Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Headliners 2023


Crazyfool01

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

Same instant reaction to the question.  Surely Oasis and Queen B have to be the 2?

No, he'd be an alt-right conspiracy theorist screaming bollocks out into the echo chamber on YouTube wearing a MAGA hat.

Depends how far under 40 you are... If you were born early 80's then surely Queen for both... Or maybe Queen UK and MJ US... But yeh, I have Beyonce in my extended list too.

I loved Oasis mid 90s, and I thought about adding them, but they weren't as successful globally as I'd have thought they were. (I know you're talking about a UK and Global list, but thought I'd mention it.) I don't think Oasis ever had a US number 1 album did they? They had 7 UK no 1 albums, and 3 that made the US top 5, but never number 1. 

In contrast, Eminem has had 9 number 1 studio albums (in both UK and US) spanning 3 decades. As well as several soundtrack, collaborative and compilation albums. 

Oasis' singles performed even worse in the US, only Wonderwall cracked the top 10 at number 8. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Depends how far under 40 you are... If you were born early 80's then surely Queen for both... Or maybe Queen UK and MJ US... But yeh, I have Beyonce in my extended list too.

I loved Oasis mid 90s, and I thought about adding them, but they weren't as successful globally as I'd have thought they were. (I know you're talking about a UK and Global list, but thought I'd mention it.) I don't think Oasis ever had a US number 1 album did they? They had 7 UK no 1 albums, and 3 that made the US top 5, but never number 1. 

In contrast, Eminem has had 9 number 1 studio albums (in both UK and US) spanning 3 decades. As well as several soundtrack, collaborative and compilation albums. 

Oasis' singles performed even worse in the US, only Wonderwall cracked the top 10 at number 8. 

I was more just going on an instinctive reaction to the question based on memories/hype.  90's in the UK you could not move for Oasis - they were literally everywhere.

Oh, and I'm actually 47.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

A better question might be why Eminem is often the one exception for people who otherwise have a blanket dislike of hip-hop.

Because his music is more accessible than a lot of prominent Hip Hop artists, it has more hooks and quirks, and in general he gets a lot more coverage.

Same reason why someone like Arctic Monkeys or The 1975 are liked by people who otherwise have a blanket dislike of rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Controversial opinion here, which I'm not sure I "allowed" to say these days.

Because he's white.

Nah. If that was the case the likes of Macklemore, Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark would be receiving universal adulation. Usually white rappers gain a deserved reputation of being corny tryhards, but Eminem just had his own natural style which people liked.

Perhaps his music has an element that white people would find more accessible and relatable than, say, Nas or N.W.A., but it's no bad thing because he is known to be a gateway artist to other (and usually better, because he hasn't been at his best since about 2002) artists in the genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

Depends how far under 40 you are... If you were born early 80's then surely Queen for both... Or maybe Queen UK and MJ US... But yeh, I have Beyonce in my extended list too.

I loved Oasis mid 90s, and I thought about adding them, but they weren't as successful globally as I'd have thought they were. (I know you're talking about a UK and Global list, but thought I'd mention it.) I don't think Oasis ever had a US number 1 album did they? They had 7 UK no 1 albums, and 3 that made the US top 5, but never number 1. 

In contrast, Eminem has had 9 number 1 studio albums (in both UK and US) spanning 3 decades. As well as several soundtrack, collaborative and compilation albums. 

Oasis' singles performed even worse in the US, only Wonderwall cracked the top 10 at number 8. 

I’m bang on 40 remember the 90’s pretty well. The three biggest acts by a considerable distance were Oasis, Spice Girls and Take That.

Oasis didn’t do much abroad, but in this country they were probably the biggest band we’ve had since the Beatles. Regardless of what people think of their music they were proper pop culture behemoths. The Gallaghers getting new haircuts made the front pages of the tabloids. The launch of Be Here Now was one of the biggest events in music that decade, and the fallout so vast it killed Britpop.

I think people who weren’t old enough don’t fully get just how massive they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

I’m bang on 40 remember the 90’s pretty well. The three biggest acts by a considerable distance were Oasis, Spice Girls and Take That.

Oasis didn’t do much abroad, but in this country they were probably the biggest band we’ve had since the Beatles. Regardless of what people think of their music they were proper pop culture behemoths. The Gallaghers getting new haircuts made the front pages of the tabloids. The launch of Be Here Now was one of the biggest events in music that decade, and the fallout so vast it killed Britpop.

I think people who weren’t old enough don’t fully get just how massive they were.

You’re talking purely about acts within the UK though aren’t you, as you pointed out in your second paragraph. 
 

We’re talking about legends here, that’s how the topic got started, therefore I meant on a global level. Oasis weren’t ‘that’ big in America, they definitely ‘made it’ there, but not to a level you’d class as legendary. But you’ve eluded to that already. 
 

You’re absolutely right though, they were huge here, and for years my favourite band. But I was just saying that I wouldn’t class them as ‘legends’ on a global scale. 

Take that were insanely huge here, I was in secondary school when they split. I remember counselling rooms set up in the school to help console distraught fans!!! But they completely failed to do anything in America, and many other countries.

