Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 11:44:40 GMT -8
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. What I'm really saying is, there is no Beyonce.
|
|
|
Post by wompwomp on Mar 27, 2013 11:44:44 GMT -8
Sinead O'Connor is definitely pretty cool, but no way she actually performs. She will definitely drop out before the festival.
Fuck Buttons need to come over to North America. Same with Primal Scream.
|
|
|
Post by stamper on Mar 27, 2013 11:45:50 GMT -8
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!!!!'
|
|
|
Post by stamper on Mar 27, 2013 11:52:25 GMT -8
Fuck Buttons need to come over to North America. Same with Primal Scream. I'm still kinda surprised Coachella weren't able to bring Primal Scream over to perform Screamadelica. Then again, I think I remember reading something once that Primal Scream want nothing to do with North America.
|
|
|
Post by rimjobflashmob on Mar 27, 2013 11:54:19 GMT -8
Phoenix must be so confused. "How popular are we?" Also, some other sweet names: PORTISHEAD, Fuck Buttons, Sinead O'Connor...actually yeah, it is sort of a meh lineup. Probably worth the money for the Stones, Primal Scream and Portishead though. Yeah, at first I was thinking "Holy shit, look at all those names!" but after the fourth stage the majority of it is totally meh.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 27, 2013 12:36:55 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by rüstü on Mar 27, 2013 14:24:15 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by davers on Mar 27, 2013 15:04:10 GMT -8
That Glasto lineup looks pretty damn fantastic to me.
It's a lot like the Coachella lineup, iffy headliners (save for the Stones) but so much good stuff everywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Mar 27, 2013 18:41:33 GMT -8
Real? Fake? Who knows these days...
|
|
|
Post by rimjobflashmob on Mar 27, 2013 18:43:14 GMT -8
"Meh" headliners, excellent subs, poor undercard. Sounds like Lolla to me.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Mar 27, 2013 18:44:15 GMT -8
The Cure and NIN are not "meh," my friend!
|
|
|
Post by rimjobflashmob on Mar 27, 2013 18:47:04 GMT -8
Up against The Killers and Mumford they are!
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 P4K's nose or something.
|
|
|
Post by emptyfox on Mar 27, 2013 18:49:01 GMT -8
Nine Inch Nails were on an indefinite hiatus. Their return is a big deal, and they were far more successful commercially then Bjork will ever be.
|
|
|
Post by Cysquatch on Mar 27, 2013 18:49:10 GMT -8
Everybody should know that NIN only subbed by choice. Trent basically put together the NINJA tour and allowed Janes Addiction to play last. Most of the fans at those shows were there for NIN.
|
|
|
Post by rimjobflashmob on Mar 27, 2013 18:50:05 GMT -8
Nine Inch Nails were on an indefinite hiatus. Their return is a big deal, and they were far more successful commercially then Bjork will ever be. Didn't know that. Cool. Still "Meh" for me, but now I get why it could be a big deal for other people.
|
|
|
Post by Pea on Mar 27, 2013 19:02:00 GMT -8
NIN didn't "sub" Sasquatch. Sasquatch just happened to land them and Janes Addiction as their Washington tour date on that tour. They were definitely co-headliners, despite the scheduling.
|
|
|
Post by stamper on Mar 27, 2013 20:25:16 GMT -8
That's an awesome lineup. For my tastes, it's better than Coachella. Well played, Lolla.
|
|
|
Post by kymess_jr on Mar 27, 2013 20:51:35 GMT -8
That's a great line up! It has all the good parts of all the festivals I'm already going to, plus The Cure and Nine Inch Nails. Almost has me wondering if I could afford to make the trip to Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by wompwomp on Mar 28, 2013 7:45:25 GMT -8
If that's real, that is an unreal lineup. Way better than anything else in North America.
|
|
|
Post by Cbats on Mar 28, 2013 8:25:53 GMT -8
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?
|
|