PDA

View Full Version : Why is Sonic Youth billed so low?



That70sdesperado
03-24-2007, 10:15 AM
Sonic Youth might not be the biggest band, but they've been around longer than most performers on Friday, and they've been pretty important in the development of alternative music. I know that they're still on like the third line, but I would have expected them to be billed right below Bjork, or at least before Arctic Monkeys.

suprefan
03-24-2007, 10:19 AM
Thats the same position they got in 2003 when they were on the poster which was 5th from the top. If we based it on seniority they would be headlining. The newcomers get higher because well, they are new and people are into them. Not that people dont like Sonic Youth but you know what I mean.

That70sdesperado
03-24-2007, 10:26 AM
Yeah, I guess your right. I understand Interpol being above them because they're one of the most popular bands on the indie scene, the Jesus and Mary Chain reunion kind of has to be up at the top, and the Monkeys are like the biggest band out of England right now.

shoegazer76
03-24-2007, 10:29 AM
Good question. I went to a radio station festival in Cleveland this year for the Lips, & Youth. Much to my dismay I missed Sonic Youth because they played before Death Cab for Cutie & we could only make it there for the headliners. Blashpemy I say Blashphemy!!!!!!!!!!! I was so pissed off. Me & my friends were a bunch of intolerable drunks screaming at Death Cab to get off stage & bring Youth back out. We were almost removed from the venue. I think the Youth are humble & generous. They're just trying to give some of the other bands some of the bigger slots to shine. There is no reason for Arctic Monkeys to be billed higher than them though.

Trick Loves The Kids
03-24-2007, 10:48 AM
the arctic monkeys are above the roots which invalidates the entire poster

Boourns
03-24-2007, 11:06 AM
Arctic Monkeys should NOT be above Jarvis Cocker and Sonic Youth, that's just shameful. I could understand if it were 2006 and people were still falling for the hype, which is nonexistent now.

rage patton
03-24-2007, 11:26 AM
I was wondering why Sonic Youth were billed so low too.
The Arctic Monkeys suck.

instinct
03-24-2007, 02:33 PM
maybe because sonic youth is gay..







i just feel like starting a fight.

tan-nerd
03-24-2007, 03:06 PM
Does it really matter? You still get to see Sonic Youth play, and at an earlier time it may be less likely their set interferes with other sweet bands.

hangthedj112
03-24-2007, 03:33 PM
I think the poster is arranged by who's going to draw people in. I mean we know who's playing, but the general population won't care about Jarvis Cocker, but get drawn in when they see Red Hot Chilli Peppers in bold, ya know?

fober
03-24-2007, 03:35 PM
Because they were barely popular when they were "popular".

And no more than 900 people give a shit about Jarvis Cocker anymore.

shoegazer76
03-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Because they were barely popular when they were "popular".

And no more than 900 people give a shit about Jarvis Cocker anymore.

Who gives a shit to what degree they were popular? The validity of their music compared to the others is why this thread exists. Youth have never been concerned about being popular. You probably buy whatever is on the top 40 when you go record shopping huh. Have fun at the Arctic Monkeys set.

fober
03-24-2007, 04:19 PM
Who gives a shit to what degree they were popular? The validity of their music compared to the others is why this thread exists. Youth have never been concerned about being popular. You probably buy whatever is on the top 40 when you go record shopping huh. Have fun at the Arctic Monkeys set.

Unfortunately for you, I was actually a grunge head, attending Lolla in 1995.

What does "the validity of their music" mean 12 years later to people who were 5-10 years old in 1995?

Nothing.

Alchemy
03-24-2007, 05:39 PM
Jarvis Cocker should be right under Bjork.

shoegazer76
03-24-2007, 06:05 PM
Unfortunately for you, I was actually a grunge head, attending Lolla in 1995.

What does "the validity of their music" mean 12 years later to people who were 5-10 years old in 1995?

Nothing.

I'm not sure I should even entertain yr response but here it goes. First of all you implied that headlining spots at Coachella should be based on popularity which is really lame. As lame as the Arctic Monkeys. 2nd Sonic Youth have carried the underground music scene on their shoulders & kept it from dying when nobody gave a shit about it. Not to mention being completely innovative with every release. Third I was at Lolla 95 too & 94 & 93. Fourth there are plenty of kids every year who are seeking a sound that is unique & dosen't sound like the rest. Some discover Sonic Youth. Age is irrelevant when it comes to diggin out on music. If they were to give the headlining spot to the band that was the most legendary act on board this year SY would be playing Sunday in place of Rage (Willie Nelson not included because he is arguably more legendary than them.)

ApathyAndExhaustion
03-24-2007, 06:36 PM
I don't understand what you expect festival organisers to base their decision of who should headline on, if not popularity. It's certainly easier to quantify the popularity of a band than some absurd notion of how "legendary" a band is, as you seem to be suggesting is the best notion.