Spice girls are a great shout to be fair, annoyed I didn’t put them in my top ten biggest legends of my lifetime… Completely forgot them! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

You’re talking purely about acts within the UK though aren’t you, as you pointed out in your second paragraph. 
 

We’re talking about legends here, that’s how the topic got started, therefore I meant on a global level. Oasis weren’t ‘that’ big in America, they definitely ‘made it’ there, but not to a level you’d class as legendary. But you’ve eluded to that already. 
 

You’re absolutely right though, they were huge here, and for years my favourite band. But I was just saying that I wouldn’t class them as ‘legends’ on a global scale. 

Take that were insanely huge here, I was in secondary school when they split. I remember counselling rooms set up in the school to help console distraught fans!!! But they completely failed to do anything in America, and many other countries.

Spice girls are a great shout to be fair, annoyed I didn’t put them in my top ten biggest legends of my lifetime… Completely forgot them! 

ffs 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

You’re talking purely about acts within the UK though aren’t you, as you pointed out in your second paragraph. 
 

We’re talking about legends here, that’s how the topic got started, therefore I meant on a global level. Oasis weren’t ‘that’ big in America, they definitely ‘made it’ there, but not to a level you’d class as legendary. But you’ve eluded to that already. 
 

You’re absolutely right though, they were huge here, and for years my favourite band. But I was just saying that I wouldn’t class them as ‘legends’ on a global scale. 

Take that were insanely huge here, I was in secondary school when they split. I remember counselling rooms set up in the school to help console distraught fans!!! But they completely failed to do anything in America, and many other countries.

Spice girls are a great shout to be fair, annoyed I didn’t put them in my top ten biggest legends of my lifetime… Completely forgot them! 

Hard to compare acts from different eras, but do you think Spice Girls were bigger than Beyoncé? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, nikkic said:

Hard to compare acts from different eras, but do you think Spice Girls were bigger than Beyoncé? 

 

That's a tough one for multiple reasons! 

I would say in the UK, at the time, yes, Spice Girls had an insane amount of success, popularity, and also made a huge cultural impact. But it was short lived. 

Globally and more long term, it's much harder to call. On the surface, beyonce has the higher number of hits globally, indicating more success. But Spice Girls had the kind of cultural impact around the world that some might say ultimately paved the way for Destiny's Child and thus Beyonce... 

Really is a tough one, but I'm going to stick to my original criteria, and say that Beyonce is bigger, due to her sheer number of No 1 hit albums and singles around the world, spanning multiple decades. 

That was a very good question. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

That's a tough one for multiple reasons! 

I would say in the UK, at the time, yes, Spice Girls had an insane amount of success, popularity, and also made a huge cultural impact. But it was short lived. 

Globally and more long term, it's much harder to call. On the surface, beyonce has the higher number of hits globally, indicating more success. But Spice Girls had the kind of cultural impact around the world that some might say ultimately paved the way for Destiny's Child and thus Beyonce... 

Really is a tough one, but I'm going to stick to my original criteria, and say that Beyonce is bigger, due to her sheer number of No 1 hit albums and singles around the world, spanning multiple decades. 

That was a very good question. 

 

Yeah I pondered on it myself for a while. 

Tough one to call but I agree for the reasons you've mentioned. 

Beyonce is a phenomenon, Spice Girls were obviously huge at the time and culturally very significant, but I can't see Queen B fading the way they did. 

She'll be A list forever more, in the same bracket as Elton, Prince and Madonna in terms of stardom, which is another reason I'd say she's bigger. 

She won't be doing a DJ set in Williams Green in 20 years, that's for sure. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Skip997 said:

Neither Jay-Z or Kanye were ground breaking at the time of their bookings, at least in terms of the music, maybe in terms of Glastonbury bookings.

Kanye was still touring Yeezus when he was booked, which is one of the most influential albums of the past 22 years. Hard to get a mainstream album made by a superstar that's as ground breaking as Yeezus. An absurd statement to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eminem would be a shit booking:

  • His live reputation is shit;
  • He hasnt released a record that wasnt awful in 9 years;
  • he hasn't release a good song in 12 years;
  • he hasn't released a good album in in 18 years;
  • while I dont really care about him being cancelled or controversial or whatever, his particular brand of shock humour, while funny in the 90s and 00s, is unbearably cringe to hear with a modern ear.

While Em is a legend, one of the top 5 or 10 biggest artists of my life, he'd be a fucking awful pyramid headline booking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MaxPower said:

Eminem would be a shit booking:

  • His live reputation is shit;
  • He hasn't released a record that I didn't think was awful in 9 years;
  • he hasn't release a song I liked in 12 years;
  • he hasn't released an album I liked in 18 years;
  • while I dont really care about him being cancelled or controversial or whatever, his particular brand of shock humour, while funny in the 90s and 00s, is unbearably cringe to hear with a modern ear.

While Em is a legend, one of the top 5 or 10 biggest artists of my life, he'd be a fucking awful pyramid headline booking.

His record sales and streaming numbers say otherwise. 🤷‍♂️

So I corrected that for you 🙂 

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...