2021 Headliners

[Sdsm123]

Thought I would post this here as didn’t see it on the forum even though I know it’s been discussed. Confirmation of Taylor swift not playing mad cool

[Freddyflintstonree]

 

7 minutes ago, Sdsm123 said:

Thought I would post this here as didn’t see it on the forum even though I know it’s been discussed. Confirmation of Taylor swift not playing mad cool

The dream is dying..

[Woffy]

12 minutes ago, Sdsm123 said:

Thought I would post this here as didn’t see it on the forum even though I know it’s been discussed. Confirmation of Taylor swift not playing mad cool

Any reason why (apols if this is earlier in the thread)?

[Miyn]

11 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Any reason why (apols if this is earlier in the thread)?

Probably because she isn't playing festivals next summer. It got posted yesterday morning. Will be the same reason if Kendrick gets ruled out playing festivals that he was booked for this year.

[Woffy]

3 minutes ago, Miyn said:

Probably because she isn't playing festivals next summer. It got posted yesterday morning. Will be the same reason if Kendrick gets ruled out playing festivals that he was booked for this year.

Cheers Miyn. 

Weird decision though.

 

[zeppelin]

2 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Cheers Miyn. 

Weird decision though.

 

Could be she already had an unannounced '21 tour booked so easier to move '20 to '22?

[Miyn]

3 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Cheers Miyn. 

Weird decision though.

 

I think it's because she has plans for touring, making an album, years in advance. So she decided that it would be better to carry on with what she was planning to do rather than moving everything back a year. She'll definitely play next time she's around though.

[sadimmock]

I guess that Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are in a different position to Paul McCartney. With the best will in the world his tour and festivals are probably the only significant professional activity he had planned for this year so it's easier for him to just displace things by 12 months. I would imagine that the more current artists have a lot more going on (e.g albums to release, supporting promotional activities etc...). It's probably a much more complicated picture for them and I guess it may not be possible to drop a big festival tour into the middle of what they already had planned for 2021. 

[Woffy]

3 minutes ago, zeppelin said:

Could be she already had an unannounced '21 tour booked so easier to move '20 to '22?

Ah yes. I’ve just (blithely, wrongly) assumed everyone has just shunted their plans 1 year to the right. Good point Zep. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Woffy

[CaledonianGonzo]

Taylor has shifted her US and South American dates to next spring.  The Euro dates appear to have fallen by the wayside - we just don't know whether or not Glastonbury is an outlier in her plans.

[Woffy]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Taylor has shifted her US and South American dates to next spring.  The Euro dates appear to have fallen by the wayside - we just don't know whether or not Glastonbury is an outlier in her plans.

In my Glasto-centric headcanon Swiz has made G50/‘21 a priority. 

[circus92]

Reading this thread in recent days with bemusement at the wildly differing opinions of the status of various acts.  I appreciate everyone has different tastes, and different opinions but some of it is just madness - I mean The Cure are significantly bigger than Pearl Jam.  Far better known, waaay more hits etc etc.  To describe them as comparable .... am I missing something?

[Woffy]

1 minute ago, circus92 said:

Reading this thread in recent days with bemusement at the wildly differing opinions of the status of various acts.  I appreciate everyone has different tastes, and different opinions but some of it is just madness - I mean The Cure are significantly bigger than Pearl Jam.  Far better known, waaay more hits etc etc.  To describe them as comparable .... am I missing something?

@guypjfreakliterally willing a PJ headline slot into existence is the only explanation. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

2 minutes ago, circus92 said:

Reading this thread in recent days with bemusement at the wildly differing opinions of the status of various acts.  I appreciate everyone has different tastes, and different opinions but some of it is just madness - I mean The Cure are significantly bigger than Pearl Jam.  Far better known, waaay more hits etc etc.  To describe them as comparable .... am I missing something?

I think they’re musically different enough that you’ll inevitably get people that favour one or the other and see their favourite as bigger.

[Mattymooz]

1 minute ago, circus92 said:

Reading this thread in recent days with bemusement at the wildly differing opinions of the status of various acts.  I appreciate everyone has different tastes, and different opinions but some of it is just madness - I mean The Cure are significantly bigger than Pearl Jam.  Far better known, waaay more hits etc etc.  To describe them as comparable .... am I missing something?

Honestly, they're a bit before my time, but they seem pretty comparable in terms of spotify streams/listeners which is what I had judged it on (plus their BST sold pretty well)

[CaledonianGonzo]

Pearl Jam sell out big venues - but to the same 70,000 people who follow them around from show to show.

