2013 Headliners

[gazza_20]

I don't reckon to say Jack White for sub pyramid if The Stones play is too far out. I think he'll headline Other Stage at the very least.

I could see:

The Roses

FATM

Lady GaGa

Plan B

The Stones

Jack White

[wacko]

Friday - Arcade Fire

Sat - Lady Gaga

Sun - Rolling Stones

[wacko]

I can see Jack White headlining the other stage if Gaga headlines the pyramid

[The Mean Bean]

If there's going to be a current pop act headlining one night, could it be Rihanna? I'm not a fan of anything much mainstream in the charts at the moment, but I do like her. Obviously I'd ideally like a rock act to headline, but if this is how Glasto is then I'll take her over bloody Gaga any day of the week, saw some of Rihanna's Radio 1 Big Weekend set on the telly last night and it did look quite good.

[The Nal]

If there's going to be a current pop act headlining one night, could it be Rihanna? I'm not a fan of anything much mainstream in the charts at the moment, but I do like her. Obviously I'd ideally like a rock act to headline, but if this is how Glasto is then I'll take her over bloody Gaga any day of the week, saw some of Rihanna's Radio 1 Big Weekend set on the telly last night and it did look quite good.

Edited June 25, 2012 by The Nal

[LondonTom]

Having seen him twice over the weekend, the man deserves to headline the Pyramid! (Jack White) But yeah I'd take him doing his thing on the other stage against gaga or someone!

Edited June 25, 2012 by LondonTom

[Vieuphoria]

They should put all those fucks on the same stage and be done with them. Somewhere off in the corner. Horrible c**ts. The lot of them. Jay-Z, his missus, Black Eyed Peas, Rihanna, Britney, Katy Perry and all that lot who use their "music" to promote soft drinks, cars, booze brands and TVs, change their videos and lyrics for the purpose of product placement (for which they get paid for) and then take a stance on moral issues and think they're role models for their young fans.

They're not role models. They're c**ts.

Read the top line of this website. Depressing. And they're fucking huge.

[01seb]

Could possibly see The Throne headlining a night. Either them or Gaga.

[The Nal]

but also... They're only making money? What's the issue?

Edited June 25, 2012 by The Nal

[Vieuphoria]

I still don't see what the issue is?

That's just how they make money. What's the difference between them doing that, and Reading or Glastonbury have massive corporate banners everywhere.

Yeah it's not very artistic, but frankly when has Britney ever been seen as the height of artistic merit. They have the right to advertise whatever they wish. You also have the right to ignore those people if you so wish.

Yeah it's not the most arty thing to do in the world. But I don't think it makes them horrible people per-say. They may love money, but frankly that's how capitalism works.

it just depends what they do with the money. Will.i.Am, as I said before, does a shit-tonne for charity. He seems like a genuinely nice guy who wants to help society. How he makes his money is his business. We aren't his target audience. But those who do like him, like it. Nobody is really losing out here.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Vieuphoria

[The Nal]

Glastonbury have massive corporate banners everywhere.

[jump]

I still don't see what the issue is?

That's just how they make money. What's the difference between them doing that, and Reading or Glastonbury have massive corporate banners everywhere.

Yeah it's not very artistic, but frankly when has Britney ever been seen as the height of artistic merit. They have the right to advertise whatever they wish. You also have the right to ignore those people if you so wish.

Yeah it's not the most arty thing to do in the world. But I don't think it makes them horrible people per-say. They may love money, but frankly that's how capitalism works.

it just depends what they do with the money. Will.i.Am, as I said before, does a shit-tonne for charity. He seems like a genuinely nice guy who wants to help society. How he makes his money is his business. We aren't his target audience. But those who do like him, like it. Nobody is really losing out here.

[Vieuphoria]

Why can't a band make money through advertising at the same time? They're still a band.

I'm pretty certain Orange have a few things around the site, as do Q magazine and the Guardian. There are others. Granted it's hardly the most most corporate place in the world. But still happens.

[The Nal]

Why can't a band make money through advertising at the same time? They're still a band.

[Vieuphoria]

So if someone has a nice public persona that means you shouldn't be able to critise their music for being deliberately hollow and full of marketing propaganda?

[The Nal]

That fanbase doesn't mind corporate inclusion in their music... They probably don't notice it. It doesn't affect us in any way. So why bitch about it.

[jump]

It's not to do with persona. I just don't see the point criticising people for making money. They make music for their fanbase, not us. That fanbase doesn't mind corporate inclusion in their music... They probably don't notice it. It doesn't affect us in any way. So why bitch about it. They are making money, the fans get music, the companies get exposure. Yeah it's to our taste, but who are we to judge how someone makes money. I don't like the music, so I don't listen to it. The same reason I don't go and see Sex And The City or Transformers at the cinema... because they are full of advertising, and have little substance. But I'm not going to say everyone involved with making those films are horrible human beings, and the people who enjoy those things are wrong. They make money, we shouldn't hate on people because they make a lot of money. We should hate people because they're c**ts. Like Bono.

[Vieuphoria]

As I said, I had no idea Bono was going to thank Blackberry at the gig. None. I very much did notice it. But its become acceptable now. Thats why we should bitch about it.

Whos next? Morrissey plugging McDonalds from the stage?

[jump]

Granted you weren't aware he was going to thank Blackberry. But are you really shocked by the news that Bono a corporate bellend who cares more for money than his fans? Honestly?

I don't thin it's acceptable. But that's why I try to avoid those things. If I do come in to contact with it, I notice it (not always because that'd be impossible), shrug and move on with my life.

[Vieuphoria]

I'm not critising people, I'm critising their products or if you prefer "music". You're the one saying he's a nice guy so don't say anything bad about him.

There's a difference between say having a tour sponsorship and sneaking in product placements into their music. With an acts like Black Eyed Peas who have a younger demographic it makes the more impressionable fans wanting to buy whatever they are hustling as well as they can't be called artists as ultimately they aren't trying express anything but instead are trying to sell.

They should have a warning sticker similar to the explicit lyrics ones stating "caution full of advertisements" on their albums, music videos and whenever they are about to be played on the radio.

[Vieuphoria]

If you don't think it's acceptable then why have you been saying there's no issue with bands using product placements?

[jump]

I don't disagree. I just think there is a fine line.

A band or artist may use a brand name in their song. Is that any different to them licensing those songs on to adverts? or having their songs played in movies, because that is in essence product placement for the band or song. Were the Kinks not artists for mentioning Cocoa Cola in Lola? Loads of bands get popular through allowing their songs to be used for adverts, is that different? Either way they are advertising.

I just think there is a huge snobbery involved. It's fine for Bob Dylan to advertise because he's Bob Dylan, and he's credible. But the minute a pop star goes ahead and features a product in a song, that's wrong. What's the difference? Either way it's advertising. It's simple enough to ignore it if you so wish

[jump]

Because it's their choice to make money however they wish. There is nothing morally wrong with it really, and it's easy for me to avoid. I don't particularly enjoy listening to advert, so I don't. But I don't think those people that do are wrong for doing so, nor the people who make the music are somehow evil. They just aren't.

[Vieuphoria]

Yes, one is in a direct manner where it's clear what it is and the other isn't. The Kinks example is unrelated as their intentions where not to plug Coke for loads of money but to create an image where as Blacked Eyed Peas randomly mentioning Apple is marketing.

[The Nal]

But are you really shocked by the news that Bono a corporate bellend who cares more for money than his fans? Honestly?

Edited June 25, 2012 by The Nal