Boards

does the fact that bands get hyped so early and their craft barely developed, that makes them utterly underwhelming live, mean that we fall out of love with acts we were excited about?

Or... is it more to do with the most successful and/or exciting music right now not being particularly 'live' friendly?

Or, more likely, is it a combo of all of these things?

never get that.

would people be happier if Vampire Weekend or Grizzy Bear headlined a major festival like glastonbury? I'd rather have them at second from top, and end it with a great hits party from an old band.

People are more frugal with their money when it comes to headlining bands, and reformed bands give that amazing nostalgia rush and a guaranteed greatest hits set.

you end up with bands with one record barely out expected and hyped to headline status. We wouldn't still be harping on about Radiohead if they'd been headlining Reading after releasing Creep because the band would probably have vanished in a haze of indifference after everyone thought that the headline set they just did off the back of one hit wasn't a life changing event which shook the very foundations of what it meant to experience music and pleasure.

the clever bands (Killers and Mumford and Sons) wait before accepting a headliner slot. I personally think a good festival headliner needs at least albums of solid hits

all this moaning about reformations kinda ignores how brilliant Pulp, Blur and Pixies have been since they've been back.

there's loads of good music out there, there're loads of good live acts. Sorry that you don't like all the regurgitated junk that clogs up major festivals, but i'm really not sure why you care.

Maybe you could go and look for some music that you like, or go out to some more gigs instead of reading a load of dull blogs banging on about new media and how the music industry's not as good as it used to be?

I just got trolold again yeah?

What with ATP/Primavera and all that jazz, it seems there's an awful lot of money generated by bands who aren't even slightly on the mainstream radar. I get the sense it's easier to be an *indie* band these days without having to get in the top 10 and play The Smash Hits Poll Winners' Party, so maybe the days of old-fashioned breakthrough acts (such as those currently reforming) are over.

Or maybe not, who knows? I seriously doubt that reformations are making it harder for new bands, they're hardly competing for the same audience.

It does seem like even the most 'alternative' of punters have an X-Factor style rush to the head when someone reforms which is a real problem for new bands and a real shame because there's just SO much out there right now.
If people just dug a little deeper they'd find that for that same £50 (plus booking fee) they'll pay to see the Roses or the Pistols, they could have seen Fucked Up plus Factory Floor plus Anika, plus Mi Ami plus Kurt Vile plus Demdike Stare plus The Stepkids in small clubs all for about the same dosh, surely that's getting a bigger bang for your buck in a recession, not to mention giving the aforementioned a crack at some sort of success instead of perpetuating the Teddy boy nature of half the original members of a band getting back and playing their one classic LP in a rainy field and everyone feeling 16 again for 90 minutes.
It also begs the question of sustainability, I’m not sure there's anyone who's about now who'd be able to make as much of a splash as the Roses have by reforming, if (when) The Killers or Mumfords split and reform, will they really be able to fill Hyde Park on returning? It's just all adding to the decline really, festival culture has kind of taken over and is dictating, I say get out there and support the smaller stuff because then, at least, the only way for them is up even if they don’t headline mobile phone sales seminars like the V fest ever.

but fair play for thinking of another way to say "killing music".

The Stones, Genesis et al were all still hanging around, but due to the commercialisation of the festival scene organisers now prefer to charge 4 times the ticket price and showcase 'heritage' rock rather than bump up some newer bands to headliner slots. So don't blame the Roses/Pulp etc for this situation - the market is being created by the greedy likes of Eavis et al.

Surely it's always essentially been a reflection of what's liable to get bums on seats? Some acts have benefitted from a jammy Glasto slot, but even the likes of Coldplay and Pulp were already pretty successful beforehand. If anything if we're talking about stymieing newer artists, it's probably more irresponsible of the bands to reform than the festivals to book them.

Just look at UK indie bands from the last decade. Constant re-releasing of singles, trimming everything down for maximum radio play, pressure to write and release stuff that would be played on Radio 1, shit, I remember the fucking Crimea sending out an email to their mailing list about the midweek chart position of one of their singles, so desperate were they to get it in the top 10 (they didn't, and were dropped soon after).

And any bands that did break through were slowly diluted into a radio desperate mess, or else they failed to keep up their popularity and were swiftly dropped.

No-one in their right minds/with a creative bone in their body wants to be in a huge mainstream festival headlining band. There are only a couple of bands in a generation who get to that level whilst also releasing critically acclaimed music. I can't think of any from the 2000s bar the Arctic Monkeys, in the 90s Blur and Pulp I guess. It's just not worth the risk, cause if you make a thousand compromises which never pay off, then that's what your legacy will be. And that's what the legacy of most bands from the last decade is.

Arctics and Oasis off the top of my head beut even they played lower down the bill on their first appeareances at Reading and Glastonbury respectively.

It generally takes at least two or three albums before an act can be thought of a headline act.

Kasabian, The Killers, Kings Of Leon, Muse are probaly the biggest draws of the current crop, but they've achieved headline status by releasing a number of popular albums and singles that have mass appeal.

Hasn't this always been the case or am I missing something here?

but a band ain't one.