288 replies to this topic

[eFestivals]

micawber, on Nov 25 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

Like Kenny Rodgers

ummm ... i said huge.

[Artie Fufkin]

eFestivals, on Nov 25 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

All of the first part you say I'd already considered, and yep, it's quite possible that the dates could have been worked that way.

However, I'm now thinking that the Saturday isn't going to have a bigger band at all - after all, eavis announced U2 as being "the biggest band in the world" (or very similar), so surely the Saturday band can't be the Stones (I'm not saying the Stones are bigger, just that it's an argument Eavis would have been careful to avoid, I reckon). So, yes, from that I guess it could be "just a Muse or Coldplay or something".

That quote doesn't tho rule out the Saturday as having a huge solo artist.

Neil, you think its possible that U2 playing Friday is a TV rights thing. If U2 are demanding control of image rights then maybe GFL and BBC said ... OK, but it'll have to be the friday headline slot as we want to broadcast whoever the saturday night headliner is as its the prime slot.

[marktea]

tevaburger, on Nov 25 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

final thought about u2's original june 23-30 'gap' in their US dates ...

while it seems far more likely (and as most on these forums seem to have agreed) that U2 have the friday slot merely so they could return to play their sunday date in Minnesota, and that this might have nothing at all to do with a 'bigger' act on Sat stopping U2 from taking that spot... we can hopefully think there's always the possibility that june 23-30 gap was kept open precisely because U2 knew they were in talks about Glasto but they just didn't know which day (Sat, Sun or Fri) Eavis or whomever would or could assign them. And so perhaps they were indeed only offered Friday, because GF knew that had a 'coup' lined up for saturday already (Stones or Radiohead). and so, as soon as U2 knew what the date they had for Glasto that's when they decided the days for their US dates for Edmonton and Minn and hence the additions there, all while they still kept the friday Glasto gig quiet for a bit longer to work out final contractual stuff.

so, this presumes that Glasto more or less decided just what dates the Edmonton and Minnesota dates would take up, instead of Edmonton and Minn forcing U2 to only be able to take the friday slot. for example, if they GF had given U2 the sunday they wud have annoucned the N. America add-on dates as june 24 & 28, or if the sunday they would have said 25&29. What else would explain the delay in announcing those fairly random dates in the June 23-30 period when the rest of the US tour had been announced already?

what this implies is that Saturday's headliner is indeed someone massive like the Stones, as U2 easily could have taken that slot given the original gap btw the 23rd and 30th...it can't be just a Muse or Coldplay or something. and Led Zeppelin don't exist FFS!

Bloody good post and a lot in this I reckon. Clearly some very interesting juggling has been going on.

So lets say for a moment that U2 had indeed kept the dates clear to allow some flexibility and lets also assume that the final choice was left just up to them - in that scenario which date would they have chosen? Generally you would think that they would have gone for the Sat or Sun ahead of the Friday purely from a profile point of view (yes I know that there could be other factors like stadium availability in the US but this is just a bit of fun).

So where that seems to leave us is that the selection of Friday was indeed quite probably more down to the festival's requirements than U2's. Which certainly does seem to raise the pretty tantalising question as to exactly why that would suit the festival more. With the two 'best' headlining slots still available any bookmaker's odds would probably now be leaning towards at least one of them falling into the 'massive' category.

[eFestivals]

Artie Fufkin, on Nov 25 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

Neil, you think its possible that U2 playing Friday is a TV rights thing. If U2 are demanding control of image rights then maybe GFL and BBC said ... OK, but it'll have to be the friday headline slot as we want to broadcast whoever the saturday night headliner is as its the prime slot.

yeah, I guess that's possible. But surely the point of doing Glastonbury for a band like U2 is especially for the TV exposure?

[Artie Fufkin]

eFestivals, on Nov 25 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

yeah, I guess that's possible. But surely the point of doing Glastonbury for a band like U2 is especially for the TV exposure?

Wasn't it a stumbling block a few years ago. Sure I heard U2 almost got signed but it fell through when they demanded image rights and that it wouldn't be shown on the BBC. THought Eavis even commented on it ... or was that all a dream/lie?

