Metallica 2014

[eFestivals]

Metallica have probably sold 100 million albums worldwide.

and Phil Collins as a solo artist has sold half as many again.

[DomDom1984]

I'd say if ye got Phil Collins as a headliner, I'd probably scoff at it, while at the same time thinking "well, he's probably big enough".

[sjseabass]

I guess you can like both for different purposes. I often listen to some music i know isn't very good or made by a particular talented musician just because it reminds me of being in a time or place, or because it helps me do something when played in the background. I just can't imagine anyone sitting down and singularly listening to a heavy rock album appreciating the artistic depth, concepts, themes, vision and craft that went into it than listening to say the queen is dead, ok computer, dark side of the moon, ageatis byrjun etc..

Listening to music for one reason is not intrinsically better than listening to music for another reason.

[The Placid Casual]

well, I'd have agreed with the Metallica fans when I was 13 (and if I'd been ten years younger). Does that count?

I'll allow it

[AStormInHeaven]

Then you've got a poor imagination. Theres plenty of us out there who appreciate music for what it is no matter the genre. I like Metallica, I like The Smiths/Morrissey, my music playlist for work is over 1000 songs long and there is a bit of everything on there. One minute im listening to The Who, next song could be QOTSA, then it could be Pink.

But can you honestly say pink or whatever her actual name is as talented as morrissey. Or will be read about by people in a hundred years studying 20/21st century music? QOTSA and The Who are good examples to use - clealy both would be closer to heavy rock than alternative rock and both are talented bands. When I say heavy rock is the lesser genre, it doesnt mean they aren't bands who flourish in it. Some alternative rock bands are utter shit, and some heavy rocks bands are very good, making them better. But again i would argue they are the exception - like the kid from the slums becoming a millionaire instead of the kid from the country estate.

Generally the alternative rock genre gives you a bigger artistic pallet to draw from - again why I continue to say there are more critically acclaimed alternative rock albums than heavy rock. heavy rock is 'limited' - that is my main argument.

Edited May 1, 2014 by AStormInHeaven

[BananaR]

Yeah he probably has. He is utterly shit in my opinion. But someone must like him. I think the bulk of his following is in the USA.

And Ireland, more shame on us.....

[wolfamongwolves]

But they only have 'limited appeal' because you don't like them. Mumford and Sons have limited appeal to me. I still think they were fit to headline though.

I will repeat that I think Glastonbury attendees are some of the most open-minded music fans around.

Excellent post. Very true.

[eFestivals]

I'll allow it

Really? Didn't you cotton to my sub-text?

[sjseabass]

and Phil Collins as a solo artist has sold half as many again.

Metallica have sold more records than any band that regularly headlines festivals.

EDIT: Act, not band.

Edited May 1, 2014 by theevilfridge

[DomDom1984]

I don't particularly care about who's more talented than who. Put songs I enjoy listening to out there and I'll let other people worry about how talented the people who do them are.

[math125]

I guess you can like both for different purposes. I often listen to some music i know isn't very good or made by a particular talented musician just because it reminds me of being in a time or place, or because it helps me do something when played in the background. I just can't imagine anyone sitting down and singularly listening to a heavy rock album appreciating the artistic depth, concepts, themes, vision and craft that went into it than listening to say the queen is dead, ok computer, dark side of the moon, ageatis byrjun etc..

Metallica are actually a very intelligent band. Trapped under ice is a reference to the 9th level of Hell in Dante's Inferno, Call of Ktulu is a from the works of HP Lovecraft

Edited May 1, 2014 by math125

[sjseabass]

I really hope that no-one in this thread is arguing that Metallica are not talented enough to headline the Pyramid. Because that would be ridiculous. For starters, talent has nothing to do with whether bands are offered it or not, before we even get on to Metallica's musicianship...

Edited May 1, 2014 by theevilfridge

[CHRLY]

Oh wow. Saying that certain people are 'better' listeners of music than others is ludicrous.

[wolfamongwolves]

and Phil Collins as a solo artist has sold half as many again.

I would have thought most of his albums sales would have been from the 80,s. Metallica have been playing stadiums 25 years plus. P Collins would be lucky to be selling out arenas now.

[bekimo]

garth brooks has sold over 100m albums. Would you people be happy for him to headline?

Erm... Id go see Garth Brooks...

But obviously I would expect in the UK market he wouldnt headline!

