Glastonbury 2025

youngbob said:
I dunno. The 1975 have got a handful of good tracks worth listening to and have actually made a go of it past their debut album, which puts them above The Twang, The View, Reverend and the Makers, The Enemy, The Pigeon Detectives, The Fratellis, and all them lot. For all the noise the landfill indie era made it was only really Arctic Monkeys, Bloc Party, The Libertines, Franz Ferdinand, and Art Brut were worth the entry fee after the hype wore off. Oh, and The Libertines, I guess. Sort of. Looking back it was just a decade of uni lads getting drunk and trying to rewrite Boys Don't Cry but with very little idea of how to properly construct a pop song.
Click to expand...

I think The View had a few albums that did well? No? Anyway I don't think they were that good either.

I know what you mean about them making a go of it past their debut but they're in a different time too. That other era was more of a trend in the end...and some bands careera fell victim to the trend dying of. Who is to say that wouldn't have happened to them if they weren't around then?

There's very few bands from that era that continued to be very big and be high up at big festivals..Arctic Monkeys, The Killers, The Strokes, Kings Of Leon, maybe one or two more. Do we really think The 1975 would be sat alongside them now had they been around in that era, or do we think they'd have probably ended up like rest? My guess is the latter. That's why I'd consider this weak time for bands, if they're headlining Glastonbury.

But that's more to do with the music industry, which I work in, they're just not really interested in investing in bands and giving them time to develop. Bands that truly turn out to be great bands that define eras often require a bigger gamble for the people putting money behind them and time to let them grow, but the industry can't afford to gamble now, so they micro manage every aspect of everything, which isn't really the way great artists develop. Now major labels barely sign one band a year, once it was one or two a month, so you did get a lot of average bands, but you got some real gems too. Now it's pretty much neither.
 
youngbob said:
I dunno. The 1975 have got a handful of good tracks worth listening to and have actually made a go of it past their debut album, which puts them above The Twang, The View, Reverend and the Makers, The Enemy, The Pigeon Detectives, The Fratellis, and all them lot. For all the noise the landfill indie era made it was only really Arctic Monkeys, Bloc Party, The Libertines, Franz Ferdinand, and Art Brut were worth the entry fee after the hype wore off. Oh, and The Libertines, I guess. Sort of. Looking back it was just a decade of uni lads getting drunk and trying to rewrite Boys Don't Cry but with very little idea of how to properly construct a pop song.
Click to expand...

I think The View had a few albums that did well? No? Anyway I don't think they were that good either.

I know what you mean about them making a go of it past their debut but they're in a different time too. That other era was more of a trend in the end...and some bands careera fell victim to the trend dying of. Who is to say that wouldn't have happened to them if they weren't around then?

There's very few bands from that era that continued to be very big and be high up at big festivals..Arctic Monkeys, The Killers, The Strokes, Kings Of Leon, maybe one or two more. Do we really think The 1975 would be sat alongside them now had they been around in that era, or do we think they'd have probably ended up like rest? I believe it wouid be the latter. That's why I'd consider this weak time for bands, if they're headlining Glastonbury.

But that's more to do with the music industry, which I work in, they're just not really interested in investing in bands and giving them time to develop. Bands that truly turn out to be great bands that define eras often require a bigger gamble for the people putting money behind them and time to let them grow, but the industry can't afford to gamble now, so they micro manage every aspect of everything, which isn't really the way great artists develop. Now major labels barely sign one band a year, once it was one or two a month, so you did get a lot of average bands, but you got some real gems too. Of course there's good stuff on indie labels but that goes under the radar more than ever because the majors monopolise all the streaming services and how people discover music, so good artists on indie labels barely make a living.

I doubt you'll ever see "guitar bands" defining an era anymore and being the biggest artists. Maybe that's OK, it had its day. But that's why festivals are stuck with the likes of the 1975 when it comes to headliners that resemble something like their traditional headliners used to, but probably not the same quality.
 
