That Arctic Monkeys set at Coachella was actually pretty full. Was it Paul McCartney full? Of course not. Were there at least ten times more people than there were for the Stone Roses? Shit yes. They should only headline if literally no headliners can make it, though with one really good release they'd be up to par. Have Hot Hot Heat open for them (lol)
A couple points.
Arctic Monkeys were not empty 2012, but they were not full either. There was a relatively sizable crowd, but it was not dense. Our group was on the far left in front of the soundboard, and halfway through we sprinted to the portapotties and were easily able to get back to our friends. A solid daytime crowd, nothing huge, nothing sparse.
That being said, it was freezing out and had been raining just minutes before their set started, and that would easily explain why not many people were by an outdoor stage, much less even in the venue at all. So I don't really think you can take crowd size for Weekend 1 into consideration. Anybody there Weekend 2?
But they absolutely, cannot, will not headline. I am a big Arctic Monkeys fan. I inexplicably love them against my better judgment. They have only been declining in popularity. They have two shows at The Fox in Oakland, which is pretty strong and I think would still warrant an appearance on the farther end of the second line. But headliner? Get out of here with that foolishness.
The Arctic Monkeys would actually have to tour in Arizona before they could be a headliner. Phoenix came here. Black Keys came. They don't have a big enough American following.
the busy bee has no time for sorrow.
Neither would headline. MOVING ON.
when bands like phoenix headline, major lazer ends up on the 5th line, johnny marr plays early in the day, ect. there is a benifit to choosing headliners that they know will be headliner material in a couple years.
if the black keys can headline the year after sub-headlining, and if acts like kings of leon and jack jonson can headline, and if the stone roses can headline, and if gv can book crap like rhcp again, and if Coachella sticks with the rap headliner formula, and if they obey the radius clause, and if daft punk is confirmed, then why not arctic monkeys??
Because No Doubt.
SHUT IT UP SHUT UP
*Raises the roof*
For the love of all that is dear to me, if Arctic Monkeys last played the afternoon, in broad daylight, what is going to change with this album that will catapult them to headliner status? When you bring in a band like, say, Phoenix for example, Phoenix had upward momentum. Arctic Monkeys have been stale in the states for some time. I love Arctic Monkeys. But they have not had a hit since they came out with IBYLGOTD. Kings of Leon had hits. Black Keys had hits. Jack Johnson had hits. Weak choices, to be sure, but there is no reason to assume Arctic Monkeys latest album will flood KROQ type stations with the multiple hits they need to headline, especially when their last several albums have not.
And while I thought Stone Roses was a weak choice for a headliner, you have to be kidding yourselves if you don't realize that the headliner choice was not based on them being "headliners overseas", but rather them being a legendary, iconic, genre-defining band overseas.
Did KOL really have more hits in the states than AM? Sex on Fire, and some song I can't remember. That's not much upward momentum to work with. They just got put on because they were pop-hot, like Muse was at the time. AM would headline because they actually have an amount of worthy records, not pop-hotness NOW.
Do some research man. You sound ridiculous. I'm not even a huge KOL fan, but go look at their sales alone. Not to mention that their last two albums were number four and two respectively on the US chart. No one here is arguing with you over the quality or depth of their songs as compared to AM. But do you realize how big KOL got in the States following their last two releases? Obviously not.
Arctic Monkeys have no recent hits in America. In fact, they have only ever had one on the radio here to any large degree, and that was in 2005, nearly nine years from Coachella 2014. They have no upward momentum. Nobody is expecting their new album to be huge in a way that their last several weren't. I am a huge Arctic Monkeys fan, but they are nowhere near headliner contention. There is literally nothing to suggest that they would be billed any higher than they were in 2012 if they played again.
This is basically science.
The formula. A science to some, and a myth to others.
I'm amused that some still don't understand the reasons behind the Roses booking. Those 4 members had NEVER played a stateside show before. And i think a new Roses album is around the corner.