Arcade Fire for 2013 Headliner?

[Dan R]

Not at all no slaying necessary , saw them in 07 before Bjork and thought they were interesting at the time.

They did not go down well at Reading/Leeds but probably due to the demographic.

But i think they sold more tickets for Hyde Park than the other nights? so obviously popular with the different age groups.

[Banana Co]

They did not go down well at Reading/Leeds but probably due to the demographic.

[Banana Co]

Your Uncle is the lighting tech can't you tap him up for some free tickets or guest passes or ask to be his assistant ?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

They did not go down well at Reading/Leeds but probably due to the demographic.

[The Nal]

I don't think they're good enough to headline. At least some of the shit bands who have headlined over the last while (Arctic Monkeys, Killers, Kings of Leon etc) have been successful in the charts so people knew a few tunes. Arcade Fire don't have that. The majority of Glasto goers don't really know them. Was the same in 07. Huge crowd, everyone waiting for the riff to Wake Up. The last album was utter shite unfortunately. Weak as piss landfill indie. Nothing music. Same for the lyrics. Apart from being "cool", they don't really stand for anything.

A recommendation from Bowie and a good first album can only get a band so far I'm afraid. Which is a shame because I really thought they were going to go on and be great.

Edited July 28, 2011 by The Nal

[russycarps]

I don't think they're good enough to headline. At least some of the shit bands who have headlined over the last while (Arctic Monkeys, Killers, Kings of Leon etc) have been successful in the charts so people knew a few tunes. Arcade Fire don't have that. The majority of Glasto goers don't really know them. Was the same in 07. Huge crowd, everyone waiting for the riff to Wake Up. The last album was utter shite unfortunately. Weak as piss landfill indie. Nothing music. Same for the lyrics. Apart from being "cool", they don't really stand for anything.

A recommendation from Bowie and a good first album can only get a band so far I'm afraid. Which is a shame because I really thought they were going to go on and be great.

[The Nal]

I think that's a bit harsh but I would agree that the new album has a lot of forgettable filler on it, and lyrically I've always thought the band were a bit lacking.

Plus the lead singer and his wife have terrible hair cuts.

I'd rather see them headline than kings of leon, killers, coldplay, arctic monkeys, kasabian etc though.

Edited July 28, 2011 by The Nal

[russycarps]

Little bit harsh, fair enough but they dont have the broad appeal to headline Glastonbury in my opinion. Its a 2 hr set (U2 didn't get that memo it seems) and I dont think they could do 2 hours and keep the crowd interested.

Agree.

Edited July 28, 2011 by russycarps

[The Nal]

I think the problem is there is just a lack of viable bands to headline. If you forget about the "legends" ie bowie, stones, macca, prince etc and forget about the "regulars" ie coldplay, radiohead, killers, arctics, kings of leon etc then what does it leave? Bugger all. There arent even any brit pop bands left to reform!

All that's really left is arcade fire, elbow maybe or pop pap like gaga, take that, adele etc. Maybe someone like dizzee rascal. Or even the hateful mumford and sons.

Basically, the pyramid headliners over the next few festivals are going to be turd I reckon, unless some new band comes from nowhere and is massive (I'll probably hate it anyway).

[arcade fireman]

I don't think they're good enough to headline. At least some of the shit bands who have headlined over the last while (Arctic Monkeys, Killers, Kings of Leon etc) have been successful in the charts so people knew a few tunes. Arcade Fire don't have that. The majority of Glasto goers don't really know them. Was the same in 07. Huge crowd, everyone waiting for the riff to Wake Up. The last album was utter shite unfortunately. Weak as piss landfill indie. Nothing music. Same for the lyrics. Apart from being "cool", they don't really stand for anything.

A recommendation from Bowie and a good first album can only get a band so far I'm afraid. Which is a shame because I really thought they were going to go on and be great.

[The Nal]

Their last album (though a bit disappointing) won the top prize at the Grammys and best international album at the Brits.

