2013 Lineup

[Gucci Piggy]

I was thinking, since 2006 there has been an older type of headliner on the NME(excluding 2009)

2006- Primal Scream

2007-Ash

2008-Manic Street Preachers

2010- Faith no More

2011 Jane's Addiction (yeah, I know they cancelled)

2012- At the Drive-In

Will that be the case for 2013 ? Ifso, who could it be ?

[sjseabass]

Well since 2005 every year there's been a 'classic' headliner on main, too.

Pixies (2005)

Pearl Jam (2006)

Smashing Pumpkins (2007)

Metallica (2008)

Radiohead (2009)

Guns N' Roses (2010)

Pulp (2011)

The Cure (2012)

All going for at least 19 years before their performance, with the exception of Pearl Jam with 16. All with their best days, in terms of creativity and popularity, at least 10 years behind them (with the exception of Radiohead).

So you'd think there'll be one like that in 2013. I think the stars are aligned for the Stone Roses to be honest...

[Vieuphoria]

Well since 2005 every year there's been a 'classic' headliner on main, too.

Pixies (2005)

Pearl Jam (2006)

Smashing Pumpkins (2007)

Metallica (2008)

Radiohead (2009)

Guns N' Roses (2010)

Pulp (2011)

The Cure (2012)

[GRichards23]

Biffy Clyro

Bloc Party

Mumford and Sons

Editors

Eminem (and friends)

Pendulum

Placebo

Lostprophets

Metallica

Slipknot

Avenged Sevenfold

Bring Me The Horizon

[mrtourette]

I wondered how long it would take to get back to the 'classic' or 'legend' slot again. It means fuck all.

[Hart Attack]

Biffy Clyro

Bloc Party

Mumford and Sons

Editors

Eminem (and friends)

Pendulum

Placebo

Lostprophets

Metallica

Slipknot

Avenged Sevenfold

Bring Me The Horizon

[rug568]

Can we get Brian Badonde after his quality Bapping tonight?

[2rare2die]

Well since 2005 every year there's been a 'classic' headliner on main, too.

Pixies (2005)

Pearl Jam (2006)

Smashing Pumpkins (2007)

Metallica (2008)

Radiohead (2009)

Guns N' Roses (2010)

Pulp (2011)

The Cure (2012)

All going for at least 19 years before their performance, with the exception of Pearl Jam with 16. All with their best days, in terms of creativity and popularity, at least 10 years behind them (with the exception of Radiohead).

So you'd think there'll be one like that in 2013. I think the stars are aligned for the Stone Roses to be honest...

[jump]

You mean apart from Metallica, who's 2008 album Death Magnetic was their best work in ages and reach no.1 in at least 13 different countries, and Pearl Jam, who's last few albums have been great?

Edited April 18, 2012 by jump

[2rare2die]

Death Magnetic is only their best work in the last 10-20 years as St Anger, Reload & Lulu etc are duds, I wouldn't compare it to Master Of Puppets or any of the 1st 5 albums imo.

[sjseabass]

I think that is pushing it somewhat. By 'classic' do you just mean slightly older.

Because I don't think we can bung all of those bands in together.

Pixies, Pumpkins, Pearl Jam all fit a certain criteria... but by that framwork Rage also fit. Meaning 2008 had 2 'classic' headliners. and even Foo Fighters this year.

Plus you've missed out Iron Maiden, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and to some extent Blink-182.

[AcademicPistol]

Can we get Brian Badonde after his quality Bapping tonight?

[mrtourette]

I think if a band can be declared as the legendary or classic option one year but not the next depending on who they're headlining with it shows how daft trying to classify bands in such a way is.

Yeah there are always older bands that headline but that's because the majority of times it takes years for bands for reach headline status, and bands that have reached that status and then been re-booked without doing much in between are still seen as a safer bet than young bands being pushed up to that status.

You're right that having three new headliners wouldn't happen or would be a bad idea but that isn't because of any pattern or legendary band quota that has to be filled, it's just common sense.

[sjseabass]

I think if a band can be declared as the legendary or classic option one year but not the next depending on who they're headlining with it shows how daft trying to classify bands in such a way is.

