2027 Headliners

[Crazyfool01]

Would Lewis Capaldi be in the frame for 27 or 28 ? 

[Joey Peeps]

9 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Would Lewis Capaldi be in the frame for 27 or 28 ? 

 

Yes. 

[NorthernSoul52]

Capaldi is one of those who, despite his clear pop power, always just kind of screamed "massive Pyramid sub!" in the way George Ezra does.

 

But he was booked to top R+L the other year, so think he likely is in the conversation. Plus there's a lot of festival goodwill for him.

[Justcalledtosay]

I don't think so. I think he's right at the back of the queue.

[fraybentos1]

Not as a headliner surely. He could sub but that would mean 3 of the last 4 fests he'd have had a big pyramid slot. 

[Crazyfool01]

Thinking he might be 28 one ? 

[itsfomas]

4 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Would Lewis Capaldi be in the frame for 27 or 28 ? 

I think we are best off waiting to see how his touring goes and how he manages. Glasto don't want too much uncertainty around their headliners surely?

[rock_on]

If Noah Kahan can sub over headlining so can Lewis Capaldi. 

[Gashead86]

After Sza and then 1975 were given headline slots, I have stopped trying to work out what qualifies you for the slot in all honesty. 

 

When the above two have had the top spot then I see no reason why Capaldi wouldn't get the nod?

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Gashead86 said:

After Sza and then 1975 were given headline slots, I have stopped trying to work out what qualifies you for the slot in all honesty. 

 

When the above two have had the top spot then I see no reason why Capaldi wouldn't get the nod?

I stopped trying to figure it out after Mumford and Sons. 😶

[rock_on]

3 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

I stopped trying to figure it out after Mumford and Sons. 😶

 

Mumford and Sons were deserving headliners unlike SZA and The 1975.

[Skip997]

Just now, rock_on said:

 

Mumford and Sons were deserving headliners unlike SZA and The 1975.

I’d argue the opposite. Mumford and Sons were the most ridiculous headliner booked in a long time. IIRC even Marcus was shocked at the time. 

[rock_on]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

I’d argue the opposite. Mumford and Sons were the most ridiculous headliner booked in a long time. IIRC even Marcus was shocked at the time. 

 

They were at the time a very successful band with cross-generational appeal and very BBC friendly - they were only shocked because they'd been on a short hiatus while one of them dealt with a medical issue so didn't expect to get offered it that soon upon returning - they'd have known they were in the frame after the success of Sigh No More (UK #2 album) and Babel (UK #1 album) . SZA and The 1975 are niche artists in comparison. 

[fraybentos1]

Does there need to be another thread dedicated to band X that Skip hates? Seriously, it's like 10 times a day every day. 

 

Total inability to separate what you like VS what is popular. 

 

Let me guess- you 'accidentally' watched Mumfords in 2013 and thought they were the worst thing ever? That's the usual line.

[fraybentos1]

Mumfords were obv headliner material, they did T in the same year too. They were at their peak then. They are one of those who probs won't do it again but are too big to sub so might do a Patchwork slot as they were speculated this year. 

[northernangel]

Just now, fraybentos1 said:

Mumfords were obv headliner material, they did T in the same year too. They were at their peak then. They are one of those who probs won't do it again but are too big to sub so might do a Patchwork slot as they were speculated this year. 

I think Mumford were big enough for T but thr Pyramid is bigger. They felt a bit light weight for the Pyramid. 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

Does there need to be another thread dedicated to band X that Skip hates? Seriously, it's like 10 times a day every day. 

 

Total inability to separate what you like VS what is popular. 

 

Let me guess- you 'accidentally' watched Mumfords in 2013 and thought they were the worst thing ever? That's the usual line.

Didn’t and wouldn’t ever go anywhere near a Mumford gig. At no point did I say I hated them, just that they weren’t suitable headliners IMO. 
 

I ain’t interested in how popular a band or artist is, I’m interested in how good they are. In my experience popularity and quality are very often inversely related. Of course there are many notable exceptions to this, but popularity isn’t a guarantee that it will be good. 

[Quark]

They ended up being bobbins, but they were definitely in with a shout.  Like them or not at that point they had a couple of Brits, a couple of Grammys and some massive albums.

 

It fell a bit flat, but Glastonbury were probably right to go for a band that was high on popularity at the time with some clout to back up the hype.

[rock_on]

7 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Didn’t and wouldn’t ever go anywhere near a Mumford gig. At no point did I say I hated them, just that they weren’t suitable headliners IMO. 
 

I ain’t interested in how popular a band or artist is, I’m interested in how good they are. In my experience popularity and quality are very often inversely related. Of course there are many notable exceptions to this, but popularity isn’t a guarantee that it will be good. 

 

Ah so you believe Glastonbury should be booking unpopular headliners? Got you!!

 

Get real, most popular bands will be headline or nothing and it's right the festival will place them in a position to reflect that. 

[priest17]

Primavera's 3 female headliners were class. Could easily just do those but swap one of them for Wolf Alice (I'd say Charli as someone who saw them all but SabCap would make more sense, gotta keep Chappel though that woman is going places)

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, rock_on said:

 

Ah so you believe Glastonbury should be booking unpopular headliners? Got you!!

 

Get real, most popular bands will be headline or nothing and it's right the festival will place them in a position to reflect that. 

No I believe Glastonbury should be booking quality headliners, popular or not. 

Bit of “left field thinking”. Make things interesting. For me Emily’s finest hour was booking Jay Z among all the nonsense from punters and NG. And you know what, it was a massive success. 
 

Unlike some I’m not obsessed with the Pyramid field being filled. IMO it really doesn’t matter. 

[fraybentos1]

I think the festival should actively try to not sell out and become less popular, ultimately leading to its demise. Sounds a good idea!

[rock_on]

8 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

No I believe Glastonbury should be booking quality headliners, popular or not. 

Bit of “left field thinking”. Make things interesting. For me Emily’s finest hour was booking Jay Z among all the nonsense from punters and NG. And you know what, it was a massive success. 
 

Unlike some I’m not obsessed with the Pyramid field being filled. IMO it really doesn’t matter. 

 

They need to book headliners with a certain amount of popularity or you end up with situations like Charli XCX v Neil Young which we can all agree was a misjudgement regardless of personal taste. 

 

Mumford & Sons could have easily been a massive success on a different night, they turn out not to be but that's with the benefit of hindsight. 

 

The pyramid needs to be full to a certain extent or you end up with over-crowding at the other stages. It's not rocket science to see why the festival should book popular headliners. Quality is irrelevant when you've come close to having to shut the other stage because you put the more popular act on it and the pyramid headliner plays to a half empty field. 

[steviewevie]

I think they should book headliners that I like.

[rock_on]

7 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I think the festival should actively try to not sell out and become less popular, ultimately leading to its demise. Sounds a good idea!

 

Baffling isn't it - I like a band so they should headline and be damned any consequence of them playing to 100 people on the biggest stage of all.