Download Festival: 2011

[Cactus Drags]

Metal Hammer is awful. I did an editing project at uni on it once, critiquing the design and whatnot and giving tips on how to improve. Tip one was use the fucking spellchecker. I've never known a magazine be so poorly typed or have so many grammatical errors that wasn't some photocopied basement fanzine, it's ridiculous. And if that dude's rant up there is an example of the quality of journalist at their disposal, then I find it pretty odd that you would question it being called second rate.

I get the argument, to an extent. At the end of the day, it is a matter of taste and just because one person doesn't like the line-up doesn't mean that ten others don't either. There's also choice, whether it be other festivals or even alternate stages at the same one. But to suggest that because the choice exists, you can't criticise line-ups, or the organsiers are bulletproof, is ludicrous. To me, the Download line-up just seems dated, not just because Def Leppard are back headlining, but things like Slipknot being back again despite not putting anything out since like 2008. Perhaps it's just a reflection on alternative/rock/metal music at the moment as a whole, but that doesn't absolve the organisers of any criticism.

[Timmoru Suzuki]

Dragsy, that's about the most fair and balanced argument anybody's put out; and yet the pedant in me feels compelled to say that Slipknot are headlining Sonisphere, not Download >_>

You are entirely right about the organisers not being bulletproof, and about being able to critique the line-ups. I think most of the stanuch defending of Download comes from just how venemous and short-sighted a lot of the 'Download bashers' are being on various forums; it's as if Andy Copping has personally broken into their house at night, raped their dog, set fire to their posessions and then pissed on them as a final insult. It's basically just because, out of the 52 bands announced so far someone doesn't totally love 50 of them, then DL is clearly the most dreadful music festival ever; and Copping is a useless twat. It's like an switch with some people, on or off, hot or cold - Download's line-up is AMAZING or DRIZZLING SHITS~!!! And nothing in between.

Where as, really, then...ah fuck it, I've repeated myself enough in this thread already and now I'm just rambling furher and furter away from any point I might ever have had.

[METALMAN]

BOTH lineups are a sack of piss

[DFF]

BOTH lineups are a sack of piss

[Nerf]

I'd just like to point out that I don't like Metalhammer, just sayin' that it isn't a second rate magazine. It isn't.

[Skummy]

...yes it is. For exactly the reasons dragsy listed. It's horribly written, barely seems to have been proof-read at all as it's always littered with grammatical, spelling and factual errors, it's poorly laid out, and the standard of "journalism" is horrendously low even by the sub-par standards of the mainstream music press over the past few years.

As for criticisng the line-up, I don't always fall into the "it's total shit" category. And, contrary to what appears to be popular belief, I am a heavy metal fan, so I do take an interest in who's playing this kind of festival. And, for me, and for plenty of other people, it's not as simple as "if a band I like is playing on a small stage there's no point, because I could just see them on tour", because I live somewhere these bands don't tour. If I wanted to go and see a band live, it wouldn't just cost me "a couple of quid", because I'd have to factor in flights and accomodation. And I'm obviously not the only one in the same situation. So the line-up does matter.

And, yes, I don't just automatically criticise the line-up - personally, I think 2006 is one of the better Download line-ups ever, and it's gone downhill since then. It had the right mix of veteran bands and newcomers, and a good mix of genres and, while I don't like every band that played, I liked a lot more than I ordinarily would, and I can see the appeal in a lot that I wouldn't normally care about.

This year? At a push I would want to see eight of the bands playing, and not one of them is a selling point. And, with the exception of Rob Zombie, not one of them is a conceivable selling point for me - and I don't even like Rob Zombie that much, it's just a novelty that he's playing the UK.

Which brings me on to another point - there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with booking a "veteran" band. But it's when you rely on them over the younger, newer bands that it becomes a problem - though that's a problem endemic of the mentality of heavy metal fans in general - look at it as a wrestling analogy; if you keep booking Hulk Hogan to go over everybody else, no one's going to give a shit about everyone else, but sooner or later, people won't want to see Hulk Hogan either, or Hulk Hogan won't be able to do it any more.

There's no problem with having a big name established band as your headliner to draw the first bit of attention, but you can't just rely on that kind of band as Download increasingly does.

Personally, my favourite music festival is All Tomorrow's Parties. Now, I appreciate that the music performed there isn't to everybody's tastes, and I don't expect it to be. But what I like about it is the format. That's what other festivals should emulate.

