Scared by headline rumours

[fewcloudy]

Hi, long time reader of this board but first post, so here goes...

I'm really surprised that people are happy to hear that bands who were in their prime maybe 30 or 40 years ago might headline Glastonbury. I feel that Glastonbury would have not got going, never mind kept going, if the headline acts in the 70's and 80's were the hugely popular big bands of the 40's...

Surely festival goers in the 70's and 80's wouldn't have been excited by the thought of seeing The Tommy Dorsey Orchestra or Glen Miller and his orchestra as the sun went down over the Pyramid Stage? They represented what your parents grew up with, the past, etc. So how is the thought of seeing Monsters of Bore like the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac doing it for people today? And I say this as someone who is probably older than most here, 48.

I reckon it's either so that young kids can say "I saw them before they died" or because Eavis is old and shouldn't have anything to do with who gets booked anymore.

[grumpyhack]

Surely the thing to remember is that Glastonbury has 17 or 18 stages along with strolling venues and places like the bandstand. So there is a place for every sort of music from solo folkies to stadium rockers. Pyramid headliners have got to be capable of pulling 40+ thousand people so that means being able to attract and hold a big audience.

It's not just bands who were around when your parents were still young, though if they are still around it probably means that they are very good at what they do. The lesser bands from your parents' youth are probably no more.

[efcfanwirral]

Some of the best moments happen in the pyramid field with mass singalongs, Blur for example were past their prime after the 90s, should they have not been allowed to headline in 2009? Maybe some such rubbish like Kasabian instead?

For me it gives those of us younger the chance to watch truly iconic acts in a special setting,should we miss out on that just to keep this ridiculous notion of 'relevance'. I don't even know what that means

And I don't believe that the reason newer acts aren't hitting headline status is not because they are being held back but because they aren't good enough. We may seriously have Kasabian headlining next year, and Mumford and sons this year. Arctic monkeys are the biggest band in the country right now....this is why old acts are headlining all the time...

Edited October 27, 2013 by efcfanwirral

[Dan R]

Next years rumours may seem fair mixed to me. Obviously there's always the rumours of Radiohead, Led Zep, Prince etc get brought up. But there's also rumours of Arcade Fire, Kasabian and Kanye West, all of whom are relatively recent acts. And if you look at this festivals headliners, two of them only released their debut albums less than a decade ago, so not exactly heritage acts. And you can hardly blame them for trying to book the stones.

The only issue i have with booking older bands is when they're a questionable headliner and are booked at the expense of an upcoming act.

[frostypaw]

The music world was smaller then - there weren't the huge career stars that we have now. People like McCartney, the Who, Springsteen and Neil Young now have careers spanning decades making them massively more significant than many of the old festival's headliners

Times have changed and what makes a spectacular headliner has changed with it. I do feel for your view though - by aiming so high you get into these old stars and there's only so many of them

Room must be made for the new talent and there's no better stage to lift a career as the likes of Muse, KOL and Arctics have shown relatively recently

[fewcloudy]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting old bands never play festivals, more that they are the 'headline'.

I'm not saying that just because I don't like a particular band they shouldn't play at Glastonbury! Yes you are right, it is highly likely that my time will be spent away from the main stages, even if some of the acts I loved in the 80's and early 90's were to play (Prince etc) because I have seen them, and at a time when I really loved them.

[Somerset Boy]

I would rather not know who was playing until I arrived, back ten years ago we arrived and then found out who was playing in the programme/fine guide once we had pitched the tent. Much more exciting!

[swede]

Hi, long time reader of this board but first post, so here goes...

I'm really surprised that people are happy to hear that bands who were in their prime maybe 30 or 40 years ago might headline Glastonbury. I feel that Glastonbury would have not got going, never mind kept going, if the headline acts in the 70's and 80's were the hugely popular big bands of the 40's...

Surely festival goers in the 70's and 80's wouldn't have been excited by the thought of seeing The Tommy Dorsey Orchestra or Glen Miller and his orchestra as the sun went down over the Pyramid Stage? They represented what your parents grew up with, the past, etc. So how is the thought of seeing Monsters of Bore like the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac doing it for people today? And I say this as someone who is probably older than most here, 48.

I reckon it's either so that young kids can say "I saw them before they died" or because Eavis is old and shouldn't have anything to do with who gets booked anymore.

[mrtourette]

I think you're asking for trouble here, it's not cool to care about who the headliners are.

[russycarps]

you can't make a thread like this without telling us who you think should headline...

[drewsstrat]

Good bands are lasting longer these days, unlike that popular 60s combo "the Beatles" or something?

I shudder to think of what they could come up with if they banned long running bands.. We'd be left with illy murs and o*e direction , as they are all over the radio and are selling bucketfuls

[fewcloudy]

Fair enough some great replies. Esp about it being different in music world now. Don't agree with you swede for a minute i'm afraid. Eavis doesn't have a It's My Festival mentality and doubt it would be so good if he did. Yes with 17+ stages there's always room for some very old bands, I'm sure I'll watch some next year but hopefully not last thing at night on the Pyramid Stage. Just my opinion, this is Chat after all.

[swede]

Fair enough some great replies. Esp about it being different in music world now. Don't agree with you swede for a minute i'm afraid. Eavis doesn't have a It's My Festival mentality and doubt it would be so good if he did. Yes with 17+ stages there's always room for some very old bands, I'm sure I'll watch some next year but hopefully not last thing at night on the Pyramid Stage. Just my opinion, this is Chat after all.