Yeah there are always older bands that headline but that's because the majority of times it takes years for bands for reach headline status, and bands that have reached that status and then been re-booked without doing much in between are still seen as a safer bet than young bands being pushed up to that status.

You're right that having three new headliners wouldn't happen or would be a bad idea but that isn't because of any pattern or legendary band quota that has to be filled, it's just common sense.

[2rare2die]

Yeah, I did consider listing Chilis in there but considering SP fitted the bill more closely to what I was getting it (popularity behind them) they didn't really work.

I'm happy to include the others in the list, surely that makes my argument even stronger? Basically what I was getting at is that a headliner prediction of, say, Biffy, Bloc Party and Jay-Z is almost certainly going to be wrong because historically there has always been at least one band at the top of the bill whose heyday was in the 90s or earlier...

[mrtourette]

I think in a lot of ways we're saying the same thing here. Probably should've made it clear in my first post that, in the context of trying to predict next year's headliners, I think you'd be foolish to have none who were at their biggest at least 10 years ago, and that, as things stand, that really only leaves The Stone Roses (assuming this summer goes well). Maybe it's because every year for the last 8 years an older band has happened to be around that fitted the bill more closely than any other potential headliners. Maybe the bookers try to get at least one in there to round out the festival. Who knows?

There could, of course, be a big new reformation in the next year, but beyond The Smiths I'm struggling to think of any that would be R&L headliners (and they would surely go to Glasto anyway).

Edited April 18, 2012 by mrtourette

[jump]

I think in a lot of ways we're saying the same thing here. Probably should've made it clear in my first post that, in the context of trying to predict next year's headliners, I think you'd be foolish to have none who were at their biggest at least 10 years ago, and that, as things stand, that really only leaves The Stone Roses (assuming this summer goes well). Maybe it's because every year for the last 8 years an older band has happened to be around that fitted the bill more closely than any other potential headliners. Maybe the bookers try to get at least one in there to round out the festival. Who knows?

There could, of course, be a big new reformation in the next year, but beyond The Smiths I'm struggling to think of any that would be R&L headliners (and they would surely go to Glasto anyway).

[LEMON_WOLF]

Maybe not headlining but I think if Fall Out Boy get back together they could be high up the bill, subbing I expect. Anyway that won't happen by next year.

Anyone think Pearl Jam could headline next year, if the new album is as well recieved as Backspacer I think they'd be a good booking

[sjseabass]

Jay Z released his first album 16 years ago, so will have been around longer than Pearl Jam were (who were on your list of 'classic' headliners) when they headlined. I really don't get this pattern that people keep trying to create, some older bands headline because they usually have a greater standing in the world of music, and have worked for, and earned, headliner status, while some newer bands headline because they have had rapid success and have quickly gained a reputation as a good live act. At the end of the day, the festival is going to pick from these acts who they think will do the best job of taking the festival forward, and are available at the time, be that newer or older bands

[eFestivals]

There could, of course, be a big new reformation in the next year, but beyond The Smiths I'm struggling to think of any that would be R&L headliners (and they would surely go to Glasto anyway).

Like Libertines, Blink, Rage & Pumpkins all did?

reforms are ALWAYS about the money, so that's the reason why R/L had those bands and Glasto won't get The Smith first if they ever do reform.

I say "always", but if Talking Heads ever reform I reckon it'll be about something else, about certain members being re-credited for the credits that were 'stolen' from them.

[LEMON_WOLF]

for a festival supposedly about 'new music', there has for the last 8 years been a headliner who has not been headlining off the back of new music. How's that?

[sjseabass]

Like Libertines, Blink, Rage & Pumpkins all did?

[2rare2die]

It's not like saying they have at least one American headliner every year (I've no idea of this is true or not, I can't be bothered to check) because that's black an white, they're either American or not (now I;ll wait for someone to give an example of a band that may or may not be).

[jump]

I was referring specifically to The Smiths with the 'go to Glasto' comment. None of those bands you've listed would headline Glastonbury. Can you think of any headliner bands who could reform that would choose R&L ahead of any other festivals for their first shows? Because I can't.

[sjseabass]

Apart from Blink they've all played Glasto before.