Jump to content

FLEETWOOD MAC not doing Glastonbury 2015.


Swine_Glasto2014
 Share

Recommended Posts

well given that Beyonce headlined, and Swift is a bigger act than Beyonce is, it's not that surprising. Swift is one of the biggest acts in the world at the moment, far bigger than those pop acts.

having said that, the only reason that she's being rumoured is because she's playing in London that weekend, which is a pretty flimsy reason, and I seriously doubt she'll play Glastonbury.

if she did play/headline, it wouldn't bother me, there's far worse pop acts every year, plus it's another less reason to go to the Pyramid stage and avoids a clash with an act I want to see elsewhere....

Edited by ghostdancer1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loads were suggesting headliner - and many said it was the ONLY place she could play. Some slightly more sensible people reckon she can sub a big name, but bump up if said big name doesn't happen. People were shot down in flames for suggesting daytime pyramid.

Sub with bump up potential definitely seems like the most likely option to me. I can't see why she'd agree to play any lower given how big she currently is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh yeah I'd love to see them play too.

I still love watching a pyramid headliner after all these years. I think it's still the best musical experience you can have at the festival. It really irritates me when there are none I want to see. I would happily see all 3 pyramid headliners if they were bands I like, though the chances are pretty much zero of that ever happening now.

I know a lot of people would be horrified at that prospect.

I'm with you on this one. When it's someone like the Stones or Blur it's nothing short of magical.

I don't follow Scruffy's pattern of diminishing Pyramid headliners though. It's entirely dependent on who plays.

For me, the amount of Pyramid headliners per year:

2008 - 1

2009 - 2

2010 - 1

2011 - 1.5 (well more like .25)

2013 - 1

2014 - 2

I think my ideal ratio is one Pyramid, one Other/West Holts and one random somewhere else. Rarely goes that way though.

I'd like one decent Pyramid headliner next year so the boyfriend could get the full Glasto experience as it were, but it's not looking too hopeful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only acts that play in lower slots than they usually would are the Sunday legends, who are often headliners in their own right. Taylor ain't one of them, so a headliner (or a very good sub) she is. if the lineup is released and she's in a lower position then i'd love to know what the Eavi' have done to fandangle that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only acts that play in lower slots than they usually would are the Sunday legends, who are often headliners in their own right. Taylor ain't one of them, so a headliner (or a very good sub) she is. if the lineup is released and she's in a lower position then i'd love to know what the Eavi' have done to fandangle that one

Oh yeah, when I said sub I meant to someone like Fleetwood Mac. I wasn't suggesting she'd be on before an Arcade Fire or Muse sized band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, when I said sub I meant to someone like Fleetwood Mac. I wasn't suggesting she'd be on before an Arcade Fire or Muse sized band.

yeah Fleetwood Mac is the name that instantly springs to mind when i think of her subbing, but with that seemingly down the shitter a bump up seems likely (if that was the plan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this cant be right can it?

beyonce is appalling, but she's a bigger star than swift. I can name a couple of beyonce songs, but nothing from swift. I suspect that's the case with most people in the world.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'bigger.' I imagine if two of their singles went head to head tomorrow, Swift might come out on top but Beyonce has the weight of a longer career behind her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'bigger.' I imagine if two of their singles went head to head tomorrow, Swift might come out on top but Beyonce has the weight of a longer career behind her.

and i think Beyonce constantly being tabloid fodder helps her as well, whereas that's not really the case for Swift (the occasional ex boyfriend story but nothing compared to the all seeing eye on Beyonce's life)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not all a big in-joke?

I listened to some of the clips linked and it's just frothy pop music for prepubescents. I cannot fathom why anyone would view it as potential headliner music.

Some of the people in that THREAT are the usual cretins, but some of the more usually sensible people are just on a wind up, surely?

Wonderfully apt typo of the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a small scale i think Midlake helped the FM revival with Van Occupanther...with certain persons who - rightly or wrongly - consider themselves more 'discerning' music fans thinking, "Hmm, well if i like this AND Radiohead and they're mentioning FM maybe i should give them a go".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this cant be right can it?

beyonce is appalling, but she's a bigger star than swift. I can name a couple of beyonce songs, but nothing from swift. I suspect that's the case with most people in the world.

