Headliners 2016

[Rose-Colored Boy]

I don't think anyone engaged in the real world has called Ed Sheeran too small to headline recently.

[GlastoSimon]

2 hours ago, russycarps said:

I dunno how old you are, but kanye is late 30s isn't he? Shame even their risky bookings are old men.

The first few Glastonburys I went to had up and coming bands in their 20s headlining. Oasis, radiohead, prodigy etc...Why has that policy changed?

Hard to say, maybe labels are less adventurous? I think we may be looking at the wrong genres though, don't know much about the so-called 'EDM' and house movements, both popular genres and there's gotta be some young people involved in that. Those bands you mention were definitely involved in wider pop movements.

There's definitely the appetite for a new, young rock band mind. Look at the sales for the Roses for Christ's sake, young people having to fill the gap with the fucking Courteneers of all people.

Edited November 15, 2015 by GlastoSimon

[justanothername]

1 hour ago, sisco said:

Seems the same people who are bored with the repeat bookings are the same as the ones who say Biffy Clyro, Foals, Florence and the Machine, The Prodigy, Ed Sheeran and NGHFB aren't big enough to headline!! 

Sadly if bands like the above (yes I know Flo headlined in the end) aren't given the bump up then we will continue to have the same bands/acts on every album cycle.

What would people prefer?!! 

Biffy and Ed Sheeran are big enough to headline.

Edited November 15, 2015 by justanothername

[Gnomicide]

Not sure if I've ever mentioned my feelings towards Kraftwerk on here before.

[eastynh]

2 hours ago, russycarps said:

I dunno how old you are, but kanye is late 30s isn't he? Shame even their risky bookings are old men.

The first few Glastonburys I went to had up and coming bands in their 20s headlining. Oasis, radiohead, prodigy etc...Why has that policy changed?

I don't think the policy has changed, I just think quality of music produced by up and coming bands is not at the standard it was previously. The whole music industry has changed. This is the x factor generation now. Unfortunately this is why bands like the Courteeners can get 400000 people at a concert even though it is just blah blah guitar. 20 years ago the Courteeners would be also rans like the Paris Angels or The High.

A risky booking would be someone like Hot Chip for Pyramid headliner. They are a band with good fun songs that would translate well to main stage where a lot of people would maybe not know them very well.

I get the impression now it will be other festivals who take the risks with up and coming bands. Glastonbury will just go for mainstream beige bookings.

[Spindles]

1 hour ago, sisco said:

Seems the same people who are bored with the repeat bookings are the same as the ones who say Biffy Clyro, Foals, Florence and the Machine, The Prodigy, Ed Sheeran and NGHFB aren't big enough to headline!! 

Sadly if bands like the above (yes I know Flo headlined in the end) aren't given the bump up then we will continue to have the same bands/acts on every album cycle.

What would people prefer?!! 

I'd like to see up and coming acts getting that shot.  Not another heritage act taking their turn or the return of one of the handful of bands that headline one or other major festival each year on rotation.  I want an act to feel like that night on that stage is the pinnacle of their career so far and give the performance that such a feeling would bring.

I was glad Flo got the bump, but to be honest she should already have had the slot that The Who had anyway.  I'd be very pleased if Foals could get the nod as well, but to be honest it's clear that it's more likely to be 3 radio 2 friendly acts.

[russycarps]

16 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I don't think the policy has changed, I just think quality of music produced by up and coming bands is not at the standard it was previously. The whole music industry has changed. This is the x factor generation now. Unfortunately this is why bands like the Courteeners can get 400000 people at a concert even though it is just blah blah guitar. 20 years ago the Courteeners would be also rans like the Paris Angels or The High.

A risky booking would be someone like Hot Chip for Pyramid headliner. They are a band with good fun songs that would translate well to main stage where a lot of people would maybe not know them very well.

I get the impression now it will be other festivals who take the risks with up and coming bands. Glastonbury will just go for mainstream beige bookings.

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

Edited November 15, 2015 by russycarps

[oneeye]

1 hour ago, Zac Quinn said:

#SadnessInHisEyes

 

 

[dentalplan]

12 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

Maybe something to do with the average age of Glasto-goers or something? The way I imagine it to be would be that the attendees of the festival twenty years ago were mainly music fans in their 20's and younger bands were promoted because of popularity with that demographic, whereas now the average age is 40 or something and a lot of the people simply won't know Foals or Alt-J or The XX.

Edited November 15, 2015 by dentalplan

[jonodillieono]

 

10 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

I feel like Foals may get their chance soon enough if they pull off a R+L headline slot well and if the new XX album is any good I could see them headlining soon

Alt J not so much

[russycarps]

6 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Maybe something to do with the average age of Glasto-goers or something? The way I imagine it to be would be that the attendees of the festival twenty years ago were mainly music fans in their 20's and younger bands were promoted because of popularity with that demographic, whereas now the average age is 40 or something and a lot of the people simply won't know Foals or Alt-J or The XX.