Whether or not I regard Sonic Youth to be superior, in purely musical terms or in influence, to the artists higher up the bill is neither here nor there. The bands higher up the bill have more pulling power in terms of generating ticket sales, and that is, after all, what festivals are ultimately about. Burying Rage Against The Machine low down the bill because you somehow objectively judged how "legendary" they are to be less than a bunch of other acts is completely nonsensical.

And we're overlooking the fact that you're not the one putting the festival on, so it matters not one bit what you think on the matter. The organisers decided, on whatever criteria they use, to have the current line-up. That's their prerogative. Deal with it.

Benis23
03-24-2007, 06:39 PM
the roots and sonic youth should both definitely be billed higher

airguitarvet
03-24-2007, 07:18 PM
best thread ever

shoegazer76
03-24-2007, 08:34 PM
I don't understand what you expect festival organisers to base their decision of who should headline on, if not popularity. It's certainly easier to quantify the popularity of a band than some absurd notion of how "legendary" a band is, as you seem to be suggesting is the best notion.

Whether or not I regard Sonic Youth to be superior, in purely musical terms or in influence, to the artists higher up the bill is neither here nor there. The bands higher up the bill have more pulling power in terms of generating ticket sales, and that is, after all, what festivals are ultimately about. Burying Rage Against The Machine low down the bill because you somehow objectively judged how "legendary" they are to be less than a bunch of other acts is completely nonsensical.

And we're overlooking the fact that you're not the one putting the festival on, so it matters not one bit what you think on the matter. The organisers decided, on whatever criteria they use, to have the current line-up. That's their prerogative. Deal with it.

I said "If" they were to base on legendary satus not "they should". When yr done trying to put words in someones mouth get yr thumb out of yr ass & back into yr mouth crybaby!

shoegazer76
03-24-2007, 08:42 PM
& for the record there have been many past headliners that have been booked due to their legendary status that weren't very popular with newer generations til Goldenvoice brought them to the festival. A booking tactic that has made Coachella so recognizable & great over the years.

fatbastard
03-24-2007, 10:26 PM
Does it really matter? You still get to see Sonic Youth play, and at an earlier time it may be less likely their set interferes with other sweet bands.

Yep.

merznerve
03-25-2007, 01:40 AM
agreed.whether or not they are billed on the top or bottom. it shouldn't fukking matter.

i will be more than happy to see sonic youth esp. if they play the same time as the arctic monkeys

orbit
03-25-2007, 02:03 AM
i will be more than happy to see sonic youth esp. if they play the same time as the arctic monkeys

:thu

woogie846
03-25-2007, 09:22 AM
Because they were barely popular when they were "popular".

And no more than 900 people give a shit about Jarvis Cocker anymore.

I bet if you took a poll of everyone on this board, just about 900 people would indeed 'give a shit' about Jarvis Cocker.

fober
03-25-2007, 11:32 AM
I bet if you took a poll of everyone on this board, just about 900 people would indeed 'give a shit' about Jarvis Cocker.

So you're saying there aren't even 900 people on this board, which is dedicated to this type of music, who are interested in Jarvis Cocker?

Courtney
03-25-2007, 12:10 PM
I think the poster is arranged by who's going to draw people in. I mean we know who's playing, but the general population won't care about Jarvis Cocker, but get drawn in when they see Red Hot Chilli Peppers in bold, ya know?

This makes no sense. Coachella doesn't cater to "the general population." It caters to a niche core of music lovers who will come out and pay often ridiculous amounts of money to listen to great music.

If they catered to the general population, it would be called Bonnaroo.

far gone and out
03-25-2007, 12:57 PM
I think the Youth are humble & generous. They're just trying to give some of the other bands some of the bigger slots to shine. There is no reason for Arctic Monkeys to be billed higher than them though.

bullshit, they are old hat, continue to make boring records. the last tour was awful.

bands like interpol and arctic monkeys are new and markatable and the billing reflects that.

just cos' sonic youth get acclaim, doesn't mean they are worthy of a high slot on the bill.

apachedino
03-26-2007, 09:58 AM
the roots and sonic youth should both definitely be billed higher

Agreed, but on the plus side both will likely play a little earlier in the day hopefully resulting in less conflicts for me.

woogie846
03-26-2007, 10:25 AM
So you're saying there aren't even 900 people on this board, which is dedicated to this type of music, who are interested in Jarvis Cocker?

.......possibly.

dualmoodswings
03-26-2007, 10:46 AM
A lot of crappy bands playing in Coachella were infuenced by Sonic Youth. That's a big reason why they should be in a higher position. Or maybe they should split for a 10 years and returning as "The Alternative revelation", then a lot of stupid folky and indie kids would be adore them.

btw far gone... A solid career doesn't mean you're boring, Sonic Youth albums are full of quality.

fober
03-26-2007, 11:01 AM
A lot of crappy bands playing in Coachella were infuenced by Sonic Youth. That's a big reason why they should be in a higher position.

