Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Kasabian are officially more popular than Springsteen!


Guest godders1966

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Is Kasabian more popular than Springsteen among 18-30s in the UK? Yeah, almost definitely, but get out of that VERY small demographic of people and there is no contest. Kasabian will get their chance to headline the Pyramid if they continue on the same path that they are on right now. Take the opportunity to see a true legend of music play. There is a reason why he is so massively popular, why the critics have always tripped over each other in their efforts to praise him, and why he is still selling out football stadiums more than 30 years past his prime (yes, his prime was in 1978, not 1985).

On the other hand though, I bet Kasabian will be a more popular set than Springsteen. Greater crowd familiarity with songs and more flashy lights :lol: will always translate into a better show for those that are standing so far away they can barely see the people on stage. Bruce will put more energy and passion into his show that anybody on any stage even at the age of 60, but that kind of intensity can only translate to a certain portion of the crowd. Plus, crowd participation will probably suck.

One more thing... what is with all this "dad rock," "everybody there will be pensioners," stuff. When I was little I refused to like Bowie b/c my mum did, but then I grew up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Springsteen has sold soooo much because he came from a generation of stadium rock and massive album sales, his current albums sell much and such the same as 'much smaller' acts of today. If acts like Springsteen were not around in the 60's, 70's or 80's and appeared today and modern music tastes matched their music I can say with 100% confidence they would be lucky to sell a quarter of what they did. The current music industry doesn't allow for such sales. The access I have to music now than what my equivalent would have had in in 1975 cannot be compared, it is soooo much easier for me to find what I want, get tickets for what I want, buy albums, listen live, watch live streams etc so I'm not restricted to style, genre, availability etc etc

He is as big as he is because the fish tank allowed it, doesn't work anymore. He does sell out stadiums but I bet 75% of that crowd is 35+, people who are going to see him for the classics of their younger years that's why is record sales have steadily dropped for the past 20 years(even in the US)as his fans are pretty much the same people that were his fans decades ago.

As for the group I'm going with, none of us want to see him and that includes the 45 year olds. Even they call him 'dad rock' lol a lot of people on here refuse to see that he is quite a marmite act, he may be 'The Boss' to many but he is also very boring to a lot of others.

Edited by Jens Wildman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both acts will put on a good show.

That is all that matters.

Whoever watches Kasabian will enjoy it, whoever watches The Boss will enjoy it.

Who gives a shit who is more popular, it doesn't matter. Springsteen has been around longer, sold more records over his career, has a bigger back catalogue and probably pulls in bigger crowds at his gigs so therefore deserves to be higher than Kasabian.

End of discussion.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...