Aye I guess so, which makes Michaels comments about the audience being too old a few years back seem even more absurd

6 minutes ago, jonodillieono said:

 

I feel like Foals may get their chance soon enough if they pull off a R+L headline slot well and if the new XX album is any good I could see them headlining soon

Alt J not so much

R+l really are the trail-blazing risk takers these days.

Glastonbury being the festival that gives the up and coming acts a leg up truly is a myth.

[Gucci Piggy]

13 minutes ago, jonodillieono said:

 

I feel like Foals may get their chance soon enough if they pull off a R+L headline slot well and if the new XX album is any good I could see them headlining soon

Alt J not so much

Aye but Glasto should be giving them the leg up, like it has done in the past. They should have done it with Arcade Fire before they headlined R&L, and they should do it with Foals before R&L.

[Matt42]

27 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

All of those bands will headline (maybe not glastonbury but other festivals) in due time.

The XX are a weird one though, they really need to shake things up a bit with their next album - also Jamie XX has gone to have quite a lot of success himself. I do wonder what the future of the band is going to be..

[silkworm]

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

Alt-J did headline Latitude this year, and did kind of bomb. It was all a bit lifeless and boring, though to be fair I'm not a fan anyway, maybe it was great for people who know them.

Maybe there'd be more energy at a bigger festival and they'd respond better, but since they really didn't even have enough presence to headline Latitude, Glastonbury would be a bit of a stretch. Maybe in a couple of years.

[Mezhyp1]

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

I would say Foals are pretty much at the peak of their powers, they are getting bigger and better with every album and their live show really is something to behold now, I completely agree with people saying Glasto should give them the chance before R/L, they'll definitely headline Glastonbury one day though, I'm sure of it 

[dentalplan]

Wonder if we'll get a headliner/Sunday legend announcement in the next couple of weeks. We're getting to around that point in they year where they have done an announcement or two before. Could imagine it being ELO or Muse, now they've each more or less sold their tour out.

[eastynh]

 

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

I would prefer Little Mix to Coldplay or Muse. I tried to give Muse a good go last year but I just found them drab.

Do you think the choice of headliner is a direct reflection to the type of person that attends Glastonbury these days? It was my first Glastonbury last year and after all the hype I was kind of let down with the crowd and the atmosphere. There was no edge there and hardly any diversity in the crows demographic what so ever. Don't get me wrong, everyone was lovely. It was all same old, same old though. In regards to the crowd, it was the least multicultural festival I have ever been to in my life.

I look at the rumours of Coldplay, Muse and Adele and they perfectly suit the crowd demographic of what I seen last year.

[russycarps]

19 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

I would prefer Little Mix to Coldplay or Muse. I tried to give Muse a good go last year but I just found them drab.

Do you think the choice of headliner is a direct reflection to the type of person that attends Glastonbury these days? It was my first Glastonbury last year and after all the hype I was kind of let down with the crowd and the atmosphere. There was no edge there and hardly any diversity in the crows demographic what so ever. Don't get me wrong, everyone was lovely. It was all same old, same old though. In regards to the crowd, it was the least multicultural festival I have ever been to in my life.

I look at the rumours of Coldplay, Muse and Adele and they perfectly suit the crowd demographic of what I seen last year.

I honestly don't know what the thought process is when booking headliners anymore. I know they can only get who is available, but any of these up and coming acts would drop everything to play I'm sure.

The festival has come out and specifically said they want a younger audience so I don't believe they are booking headliners just to appease the oldies.

I wonder if Emily just has a lack of imagination and a lack of balls to take a risk. But it's their livelihood not ours so it's easy for us to criticise when we have nothing on the line if it didn't sell out.

As for the atmosphere, I still believe the pyramid has the potential to be unlike anywhere else in the world, but now it is a much rarer thing and dependent on the band, rather than being amazing just because it's Glastonbury.

I desperately hope stone roses play next year so you can see the pyramid stage at its very best. I get goosebumps just thinking about what it would be like.

Regarding how multicultural it is, this is one area that is better than ever in. If you think it's bad now you should have seen it as little as ten years ago!

Nowadays it seems like Glastonbury is the best just because of how many things there are to do, rather than for anything 'magical'

Edited November 15, 2015 by russycarps

[stuartbert two hats]

3 hours ago, russycarps said:

I know there is a lot of shit around these days, and none of these bands are my cup of tea, but I'm still not sure why the xx, alt-j, foals weren't given the gig at the height of their popularity. Even if they bombed, they'd have still pulled big crowds. Any of them would be preferable to coldplay, muse etc surely?

The last time it happened was arctic monkeys in 2007! And didn't killers only have 2 albums out that year too?

Edit no wait, last time was mumfords, who thoroughly deserved it imo (even though I don't like them one bit)

I don't think any band has had quite as meteoric a rise as Munfords had on their first two albums since 2011. Those were huge sales.

