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 😎

2013 Headliners


Guest shangri-la_steward

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Over the last twenty or so years there's probably only been three different 'Biggest Bands In The World' - REM, U2 and The Rolling Stones (maybe Metallica I guess), and that accolade would have been passed amongst them year on year depending on which one was currently in the middle of a massive two year long world tour that shifted eye-watering amounts of tickets, merchandise and records that they were able to reproduce every time they had a new album out (obviously REM dropped out of that category over their last few years).

The term 'Biggest Band In The World' is banded about without much consideration. Nirvana were never the biggest band in the world, Oasis were never the biggest band in the world, Muse have never been the biggest band in the world and Mumford certainly aren't the biggest band in the world. No matter how impressive their album or ticket sales are they still aren't anywhere near the likes of U2 or The Rolling Stones regarding their popularity and profile across every nation on the planet and even though they may not be particulalry active if they decided to head out on one of their monsterous world tours it would blow whatever Mumford could do out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last twenty or so years there's probably only been three different 'Biggest Bands In The World' - REM, U2 and The Rolling Stones (maybe Metallica I guess), and that accolade would have been passed amongst them year on year depending on which one was currently in the middle of a massive two year long world tour that shifted eye-watering amounts of tickets, merchandise and records that they were able to reproduce every time they had a new album out (obviously REM dropped out of that category over their last few years).

The term 'Biggest Band In The World' is banded about without much consideration. Nirvana were never the biggest band in the world, Oasis were never the biggest band in the world, Muse have never been the biggest band in the world and Mumford certainly aren't the biggest band in the world. No matter how impressive their album or ticket sales are they still aren't anywhere near the likes of U2 or The Rolling Stones regarding their popularity and profile across every nation on the planet and even though they may not be particulalry active if they decided to head out on one of their monsterous world tours it would blow whatever Mumford could do out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting one alright.

In the 1990's it was certainly more linked towards album sales than touring. At one stage I thought it was column inches/magazine covers that meant you had achieved that title. You know, the ol' Springsteen on the front of Time and Newsweek at the same moment thang.

Think I'd put the Chili's in the same bracket as REM on your above list. Also it is difficult to ignore Nirvana and Oasis. For a short period of time (1992? / 1996?) they were indeed "bigger" than everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting one alright.

In the 1990's it was certainly more linked towards album sales than touring. At one stage I thought it was column inches/magazine covers that meant you had achieved that title. You know, the ol' Springsteen on the front of Time and Newsweek at the same moment thang.

Think I'd put the Chili's in the same bracket as REM on your above list. Also it is difficult to ignore Nirvana and Oasis. For a short period of time (1992? / 1996?) they were indeed "bigger" than everybody else.

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

    • For what it's worth, this is the current speculative clashfinder (don't take it entirely as read but...) with the acts we have day confirmations for highlighted.   Thursday   Friday   Saturday   Sunday
    • As in previous years, I've compiled a big playlist for this, covering the whole lineup with the songs each act has performed most over the past year or so (so far as possible). I'll share it here in case anyone finds it useful:     (And I'd had the foresight to include Geese even before today's announcement!)    
    • I think some of the car parking will be used for camper van, but I don't think all pitches will be replaced.
    • Day 0 will there be any more acts announced? Or is it just going to be the 3?         
    • Yeah certainly missed a trick or 2. Probably down to a mixture of cost and schedule.    Way out West, Oya and Solen work well as a package for a lot of bands. Which means Sziget misses out on quite a few headliners. Although on occasions they have done Sziget and the above festivals.   
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...