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

    • 90,000 on a single for day or over the weekend?   if it was for the whole weekend that’s disastrous   Given camping didn’t sell out unless they in effect transferred a lot of camping captivity to Chappell Roan day tickets 90,000 is absolute capacity there I think, so it would be hard to believe   i think it’s from the year before but the TPD tv footage when the killers are headlining makes it look like it’s at best half full
    • A part of me thinks weirdly they might hold off on Chaka/Robbie until they have a year where nobody else who fits the bill is available. This slot takes a very specific set of criteria, and I can't imagine they're flushed with options who are on tour and would take the smaller payday every year. Both Chaka and Robbie have expressed interest in doing it, so they're bankers for a year where fewer options are available. Which may well be 2027.
    • Chaka and Robbie got to have decent chances due to previous reports
    • Chaka is a west holts act all day long and yes please (as part of my vaguely purple day that I am still trying to make happen).   Teatime? Bryan Adams. 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...