I think the reason they were booking up and coming bands as headliners in the 90s is because they couldn't yet attract the really big hitters. Dylan aside (which was a weird gig, in an odd slot), I can't think of any massive acts until Bowie - who wasn't even as big then as he is now. McCartney, U2 and The Stones were but a distant dream.

After all, that's why they took the risk on Jay Z, Michael "couldn't get the usual Anglo-Saxon acts", specifically Radiohead that year.

[maelzoid]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

I was kind of let down with the crowd and the atmosphere. There was no edge there and hardly any diversity in the crows demographic what so ever.

To feel let down by the atmosphere somewhat begs the question, where did you go previously?

I agree that Glastonbury is not the most diverse crowd, but compared to other festivals it certainly hits a lot of age demographics, if not racial ones.

Edited November 15, 2015 by maelzoid

[russycarps]

8 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I don't think any band has had quite as meteoric a rise as Munfords had on their first two albums since 2011. Those were huge sales.

I think the reason they were booking up and coming bands as headliners in the 90s is because they couldn't yet attract the really big hitters. Dylan aside (which was a weird gig, in an odd slot), I can't think of any massive acts until Bowie - who wasn't even as big then as he is now. McCartney, U2 and The Stones were but a distant dream.

After all, that's why they took the risk on Jay Z, Michael "couldn't get the usual Anglo-Saxon acts", specifically Radiohead that year.

I dunno, I think in the 90s what with the britpop hype it was easier to pick headliners. Stone roses, blur, primal scream, prodigy, manics, pulp...I don't reckon anyone would have wanted macca, u2 etc in place of those even if they could have booked them. REM were the biggest band in the world when booked too in 99.

Just different eras I guess

Edited November 15, 2015 by russycarps

[FloorFiller]

10 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I dunno, I think in the 90s what with the britpop hype it was easier to pick headliners. Stone roses, blur, primal scream, prodigy, manics, pulp...I don't reckon anyone would have wanted macca, u2 etc in place of those even if they could have booked them. REM were the biggest band in the world when booked too in 99.

Just different eras I guess

well that's just not true is it? i couldn't tell you who was the biggest band at that time, but REM were definitely on a decline in both size and acclaim by then

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

I honestly don't know what the thought process is when booking headliners anymore. I know they can only get who is available, but any of these up and coming acts would drop everything to play I'm sure.

The festival has come out and specifically said they want a younger audience so I don't believe they are booking headliners just to appease the oldies.

I wonder if Emily just has a lack of imagination and a lack of balls to take a risk. But it's their livelihood not ours so it's easy for us to criticise when we have nothing on the line if it didn't sell out.

As for the atmosphere, I still believe the pyramid has the potential to be unlike anywhere else in the world, but now it is a much rarer thing and dependent on the band, rather than being amazing just because it's Glastonbury.

I desperately hope stone roses play next year so you can see the pyramid stage at its very best. I get goosebumps just thinking about what it would be like.

Regarding how multicultural it is, this is one area that is better than ever in. If you think it's bad now you should have seen it as little as ten years ago!

Nowadays it seems like Glastonbury is the best just because of how many things there are to do, rather than for anything 'magical'

The place blew my mind. I loved the fact the Harri Krishna tent was bouncing at daft 'o' clock in the morning and all the other things that went with it. From a music fans point of view I found it a bit dull really. I stood there watching kanye and thought there was no atmosphere what so ever. People might as well have been sat in their chairs knitting.

I hope you are right about the Roses. It would be nice to experience Glastonbury at its best as I did not feel I did last year. It was all a bit too nice. 

 

 

[stuartbert two hats]

9 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I dunno, I think in the 90s what with the britpop hype it was easier to pick headliners. Stone roses, blur, primal scream, prodigy, manics, pulp...I don't reckon anyone would have wanted macca, u2 etc in place of those even if they could have booked them. REM were the biggest band in the world when booked too in 99.

Just different eras I guess

I forgot about REM, they were starting to get the big bands already by then in that case. But do you really think that if they could have had Macca and U2 in 98 they would have gone for Primal Scream, Prodigy and Pulp? I doubt it very much. It would have been a poorer line up for it, but I get the distinct impression the era of mega headliners was primarily down to capability. As has been noted, they've painted themselves into a corner, as booking an equivalent contemporary act would be seen as settling for second best.

[eastynh]

16 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

To feel let down by the atmosphere somewhat begs the question, where did you go previously?

I agree that Glastonbury is not the most diverse crowd, but compared to other festivals it certainly hits a lot of age demographics, if not racial ones.

I think the diversity of the crowd is a question for another time mate. I just asked the question in regards to whether the headline acts were being fitted to suit so to speak. All on the safe side and a little bit dull.

In regards to the atmosphere, it was fantastic all week. I did not see one bit of animosity and everyone was really nice all week. I just expected it to have a bit more to it when people were watching the bands. It was mad seeing people sat on chairs and drinking from flasks while the headline act was on and the atmosphere was a bit flat. I appreciate not every crowd is going to be like the Stone roses @ Heaton Park, but hopefully there is better to come next year compared to what passed this year.