Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
For the record I don't hate Mumford and sons, its just not my style of music and I don't care for it, i have never said mumford sucks or are a weak headliner. they are definitely selling tickets at bonnaroo this year because of the number of likes on the lineup on the website. They are obviously doing something right. But then again so is Justin beiber. The album sales argument and sold.out show argument isn't the way to go because lots of artists we would all agree are no good sell out shows and sell a lot of albums at some point.
Last Edit: Mar 16, 2013 7:36:39 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
pondo ROCKS
Bonnafunky Dirtyroo has viking horns and a clock
Post by pondo ROCKS on Mar 16, 2013 7:54:37 GMT -5
My thing(s) involving a headliner are A. Must easily be able to play 2+hrs (Arcade fire played 90-95 minutes, weak. Not saying there performance was bad, just too short to headline) B. Must have some type of following (Agreed on Mumford & Sons being popular right now, they also have played there before and been solid) C. Preferably a good live band or act (See Pearl Jam for an example of a good live act. Phish is in this category as well) and finally D. Bring something to the table worth seeing/have some hits they can play(Mumford's musicianship is solid enough in this fact and they have some radio play)
I think Mumford will nail all of the above except maybe A. To me, length of set is important (more important I suppose on Saturday then Friday).
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
My thing(s) involving a headliner are A. Must easily be able to play 2+hrs (Arcade fire played 90-95 minutes, weak. Not saying there performance was bad, just too short to headline) B. Must have some type of following (Agreed on Mumford & Sons being popular right now, they also have played there before and been solid) C. Preferably a good live band or act (See Pearl Jam for an example of a good live act. Phish is in this category as well) and finally D. Bring something to the table worth seeing/have some hits they can play(Mumford's musicianship is solid enough in this fact and they have some radio play)
I think Mumford will nail all of the above except maybe A. To me, length of set is important (more important I suppose on Saturday then Friday).
That's a great point about length of show. I've been disappointed in the past by some of the daytime shows...I realize that Roo has to keep the stage rotating, but for some bands 90 minutes just don't cut it. And I think one reason I like longer shows is because I like to see the musicians having fun. If a band hits the stage and they're gone in 90 minutes, I'm, like: "Did you really want this gig?"
So of course we may not get Prince. But the anticipation and speculation not knowing the additions is fun. There is no real harm in it is there? It is a possibility however remote.
I'd say Mumford is much much bigger than Arcade Fire was when they headlined in 2011. Toooooons of people like them, I mean, isn't everyone calling them "the biggest band in the world"? They've dominated the mainstream for the past year, Grammys, radio, albums sold, etc. I'm personally not a huge fan, but I think you're all underestimating them. When I showed the lineup to my non-musically-versed friends most of them really only knew the headliners, and the only one they were excited about were Mumford.
A lot of those things don't necessarily preclude Arcade Fire from being big, which they were at the time. Arcade Fire are on Merge. Still. The Suburbs won the Polaris and Juno, and the Grammy for Album of the Year. They were on SNL twice - Mumford, for all their success, didn't make it until last fall. As far as I can tell, the only real difference is that M&S has Sony's distribution power behind them.
I've seen petty twice and would consider myself a fan and absoluteky no way no how in no possible universe does petty come before Prince except in the dictionary!
Post by manoverboard on Mar 16, 2013 11:36:03 GMT -5
Pretty ridiculous speculation. And how is Mumford to weak (not week, urgh)? They are finishing up a sold out arena tour in the US, there newest album has already gone beyond platinum and it just won the grammy for best album.
Pretty ridiculous speculation. And how is Mumford to weak (not week, urgh)? They are finishing up a sold out arena tour in the US, there newest album has already gone beyond platinum and it just won the grammy for best album.
While I agree with your general point, if you're going to correct someone's grammar it's probably best to proof your post.
I always find it funny when people argue about what band is better. Music is all about personal taste, so you can't tell someone THIS band is better than THIS band just because you think it is. I for one can't stand Arcade Fire's sound, but that doesn't make them an awful band. They are all actually very talented musicians who put on an entertaining show. On the other hand, I love Mumford. I've always been a strings guy. I love bluegrass, I love folk, I love indie rock, and I love it even more when those sounds are fused together. Does that mean Mumford is better than Arcade Fire? No, it does not. It just means their sound suits my musical tastes more.
Prince on the farm would be legendary. Not happening though.
I always find it funny when people argue about what band is better. Music is all about personal taste, so you can't tell someone THIS band is better than THIS band just because you think it is. I for one can't stand Arcade Fire's sound, but that doesn't make them an awful band. They are all actually very talented musicians who put on an entertaining show. On the other hand, I love Mumford. I've always been a strings guy. I love bluegrass, I love folk, I love indie rock, and I love it even more when those sounds are fused together. Does that mean Mumford is better than Arcade Fire? No, it does not. It just means their sound suits my musical tastes more.
Prince on the farm would be legendary. Not happening though.
Headliner speculation has nothing to do with better.
Post by Nautical Disaster on Mar 16, 2013 12:21:26 GMT -5
Other than 'Wake Up' I knew nothing about Arcade Fire in '11, and Im Canadian. Comparing Mumford and them is ridiculous. Mumford is going to be a great upbeat sing along show, and Ill bet Spicey Pizza there will be guests. I also like how the originator of this thread hasnt came back with anything. Hmm. Ya, just throw Prince on as a late add, great business idea
I always find it funny when people argue about what band is better. Music is all about personal taste, so you can't tell someone THIS band is better than THIS band just because you think it is. I for one can't stand Arcade Fire's sound, but that doesn't make them an awful band. They are all actually very talented musicians who put on an entertaining show. On the other hand, I love Mumford. I've always been a strings guy. I love bluegrass, I love folk, I love indie rock, and I love it even more when those sounds are fused together. Does that mean Mumford is better than Arcade Fire? No, it does not. It just means their sound suits my musical tastes more.
Prince on the farm would be legendary. Not happening though.
Headliner speculation has nothing to do with better.
I also like how the originator of this thread hasnt came back with anything.
Inforoo Troll #16: Post random, dumb sh*t and watch the fireworks. (optional) Participation in the thread beyond the initial post.
No trolling here. I had a point/speculation and stated the reasons I thought it could be possible. I don't feel the need to argue with strangers on the Internet.
Inforoo Troll #16: Post random, dumb sh*t and watch the fireworks. (optional) Participation in the thread beyond the initial post.
No trolling here. I had a point/speculation and stated the reasons I thought it could be possible. I don't feel the need to argue with strangers on the Internet.
Fair enough. I have an honest question though. Why post it on a discussion board if you had no plans to discuss it? It just seems like an unusual thought process to me.
No trolling here. I had a point/speculation and stated the reasons I thought it could be possible. I don't feel the need to argue with strangers on the Internet.
Fair enough. I have an honest question though. Why post it on a discussion board if you had no plans to discuss it? It just seems like an unusual thought process to me.
It's just speculation and seems highly possible IMO. All the original reasons I stated seem like it could definitely happen. From a money standpoint there is no reason AC needed Prince on the initial, people are going to go to Bonnaroo, period. But having Prince on the farm this year, even as a late addition would be a huge ego boost for AC and at this point they are probably more into feeding the ego than the pocket book.
Just for fun, someone should post the mock/fake posters from last winter, the ones with Prince, Radiohead, Phish, RHCP, and tons of other bands on last years lineup.
Don't get wrong though, I'm totally cool with M&S headlining Saturday so I can chill and get a good spot for late night. I've always wanted to miss a HL to get close for a LN show but never have.
