Headliner predictions 2017

[CaledonianGonzo]

Some first rate "Depeche Mode mentioning in a non Depeche Mode context" happening rn.

[stuartbert two hats]

I'm sick of these so called 'singer-songwriters' that need help with virtually all their songs.  Some of them even have 6, SIX songwriters on a single song.

 

 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I was not refering to the Who mate, I was comparing Foo Fighters to Depeche Mode. Now I appreciate DM are not the  biggest band in the world but they sell huge amounts of tickets world wide and I would say easily compareable to FF if not even exceeding them.

Possibly Sorry for getting confused. DM aren't bigger than FF in this country though which is the main thing. And FF are only close to Coldplay in terms of ticket sales, no band touches Coldplay in terms of combined ticket and record selling prowess. Even Ghost Stories sold 5m copies.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm sick of these so called 'singer-songwriters' that need help with virtually all their songs.  Some of them even have 6, SIX songwriters on a single song.

 

 

I can't believe he didn't come up with Hallo Spaceboy on his own.

[eastynh]

Come on be fair. People were disscussing whether FF were the 2nd biggest band in the world. I asked what the criteria was for being considered and then highlighted the fact it was not so clear cut in favour of FF as there are other bands who shift huge amounts of tickets. 

The thing that fets me with FF is the fact that they are still more famous for their  singer being the former drummer in Nirvana rather than for their music.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

Just now, eastynh said:

 

The thing that fets me with FF is the fact that they are still more famous for their  singer being the former drummer in Nirvana rather than for their music.

this is not a fact

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm sick of these so called 'singer-songwriters' that need help with virtually all their songs.  Some of them even have 6, SIX songwriters on a single song.

If he was at all honest the new Leonard Cohen album would have been credited to Leonard and Adam Cohen feat. Sharon Robinson and that bloke from off of Madonna. 

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Possibly Sorry for getting confused. DM aren't bigger than FF in this country though which is the main thing. And FF are only close to Coldplay in terms of ticket sales, no band touches Coldplay in terms of combined ticket and record selling prowess. Even Ghost Stories sold 5m copies.

I thought we were talking world wide though mate and thats why I asked for the criteria. If we are talking this country then have The Stone Roses not sold more recently?

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, Zac Quinn said:

this is not a fact

Maybe not a fact as it can't be verified so you are correct. It is arguable though.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

I thought we were talking world wide though mate and thats why I asked for the criteria. If we are talking this country then have The Stone Roses not sold more recently?

more what? tickets or records? they haven't sold more records, obviously, because they haven't released anything. can't be bothered to add up whether TSR have sold more tickets, but even if they have there are so many people who go to all their shows all the time they're still narrower in their appeal than both Coldplay and Foo and the lads who sell gazillions of tickets without relying on a core base to go two or three times each.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Maybe not a fact as it can't be verified so you are correct. It is arguable though.

maybe among people who were around during Nirvana but for people under 35 no way.

[Untz]

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I am positive there is another dimension where Hot Chip headline the Pyramid, Depeche Mode play Uk festivals and Thom Yorke comes across as a happy chappie.

There is a universe right now where Hot Chip are playing Beach Party on the Pyramid in glorious 27 degree sunshine and I'm stuck in the one where I'm "working" in a shitty office counting down to pub o'clock.

[Alan_C]

Can we just agree the headliners should have been Radiohead, The Stone Roses, and The Cure? I'm delighted it isn't, because I would have been one bitter bastard.

[evannn]

4 minutes ago, Alan_C said:

Can we just agree the headliners should have been Radiohead, The Stone Roses, and The Cure? I'm delighted it isn't, because I would have been one bitter bastard.

The stone roses shouldn't be headlining anything in 2017

[Simpo]

I'm not gonna weigh in on the argument that Foo Fighters are a bigger deal than The Who. But they'll definitely try and make it feel like a bigger deal than The Who did with their "Oh, here we are again."

 

It's only rock n roll, but I like it.

[Alan_C]

2 minutes ago, evannn said:

The stone roses shouldn't be headlining anything in 2017

Why? Because they haven't released any new music? If this was the case then it can be used against loads of old bands who are only booked for songs from 20-40 years ago surely? I would say fair enough, if they had of played before, but The Stone Roses music deserves to be played on that stage.

[evannn]

Just now, Alan_C said:

Why? Because they haven't released any new music? If this was the case then it can be used against loads of old bands who are only booked for songs from 20-40 years ago surely? I would say fair enough, if they had of played before, but The Stone Roses music deserves to be played on that stage.

Because the two songs they've released in the last 20 years are dreadful, there's a place for nostalgia but not at the top. Especially for a band who were inconsistent live during their peak. 

