Omnibus 2013 Headliner Speculation and Argument Thread

You're fine. Negative backlash was soooo 2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob_Loblaw

Is Foster the People a possibility for the "Muse/KOL/Killers" headliner slot or is it still too early?

Edit: I immediately feel self conscious and regretful of this post...

---

Too early. Mumford & Sons on the other hand....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoulda Named Ya Laika

Pearl Jam was dad's classic rock as far as what late 80s/early 90s kids considered to be cool back then (and today for that matter). I bring this up because I've been asking friends if they care for Pearl Jam and so far the general response has been something along the lines of "meh". As far as headliners go, Missy Elliot + Timbaland would be a hit, as would be Daft Punk, as would The Rolling Stones because obviously the Stones transcend generations.

---

I need more convincing that Outkast, Missy, Depeche, KOL, Muse, Portishead, Tool, Daft Punk, RATM have greater multi generational appeal than Pearl Jam.

Depeche was actually the lowest turnout for a top 3 headliner at Lolla.

The PJ20 documentary, Fallon would have given younger fans reason to understand the fuss over the band.

Outside of the cult, Pearl Jam exists in a fossilized piece of amber that has been carbon dated between 1992 and 1995.

Not an insult to Pearl Jam (or the cult). They have made quality music since then. The cult (and everyone else's residual memories of 1992 to 1995) are substantial enough to justify any tour or headlining spot you can think of. I don't talk to a lot of 19 year old kids, but I doubt that any meaningful number of them have any feelings or even recognition of, say, Riot Act. All of which is to say that I don't think there's really "multi generational" appeal for Pearl Jam.

None of which matters, of course, for festival booking purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Depeche was actually the lowest turnout for a top 3 headliner at Lolla.

---

I was there and it was packed.

BUMBLEBEE STRIKES AGAIN

Captncrzy, could you do the confirmations/rumor thread? This thread is just becoming frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Depeche was actually the lowest turnout for a top 3 headliner at Lolla.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captncrzy

I was there and it was packed.

BUMBLEBEE STRIKES AGAIN

---

captncrzy's definition of "packed" is very different than mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azTTvvOuOfw
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikvoake/3810233737/
Then had 20,000 dedicated fans then it was kinda barren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miroir Noir

Outside of the cult, Pearl Jam exists in a fossilized piece of amber that has been carbon dated between 1992 and 1995.

Not an insult to Pearl Jam (or the cult). They have made quality music since then. The cult (and everyone else's residual memories of 1992 to 1995) are substantial enough to justify any tour or headlining spot you can think of. I don't talk to a lot of 19 year old kids, but I doubt that any meaningful number of them have any feelings or even recognition of, say, Riot Act. All of which is to say that I don't think there's really "multi generational" appeal for Pearl Jam.

---

Stones didn't do much after 1978 that is going to excite anybody too much. The Cure have more of a "cult" than PJ.

PJ was the best live act that came out of the 90's. Why isn't that reason enough?

Acts like U2 and Springsteen did Glasontonbury OK. Both have bigger "cults" than PJ and played a festival that was pre-sold out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tyles

Captncrzy, could you do the confirmations/rumor thread? This thread is just becoming frustrating.

---

It wont be any better than this shithole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miroir Noir

Bob is not necessarily bad live . . . just vastly different than what casual fans may expect going in. Whatever else you can say of Dylan and what's left of his voice at this point, his band is ace and you're going to hear "Like A Rolling Stone."

He's not going to headline Coachella, but it would be lovely to have him play a Leonard Cohen type slot one year.

---

He is necessarily bad. I've only seen him once and it is up there with worst performances I've ever seen. This is coming from a Dylan fan.

And he didn't play Like a Rolling Stone.