They're the Phish of Grateful Deads.

[jparx]

10 minutes ago, circus92 said:

Reading this thread in recent days with bemusement at the wildly differing opinions of the status of various acts.  I appreciate everyone has different tastes, and different opinions but some of it is just madness - I mean The Cure are significantly bigger than Pearl Jam.  Far better known, waaay more hits etc etc.  To describe them as comparable .... am I missing something?

On my comment, my point was Pearl Jam and The Cure are roughly comparable worldwide. In fact, in a hilarious turn of events, The Cure are 398th most listened to and Pearl Jam are 399th on Spotify. The Cure are bigger in the UK for sure but Pearl Jam edge it over the pond.

Pearl Jam do have a big fanbase here as well though, to the point they can do shows like Hyde Park. If Glastonbury wanted them to play, PJ would demand a headline slot. Just depends if Glastonbury would want them that much.

Edited July 10, 2020 by jparx

[zeppelin]

20 minutes ago, circus92 said:

Reading this thread in recent days with bemusement at the wildly differing opinions of the status of various acts.  I appreciate everyone has different tastes, and different opinions but some of it is just madness - I mean The Cure are significantly bigger than Pearl Jam.  Far better known, waaay more hits etc etc.  To describe them as comparable .... am I missing something?

To be honest, before this chat I didn't even think they were comparable. In that I thought Pearl Jam were far bigger. I knew The Cure had a cult following hence shows like Hyde Park but I, personally, saw them as a relatively weak headliner compared to what PJ would be. 

I guess this was driven by:

- knowing more Pearl Jam fans;

- having seen The Cure at Bestival, a size fest I couldn't ever imagine PJ playing; and, 

- The size of PJs world tours and not noticing The Cure doing the same (they probably do, I've just not noticed). 

[CaledonianGonzo]

John Q. Glastopunter will be familiar with things like Lovecats and Friday, I'm In Love.

When Eddie Vedder starts bellowing at them about a Porch they won't have the foggiest about what the hell is going on.

[jparx]

Yeah, Pearl Jam wouldn't be a headliner that attracts 100,000 people and keeps them throughout. You'd be looking at an exodus but it would still be fine for a headliner. It wouldn't be a seminal moment or anything, but it would be a great set. They'd throw in a few good covers as well, Free World etc., so it'd be a load of fun.

[circus92]

1 hour ago, jparx said:

On my comment, my point was Pearl Jam and The Cure are roughly comparable worldwide. In fact, in a hilarious turn of events, The Cure are 398th most listened to and Pearl Jam are 399th on Spotify. The Cure are bigger in the UK for sure but Pearl Jam edge it over the pond.

That is quite a coincidence! 

However it also reinforces my opinion that Spotify streams aren't really a great metric for measuring how big an artist is.  Demographics come into it a lot i.e. if an artist is hugely successful in America, but not as popular in the UK, their streaming numbers will be significantly bigger than an artist who is the opposite - huge in the UK and not really big in America.  That is why loads of rappers etc have really high streaming numbers.

Age is also the other big factor - your average Cure fan way less likely to listen over and over on Spotify (may use other mediums vinyl /cd and has less spare time) compared to the average Billie Eilish fan (wouldn't know what a cd is and loads of free time).  For me these dynamics massively distort the value of streaming numbers.

The only really useful test as always is the Mum test, and I reckon most would know numerous Cure songs, but wouldn't even be able to name one Pearl Jam song.  This is in no way a criticism of Pearl Jam, but just my feelings on "Streaming Numbers" as a valid metric.

[jparx]

Agree on streaming numbers, I was just curious to see how they both fared and lol’d at the coincidence!

Another weird coincidence - just went outside after listening to Pearl Jam and our neighbour was out working on his car listening to them as well!

[Woffy]

4 minutes ago, jparx said:

Agree on streaming numbers, I was just curious to see how they both fared and lol’d at the coincidence!

Another weird coincidence - just went outside after listening to Pearl Jam and our neighbour was out working on his car listening to them as well!

Who, Jeremy at number 10?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Porch aside, Jeremy is easily Pearl and the lads most well known song.

However, it's also very bad - so it's difficult to know whether it would bolster their crowd or cause people to actively stay away.

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Who, Jeremy at number 10?

no Mike the Mechanic