean, a Foals, a Florence, even if they don't strictly meet every metric, just to make the top of the bill feel exciting. That's all we want.

Not so.

That's all some people want. When the foo fighters were announced they came with very wide praise around. I am not a fan, but they were praised on the whole. Sticking Frank Ocean, the Foals et al would not get a reaction like that.

[CaledonianGonzo]

5 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Just give one headline slot a year to a Frank Ocean, a Foals, a Florence, even if they don't strictly meet every metric, just to make the top of the bill feel exciting. That's all we want.

Which is kind of were we're at, with Kanye, Adele and Ed-S.  Granted, they're not going to be to everyone's taste, but for better or worse they're all as zeitgeisty as they come.

And if Foals aren't exciting as a sub-headliner I dunno how they're suddenly more interesting if they're higher up the bill.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, Odessa said:

Personally think that Kasabian had enough good songs to headline after their third album, so that'd have meant a 2009/2010 headline slot. How big they were exactly at the time I'm not entirely sure but I remember Fire being massive. By 2014 their moment had been and gone and their best material was well behind them, once they hadn't headlined before 48:13 they definitely shouldn't have headlined on the back of it.

I think Muse's first two bookings to headline were fair enough but booking them after two consecutive albums that had zero impact? Nah. Not to say I didn't enjoy it, but it didn't belong at Glastonbury. Foals, Kendrick Lamar, others that I'm forgetting would have been far more interesting bookings and it's not like anyone could claim Glasto had let them down with the size of the headliners when they'd have been put alongside Adele and Coldplay.

I'm thinking the same with Foo Fighters and not just because I can't stand them. Why on earth have they waited til 2015 (now 2017) to book them? Surely it should have happened 10+ years ago? Or maybe Foos weren't interested then, I dunno. 

They did sub in 2009, I wouldn't be surprised if they were in the running to be bumped up if one of the headliners had dropped out.

[Matt42]

1 hour ago, Will-2609 said:

Yeah agreed on Foals last year. For me, Adele and Foals should have been the first two (realistic) headliners they should have gone after. Had several discussions with my mate who first introduced me to Glasto about this - alongside Adele and Coldplay/Muse who would have complained? We disagreed on who the 3rd headliner should have been out of Muse/Coldplay (I said Coldplay due to newer album and not having already brought it to festivals, he said Muse on account of Coldplay having been there more recently).

Exactly the same with Florence the previous year. Once Prince fell through, who could have complained (size-wise) about Florence being the third alongside Foo Fighters and Kanye West. I guess after the Kanye backlash, though, you can't blame them for not wanting to take any chances.

Disagree slightly on Foos. Yeah they should have had them before now, probably, but knowing that they haven't yet had them I think it's fair still for them to book them now. Neil has (I think) said Eavis has considered them most years, but it's obviously never happened. I'd guess that may be down to Eavis' worry over booking heavier acts, which seems to have become less of a concern to him over the past few years. Either that or Foos have chased the money or wanted to do other fests, but seeing how much of a big deal they clearly saw Glasto as in 2015 and this year I'm not so sure on that.

I guess this is easy for us to say when it isn't our livelihoods on the line, mind you.

I just hope they break this mindset and give Kendrick a shot next time round.

 

I don't mean to criticise her, because I love what she does and she's fantastic at running a festival - but I think this is fully down to Emily's vision of the festival. [unless it's not emily making these decisions - moreover whoever sets out the headliners].

It seems like in the past few years, Glastonbury has set itself to have three fully established headliners on each day, making it the biggest of the big - I know it's pure speculation but it comes across explicitly that Emily likes the festival looking this way.

Foals, Adele, Coldplay  &  Foo Fighters, Kanye West, Florence + The Machine are two trios that in my mind would have worked fine, and actually look better than what we really got.

It just seems like something has happened that has stirred Glastonbury away from taking risks... and that's not me being speculative since we have multiple examples of this happening now. 

I guess this year is an anomaly since three very big headliners have fallen into Glastonbury's lap... they haven't exactly chased anyone down (that we would deem unnecessary) eg. Muse and the Who.