IMO Beyonce was a much bigger star at the time than Taylor Swift is now and still is for that matter

Beyonce released "4" the day after she played Glastonbury 2011. it sold 89,000 in the UK in it's first week (no doubt with a BBC Glasto sales bump), and 310,000 in the US in it's first week.

Taylor Swift released her album "89" two weeks ago. in it's first week, it sold 90,000 in the UK, and 1.2 million in the US.

so if we're going by album sales, Swift is at least on par with Beyonce in the UK, and far, far bigger in the US.

i'm not really sure what other metric there is for judging who is bigger as anecdotal name/song recognition probably depends on the person and obviously Beyonce has been around for much longer and is more "well-known" due to her long career and Jay-Z.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyonce released "4" the day after she played Glastonbury 2011. it sold 89,000 in the UK in it's first week (no doubt with a BBC Glasto sales bump), and 310,000 in the US in it's first week.

Taylor Swift released her album "89" two weeks ago. in it's first week, it sold 90,000 in the UK, and 1.2 million in the US.

so if we're going by album sales, Swift is at least on par with Beyonce in the UK, and far, far bigger in the US.

i'm not really sure what other metric there is for judging who is bigger as anecdotal name/song recognition probably depends on the person and obviously Beyonce has been around for much longer and is more "well-known" due to her long career and Jay-Z.

To be honest I'd say it's her keeping Jay-Z's career afloat these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyonce released "4" the day after she played Glastonbury 2011. it sold 89,000 in the UK in it's first week (no doubt with a BBC Glasto sales bump), and 310,000 in the US in it's first week.

Taylor Swift released her album "89" two weeks ago. in it's first week, it sold 90,000 in the UK, and 1.2 million in the US.

so if we're going by album sales, Swift is at least on par with Beyonce in the UK, and far, far bigger in the US.

i'm not really sure what other metric there is for judging who is bigger as anecdotal name/song recognition probably depends on the person and obviously Beyonce has been around for much longer and is more "well-known" due to her long career and Jay-Z.

Problem with using record sales is that would make one direction the biggest band in the world.

but then having said that, they probably are!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with using record sales is that would make one direction the biggest band in the world.

but then having said that, they probably are!

The problem is that record sales are seemingly being used to determine whether a band is suitable to headline Glastonbury, which is totally wrong headed to me. Bands get to headline because they're good. Not because they have large record sales. A good band might get more sales, but they may not. Correlation is not causation!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that record sales are seemingly being used to determine whether a band is suitable to headline Glastonbury, which is totally wrong headed to me. Bands get to headline because they're good. Not because they have large record sales. A good band might get more sales, but they may not. Correlation is not causation!

yep, when record sales are used to determine headliners we end up with the likes of mumford & sons!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that record sales are seemingly being used to determine whether a band is suitable to headline Glastonbury, which is totally wrong headed to me. Bands get to headline because they're good. Not because they have large record sales. A good band might get more sales, but they may not. Correlation is not causation!

Spot on... this is the way it should be but Mumford & Sons showed a worrying trend away from this.

Some of the names being bandied about for headline slots are appalling.

Taylor Swift might sell records, but headlining Glasto?

Nightmare stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that record sales are seemingly being used to determine whether a band is suitable to headline Glastonbury, which is totally wrong headed to me. Bands get to headline because they're good. Not because they have large record sales. A good band might get more sales, but they may not. Correlation is not causation!

Very well said. I'm sure we could compile a list of acts with impressive sales figures but the majority of them are shite and won't be headlining Glastonbury Edited by TomViolence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that record sales are seemingly being used to determine whether a band is suitable to headline Glastonbury, which is totally wrong headed to me. Bands get to headline because they're good. Not because they have large record sales. A good band might get more sales, but they may not. Correlation is not causation!

well I was using record sales to underline the fact that Taylor Swift is a bigger act than Beyonce, not to gauge suitability for headlining Glastonbury.

"good" is subjective. i'd rather listen to Taylor Swift than a lot of the crap that has been deemed "suitable" to headline Glastonbury in the past, and even then, I wouldn't go see her if i was given a free ticket for her gigs.

Edited by ghostdancer1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that record sales are seemingly being used to determine whether a band is suitable to headline Glastonbury, which is totally wrong headed to me. Bands get to headline because they're good. Not because they have large record sales. A good band might get more sales, but they may not. Correlation is not causation!

With the current demographics of the festival I should imagine most people are pleased with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...