353 replies to this topic

[marktea]

eFestivals, on Nov 30 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

the stones rumours get ever stronger, so while Eavis calling U2 "the biggest band in the world" makes the stones look unlikely, everything else seems to imply it will be them.

I very much like the sound of this  

[rexclark]

If this happens we're looking at one of the strongest festival line ups of all time.

Don't know if I'd go see The Stones though.

[jamseyboy]

[quote name='rexclark' date='Nov 30 2009, 11:14 AM' post='3041427']
If this happens we're looking at one of the strongest festival line ups of all time.

Don't know if I'd go see The Stones though.
[/quote)

Yeah but having a ticket will be one hell of a thing......imagine all those hardened Stones fans that would sell an organ just to be there.

[1waveydavey]

This does all make sense and can work....

U2 are arguably the biggest band in the world, on recent record and ticket sales it would be difficult to argue against this.

Rolling Stones are arguably one of the greatest bands of all time, not the biggest at the moment in terms of record sales or number of people who go to see them. Still massive but not as big as U2 on more recent numbers.

Throw in Muse as arguably the best live band on the planet at the moment and we would have possibly the strongest headliners in commercial terms for a festival ever.

Now, thats all the sensible and balanced view of things, now to matters of the heart, I love U2 and am chuffed to bits they are playing, The Rolling Stones are one of my favourite bands of all time, I've seen them a load of times and they never let me down, combination of these two one after the other is just too much to believe will actually happen. I've seen Muse before and I left early... but, am very happy to give them the benefit of doubt and give them a good go again.

Bit of a main stage charlie next year!

[1waveydavey]

eFestivals, on Nov 30 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

stuff that's coming my way from people that should have good info (tho might not have).

Has something changed? A few days ago you thought they were less likely to play, I'm guessing you've had some further / updated info?

[The Nal]

1waveydavey, on Nov 30 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

This does all make sense and can work....

U2 are arguably the biggest band in the world, on recent record and ticket sales it would be difficult to argue against this.

Rolling Stones are arguably one of the greatest bands of all time, not the biggest at the moment in terms of record sales or number of people who go to see them. Still massive but not as big as U2 on more recent numbers.

The Stones are the biggest touring band in the world and have been for 30 odd years, maybe longer. U2 are 2nd, followed by that horrible bitch Madonna I think.

Edited by The Nal, 30 November 2009 - 11:47 AM.

[1waveydavey]

The Nal, on Nov 30 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

The Stones are the biggest touring band in the world and have been for 30 odd years, maybe longer. U2 are 2nd, followed by that horrible bitch Madonna I think.

Biggest TOURING band? Really? More than U2?

Its a tough one to define, I bet U2 play to more people on this tour but the Stones made more money as they charge a lot more for tickets. I paid £45 for U2 in the Summer and £115 in 2007 for the Stones.

Whichever way up it lands, if both play I would be VERY happy, I can't believe both would play though, it is surely too much to ask? The stones at Glastonbury, that WOULD be something.

[Crouchie]

The Nal, on Nov 30 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

The Stones are the biggest touring band in the world and have been for 30 odd years, maybe longer. U2 are 2nd, followed by that horrible bitch Madonna I think.

    

[eFestivals]

1waveydavey, on Nov 30 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

Has something changed? A few days ago you thought they were less likely to play, I'm guessing you've had some further / updated info?

I've had some further info, and I've gone back on some stuff that was saying the same which I discounted at the time (because who it came from has normally been wrong .... but they were right about u2) .....

I was discounting them mainly on Michael having said that U2 are "the biggest band in the world" - I wouldn't have thought he'd have said that if he also had the Stones. But I'm starting to think I've maybe read too much into that.

[The Nal]

1waveydavey, on Nov 30 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

Biggest TOURING band? Really? More than U2?

I think so yeah. I know the Stones charge more but they also played to 200,000 people in Brazil a few years back. They didnt really play to less than 80,000 on any given night on that tour.