Last edited:
hammocity said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and it would be terrible if we all liked the same thing but not for me, the great bands attract fans from all ages, Rodrigo’s fan base is made up of the Social Media Generation, not much substance to her music.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Parents couldn't stand Elvis or The Beatles. Elvis was the devil's music - Frank Sinata reckoned he was a degenerate. On the whole, parents have never liked pop because pop's for kids. Do you think The Who were trying to appeal to fans of all ages when Roger Daltrey nearly said "Why don't you all fuck off?" (but settled for "fade away") on My Generation? Course not. Do you think fans of all ages understood Boy George or why Bowie put his arm round a bloke's shoulder on Top of the Pops? Do you think Baby Boomers understood Kylie's comeback, or the Sugababes, or the explosion of rave and big beat? Course they didn't, cos pop's for kids. Always has been. Always will be.

Pop's never had substance to people over 30 because it's not supposed to.

I mean, sure, the adult market exists in the pop industry. It dominated for a bit, which is why we got Michael Bolton, Celine Dion, Robson & Jerome, and Westlife in the charts. But that's been about it really, in 70 years. And when the hype wears down and older fans start engaging with your music a bit - or your fans suddenly start needing intermissions for wee breaks - then you're not really pop anymore. You're a legacy act, or a family show. You're no longer a hip and happening rebel, you're a has been - playing earlier and earlier in the afternoon at festival slots to fewer and fewer people. It happens to them all. As I said before, pop's meant to be exciting and dangerous before anything else - which is something that gets kids going wild but turns adults away, either through fear or boredom.

There's loads of substance to Olivia Rodrigo's music, the substance just doesn't speak to us because we're (presumably) blokes over 30 and we're not kids going through it anymore. We can only remember the feelings she's discussing in her songs because we haven't lived them in ages, which puts us at a distance. I appreciate her music and love a few of her tunes because I can see the substance in it, but I can't feel it. Not really. Unless you're still living the life she's discussing then you can't really devote yourself to it like kids can. Doesn't mean the substance ain't there. She's got good writing chops and pretty sharp pop instincts, so fair play to her.

Plus, Glasto's got to move with the times, otherwise that'll get left behind as well. It's like with football, I guess. If people under 25 stop coming then it eventually dies out and gets forgotten. The acts - as we see them - are only gonna get younger and younger. The new acts like Olivia Rodrigo and The 1975, but also Lorde, Billie Eilish, etc. have got to get booked because Glasto would no longer be pop and it would no longer have a point. It would just be another Kendal Calling, or any of those dime-a-dozen nostalgia festivals you see, just by another name. Pop's got to mean something to kids to survive, otherwise it's got no substance or lifeblood or purpose.
 
Crooked_rain said:
But that's more to do with the music industry, which I work in, they're just not really interested in investing in bands and giving them time to develop. Bands that truly turn out to be great bands that define eras often require a bigger gamble for the people putting money behind them and time to let them grow, but the industry can't afford to gamble now, so they micro manage every aspect of everything, which isn't really the way great artists develop. Now major labels barely sign one band a year, once it was one or two a month, so you did get a lot of average bands, but you got some real gems too. Now it's
Click to expand...
Totally agreed on this. The recession and years of austerity have fucked it forever. Rock's going the way of jazz, big band, classical. Far cheaper if you're a kid to just go solo from a bedroom studio and see what happens. Beats paying for a guitar and a rehearsal space while juggling uni and a part-time job. Blossoms are a good example of a band getting a bit of a leg-up cos they paid fuck all for their practise area, it was just a mate's empty shed that they used.

But hey I mean, The 1975 are a band who've survived this tough industry and headlined Glasto 12 years into their mainstream career. They've understood virality and social media and all that stuff and it's paying off, but them having solid ideas of how to build a proper pop tune is what it's about to their fans at the end of the day - and their fanbase remains big. They had thousands of people chanting deep album cuts tonight, so something's working. Outside the music (and sometimes inside), they've found ways to keep themselves interesting, either by playing it safe with their fans or trying to piss people off.

The 1975 are not my thing really - barring a handful of tunes - but as writers I think they understand that sound and image go hand in hand. They've kept developing and changing and trying to challenge themselves creatively. A lot of them indie landfill groups from the 2000s got too wrapped up in the lifestyle and the image imo. Doherty was a good writer when he fancied it early on in The Libertines but Babyshambles were fucking rubbish. Could not hum a fucking thing they recorded - except Albion maybe. And sadly a lot of the lads in that scene were only sobering up when all the money disappeared and they had no idea how to react to pop's electro/Gaga shift in the late 2000s.
 
