Make a Coachella Lineup In Retrospective - COMPETITION!

[We Cara Lot]

I kind of dig this trippy 1986 poster.

[dorkfish]

Here's where we stand, currently:

1969: Submissions from littleRoom, industrialwaffle
1970: Submissions from halyem, timelessfilms, ewiggy
1971: Submissions from C DUB YA, TerminallyCHILL, TerminallyCHILL, TerminallyCHILL again
1972: Submissions from TomServo, TomServo again
1973: Submissions from AngieB, abcdefg
1974: Submissions from Louie, halyem
1975: Submissions from orbit, buddy
1976: Submissions from allstar255
1977: WON by menikmati
1978: Submissions from industrialwaffle, noelchav
1979: Submissions from C DUB YA, ersatz, im so indie, sfsteph
1980: Submissions from dorkfish, LenBeMyName
1981: Submissions from ranchito
1982: Submissions from C DUB YA, adamr415, C DUB YA again
1983: Submissions from zenidogx, We Cara Lot
1984: Submissions from iamturtle, johnnypolite, mean mad margaret
1985: Submissions from captncrzy, proflacroix, bad cherry
1986: Submissions from dorkfish, echoroberson, Barger, abbeyroad 04, ranchito
1987: Submissions from C DUB YA , DorkyKid, DorkyKid again
1988: Submissions from captncrzy, FellowUser, Alchemy
1989: Submissions from nosy penguin, We Cara Lot, We Cara Lot again
1990: Submissions from Foucault
1991: Submissions from Dogma, shovexitxaside
1992: Submissions from BonderShadow, n3glect, bdfsh
1993: Submissions from subhumanoid, blastyourears, guatemalo
1994: Submissions from JClemy
1995: Submissions from zacnz, Chuck, betao
1996: Submissions from TomServo
1997: Submissions from pitipur, RexQuimpo
1998: Submissions from Hoogenhaven

[GrossMagic]

I am impressed.

Here's where we stand, currently:

*based upon tedious fact checking.

[dorkfish]

i make lists

[xulitron]

where's guatemalo's 1993 entry?

[im so indie]

hey dorkfish. thanks for doing that. could you keep that updated for us? thanks in advance.

also, just noticed that the link to subhumanoid's 1998 is actually for 1993.

[TerminallyCHILL]

Re-worked my entire line-up to something a little less obvious I suppose. Unfortunately, after having made this and looking at another 1971 poster, I didn't get away with most of the bands I thought I would haha. Oh well.

[ranchito]

@ Tickle Me... I thought this was a contest based on fantasy and originality. Reunions seem to be big on the list of past coachella fests, why is it then hard to assume that the Monkees would not have played?

[ranchito]

1981....

[We Cara Lot]

Here's something fun for 1989. Not as serious as my other entry, but since I already did the research and I couldn't sleep...

[shotglass75]

Nice design and all, but here's my complaint with a lot of these posters and really what I'm responding to is more Shotglass saying "and the winner is" than your poster specifically:

I'm tired of seeing the same posters featuring the biggest fucking headliners of their year.

This may seem like a stupid criticism to a lot of you, but frankly I find this shit intensely unimaginative. You have literally the three biggest fucking headliners from the decade all playing Coachella. It shows absolutely no creativity to pick a year and then focus on the absolute biggest acts of that year to headline it, not to mention the fact that it's absurdly unrealistic. When has Coachella ever had three headliners who could all sell out 40,000 capacity venues on every day? It makes no sense. Why would they bother coming to play a festival? Did Zeppelin ever play a festival during they heyday? Floyd? No. Because they could sell the shit on their own.

I was baked last night so monk is right on point with his assessment.

[TomServo]

Monklish has a point, but some of these posters have a little more under the hood than they seem at first glance. I did a couple posters:

1972 - The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd
1996 - Tupac Shakur, NIN, Smashing Pumpkins

Smashing Pumpkins was kind of a '96 shoo-in, and NIN wasn't strong enough to qualify 40k stadiums on their own...but they were promoting a new double disc. Tupac would've been just out of prison, so he'd be a hot commodity. So 1996 is probably not reaching too much. 1972 - at first glance, Led Zep and Floyd seem like easy pickings.... but at that point, Led Zep had four Gold records (no platinum), but were clearly the dominant hard rock band. Floyd didn't have ANY Gold records here, and admittedly were trying to expand their US fan base with DSOTM, which they first began playing live in early '72. The Kinks were big, but not ridiculously popular. The way I see it, Zep is the big "get", Floyd is the buzzworthy foreign act with the trippy live show, and the Kinks were a veteran act with lots of fans.

Of course, Monklish might be targeting other posters, I'm just saying that I put a lot of thought into not putting the absolute biggest bands on the bill, while still representing who the Coachella fans might have wanted at the time. And these things do happen in real life - At Lollapalooza a few years ago, they headlined Radiohead, RATM, NIN (Lights in the Sky Tour), and Kanye West... in Chicago, Kanye's home town. Radiohead, Kanye, and RATM could sell tens of thousands of tickets no problem in Chicago, and NIN played AGAINST Kanye on what might have been their hottest tour. It was a scheduling wet dream in that region.