That may be true but keep in mind they were going to book Black Sabbath until health complications had them replaced (some say with Snoop; others with Black Keys). And Black Sabbath seems even more obscure to a younger generation than Pearl Jam who still get a lot of radio play on rock radio (Daughter, Better Man etc.). If PJ headlines they will counter program with something that appeals to the dance crowd in all three tents, maybe even have the Outdoor overlap a bit like they did with Black Keys and KOL.

I have friends in the music business and one of them knew one of the headliners but couldn't say because of work (BS!), and said that two were booked so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelfan

I think Pearl Jam is really, really, tricky for all the reasons people have mentioned. Acts like Prince, McCartney, Waters, etc are legends. Dre/Snoop and Gorillaz were (or more technically, one was and one was supposed to be) such absolute spectacles that they would appeal to even those who don't like their music. And then you have The Black Keys, Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Jay-Z type acts that might skew one way generationally, but are accessible and loved by all ages.

For the same reason that Coachella doesn't generally book headliners that could only really to the younger set (Drake and Lil' Wayne, Rihanna, or something like that), is the same reason that I don't think they'll book Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam, like Soundgarden (another act I've always felt this way about) appeals mostly to one generation, but does not have that overarching "legend" status. BUT if they did play, they'd have to be headliners. So they could headline, but I don't think they will. If their new album receives significant airplay on the radio, then sure, maybe, but I just don't see it happening.

I think the boardies, on average, have a very strong knowledge of music outside their time, but I don't think the average attendee knows nearly as much about music as you all do. I honestly would guess that for many Coachella attendees under the age of 25, they couldn't even name the radio hits like Jeremy or Last Kiss as Pearl Jam songs, let alone be excited to sit through a two hour set. Likewise, I don't think anybody over 25 gives a shit about Drake. Therefore, I doubt either will really be a strong headliner contender. Could be wrong.

---

I love Pearl Jam, I'm old enough to have seen them when Ten was a new album, and I think they would be a great fit for Coachella. I've seen them live several times and they always give a great performance and I think they'd get the same type of crowd that Black Keys got. I just wonder about time allotment since they tend to play for two and a half to three hour sets. They may not get a lot of radio air play these days, but they have enough hits that everyone knows and that they still play live that would get enough of the crowd into it. Despite lack of strong radio airplay for their newer stuff they still sell out arenas. Four nights at the Gibson in 09 and 2 nights at the Forum in 06. They have a loyal and rabid fan base as well that would show up and support. A good friend of mine is a die hard fan, followed them on tour around the country as well as Europe, but has never been to Coachella and has never had a desire to. I asked her if she'd go if Pearl Jam played and she said she'd pay any amount to go. I think without a doubt they are big enough to headline. Do the headliners really matter anyways? Like always, there will be enough good bands playing on the other stages that if you're not into it then I'm sure there will be someone playing that will satisfy. Didn't M83 conflict with Black Keys last year?

it feels like a radiohead thread in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schaggydog

Didn't M83 conflict with Black Keys last year?

---

Yes. And with Explosions in the Sky. I was le conflicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Stones didn't do much after 1978 that is going to excite anybody too much.

---

Yeah but at the end of the day, unlike Pearl Jam, the Stones are still arguably the second biggest rock band of all time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

captncrzy's definition of "packed" is very different than mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azTTvvOuOfw
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikvoake/3810233737/
Then had 20,000 dedicated fans then it was kinda barren.

---

OH NVM I DIDN'T KNOW YOU HAD YOUTUBE PROOF CARRY ON WITH YOUR BABBLING NONSENSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Stones didn't do much after 1978 that is going to excite anybody too much. The Cure have more of a "cult" than PJ.

PJ was the best live act that came out of the 90's. Why isn't that reason enough?

Acts like U2 and Springsteen did Glasontonbury OK. Both have bigger "cults" than PJ and played a festival that was pre-sold out.

---

You're not even arguing with anything I said . . . you're just making a bunch of tangential comparisons.