They've also spent the best part of 5 years rinsing the festival and stadium circuits for every bit they can, its not like anybody who wants to see them hasn't had plenty of chances. 

 

By by the way I agree that any band who hasn't released music for 20-40 years shouldn't headline a contemporary music festival

[Alan_C]

2 minutes ago, evannn said:

Because the two songs they've released in the last 20 years are dreadful, there's a place for nostalgia but not at the top. Especially for a band who were inconsistent live during their peak. 

They've also spent the best part of 5 years rinsing the festival and stadium circuits for every bit they can, its not like anybody who wants to see them hasn't had plenty of chances. 

 

By by the way I agree that any band who hasn't released music for 20-40 years shouldn't headline a contemporary music festival

There is the argument that the people turning up at a headline festival performance wouldn't be interested in newer songs as well though. Even if the 2 new songs were 10/10, the majority of people would want to hear them songs that they are still playing now. A big percentage of people in that Radiohead crowd will be there to hear songs from The Bends and OK Computer. 

Do you not think the Stones should have headlined in 2013? 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

At least Metallica, The Who, The Stones, Macca etc have occasionally put out new music to justify continually touring since their peak, even if nobody cares about it and it's not what anyone buys a ticket to see them play. The Stone Roses more or less haven't got out of bed, except to play a few dates every summer to the same crowd who watched them the year before, in my lifetime. The ultimate 'here for the money and can't even be bothered to pretend otherwise' band.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[russycarps]

Just now, Zac Quinn said:

At least Metallica, The Who, The Stones, Macca etc have occasionally put out new music to justify continually touring since their peak, even if nobody cares about it and it's not what anyone buys a ticket to see them play. The Stone Roses more or less haven't got out of bed, except to play a few dates every summer to the same crowd who watched them the year before, in my lifetime.

I was really looking forward to hearing calico skies when macca played I'll have you know!

 

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, Alan_C said:

There is the argument that the people turning up at a headline festival performance wouldn't be interested in newer songs as well though. Even if the 2 new songs were 10/10, the majority of people would want to hear them songs that they are still playing now. A big percentage of people in that Radiohead crowd will be there to hear songs from The Bends and OK Computer. 

Do you not think the Stones should have headlined in 2013? 

Reasons the Rolling Stones are better suited to headline than The Stone Roses:

• Mick Jagger is usually in tune.
• A bigger back catalogue than 2 albums + 1 b-side album. Actually had four albums out since the Roses last released music.
• They've not been relentlessly touring and done plenty of festivals.
• A wider appeal, not just to northern blokes between 30-50.  
• They're better.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I was really looking forward to hearing calico skies when macca played I'll have you know!

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I was really looking forward to hearing calico skies when macca played I'll have you know!

 

I was looking forward to some good versions of Beatles songs, but you can't always get what you want.

[addicted2noise]

51 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Let's call Ed 'a performer who is the lead writer on most of his songs and the only writer on the two songs that made his name' then, if that suits. Either way it really makes no difference as to whether he's a Glastonbury headliner

 

Is he the lead writer though? How do you know Amy Wadge didn't just give him credit for Thinking Out Loud (which lets be honest is the song that has elevated him to glasto headliner) in exchange for the exposure? After all It's far more tuneful than the two early singles he did write. I'm not trying to slag him just curious whether artistic credibility is that important for a headliner if they're popular enough.

[evannn]

1 minute ago, Alan_C said:

There is the argument that the people turning up at a headline festival performance wouldn't be interested in newer songs as well though. Even if the 2 new songs were 10/10, the majority of people would want to hear them songs that they are still playing now. A big percentage of people in that Radiohead crowd will be there to hear songs from The Bends and OK Computer. 

Do you not think the Stones should have headlined in 2013? 

There are also Radiohead fans who want to hear music from In Rainbows onwards, and a lot of fans who like everything from Pablo Honey (insert joke) to AMSP. An old musician/group who have consistently made music to a decent standard should be up there certainly, but a group who've been rinsing their old material for a cash grab shouldn't. 

 

There's more of an argument for them being headliners in 2013

[Alan_C]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Reasons the Rolling Stones are better suited to headline than The Stone Roses:

• Mick Jagger is usually in tune.
• A bigger back catalogue than 2 albums + 1 b-side album. Actually had four albums out since the Roses last released music.
• They've not been relentlessly touring and done plenty of festivals.
• A wider appeal, not just to northern blokes between 30-50.  
• They're better.

The point was made about bands getting booked for their songs from 20-40 years ago though, not for the music most of the crowd aren't interested in. I bloody love Doom & Gloom, but I don't think there was many people in that field bothered about hearing that song.

The Northern blokes comment between 30-50 is poor.