Totally agree that there are way too many hindsight picks... the fact that The Pixies are a head/sub/sub-subheadliner on a bunch of these posters is kind of ridiculous. They had a huge resurgence following Cobain's death, and frankly weren't very appreciated before Nirvana became a huge act (Kurt constantly named The Pixies as an influence). But... this is about fun, and as long as people are having fun... right?

Just make sure you put some one-hit wonders and bands who went nowhere on your poster... they're at EVERY festival.

[Monklish]

July 5, 1969
Atlanta Pop Festival

July 6, 1969
Newport Jazz Festival

July 11, 1969
Laurel Pop Festival

July 25, 1969
Mid-West Rock Festival

July 27, 1969
Seattle Pop Festival

August 29-30, 1969
Singer Bowl Music Festival

August 31, 1969
Texas International Pop Festival (footage appears on Led Zep DVD)

June 28, 1970
Bath Festival

August 29, 1970
Man Pop Festival

August 4 & 11, 1979
Knebworth Festival

Parkside Arts Festival


people seem to forget that Woodstock wasn't the only festival the summer 0f '69, just the most infamous due to the news coverage of the state highways being shut down, it mistakenly being called a free concert, thus the crowds.. and the later legends of course..

although Led Zeppelin DID have the dates available in April '72, so ya never know.. (although i think it's more realistic than Randy says, since in '72 they were playing venues like the Memorial Coliseum in Portland Oregon, the Long Beach Arena, The Forum in L.A., the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium, Tucson Community Center, & the Swing Auditorium in San Bernardino.. i wouldn't exactly say they were selling out 60,000 person venues, although they were filling (a couple) larger venues outside the U.S...

they played one or two stadiums in '73, but didn't really start headlining them until '75

Notice they stopped at 1970--you know, when they actually got really popular--and didn't do it again until 79. Led Zeppelin sold out a 79,000 person venue in Michigan by themselves. Don't try and play the facts game with me, dickhead.

[menikmati]

Thanks for the list Brad, it helps.

[Monklish]

Monklish has a point, but some of these posters have a little more under the hood than they seem at first glance. I did a couple posters:

1972 - The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd
1996 - Tupac Shakur, NIN, Smashing Pumpkins

Smashing Pumpkins was kind of a '96 shoo-in, and NIN wasn't strong enough to qualify 40k stadiums on their own...but they were promoting a new double disc. Tupac would've been just out of prison, so he'd be a hot commodity. So 1996 is probably not reaching too much. 1972 - at first glance, Led Zep and Floyd seem like easy pickings.... but at that point, Led Zep had four Gold records (no platinum), but were clearly the dominant hard rock band. Floyd didn't have ANY Gold records here, and admittedly were trying to expand their US fan base with DSOTM, which they first began playing live in early '72. The Kinks were big, but not ridiculously popular. The way I see it, Zep is the big "get", Floyd is the buzzworthy foreign act with the trippy live show, and the Kinks were a veteran act with lots of fans.

Of course, Monklish might be targeting other posters, I'm just saying that I put a lot of thought into not putting the absolute biggest bands on the bill, while still representing who the Coachella fans might have wanted at the time. And these things do happen in real life - At Lollapalooza a few years ago, they headlined Radiohead, RATM, NIN (Lights in the Sky Tour), and Kanye West... in Chicago, Kanye's home town. Radiohead, Kanye, and RATM could sell tens of thousands of tickets no problem in Chicago, and NIN played AGAINST Kanye on what might have been their hottest tour. It was a scheduling wet dream in that region.

Totally agree that there are way too many hindsight picks... the fact that The Pixies are a head/sub/sub-subheadliner on a bunch of these posters is kind of ridiculous. They had a huge resurgence following Cobain's death, and frankly weren't very appreciated before Nirvana became a huge act (Kurt constantly named The Pixies as an influence). But... this is about fun, and as long as people are having fun... right?

Just make sure you put some one-hit wonders and bands who went nowhere on your poster... they're at EVERY festival.

People didn't choose Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd as headliners because they were thinking, "Well, at that point they were really just on the cusp of being headliners, so it's actually not that safe of a choice." They're picking them because it's the 70s and they're unimaginative so they're going for the two biggest bands of the 70s.

[moomoo]

Thanks for the list Brad, it helps.

yeah, seriously. thank you!

[Monklish]

I have to disagree with you.

VU could headline over Nirvana, sure Nirvana was selling tons recods, but VU has always carried a godlike status. So them headlining over a "new" band that happens to be #1 on the charts isn't that far off at all.

Pixies were very popular in 1990. I thought you were JUST complaining about to many BIG names in the top lines of posters?

The Stooges were a band before 1990 - thus - in this imaginary world, a reunion could have happened. I thought you read/knew the rules of this.

Pixies were not popular at all in 1990 over here, unless you were in college at the time. It's just a fucking fact, I'm not going to argue about it.

The Velvet Underground... well, sucked. If they got headlining status it would purely be because they never reformed, which makes choosing them kind of lame. I don't care what people claim, not nearly as many assholes listen to their crap as you all think. Nobody buys that shit.