Edited July 28, 2011 by The Nal

[1mills]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Edited July 28, 2011 by 1mills

[The Nal]

I went to Leeds last year.

I loved them.

Smallest headline crowd for a festival I've ever seen (in comparison to size given for stage).

Was massively empty but had been chocker full for The Libertines beforehand

[Wooderson]

"Moutains Beyond Mountains" is the best thing theyve ever done IMO.

The hype for them is way way OTT - throughout their career. The difference in the size of the crowd versus the size of the buzz off the crowd in 2007 was considerable.

I think the learning here is that any bands that harken primarily back to a "classic" period (in tone, style, image or sound) be it Springsteen in the case of AF or Oasis in the case of Kasabian or Pink Floyd in the case of Radiohead or Creedence in the case of KOL (I could go on!) are all the youth of today are left with. The current firmament is so bereft of "greatness" that dirge rises to the top.

[kpins]

"Moutains Beyond Mountains" is the best thing theyve ever done IMO.

The hype for them is way way OTT - throughout their career. The difference in the size of the crowd versus the size of the buzz off the crowd in 2007 was considerable.

I think the learning here is that any bands that harken primarily back to a "classic" period (in tone, style, image or sound) be it Springsteen in the case of AF or Oasis in the case of Kasabian or Pink Floyd in the case of Radiohead or Creedence in the case of KOL (I could go on!) are all the youth of today are left with. The current firmament is so bereft of "greatness" that dirge rises to the top.

[kpins]

Sting (solo) has won 16 Grammys. And hes a stain.

I didn't. I said the last album was landfill indie. I like the first two but the new album is nothing music.

I do. AF at the Electric Picnic in 2005 is one of the best gigs I've ever seen and one of the best gigs they've ever played, according to the band themselves. I've seen them live 4-5 times and have (bought ) everything they've ever released.

My opinion is based on the above criteria.

Is that ok? Can I stil post about them? Or do I have to have some pun on the bands name as my username to have a valid opinion?

[rexclark]

I went to Leeds last year.

I loved them.

[JC-Mo'Fucka]

As did I. One of the best live acts I've ever seen.

[The Nal]

No offence but I don't think the guy was telling you not to post, I think he was just giving his opinion, similiar to you.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I went to Leeds last year.

I loved them.

Smallest headline crowd for a festival I've ever seen (in comparison to size given for stage).

Was massively empty but had been chocker full for The Libertines beforehand.

I think Pendulum were on the other stage and that's where everyone seemed to have headed.

So I'd agree with they didn't go down a storm at Leeds. I believe they got a better crowd for Reading though.

[Ed209]

But surely going down a storm is the reaction after the performance, hence going down? I wouldn't have thought that their crowd size meant you could say they didn't go down a storm.

[Dan R]

By the same standards if a band got a huge crowd and then played like shit then they went down a storm.

[mrtourette]

Arcade Fire went down extremely well at Reading. The supposedly small crowd they had would surely reflect their status before the performance not how well they were received. Just because more people watched Blink and GNR doesn't mean that those two were any better received than Arcade Fire (they weren't).

[LondonTom]

The sensible people who went to Arcade Fire's show at reading/leeds instead of pendulum mostly say it was brilliant.

The problem here is that at glasto, people would be less likely to go see Pendulum even if they would prefer them over arcade fire as there is an awful lot of people who just stay at the pyramid which would have the potential to ruin arcade fire. I think their big enough but I am worried by the sort of crowd they will get on the pyramid, before festivals were the big thing to do? I guess sure they would have but in this time I question if they would be right to headline and fans will just go away disappointed. From what I've seen arcade fire live relies on a decent atmosphere.

[Spider43]

Arcade Fire went down extremely well at Reading. The supposedly small crowd they had would surely reflect their status before the performance not how well they were received. Just because more people watched Blink and GNR doesn't mean that those two were any better received than Arcade Fire (they weren't).