Forgive my ignorance, but hasn't Pearl Jam already headlined Bonnaroo, Lollapalooza, and ACL? I know Coachella skews slightly younger than those fests (well, maybe not Lolla), but I honestly don't see how Pearl Jam isn't a viable headliner for Coachella. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who thinks that a band like Depeche Mode is a better headliner than Pearl Jam is batshit fucking crazy.* Pearl Jam may not play to packed houses of nothing but tweens in dayglow bodypaint, still fighting off the effects of the paint thinner they huffed in the lot (right?), but everyone is acting like they're some forgotten act from the early 80s who this generation hasn't ever heard of, and I think that's way off base.



* Please note that I'm using the term "better" here not as a judge of quality, but rather propriety. So don't get your DM superfan feathers ruffled.

For the record, I think PJ would be a fantastic headliner. Making comments about "skewing to a younger crowd" is just stupid considering the screaming for some headliners (Stones, Neil Young) some of our past headliners (Roger Waters, anyone? Depeche in 2006? Black Sabbath? The Cure? Macca doesn't count--he's universal).

Anyway, none of you know shit. All of you shut up forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry Farnsworth

Forgive my ignorance, but hasn't Pearl Jam already headlined Bonnaroo, Lollapalooza, and ACL? I know Coachella skews slightly younger than those fests (well, maybe not Lolla), but I honestly don't see how Pearl Jam isn't a viable headliner for Coachella. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who thinks that a band like Depeche Mode is a better headliner than Pearl Jam is batshit fucking crazy.* Pearl Jam may not play to packed houses of nothing but tweens in dayglow bodypaint, still fighting off the effects of the paint thinner they huffed in the lot (right?), but everyone is acting like they're some forgotten act from the early 80s who this generation hasn't ever heard of, and I think that's way off base.



* Please note that I'm using the term "better" here not as a judge of quality, but rather propriety. So don't get your DM superfan feathers ruffled.

---

My argument at least is that they would be a headliner if they played, questionably, I just doubt they are at the top of the list, as many have been saying they are because of the 20 year anniversary, etc. Although I actually agree with you about Depeche Mode, especially since they have already headlined.

Wait. Bumblebee's "proof" that Depeche Mode wasn't packed is

1) A 16 second youtube video of what appears to be the outer perimeter of the festival and/or a sparsely filled grassy area with such a shitty view of the stage that why would anyone want to sit there anyway

2) A picture of the crowd as seen from the stage that pretty evidently demonstrates that there was a crowd? For Depeche Mode?

THANKS BUMBLEEBEE!!!!

Are we seriously debating whether or not Pearl Jam can still headline or if they are a good fit/relevant? Is this what this thread has come to? Are we gonna start discussing the same for Tool or RHCP too?

If I heard this on the polo fields, I would go apeshit. not a huge PJ fan, but I would go apeshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYtsLtTCwZU

I like that Better Man song, but all the rest sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guedita

Wait. Bumblebee's "proof" that Depeche Mode wasn't packed is

1) A 16 second youtube video of what appears to be the outer perimeter of the festival and/or a sparsely filled grassy area with such a shitty view of the stage that why would anyone want to sit there anyway

---

What is sufficient proof for you? Does the clip need to be 90 minutes long? That video is a similar angle as the best VIP sections. The hill is one of the BETTER overall views for those not huddling the stage. I don't know how you can look at the video and tell me more than 30,000 people are present, meaning 45,000 ticket holders had somewhere better to be.

Soundgarden and Depeche Mode were the lightest attended mainstage Lollapalooza headliners.

You magnificently retarded son of a bitch.

Only 55-60k in 2006.

2009.

it rained that day and many people left the park.

We're going to need affidavits from every attendee that left because of the rain and not because of their utter disgust at Pearl Jam being slotted as a headliner.

I'm talking about Coachella, not Lolla. I don't go to shitty midwest festivals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guedita

You magnificently retarded son of a bitch.

---

It's like trying to make a giant sweet potato dance.