They'll have a big name band headlining, often somebody that doesn't play live all that often, or hasn't in a long time, so that's enough to initially draw people in. Then you'll get one or two veteran bands as almost a special attraction, but not the focal point of the festival, and often if it is an older band, it's one that's reformed recently, or one that has become more successful or more respected since they broke up, so one hand rather than a tired old band that have been doing the festival circuit for years, you'll get a band you never thought you'd get to see, and on the other the band themselves get the chance to play to the kind of audience they never did in their heyday. You can then afford to take risks with the rest of the line-up, because you've already got the big selling points.

Was there honestly a huge number of people sitting at home thinking "the Download line-up's okay, but I'm not going to buy a ticket.", then suddenly changing their mind because Def Leppard were booked?

But then, as I said, it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Metal fans, on the whole, value longevity over ability, and so you end with the last couple of years (though I'll admit last year was far worse) with the festival line-ups being full of hair metal also-rans that wouldn't have been credible if they had been booked to play twenty years ago, but apparently a couple of decades is enough of a break to make people give a shit about Enuff Z'Nuff.

[SeanDMan]

Your point is echoed so hard, Skumfrog. I was so pissed off when Rob Zombie went over Jimmy Eat World at Rock Am Ring 2009. I mean, yes, Taking Back Sunday did a run in, but still, JEW had all the momentum going into that matchup and then Rob Zombie just squashed it.

So sick of politics in the music festivals.

[Nerf]

...yes it is. For exactly the reasons dragsy listed. It's horribly written, barely seems to have been proof-read at all as it's always littered with grammatical, spelling and factual errors, it's poorly laid out, and the standard of "journalism" is horrendously low even by the sub-par standards of the mainstream music press over the past few years.

As for criticisng the line-up, I don't always fall into the "it's total shit" category. And, contrary to what appears to be popular belief, I am a heavy metal fan, so I do take an interest in who's playing this kind of festival. And, for me, and for plenty of other people, it's not as simple as "if a band I like is playing on a small stage there's no point, because I could just see them on tour", because I live somewhere these bands don't tour. If I wanted to go and see a band live, it wouldn't just cost me "a couple of quid", because I'd have to factor in flights and accomodation. And I'm obviously not the only one in the same situation. So the line-up does matter.

And, yes, I don't just automatically criticise the line-up - personally, I think 2006 is one of the better Download line-ups ever, and it's gone downhill since then. It had the right mix of veteran bands and newcomers, and a good mix of genres and, while I don't like every band that played, I liked a lot more than I ordinarily would, and I can see the appeal in a lot that I wouldn't normally care about.

This year? At a push I would want to see eight of the bands playing, and not one of them is a selling point. And, with the exception of Rob Zombie, not one of them is a conceivable selling point for me - and I don't even like Rob Zombie that much, it's just a novelty that he's playing the UK.

Which brings me on to another point - there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with booking a "veteran" band. But it's when you rely on them over the younger, newer bands that it becomes a problem - though that's a problem endemic of the mentality of heavy metal fans in general - look at it as a wrestling analogy; if you keep booking Hulk Hogan to go over everybody else, no one's going to give a shit about everyone else, but sooner or later, people won't want to see Hulk Hogan either, or Hulk Hogan won't be able to do it any more.

There's no problem with having a big name established band as your headliner to draw the first bit of attention, but you can't just rely on that kind of band as Download increasingly does.

Personally, my favourite music festival is All Tomorrow's Parties. Now, I appreciate that the music performed there isn't to everybody's tastes, and I don't expect it to be. But what I like about it is the format. That's what other festivals should emulate.

They'll have a big name band headlining, often somebody that doesn't play live all that often, or hasn't in a long time, so that's enough to initially draw people in. Then you'll get one or two veteran bands as almost a special attraction, but not the focal point of the festival, and often if it is an older band, it's one that's reformed recently, or one that has become more successful or more respected since they broke up, so one hand rather than a tired old band that have been doing the festival circuit for years, you'll get a band you never thought you'd get to see, and on the other the band themselves get the chance to play to the kind of audience they never did in their heyday. You can then afford to take risks with the rest of the line-up, because you've already got the big selling points.

Was there honestly a huge number of people sitting at home thinking "the Download line-up's okay, but I'm not going to buy a ticket.", then suddenly changing their mind because Def Leppard were booked?