[DeanoL]

24 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Which is the price you pay for Glastonbury being such a charitable event, I guess. They should have more confidence in themselves, though - particularly comparing things to 2008, I would hope the Eavii aren't so badly out of touch with how much the world has changed in the last 10 years to still be looking to 2008 as a relevant comparison. And even if the world hadn't changed since then, nobody is suggesting they book a trio of iffy headliners all in one year, like happened in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2009 and 2007. 

Also the price you pay for it's generous refund policy. Also worth remembering we're in a time of massive economic uncertainty, and your Glasto money isn't committed bar £15 until May. There's already a significant risk of mass cancellations should we hit a recession. This would be different if we paid up front in October.

And that's the other difference from Reading / Leeds etc. if they announce poor headliners, the tickets they've already pre-sold are guaranteed to remain sold. Glastonbury's line-up does impact on its sales but we don't really know by how much because of the odd way tickets are sold.

[russycarps]

I saw foals and they were boring and shit. You cant have a band like that headline just because they are the best of a bad bunch of british bands.

 

 

 

[mjsell]

On 10/03/2017 at 1:24 PM, stuartbert two hats said:

Especially now he's been forcibly freed from the confines of having to make his sets work in 30 minute chunks. From what I've read in interviews, the latest tour will be designed to work as a 2-3 hour piece.

On that basis, I almost don't want to see him at Glastonbury. BTW, confused people, we're discussing Stewart Lee.

Sorry for being slow with this, had let this thread get away from me over the weekend. And you are right, saw him last week and there is more of a flow and story that links the first half to the second half of his show for this tour, which ultimately builds to quite a sentimental ending for his standards. There is no chance he would perform at G - well at least not with that show.

His show is fantastic btw, in case that didnt come across in the above. Never seen anyone with such mastery of comedy as him.

[thewayiam]

4 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I saw foals and they were boring and shit. You cant have a band like that headline just because they are the best of a bad bunch of british bands.

 

 

 

They aren't the best of a bad bunch though.

[tevaburger]

29 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

They did sub in 2009, I wouldn't be surprised if they were in the running to be bumped up if one of the headliners had dropped out.

i think they were in fact bumped up to that slot (or added late) in 2009, announced as 'special guests' in the pre-Springsteen slot when Coldplay couldn't do it.

[stuartbert two hats]

27 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm not sure this so true - yes, it's lower risk for Glastonbury as it's likely it can sell out regardless of line-up. But if that gamble didn't pay off, the festival would be fucked. Glastonbury isn't set up in such a way that it could sell 2/3rds of the tickets one year and still keep on going. It makes a very small amount of profit, and then gives most of that away.

Whereas the likes of Reading don't need to sell out in the same way, they're set to make a tidy profit at a much lower number of sales. 

I don't think that's entirely true any more. Yes, they would still make a loss if they didn't sell out or come very close to it, but I believe they've built up more cash reserves since the near death experience of 2008, so that it would take a much larger lack of sales to put them out of business.

I'm not sure if they could cope with 2/3, but it's not far off. I'm sure it could be worked out from the companies house details, that is if you could work out which companies to actually look at.

 

[liambarton]

Ed Sheeran has just announced a nice little warm up gig with an extra date at London O2 for 22nd june.

Incase it wasnt inevitable enough

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, tevaburger said:

i think they were in fact bumped up to that slot (or added late) in 2009, announced as 'special guests' in the pre-Springsteen slot when Coldplay couldn't do it.

That makes sense. They probably weren't in the running for the top slot in that case.

[thewayiam]

23 minutes ago, liambarton said:

Ed Sheeran has just announced a nice little warm up gig with an extra date at London O2 for 22nd june.

Incase it wasnt inevitable enough

Which will go on sale I presume Friday and sell out instant and then his announcement on Monday/Tuesday is my guess.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

Which will go on sale I presume Friday and sell out instant and then his announcement on Monday/Tuesday is my guess.

Goes on sale 5pm today. Lack of notice probably makes it the best chance for UK fans to see him on this tour tbh but I cba.

[thewayiam]

Just now, Zac Quinn said:

Goes on sale 5pm today. Lack of notice probably makes it the best chance for UK fans to see him on this tour tbh but I cba.

Yes I just saw, I think that makes his announcement by early next week stronger as they would probably have delayed this gig announcement if he was just going to be on the poster.