People keep texting me asking me if I know that Metallica are confirmed for glasto! I'm like "I don't think it's confirmed yet" is this all from the tabloids or have I missed an announcement completely? :/

Edited May 1, 2014 by bekimo

[swede]

But can you honestly say pink or whatever her actual name is as talented as morrissey. Or will be read about by people in a hundred years studying 20/21st century music? QOTSA and The Who are good examples to use - clealy both would be closer to heavy rock than alternative rock and both are talented bands. When I say heavy rock is the lesser genre, it doesnt mean they aren't bands who flourish in it. Some alternative rock bands are utter shit, and some heavy rocks bands are good, making them better. But again i would argue they are the exception. Like the kid from the slums becoming a millionaire instead of the kid from the country estate.

Generally the alternative rock genre gives you a bigger artistic pallet to draw from - again why I continue to say there are more critically acclaimed alternative rock albums than heavy rock. heavy rock is 'limited' - that is my main argument.

When im listening someone Im not always comparing them to other people, I listen to what I like for the pleasure of listening to music, simple as that. I dont for one second think the likes of Pink are expecting to be remembered in 100 years.

The part of your argument that got me was your inability to understand how someone who likes Metallica ect could appreciate a concept album, most of my friends and work mates have the same broad pallet in terms of music that I have, Hell, I like Metallica but my favourite band ever is The Who and Quadrophenia is an absolute masterpiece, one of the guys in my department loves The Who, rates Quadrophenia as one of his favourite ever albums, but was listening to Norwegian death metal a few days nights ago, go figure !

Edited May 1, 2014 by swede

[autoinflate]

But they only have 'limited appeal' because you don't like them. Mumford and Sons have limited appeal to me. I still think they were fit to headline though.

I will repeat that I think Glastonbury attendees are some of the most open-minded music fans around.

no, they have limited appeal because they are from a niche genre. I wasn't impressed with the Mumford booking either, but they were a biggish band of the moment with recent chart success so were at a push justifiable in that regard.

I'll ask again. Where are we drawing the line at "limited appeal"?

I need to note again that Metallica do have a big crossover fanbase. They're pretty much as commercial as metal gets and this is why they're such a big act. Because they're not that heavy a lot of the time.

And going back to "limited appeal", you could say Arcade Fire have limited appeal. Just a different way of saying it.

i'll say again, look back at previous saturday night headliners and you'll get a flavour of what's the right act for the slott. List them out for last 15 years and see what you get.

Yes arcade fire have limited appeal and aren't a particulary inspiring booking either....shame.

[DomDom1984]

Mumford and Sons justifyable. Metallica... not.

Who the f**k cares what night they play as well? That's the night available to them, and thus that's the one they get.

[autoinflate]

I really hope that no-one in this thread is arguing that Metallica are not talented enough to headline the Pyramid. Because that would be ridiculous. For starters, talent has nothing to do with whether bands are offered it or not, before we even get on to Metallica's musicianship...

not at all, they are incredibly talented musicians (except lars)

when i was learning guitar back in the day I really admired hammetts playing, but never really liked the songs or sound of the band.

[sjseabass]

Yes arcade fire have limited appeal and aren't a particulary inspiring booking either....shame.

I guess Glasto should only go for the blandest of the bland to headline. That'll work out well for them.

[AStormInHeaven]

at the risk of overheating and melting with pretentiousness, i am just gonna reiterate that i believe heavy rock, especially metal rock, to be a generally more limited artistic genre than alternative. If I was savvy enough to somehow make a method in measuring the fan transition between the two genres (only when there is a transition as clearly some on here listen to both) then i would bet that traffic would be skewed one way.

Away from the argument of the genres I would say of course metallica are big enough headline the pyramid. I am just disappointed by it.

Edited May 1, 2014 by AStormInHeaven

[wolfamongwolves]

The argument should be why are kasabian headlining. Metallica are what I would call and expect a headliner to be. Its a safe solid good call by eavis.

[sjseabass]

not at all, they are incredibly talented musicians (except lars)

when i was learning guitar back in the day I really admired hammetts playing, but never really liked the songs or sound of the band.

Yeah, that was more directed at AStormInHeaven I suppose.

Your criticism is coming from a different direction. I'm not sure which is more misguided.

[DomDom1984]

That's fair enough. It's one thing to be disappointed in a headliner but accept they should be there. I felt the same about Mumford and Sons incidentally at T in the Park last year.

Blatantly not accepting that their fanbase isn't the usual metal fanbase and beating the same drum over and over again about how it's not "appropriate", that's something different entirely.

[bekimo]

The argument should be why are kasabian headlining. Metallica are what I would call and expect a headliner to be. Its a safe solid good call by eavis.

See I'm sure I've see kasabian before but I'm equally sure I have no idea who the hell they are. Obviously made an impact! :/