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

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

His record sales and streaming numbers say otherwise. 🤷‍♂️

So I corrected that for you 🙂 

Commercial success doesn't mean, or even indicate, quality.

Also this is a forum, obviously almost everything anyone comments here is opinion - do we really have to put "imo" after every statement to ensure you can parse the meaning of a comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MaxPower said:

Commercial success doesn't mean, or even indicate, quality.

Also this is a forum, obviously almost everything anyone comments here is opinion - do we really have to put "imo" after every statement to ensure you can parse the meaning of a comment?

No of course not, but your original phrasing was far too indicative of fact for my liking. (I knew what you meant, I was just having a little fun. 😛 )

Quality is obviously subjective, and it means different things to different people. Therefore, record sales can be a fair indicator of the general consensus, regarding the quality of an album / song, amongst those who've heard it. Not the be all and end all, of course. People absolutely do buy things that are objectively crap. (You only have to look at the success of late night tv shopping for evidence of this.)

Additionally, there are great artists, with great music, who just haven't got the kind of reach that some of the established artists have. They will have low sales numbers, but that doesn't make them crap. 

My point is that ultimately, if everybody thought that his records were terrible quality, people wouldn't buy them, or certainly wouldn't continue buying them with each and every new album drop. 

(P.s sorry if my correcting your phrasing caused you offence, it was genuinely supposed to be a bit of fun, it's fairly obvious you were speaking subjectively.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alvoram said:

My point is that ultimately, if everybody thought that his records were terrible quality, people wouldn't buy them, or certainly wouldn't continue buying them with each and every new album drop. 
 

Streaming numbers are a bit of strange barometer. These days I'll stream half a dozen new albums every week and most likely never listen to them again. Massive acts like Eminem will inevitable do big numbers because they're a big name and when people hear they've got a new album out they'll give it a listen or two.

I'd be curious to know what the numbers look like a week, a month and a year after their releases, which would give a clearer indication as to how popular they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

Streaming numbers are a bit of strange barometer. These days I'll stream half a dozen new albums every week and most likely never listen to them again. Massive acts like Eminem will inevitable do big numbers because they're a big name and when people hear they've got a new album out they'll give it a listen or two.

I'd be curious to know what the numbers look like a week, a month and a year after their releases, which would give a clearer indication as to how popular they actually are.

It’s more the retention numbers I was talking about. If he didn’t have people coming back again and again, then the point you make would be valid. But his latest album, released in jan 2020 at number 1, was number 11 12 months later in the UK end of year charts. In the US billboard 200 it’s 2020 year end position was 21, and it’s 2021 year end position was 46. That is pretty insane numbers 2 whole years after release. 
 

The album before that ended it’s first year at 17 in the US billboard 200, and ended it’s second year at 52.

Hope that answers your question?

Edited by Alvoram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

It’s more the retention numbers I was talking about. If he didn’t have people coming back again and again, then the point you make would be valid. But his latest album, released in jan 2020 at number 1, was number 11 12 months later in the UK end of year charts. In the US billboard 200 it’s 2020 year end position was 21, and it’s 2021 year end position was 46. That is pretty insane numbers 2 whole years after release. 
 

The album before that ended it’s first year at 17 in the US billboard 200, and ended it’s second year at 52.

Hope that answers your question?

That does answer my question and that's exactly what I was curious about.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers sell loads of albums. Millions of people watch Mrs Brown's Boys.

Doesn't mean they're not shit.

That’s the point though right? 

You might believe they’re shit (I agree on both counts) but there’s clearly lots of people who disagree. 

Our opinions don’t make them more or less likely to be a headliner. 

Their record sales are, amongst many other things, a bigger indication. 

(FWIW I wouldn’t watch Eminem, I think he’d stink the place out. But if he were to headline, loads of people would go and loads would love it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nikkic said:

That’s the point though right? 

You might believe they’re shit (I agree on both counts) but there’s clearly lots of people who disagree. 

Our opinions don’t make them more or less likely to be a headliner. 

Their record sales are, amongst many other things, a bigger indication. 

(FWIW I wouldn’t watch Eminem, I think he’d stink the place out. But if he were to headline, loads of people would go and loads would love it).

Oh definitely, I've long argued against the "I don't like them so they shouldn't headline" line.

I think Eminem is a bad fit in terms of quality and overall vibe, but the numbers can't be argued against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nikkic said:

That’s the point though right? 

You might believe they’re shit (I agree on both counts) but there’s clearly lots of people who disagree. 

Our opinions don’t make them more or less likely to be a headliner. 

Their record sales are, amongst many other things, a bigger indication. 

(FWIW I wouldn’t watch Eminem, I think he’d stink the place out. But if he were to headline, loads of people would go and loads would love it).

Exactly - one of the great things about Glastonbury is that when something shit is on there's plenty of other things that you go elsewhere.  Objectively shit or shit in the eyes of a few, or just personal opinion.  Objectively Mrs Brown's Boys and RHCP are great because the figures back them up, booking them makes sense on many levels and you don't need to keep all the hipsters happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass II said:

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers sell loads of albums. Millions of people watch Mrs Brown's Boys.

Doesn't mean they're not shit.

Disagree on the former (if more for having the good song rather than necessarily album), but I will admit I wasn't exactly aware Mrs Brown's Boys was still a thing. Thought it had stopped making new stuff after the movie got a bit of a kicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass II said:

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers sell loads of albums. Millions of people watch Mrs Brown's Boys.

Doesn't mean they're not shit.

Doesnt mean they're not not shit either 😄 

By the way Mrs Browns Boys is beyond shit.... its outright criminal and he should be locked up for offences to comedy. 

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...