[eFestivals]

Artie Fufkin, on Nov 25 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

Wasn't it a stumbling block a few years ago. Sure I heard U2 almost got signed but it fell through when they demanded image rights and that it wouldn't be shown on the BBC. THought Eavis even commented on it ... or was that all a dream/lie?

Dunno, you could be right.

But there's no obligation to go out on TV I believe, as far as I'm aware it's something negotiated between the BBC and each act they want to cover, outside of the fests involvement and after the fest have signed-up the act. So I wouldn't have thought a band not wanting to be broadcast would have stopped them playing.

[tevaburger]

eFestivals, on Nov 25 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

yeah, I guess that's possible. But surely the point of doing Glastonbury for a band like U2 is especially for the TV exposure?

surely it can't be a "we don't want to be on tv" thing. the only reason they are doing this is for massive exposure. it will be on BBC on friday, and repeated on sat and sun in-between every other set! they've already said it's their only UK or Eire show of 2010 and it's sold out. they're just begging to be filmed

[tevaburger]

eFestivals, on Nov 25 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

That quote doesn't tho rule out the Saturday as having a huge solo artist.

so that's why u still have madonna down as a rumour. oh no....dear god no...

[Harrow Strongbow Ciderman!]

QUOTE (tevaburger @ Nov 25 2009, 03:03 PM)

"final thought about u2's original june 23-30 'gap' in their US dates ...

while it seems far more likely (and as most on these forums seem to have agreed) that U2 have the friday slot merely so they could return to play their sunday date in Minnesota, and that this might have nothing at all to do with a 'bigger' act on Sat stopping U2 from taking that spot... we can hopefully think there's always the possibility that june 23-30 gap was kept open precisely because U2 knew they were in talks about Glasto but they just didn't know which day (Sat, Sun or Fri) Eavis or whomever would or could assign them. And so perhaps they were indeed only offered Friday, because GF knew that had a 'coup' lined up for saturday already (Stones or Radiohead). and so, as soon as U2 knew what the date they had for Glasto that's when they decided the days for their US dates for Edmonton and Minn and hence the additions there, all while they still kept the friday Glasto gig quiet for a bit longer to work out final contractual stuff.

so, this presumes that Glasto more or less decided just what dates the Edmonton and Minnesota dates would take up, instead of Edmonton and Minn forcing U2 to only be able to take the friday slot. for example, if they GF had given U2 the sunday they wud have annoucned the N. America add-on dates as june 24 & 28, or if the sunday they would have said 25&29. What else would explain the delay in announcing those fairly random dates in the June 23-30 period when the rest of the US tour had been announced already?

what this implies is that Saturday's headliner is indeed someone massive like the Stones, as U2 easily could have taken that slot given the original gap btw the 23rd and 30th...it can't be just a Muse or Coldplay or something. and Led Zeppelin don't exist FFS!"

marktea, on Nov 25 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Bloody good post and a lot in this I reckon. Clearly some very interesting juggling has been going on.
So lets say for a moment that U2 had indeed kept the dates clear to allow some flexibility and lets also assume that the final choice was left just up to them - in that scenario which date would they have chosen? Generally you would think that they would have gone for the Sat or Sun ahead of the Friday purely from a profile point of view (yes I know that there could be other factors like stadium availability in the US but this is just a bit of fun).

So where that seems to leave us is that the selection of Friday was indeed quite probably more down to the festival's requirements than U2's. Which certainly does seem to raise the pretty tantalising question as to exactly why that would suit the festival more. With the two 'best' headlining slots still available any bookmaker's odds would probably now be leaning towards at least one of them falling into the 'massive' category.

Good posting +1 too, on all the U2 points.
I agree. Apart from the bit about: "..and Led Zeppelin don't exist FFS!"
They existed for their phenomenal appearance at the O2. Re-Union concert Dec 2007
I'm still stunned but very happy about all this U2 conf.. and thought we'd have U2 OR some other huge band. But with next year being 40th and all that I can honestly see Eavis getting Led Zep AND U2  
.. We'll see!