Next Announcement 2017 Thread

[GlastoSimon]

Having just heard 'Galway Girl' off the new album, I no longer think Ed Sheeran deserves to headline. 

[JoBalls]

Just logged on and saw that Neil was the last reply to the Next Announcement thread. Hurriedly clicked onto the thread, excited that he might have been telling us to stand by our beds...

...sigh. 

[JoBalls]

1 minute ago, GlastoSimon said:

Having just heard 'Galway Girl' off the new album, I no longer think Ed Sheeran deserves to headline. 

'Barcelona' is also a massive pile of w*nk.

[FloorFiller]

14 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

Having just heard 'Galway Girl' off the new album, I no longer think Ed Sheeran deserves to headline. 

Fucking hell I've avoided listening to anything from it so far but that is just woeful. I'd assumed it was a cover of the Steve Earle song until now.

[CaledonianGonzo]

The biggest taboo in modern pop music is to do something that's sincere.

[uscore]

The only headliner they've got wrong in recent times was Mumford and sons. And possibly arcade fire

[brettredmayne]

57 minutes ago, uscore said:

The only headliner they've got wrong in recent times was Mumford and sons. And possibly arcade fire

Arcade fire were fantastic

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

In addition to my point above, you maybe also have to put the actual performance aside too. Just because an act doesn't quite get it right on the night doesn't mean they weren't worthy of the slot in the first place. Kanye West is a good example. Glastonbury booked him when he was at his peak, or certainly highest global profile. It's widely regarded that his performance didn't live up to the hype. Was it a good booking? Absolutely. Was it a good performance? That's open to debate. Likewise Arcade Fire and Mumford & Sons. Again, it could be argued that at the time of their booking they were deserving of their headline status.

You'd be hard pressed to find a headline act booked over the last 10-15 years, maybe more that wasn't worthy of the slot, apart from, like I said above maybe those who came in at late notice.

[ivan]

3 hours ago, Joshuwarr said:

Does that matter? We don't expect the festival to predict the future, but to showcase good music that a broad audience can enjoy. I won't be watching Sheeran but I don't question his credentials as a headliner.

My gripe is the festival doesn't take enough risks. I always think one of the headliner slots should be taken up by an act that is ready to prove themselves and take them up to that next level.

TV would not want an act that would not pull in the viewing figures .

My mate was not far wrong when he reckoned The Pyramid stage was booked by the BBC 

[nickharley]

1 hour ago, brettredmayne said:

Arcade fire were fantastic

One of my favourite pyramid headliners ! 

[cidy]

Eagerly awaiting avalon line up and rest of the smaller stages .

 

[Purple aki squat]

Having heard a couple of the Ed sheeran songs it does seem to tie in with way things are in the world at the moment. 

 

Fuck me, this ain't right.

[Keithy]

12 hours ago, FloorFiller said:

Can't say I went there much last year but it seemed a significant improvement over the previous years I'd been, although yeah, much like the Park the distance away from everything else means I end up missing more stuff there than seeing it unless it's a must see or I have a free schedule (which doesn't happen often).

Loved the new JP location. The stage finally felt like it's own area rather than a tent plonked on the fringe of Silver Hayes area.

Am hoping they add a few more stalls up there but sure it'll be tweaked and mature over the next few festivals like the Park has become.

[JoBalls]

4 hours ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

You leave Fred and Monty alone! 

'it was the first time that we met.'

I am safe in assuming that it isn't a cover of that, I take it. 

It couldn't be more opposite... 

[WS_Jack_III]

5 hours ago, uscore said:

The only headliner they've got wrong in recent times was Mumford and sons. And possibly arcade fire

Thinking back to Mumfords, they were massive at the time. Same rule applies to what we're talking about here with Ed and Adele. 

 

The only danger with that kind of talks is you could argue that PSY bloke was massive 5 years ago too 

[eastynh]

Ed broke his leg when he was 6 years old. Stop picking on him and have a little sympathy.

[thewayiam]

8 hours ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Much as I hate them, mumFords was a good booking at the time. They'll never be at that level again. 

It was in a way but it didn't come across well imo. I went to it and something was off, it didn't feel like a headliner slot, they were either not ready for it or something. 

[reflekting]

12 hours ago, SPTFRE said:

With the resources available to them, I don't believe that GFL have got any of the headliners wrong in the last decade.

I'm gonna dispute this with The Who but otherwise I'd tend to agree.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

I don't think you can put the Mumfords and Adele and Ed in the same bracket. Ed and Adele will eventually disappear for a few years then come back even bigger than before, until they can't be bothered anymore. Mumfords had a sound that people latched onto at the time, but their new stuff wasn't anywhere near as popular and they are never going to be as popular again.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[CaledonianGonzo]

9 hours ago, ivan said:

TV would not want an act that would not pull in the viewing figures .

My mate was not far wrong when he reckoned The Pyramid stage was booked by the BBC 

Once you investigate below the subheadliner level it's got just as varied a booking policy as any of the other stages.  People who pride themselves for never seeing anything on it miss all sorts of great stuff.

[Blue Chicken]

15 hours ago, James96 said:

@Blue Chicken Have you heard anything for Thursday like Neil has said?

No news in the hen house on this one.

[uscore]

I don't think Mumfords were massive at the time.  I think it was at their peak, and that peak wasn't enough to be a glastonbury headliner.  Of course at the time the festival didn't know it was going to be their peak - they took a shot at catching a band on their way up. But it didn't happen.  I also think they are favourites of either Michael or Emily (or both) and that influenced the booking.  But in hindsight, not a great booking.

[DownboundTrain52]

I didn't even think Mumford and Sons were THAT big circa '13 - though I definitely would have said they were big enough to top the bill, in the general convention of major festival headliners. What I do remember is that in '12 and '13, they were bloody HUGE in America. I mean, Babel finished in the top ten on year-end bestsellers for both '12 and '13 over there. Had they been banged up to headline Coachella in '13 - instead of The Stone Roses/Blur - that would have made a ton of sense.

As it is now, I'd say they're still big enough to headline Glastonbury - but as they've done it before, I'd say they shouldn't be that high up the list. Likewise for everyone else booked since 2007. 

[FloorFiller]

10 minutes ago, uscore said:

I don't think Mumfords were massive at the time.  I think it was at their peak, and that peak wasn't enough to be a glastonbury headliner.  Of course at the time the festival didn't know it was going to be their peak - they took a shot at catching a band on their way up. But it didn't happen.  I also think they are favourites of either Michael or Emily (or both) and that influenced the booking.  But in hindsight, not a great booking.

Mumords were for a brief period of time the hottest ticket in the world and were blowing up in both the UK and the US for the year they headlined Glastonbury. It's easy to say in hindsight that it was a shit booking as they started to take a tumble with their next album and I don't think their performance did much to hush the doubters, but at the time it 100% made sense. Thankfully though I can say with confidence that they'll never top the bill again.

[stuartbert two hats]

25 minutes ago, DownboundTrain52 said:

As it is now, I'd say they're still big enough to headline Glastonbury - but as they've done it before, I'd say they shouldn't be that high up the list. Likewise for everyone else booked since 2007. 

They're really not. Even if they hadn't done it before they wouldn't be in contention.