Pearl Jam 2013

[eFestivals]

Nothing! If anything all those disappointed Pearl Jam fans who were on the verge of buying a Download ticket would get over excited and then buy a Soni ticket, which is why I don't buy it. This isn't the X-Files, there is no conspiracy.

It's either conspiracy or cock-up.

While a conspiracy seems unlikely, I reckon that a cock-up that has a festival partner naming the wrong headliner when it makes tickets available to buy is no less unlikely.

Where did Vodaphone get that name from, and why would they publish it without certainty?

There's lots of possibilities. I know where my money is.

[mrtourette]

Their last 2 or 3 albums are quite a bit better.

And yeah, Pearl Jam are a completely different style to SG. It's one of the things I love about grunge, despite being in the same sub-genre almost all the bands have a unique sound of their own.

Edited October 1, 2012 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

It's either conspiracy or cock-up.

While a conspiracy seems unlikely, I reckon that a cock-up that has a festival partner naming the wrong headliner when it makes tickets available to buy is no less unlikely.

Where did Vodaphone get that name from, and why would they publish it without certainty?

There's lots of possibilities. I know where my money is.

[eFestivals]

I'm not doubting it, but if it was a conspiracy then what would be the point or what would he be hoping to achieve? Maybe I'm not thinking straight but I can't figure out what a conspiracy to deliberately leak the name of a rival's headliner as your own before putting it straight would achieve.

to try and hook in those fans to another fest that they otherwise wouldn't be buying tickets for, obviously. It increases the numbers at one fest, while having the chance of reducing numbers at another.

This is of course all hypothetical.

[mrtourette]

That's all I could think of but that's absolutely outrageous, whether it involves a rival or not. Deliberately leaking a wrong headliner to fool fans of that band into buying tickets before the official announcement and then announcing the correct headliner and blaming the leak on someone else is skullduggery of the highest order.

[AcademicPistol]

Yeah it's almost as if it wasn't a genre or movement at all but just a load of bands bunched together by lazy journalists/record companies to make them easier to market even though they didn't sound like each other.

[AcademicPistol]

That's all I could think of but that's absolutely outrageous, whether it involves a rival or not. Deliberately leaking a wrong headliner to fool fans of that band into buying tickets before the official announcement and then announcing the correct headliner and blaming the leak on someone else is skullduggery of the highest order.

[mrtourette]

Which bring us back round to the question of how an official sponsor can have the name of the headliners wrong, unless they leave their facbook updates in the hands of a work experience dweeb who relies on internet 'leaks' for their information.

Also were Download tickets available to purchase over the two or three days in between PJ being leaked and Slipknot being announced?

[jump]

Which bring us back round to the question of how an official sponsor can have the name of the headliners wrong, unless they leave their facbook updates in the hands of a work experience dweeb who relies on internet 'leaks' for their information.

Also were Download tickets available to purchase over the two or three days in between PJ being leaked and Slipknot being announced?

[mrtourette]

But they could buy them thinking that PJ were playing or were Slipknot officially announced before the Vodafone pre-sale opened? I know when the announcement was made but I don't know when their pre-sale opened.

I'm just wondering if there were people who could have bought tickets thinking PJ were playing, or whether that was sorted out before anyone (Vodafone or non-Vodafone) could buy tickets in error.

[kaosmark2]

Yeah it's almost as if it wasn't a genre or movement at all but just a load of bands bunched together by lazy journalists/record companies to make them easier to market even though they didn't sound like each other.

[jump]

But they could buy them thinking that PJ were playing or were Slipknot officially announced before the Vodafone pre-sale opened? I know when the announcement was made but I don't know when their pre-sale opened.

I'm just wondering if there were people who could have bought tickets thinking PJ were playing, or whether that was sorted out before anyone (Vodafone or non-Vodafone) could buy tickets in error.