As Neil said, I think everyone is reading too much into the "biggest band in the world" statement about U2. Eavis could easily turn around now and say that the Stones are "the biggest band in the history of the world" or something.

[marktea]

The Nal, on Nov 30 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

I think so yeah. I know the Stones charge more but they also played to 200,000 people in Brazil a few years back. They didnt really play to less than 80,000 on any given night on that tour.

As Neil said, I think everyone is reading too much into the "biggest band in the world" statement about U2. Eavis could easily turn around now and say that the Stones are "the biggest band in the history of the world" or something.

It might also just have been an off the cuff remark in the excitement of confirming them at a time when the Stones may still not have been sorted. He may not have thought too much about it or analysed it.

[1waveydavey]

Well I for one would be so excited if the Stones were confirmed.

I'm so aware that I am in danger of being a main stage charlie next year but I can live with it. I love U2 and really love the Stones.

I'll make sure I wander around the site plenty the rest of the time.

So, do we have any feelings about when we might start to get a stronger sense of who the third main stage headliner will be? Fingers so tightly crossed for the stones you wouldn't believe it....

I think by the end of last year we pretty much knew the three didn't we?

[Frenchie1973]

themuel, on Nov 23 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

Take That?!  

Yep nailed on for a Robbie come-back on the Sunday night slot....

[cowmadiddy]

It was probably a clause added by Bono that Eavis had to call them "the biggest band in the world" or the deal was off

[themuel]

Frenchie1973, on Nov 30 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Yep nailed on for a Robbie come-back on the Sunday night slot....

Been saying this since (the TT bit not the rest) Summer and sticking with it, no matter how much the chances fade!

FRI NIGHT - U2

SAT NIGHT - MUSE followed by ROLLING STONES

SUN NIGHT - TAKE THAT AND ROBBIE!!!

hehehe

Edited by themuel, 30 November 2009 - 10:16 PM.

[Toilet Duck]

The Nal, on Nov 30 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

I think so yeah. I know the Stones charge more but they also played to 200,000 people in Brazil a few years back. They didnt really play to less than 80,000 on any given night on that tour.

As Neil said, I think everyone is reading too much into the "biggest band in the world" statement about U2. Eavis could easily turn around now and say that the Stones are "the biggest band in the history of the world" or something.

Here ya go...

Biggest Grossing Tours of All Time...

Stones till top of the heap....but the 360 tour is going to swamp everything, already up to number 6 after only 44 shows!...

[Ice Fatality]

Interesting looking at that... whilst there aren't any real surprises about who's actually on it, but there are only 3 tours on there that happened before the '00s, whereas there's only been one album that's reached the top 20 best-selling since 2000, and that was a Beatles compilation.

Bit of a non-point really but I thought it was interesting. Anyway, bring on the Stones  

[Kyelo]

Toilet Duck, on Nov 30 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

Here ya go...

Biggest Grossing Tours of All Time...

Stones till top of the heap....but the 360 tour is going to swamp everything, already up to number 6 after only 44 shows!...

If I were Bono and saw that I'd be saying "Sh*t we could get that"
That would be a nice jewel in the crown.

Surprising how low the average numbers are though! I mean could you see U2, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi playing to around 20,000!?!

[chrislibertine]

well i have my fingers crossed for the stones, would love to hear gimmie shelter, angie and you cant always get what you want live. u2,stones,muse would make one hell of a strong line up

[BonnetBird]

marktea, on Nov 30 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

It might also just have been an off the cuff remark in the excitement of confirming them at a time when the Stones may still not have been sorted. He may not have thought too much about it or analysed it.

I agree.

I also think the fact that U2 "can only" play Friday night resolves any billing difficulty that may have occurred in choosing between the Stones and U2 for Saturday.

U2 - The Rolling Stones - Muse

...that would be a pretty special line-up.