The Stooges are another example of just a silly band to pick. I don't care if it's permissible in the rules Dani has laid out, you should exercise some common sense. If the fucking band didn't exist from 1980 through 2003 or whatever then having them reunite in 1993 is just dumb. If they were on hiatus for two years I could understand.

ignore randy, he likes to bitch far more than he likes to contribute..

as far as Nirvana, they were one of those rare integrity bands that would probably refuse to headline over an act like Velvet Underground.. hell, they made that stand for Sonic Youth and several others who were certainly not the #1 hottest commodity that year..

I suppose that might be a point, albeit a stupid one.

[TomServo]

People didn't choose Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd as headliners because they were thinking, "Well, at that point they were really just on the cusp of being headliners, so it's actually not that safe of a choice." They're picking them because it's the 70s and they're unimaginative so they're going for the two biggest bands of the 70s.

I thing you're probably right. In my case, I weighed all of that, though.... so I'm sure some of them did.

I think the same thing when I see Michael Jackson all over the 80s - his tours sold out the largest stadiums in the world, and he was still artistically interesting, but a relentless control freak. The Jacksons "Victory" tour in 1984 was the highest-grossing tour of all-time, and Michael broke set the records for highest-attended and highest-grossing tours in 1987. He sold out Wembley Stadium SEVEN times on that tour. It seems mildly unnecessary for him to pack his 18 tour buses into the desert.

[sfsteph]

Here's my tribute to 1979: a year in transition from rock to disco (where else can you see Donna Summer and The Doors on the same bill?). Plus, I thought I'd add some punk in there as well. Enjoy!

[halyem]

Here's my tribute to 1979: a year in transition from rock to disco (where else can you see Donna Summer and The Doors on the same bill?). Plus, I thought I'd add some punk in there as well. Enjoy!

i like the poster, but.....the doors.....are you sure?

[bdfsh]

Pixies were not popular at all in 1990 over here, unless you were in college at the time. It's just a fucking fact, I'm not going to argue about it.

The Velvet Underground... well, sucked. If they got headlining status it would purely be because they never reformed, which makes choosing them kind of lame. I don't care what people claim, not nearly as many assholes listen to their crap as you all think. Nobody buys that shit.

The Stooges are another example of just a silly band to pick. I don't care if it's permissible in the rules Dani has laid out, you should exercise some common sense. If the fucking band didn't exist from 1980 through 2003 or whatever then having them reunite in 1993 is just dumb. If they were on hiatus for two years I could understand.

im not trying to argue with you either; I did a lot of research and I think i picked very acceptable headliners/subheadliners; I think your reasoning is off and definately not strong enough to condemn any of my choices; it could all be very easily rebuttled.

so go ahead and tell me to go fuck myself, or stick something in my gigantic box, or that im an uninformed stupid music picking piece of shit--- like i said, I did research, and re-researched and my picks hold strong...

just leave it be- you dont have to prove yoursef to anyone; and you are not always right, i dont think ive ever seen you admit you were wrong.

now, if you could suggest anything, maybe lend a helping hand i would love to hear it, you seem to have some sort of musical knowledge and im sure you could help a lot if you would just stop the negative ranting.

[betao]

Ok, after some hard work, here is my 1995 Coachella.



note: In 1995, NIN and David Bowie toured together on the "Dissonance Tour". NIN played first (though they were billed first). After NIN played a re-worked instrumental version of "Eraser", Bowie's band gradually came onto the stage to play 5 songs with NIN. Reznor and Bowie sang duet throughout this dual mini-set (including NIN's "Reptile" and Bowie's "Scary Monsters, Subterranean, and Hello Spaceboy"), with Reznor leaving the stage at the end for Bowie's band to perform their own set. NIN and Bowie's individual set lengths ended up being roughly equal. The joint set ended with new version of "Hurt", performed mostly by Bowie's band and sang by Bowie and Reznor.

[betao]

oh, and many thanks to 1337moomoo for helping me with the poster design. Much appreciated!

[halyem]

i made a 1974 poster

it was a big year for wings (maybe even the best year) and dylan did a mammoth tour with the band that year. you also have rush's debut album, genesis' lamb lies down on broadway, and nick drakes last year living

[halyem]

thats a great 95 poster! love the background.

[Monklish]

Alright I've got a question: what tool do you guys use for fucking with the mountains and the trees separately so well? I was playing around in Gimp for hours trying to find something that would allow me to select them individually without leaving weird pockets.

[blackbelt]

LenBeMyNBame: I love the idea for a Live DJ Tent. Excellent lineup.

"The Young and the Useless" - very well done.

[bdfsh]

i use paint shop pro, so im not sure i can help with gimp... a few suggestions- decrease color depth, eliminate whites, pixel by pixel erasing....

[C DUB YA]

Alright I've got a question: what tool do you guys use for fucking with the mountains and the trees separately so well? I was playing around in Gimp for hours trying to find something that would allow me to select them individually without leaving weird pockets.

I like how you are a prick to everyone then ask for help.

[halyem]

its all trial and error for me, i dont know a damn thing about photoshop, let alone gimp.