2013 Headliners

[Red Day]

Interesting about the Chilis. They do have a large back catalogue, and are seen as a huge band to many people. Some people I know have loved them live, others hated them. They would be a divisive headliner. What are the chances?

[The Nal]

Youre right Mardy, The 'Mode's tourdates make for sobering reading for all other big touring bands this year. Theyre giving Eastern Europe in particular a damn good thrashing.

[mrtourette]

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.

[Mardy]

U2 are the biggest band of the last 25 years surely?

[The Nal]

U2 were selling out stadiums in places like Wichita and Scottsdale when Noel G was still sitting around smoking weed in his bedsit.

Mardy - Take your point. But we're bordering on semantics now. What is "biggest".

Ill stick with the standard album sales, tickets sold, column inches - where as you're perhaps leaning towards the "slag my band and I'll put a bomb under your car" angle.

I much prefer the latter fanbase by the way. Nothing says loyalty more than people who slag off your band having to get their kids to start the car in the morning.

Edited February 12, 2013 by The Nal

[jonty5]

Announcement tonight at 7pm?

[coma girl]

Announcement tonight at 7pm?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Announcement tonight at 7pm?

[jonty5]

No, not Glastonbury news. Sorry.

[jonty5]

Another festival.

[Buff124]

So bands you like used to be popular, and bands you don't like are now popular. Shit happens, move with the times.

[Matt42]

Another festival.

[Gregcharlie]

U2 hands down. Just on another scale of hugeness

[hawkzred]

I am not a Mumford fan, and would stay away as i did with Beyonce, just not my thing. But given their popularity and that they are in the public eye at the moment i think ME couldn't really go wrong if he put them as headlining on the Sunday. I guess it would appeal to the locals as well. I agree about the derth of big bands that have had great longevity that are still around at the moment. As for the future " greats " , well this is purely a mix of market forces and media driven that make these bands, oh and of course the talent and will to want too last for more that two albums.

Edited February 12, 2013 by hawkzred

[FloorFiller]

Appeal to the locals? On what basis?

[Amy Lawn]

Well they do dress like farmers.... if your idea of what a farmer dresses like comes from a burberry catalogue

[monkey1989]

Announcement tonight at 7pm?

[Big Vern]

I've only ever liked these two Mumford songs

Edited February 12, 2013 by Big Vern

[hawkzred]

music for farmers?

Edited February 12, 2013 by hawkzred

[marky3]

Sorry lads, the Strokes headlining was me talking shite.

[neilloggie]

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.

[LondonTom]

I Expect that is along the lines of what was meant, embarrassing!

Like locals are all farmers over 50, more likely to want to see Mumford rather than the Prodigy for instance!

Edited February 12, 2013 by LondonTom

[Superscally]

What has that got to do with anything? Right now is the key thing that is being discussed.

[neilloggie]

Who?

[ghandi]

What i meant was, they would appeal to the " Sunday "crowd, this being being grown by the one dayers, i.e locals on the grounds that the Mumfords being in the public eye at the moment and thier music being more appealing to a " middle of the road" audience. If you think that i think all the locals are "farmers" as said by someone else, not me, then you'd be wrong, as Hawkzred seems to to have jumped at, which in it's self , embarrassing.