[mrtourette]

Grunge WAS more of a coherent movement than any since. I agree about lazy journalists generally, but the Seattle scene was fairly incestuous, with lots of shared members, tours together, etc. They weren't ripping each other's styles off, they were doing similar but distinct things, without record companies putting as much pressure to homogenise them because it was easy to market them together anyway.

[mrtourette]

My bad, I mis-worded my post. Vodafone tixs went on sale at the same time as that Pearl Jam announcement.

This is the amended version which is the same apart from PJ's name being removed.

"Vodafone customers can buy their tickets to Download Festival 2013 now, before the general sale starts on Friday. Iron Maiden & Rammstein fans, LIKE & get yours now! http://vdfn.co/wkvux"

[eFestivals]

That's all I could think of but that's absolutely outrageous, whether it involves a rival or not. Deliberately leaking a wrong headliner to fool fans of that band into buying tickets before the official announcement and then announcing the correct headliner and blaming the leak on someone else is skullduggery of the highest order.

Yup, it would be skullduggery of the highest order.

Then again, skullduggery of the highest order isn't unknown in the music biz world, so the fact that it would be skullduggery of the highest order doesn't have me thinking "that would be impossible".

Does Download try and make things difficult for its competitors if an opportunity lands itself in their lap? You decide.

[zahidf]

Yup, it would be skullduggery of the highest order.

Then again, skullduggery of the highest order isn't unknown in the music biz world, so the fact that it would be skullduggery of the highest order doesn't have me thinking "that would be impossible".

Does Download try and make things difficult for its competitors if an opportunity lands itself in their lap? You decide.

[jump]

Bit short term though: Whats too stop Sonisphere leaking Downloads other bands? Surely there is some form of 'code' between competing festivals. In the same way V and Reading don't leak each others stuff,,,

[eFestivals]

Bit short term though: Whats too stop Sonisphere leaking Downloads other bands?

you're working from the believe that both sides are equal. They're not.

[kaosmark2]

The problem is that 'grunge' didn't just include the Seattle 'scene', bands like Smashing Pumpkins and Stone Temple Pilots were also lazily thrown in there. I think the two ('grunge' and any 'Seattle scene') were different things and the latter was probably over before the former became as widely known as it did.

[mrtourette]

Yeah but what's that got to do with the fact that the bands sounded different?

[Justiceforcedave]

Yes, which was either ignorant or a marketing attempt. Whatever you want to call it though, the late-80s/early-90s 'grunge' bands from Seattle were fairly heavily interlinked, unlike most genres or styles of music.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Justiceforcedave

[Justiceforcedave]

...so the short answer is they sound different because "Grunge" started off being bands that came from a certain place sharing a few musical characteristics but generally just sharing members! Then when the big record labels got their grubby little mits on it Grunge because bands that came from a certain place...or bands that sounded like any one of those bands. Does that make sense or am I gibbering?

[jump]

Grunge = dirty guitar sound rock music with emo angtsty lyrics.

[mrtourette]

It makes sense, that's been my point.

I know how incestuous they were, I was there at the time, but I also know that there were issues between bands (Cobain v Ament/Gossard being the classic). I don't get how that's some sort of defense or counter-argument to the point that, as with all scenes, 'grunge' evetually became an unrecognisable and bloated joke compared to what it initially started as.

The incestuous nature was certainly nothing new, it may not have happened in the same way since (although I suspect that it has just not in such a well-exposed or well-hyped situation) but there's a good chance that may be due to the impact that late 80's/early-90's alt-rock had on the US music industry, along with general globalisation and other such changes in society.

Edited October 1, 2012 by mrtourette

[Justiceforcedave]

...or psychedelic rock live Love Battery or early Soundgarden) or sludgy stoner rock like the Melvins or more classic rock like Mother Love Bone or punk rock like 7 Year bitch or babes in Toyland or garage rock like the Monomen or pop punk like Flop and so on and so on.

The inclusion of some of those bands depends on where your definition of grunge/seatle lays!