So you're saying Sonic Youth spawned a bunch of big fat turds.

If anything that would be a big reason to have them play Monday at Noon.

Set aside all this talk about cultural/musical significance. If Sonic Youth played a show at the Los Angeles Sports Arena, would tickets sell out?

shoegazer76
03-26-2007, 11:04 AM
bullshit, they are old hat, continue to make boring records. the last tour was awful.

bands like interpol and arctic monkeys are new and markatable and the billing reflects that.

just cos' sonic youth get acclaim, doesn't mean they are worthy of a high slot on the bill.

So we should all like & respect bands that are only new & marketable according to you huh? Like Nitzer Ebb? Who is more poplular, marketable & has sold more albums Nitzer Ebb or Youth? Did you travel around with SY for the whole tour? How can you make an honest statemement like that if you didn't? I bet you've got Arctic Monkeys posters all over yr bedroom walls.

bruceskunk
03-26-2007, 11:04 AM
Arctic Monkeys should NOT be above Jarvis Cocker and Sonic Youth, that's just shameful. I could understand if it were 2006 and people were still falling for the hype, which is nonexistent now.

let all the haters die, arctic monkeys are quite good actually, sorta like tea with boob milk.

shoegazer76
03-26-2007, 11:11 AM
Who is still gonna be around in 10 years Arctic Monkeys, Interpol, or Sonic Youth? Also which band is gonna end up in the Rock N Roll hall of fame?

fober
03-26-2007, 11:12 AM
I'm playing devil's advocate here since I'm not even remotely interested in Interpol, Arctic Monkeys, Arcade Fire, Decemberists, etc.

But you guys do realize the "relevance" gap between these new bands and artists like Sonic Youth, Happy Mondays, JAMC and Jarvis Cocker?

The casual music listener isn't going to look at the poster and be enticed to purchase a ticket by the latter bands.

The casual music listener saw Interpol on Leno or heard that one Arctic Monkeys song 871 times on KROQ or read about Arcade Fire having way too many people on stage at the same time.

Will they be pleasantly surprised by the other performances? Maybe. But it's not the reason they brought their money to Coachella.

How is it 2007 and people haven't fully realized it's all about the money?

We can believe different all we want, just be happy you get to see your favorite band play live without complaining like you're fucking Rodney Dangerfield.

shoegazer76
03-26-2007, 11:14 AM
No Respect! No Respect! for the Youth

hangthedj112
03-26-2007, 11:34 AM
Sonic Youth are easily one of the best bands in rock and roll today. 25 years later they still fucking rock out, this past summer I saw them play teenage riot, and it was still absolutely amazing and energetic as I imagine it owuld have been twenty years ago when it came out. How many bands can maintain that much energy and passion for what they're doing for such a long time? A majority of bands now days have trouble doing that for more than five years, and honestly, Kim Gordon is still sexy.

fober
03-26-2007, 11:42 AM
Sonic Youth are easily one of the best bands in rock and roll today. 25 years later they still fucking rock out, this past summer I saw them play teenage riot, and it was still absolutely amazing and energetic as I imagine it owuld have been twenty years ago when it came out. How many bands can maintain that much energy and passion for what they're doing for such a long time? A majority of bands now days have trouble doing that for more than five years, and honestly, Kim Gordon is still sexy.

Here are the top 3 responses to your post from the general public:


Who the fuck is Sonic Youth?
omg 25 yearz dats like in da 70s
I totally agree what you said about RHCP but who is Kim Gordon?

jjbaldwi
03-27-2007, 12:37 AM
sy rox but whats up with all the artic monkeys haters? Their cd (which u have obviously not heard) fukn rox

chiapet
03-27-2007, 06:22 AM
How much of the Coachella audience are "casual music listeners," though? I understand there are going to be a lot of people who show up for a specific headliner, but I'm assuming most of those people bought a ticket for 1 day and won't stay for the entire festival...

omg wtf bbq
03-27-2007, 11:25 AM
SONIC LIFE

dualmoodswings
03-27-2007, 04:13 PM
SONIC LIFE

what a fuck dude?! i mean... WHAT A FUCK?!

Botrocker
03-27-2007, 04:22 PM
Sonic Youth rules. If you disagree then I don't wanna be friends with you.

Benis23
03-27-2007, 10:29 PM
A lot of crappy bands playing in Coachella were infuenced by Sonic Youth. That's a big reason why they should be in a higher position. Or maybe they should split for a 10 years and returning as "The Alternative revelation", then a lot of stupid folky and indie kids would be adore them.

btw far gone... A solid career doesn't mean you're boring, Sonic Youth albums are full of quality.

sooo true. these reunion bands get far too much attention in my opinion. sonic youth has been putting out great rock cds for the last 20 years or so, right? it seems strange that theyre listed right next to jarvis cocker, who just released his first solo album, which isnt all that spectacular...whatever