But then, as I said, it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Metal fans, on the whole, value longevity over ability, and so you end with the last couple of years (though I'll admit last year was far worse) with the festival line-ups being full of hair metal also-rans that wouldn't have been credible if they had been booked to play twenty years ago, but apparently a couple of decades is enough of a break to make people give a shit about Enuff Z'Nuff.

In regards to Metal Hammer, I totally agree with what you're saying. My point is that it's one of the biggest music magazines in the UK, so it's not second rate.

The whole argument about relying on veteran bands, to me, says a lot more about the state of "metal" music than Download.

It's funny how people see things so differently. There's a shitload of bands on the lineup that have me interested in going. The thing is, "veteran" bands attract more ticket sales than other bands. You can't argue that more people would pay to see three young guns rather than AC/DC, Rage Against The Machine and Aerosmith last year, for example. Then again, I wouldn't say that Download don't book young bands either.

Personally, I wouldn't change a thing about Download. It's the perfect balance of young and old and there's ALWAYS a band on that I'm interested in seeing at any given time. I don't see why you don't think Def Leppard will sell tickets. Did you see their crowd in 2009? The place was fucking heaving and everybody was having a fucking good time. They're one of the best selling rock bands ever and I think it's moronic to say that they won't draw. Literally the only people I've heard complain about them have been all "fuck that, I'm going to Sonisphere instead" and I point you in the direction of this thread's original argument. I was hoping the headliner would be shit so I could go see Danzig, but I'm going to be really fucking torn and undecided.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Nerf

[DFF]

...yes it is. For exactly the reasons dragsy listed. It's horribly written, barely seems to have been proof-read at all as it's always littered with grammatical, spelling and factual errors, it's poorly laid out, and the standard of "journalism" is horrendously low even by the sub-par standards of the mainstream music press over the past few years.

As for criticisng the line-up, I don't always fall into the "it's total shit" category. And, contrary to what appears to be popular belief, I am a heavy metal fan, so I do take an interest in who's playing this kind of festival. And, for me, and for plenty of other people, it's not as simple as "if a band I like is playing on a small stage there's no point, because I could just see them on tour", because I live somewhere these bands don't tour. If I wanted to go and see a band live, it wouldn't just cost me "a couple of quid", because I'd have to factor in flights and accomodation. And I'm obviously not the only one in the same situation. So the line-up does matter.

And, yes, I don't just automatically criticise the line-up - personally, I think 2006 is one of the better Download line-ups ever, and it's gone downhill since then. It had the right mix of veteran bands and newcomers, and a good mix of genres and, while I don't like every band that played, I liked a lot more than I ordinarily would, and I can see the appeal in a lot that I wouldn't normally care about.

This year? At a push I would want to see eight of the bands playing, and not one of them is a selling point. And, with the exception of Rob Zombie, not one of them is a conceivable selling point for me - and I don't even like Rob Zombie that much, it's just a novelty that he's playing the UK.

Which brings me on to another point - there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with booking a "veteran" band. But it's when you rely on them over the younger, newer bands that it becomes a problem - though that's a problem endemic of the mentality of heavy metal fans in general - look at it as a wrestling analogy; if you keep booking Hulk Hogan to go over everybody else, no one's going to give a shit about everyone else, but sooner or later, people won't want to see Hulk Hogan either, or Hulk Hogan won't be able to do it any more.

There's no problem with having a big name established band as your headliner to draw the first bit of attention, but you can't just rely on that kind of band as Download increasingly does.

Personally, my favourite music festival is All Tomorrow's Parties. Now, I appreciate that the music performed there isn't to everybody's tastes, and I don't expect it to be. But what I like about it is the format. That's what other festivals should emulate.

They'll have a big name band headlining, often somebody that doesn't play live all that often, or hasn't in a long time, so that's enough to initially draw people in. Then you'll get one or two veteran bands as almost a special attraction, but not the focal point of the festival, and often if it is an older band, it's one that's reformed recently, or one that has become more successful or more respected since they broke up, so one hand rather than a tired old band that have been doing the festival circuit for years, you'll get a band you never thought you'd get to see, and on the other the band themselves get the chance to play to the kind of audience they never did in their heyday. You can then afford to take risks with the rest of the line-up, because you've already got the big selling points.

Was there honestly a huge number of people sitting at home thinking "the Download line-up's okay, but I'm not going to buy a ticket.", then suddenly changing their mind because Def Leppard were booked?