Last edited:
youngbob said:
Yeah she's alright imo! Again, not my cup of tea and obviously for a demographic younger than me, but she's a good time. Not a massive fan of her across a whole album but she's got a pretty impressive singles collection imo. Guts being assisted by Jack White and Annie Clark definitely helped me warm towards it, ha, but Vampire's a good one whenever that pops up, Bad Idea Right, Good 4 U, Get Him Back, etc. She makes good pop rock for teens. Although honestly my favourite of hers has ended up being Driver's License simply because it's such a sad and evocative little thing. We've all been there - making big promises to the first people we fall in love with, imagining a future with them, finding out that unexpected things can suddenly take on huge significance that you're not ready to understand... and then it all ends, and you're just left with the future you imagined that's now no longer possible. You promised each other you'd do a road trip when you finally learned how to drive, but now you can drive and that person is gone. Heartbreak hurts the most when you're 17 and it gets to that feeling very, very effectively.
Click to expand...
Good analysis. "The Grudge" and "Traitor" are exceptional songs.
 
Crooked_rain said:
I think The View had a few albums that did well? No? Anyway I don't think they were that good either.

I know what you mean about them making a go of it past their debut but they're in a different time too. That other era was more of a trend in the end...and some bands careera fell victim to the trend dying of. Who is to say that wouldn't have happened to them if they weren't around then?

There's very few bands from that era that continued to be very big and be high up at big festivals..Arctic Monkeys, The Killers, The Strokes, Kings Of Leon, maybe one or two more. Do we really think The 1975 would be sat alongside them now had they been around in that era, or do we think they'd have probably ended up like rest? I believe it wouid be the latter. That's why I'd consider this weak time for bands, if they're headlining Glastonbury.

But that's more to do with the music industry, which I work in, they're just not really interested in investing in bands and giving them time to develop. Bands that truly turn out to be great bands that define eras often require a bigger gamble for the people putting money behind them and time to let them grow, but the industry can't afford to gamble now, so they micro manage every aspect of everything, which isn't really the way great artists develop. Now major labels barely sign one band a year, once it was one or two a month, so you did get a lot of average bands, but you got some real gems too. Of course there's good stuff on indie labels but that goes under the radar more than ever because the majors monopolise all the streaming services and how people discover music, so good artists on indie labels barely make a living.

I doubt you'll ever see "guitar bands" defining an era anymore and being the biggest artists. Maybe that's OK, it had its day. But that's why festivals are stuck with the likes of the 1975 when it comes to headliners that resemble something like their traditional headliners used to, but probably not the same quality.
Click to expand...
Do not understand the finances of the Music Industry but is it the case that they cannot make real money out of album sales and groups make all their money out of touring
 
Earlyriser said:
Do not understand the finances of the Music Industry but is it the case that they cannot make real money out of album sales and groups make all their money out of touring
Click to expand...
Because streaming is the model and pays peanuts. CD and vinyl sales help, hence the rise in units shifted in recent years, but you can5 beat singing to 20000 people.
 
It’s funny coming on here every year people saying these are great, fantastic, then without doubt someone will come on and say they are shite! Haha, don’t people realise everyone’s tastes are different! Bet also that every group artist there is a song that you’d think yeah, not bad. I’ve listened to groups I really like live and think god, that sounded so shite! Also, sometimes it depends on what mood you’re in and how you feel about the music…
 
hammocity said:
Post punk? If you mean the 80’s New Romantics you’re right but it had nothing to do with Punk, the generation that shook up the music scene, terminated what we called “BOF” (Boring Old Fart) music at the time. As an 18 year old in 1977 it was a truly fantastic time to be a teenager, the energy and anarchy (very mild really) was fantastic.
Click to expand...
No, the stuff immediately after punk (heavily influenced by it, but a develolemt of it). Bit less noisy/in your face, bit more experimental. Wire, Gang of Four, etc.
 
Like the smaller stages, some good acts on there always discover some new music. Enjoyed Maribou state and Loyle Carner last night.

Seen a few songs of a band called BADBADGOOD aswell, not really my thing but the lead guitarist was incredibly talented was good to see him do his thing.
 
Franz Ferdinand's set is worth checking out. Especially the guest "vocalist" during "Take Me Out".
Other than that I've watched Supergrass (looked bored and indifferent), Blossoms (same set they've been touring since last year, but still entertaining), Wet Leg and Self Esteem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top