[fewcloudy]

hi russycarps, I daren't!

Well, the 1st (and last) time I was at Glastonbury was 1992 and I reckon most of the Headliners were music of their time. No mega acts from years gone by that I can remember and none expected. Certainly it was possible and quite normal to know the acts that were playing before popping into Ripping Records shop here in Edinburgh to buy a ticket. So I guess you tended to have bands playing to a crowd of fans who had seen them before and followed them down to Glastonbury. But that's a different chat than what I started I guess.

[stuartbert two hats]

I agree with your sentiment. One of the reasons it happens is because the older bands have had enough time to build up a large enough fan base to play to such a large crowd. Secondly, it's only relatively recently in the festival's history that it's been able to attract the likes of Bowie, McCartney + U2, culminating in The Stones this year. There is a certain amount of making up for lost time as all the names that were too big in the 70s, 80s and 90s are booked, which makes the presence of heritage acts disproportionately represented.

Finally, the era of mass media that started with widespread television in the 50s and 60s would serve to focus attention on a few mega acts, magnifying their popularity. This began to wane in the 90s with satellite TV, but it's really been the internet that has more or less ended the era of the massive act. Apart from Coldplay and Adele, I can't think of any really large acts (pop aside) who got big this century and I'm not prepared to just put that down to music not being as good as it used to be. It's the way the Internet has enabled us to consume a large range of music and the vastly larger number of outlets to hear about it. When I was a teenager (the 90s) if TOTP, NME and Radio1 deicided a band was going to be big, they would be! Now, there are so many musical opinion formers, that it's so much harder for a single act to capture everyone's imagination. The only exception to this is the likes of X Factor, but that's not much good to Glastonbury.

Add all this together and you end up with older acts topping the bill more often. I agree that Michael being so old doesn't help Mayer's either.

In glad you've contributed, I don't think anyone should be frightened to 'dare' to suggest that there is anything that could be improved about the festival, don't let anyone bully you from not posting again in the future!

[fewcloudy]

swede, the bit about 'how dare you' etc. But listen, I'm rubbish communicating in such a one-dimensional medium as this, i'm probably misunderstanding you. Over a pint or three I'm sure we could swap festival/music stories and opinions and still be the best of friends!

[swede]

swede, the bit about 'how dare you' etc. But listen, I'm rubbish communicating in such a one-dimensional medium as this, i'm probably misunderstanding you. Over a pint or three I'm sure we could swap festival/music stories and opinions and still be the best of friends!

[Wooderson]

"Man, I'm getting all butthurt that Haim an' Jagwar Ma arent headlining. This festival fucking sucks."

[incident]

I feel that Glastonbury would have not got going, never mind kept going, if the headline acts in the 70's and 80's were the hugely popular big bands of the 40's...

Surely festival goers in the 70's and 80's wouldn't have been excited by the thought of seeing The Tommy Dorsey Orchestra or Glen Miller and his orchestra as the sun went down over the Pyramid Stage? They represented what your parents grew up with, the past, etc.

Edited October 27, 2013 by incident

[incident]

duplicate post - sorry

Edited October 27, 2013 by incident

[eoinca]

The basic point is fundamentally bollocks, and the fact that you're trying to compare the landscape of the 70s with today is a waste of time.

Yes, there was an element of rebellion in the 60s/70s. Yes, it played some part in the festival. But the generational conflict probably hasn't been the case since the early 80s when the festival was still nowhere near what it would become.

By the time I was a teenager (90s), All the people I knew who were into music were listening to all kinds of stuff - including stuff released 15-20 years before we were born. Nobody cared that it was "our parents music". Hell, I even sorted through my parents record collection in the hope I'd find some gem - unfortunately their tastes are absolutely awful.

What makes music great - and what makes Glastonbury great - is that it doesn't belong to a particular generation. If the festival ever reaches the stage where a band is too old (or too young) to headline, then it's not the place for me anymore.

[alframsey]

I really don't mind the older acts headlining if there is only one or two and at least one 'rising start' is given the final headline slot, 2009 I was pissed off with even though I got to see Springsteen and Young (two of my favourite ever artists) I was livid Blur got it ahead of a younger band with something to prove. There should always be space for at least one current band.

[guypjfreak]

Next years rumours may seem fair mixed to me. Obviously there's always the rumours of Radiohead, Led Zep, Prince etc get brought up. But there's also rumours of Arcade Fire, Kasabian and Kanye West, all of whom are relatively recent acts. And if you look at this festivals headliners, two of them only released their debut albums less than a decade ago, so not exactly heritage acts. And you can hardly blame them for trying to book the stones.

The only issue i have with booking older bands is when they're a questionable headliner and are booked at the expense of an upcoming act.

[Justiceforcedave]

Hate to say it (because its such a cookie cutter answer) but if you don't fancy the bands Glastonbury has to offer, there are plenty of other festivals out there with different headliners to choose from. If I don't want to eat Steak, I don't go to the steak house. Easy peasy.

[efcfanwirral]

I really don't mind the older acts headlining if there is only one or two and at least one 'rising start' is given the final headline slot, 2009 I was pissed off with even though I got to see Springsteen and Young (two of my favourite ever artists) I was livid Blur got it ahead of a younger band with something to prove. There should always be space for at least one current band.

Edited October 27, 2013 by efcfanwirral