It's a good lineup but wouldn't be enough for me to feel justified in going through the rigmarole and flight across the pond is all. A lot of artists are on mainstream indie stations/at other festivals.
Exactly all of this. So whether it's a cameo appearance from Daft Punk or a secret headliner like Prince, they need something that's gonna have the world talking the next day if they want to keep selling out in an hour since their current line up (no matter how good the undercard might be) doesn't have much of a WOW factor to it.
Yep. Wonk and I have discussed this to an extent with each other, but Coachella is essentially selling out the following year with each year's outcome, by giving people "water cooler" stories to talk about for days, months, and even years after the fact. I have friends who have never heard of Coachella before, but they sure as shit know about that Tupac hologram, and the year before had everyone talking about Kanye's performance and all of the Creators Project's stuff that happened. As much as I love the 2013 lineup, there is nothing artist or art-related that so far gives me any impression that people will be talking about this year for years to come. MAYBE RHCP WILL BRING BACK THE SOCKS.
Or... Coachella just pockets their money because they sold out both weekends yet again. Why would they want to spend more money and add another headliner, or a double-secret special guest? Because of next year's sales? Do we seriously think Coachella won't sell out in 2014? They've spent over the past decade branding themself as the premiere music festival in North America. One (supposed) down year isn't going to change the public's perception. The irony is, it'd probably cause 2014 presales to sell out even faster. EVERYONE will be CONVINCED that they're gonna get Daft Punk or Rolling Stones or David Bowie... or all three. '2013 sucked. No way they pull this shit on us twice. 2014 is gonna be ,like, so amazing. For sure! DAFT PUNX!!!!'
Other than the Stones and Primal Scream (!!!!), kind of a meh lineup. Funny to see how low Phoenix are....
Kind of a slap in the face to Coachella - you may have The Stone Roses and blur (who have already played Glastonbury 4 times), but we were able to book The Rolling Stones, and one of your headliners is on our fifth stage (presumably against Mumford & Sons).
I don't know what you guys are talking about, that Glastonbury lineup is stacked. And yeah, the Arctic Monkeys have been headlining festivals in England since like their second album. It doesn't make any sense but it's nothing new. I love that they're technically listed before The Stones which is just batshit insane.
I think they're listed in that order because Arctic Monkeys will headline Friday, The Rolling Stones Saturday, and Mumford & Sons Sunday.
That Silver Hayes stage is stacked with electronic music, holy lord. Disclosure, Skream and Benga, TEED, SBTRKT, AlunaGeorge, The 2 Bears, Julio Bashmore, Gold Panda, Netsky, Dog Blood. I agree that overall the lineup is pretty meh, but that impressed me.
But seriously, The Cure are great and NIN is cool but NIN subbed Sasquatch, and Lolla has double the attendees. You'd think they could grab somebody like Bjork out from under Poochfuck's nose or something.
Ok, maybe I'm losing my mind but I don't understand how Glastonbury, which has nearly the same lineup but with other surprises thrown in like The Stones, Portishead, and Chic, is a meh lineup but that Lollapalooza lineup is amazing. Is it really The Cure and NIN that changes everything?