But then, as I said, it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Metal fans, on the whole, value longevity over ability, and so you end with the last couple of years (though I'll admit last year was far worse) with the festival line-ups being full of hair metal also-rans that wouldn't have been credible if they had been booked to play twenty years ago, but apparently a couple of decades is enough of a break to make people give a shit about Enuff Z'Nuff.

Isn't All Tomorrow's Parties quite a small festival though? IIRC it's at a holiday camp on the south coast. As such, it cannot be compared to a much larger entity such as Download, as it would only have to draw a fraction of the crowd. A more accurate comparison would be something like Hammerfest, I think, which is also at a holiday camp?

These types of festival do not need the massive crowds that Download, Reading/Leeds (and, on a slightly smaller - but comparable - scale, Sonisphere). They need to be able to shift a vast amount of tickets, and established bands do that.

There's no doubt that other bands will have to headline, and they can't rely on the same stuff each year. However, the list of potential headliners is not vast and readily available, and it would be a very big risk to throw three (or even two) a year on the main stage. I'm sure, one day, bands like Airbourne, Stone Sour, 30 Seconds to Mars, Machine Head, Avenged Sevenfold, and possibly (further ahead) Taking Dawn, etc are going to be given a shot, should they continue to grow in size and output quality material. Copping has already said that Machine Head and A7X are one album and/or big tour off headlining, and that can only be a good thing.

I'm waffling a little now, but the point remains - Download is a big festival and requires established acts to sell the majority of it's tickets. The 'mainstream' (LP), the 'classic' (Def Lep), and 'the specially reformed' (SOAD) bands do that.

And Download doesn't just rely on 'that type of band' to make the festival what it is. There is a whole host of sub-genres of rock and metal catered for across all the stages.

[Steeb]

Definitions of second rate on the Web:

mediocre: moderate to inferior in quality; "they improved the quality from mediocre to above average"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Metal Hammer is second rate. Hard.

[Dan]

Steeb!

[Steeb]

Dan!

(Which also refers to me. The meta (or something) here is palpable.)

[Gazz]

Dan!

But which one???

[METALMAN]

I actually READ metalhammer. And it is a horrible, horrible magazine. We get all the music magazines at work so I read them on my lunch break. I will read Metalhammer after I've read NME, Mojo, Uncut, Classic Rock, Kerrang and Mixmag. I'll even read Q before I read Metalhammer. A horrible horrible horrible magazine.

People who pay to read Metalhammer are stupid. People who choose to read Metalhammer like Airbourne.

[METALMAN]

Whenever a customer buys Metalhammer I sneer at them.

[Bigal]

I actually READ metalhammer. And it is a horrible, horrible magazine. We get all the music magazines at work so I read them on my lunch break. I will read Metalhammer after I've read NME, Mojo, Uncut, Classic Rock, Kerrang and Mixmag. I'll even read Q before I read Metalhammer. A horrible horrible horrible magazine.

People who pay to read Metalhammer are stupid. People who choose to read Metalhammer like Airbourne.

I like Airbourne, but I don't like Metalhammer

[DFF]

There's nothing wrong with Airbourne.

And I buy Metal Hammer. It's a decent magazine that caters for my taste in music. Oh, and it is so much better than Kerrang that is hurts.

[Cactus Drags]

Kerrang isn't amazing, but at least they can spell.

[Skummy]

Unless it's a word with a "c" in it. Because the letter "K" is edgier.

Kerrang! is aimed at a different market, anyway. Kerrang! is, and always has been, aimed at young kids, and is littered with references to heavy metal as rebellion, and annoying your parents and avoiding homework, and all that cliché nonsense, while Metal Hammer purports to be a serious music magazine. While I admire the inclusion of something like Subterranea in Metal Hammer as at least trying to bring otherwise unknown music to its readers' attention, and give exposure to bands, "scenes" and genres that normally wouldn't get exposure outside of more specialised magazines like Zero Tolerance or Terrorizer, it's still a poorly written, poorly put together product, and Kerrang! is much more fit to purpose.

It's a shame as Future Publishing, in the field of computing magazines - its main area - is genuinely an indication of real quality, but its forays into music publications - Metal Hammer and Classic Rock - leave a lot to be desired.

On ethical grounds, though, I'd still rather buy Metal Hammer than Q, Mojo or Kerrang!, but from an objective standpoint of which is the "better" magazine, Kerrang! would win hands-down.

[Nerf]

What's with everybody slagging off Q. I used to read it all the time and it's awesome.