Dreadful Headliners NOT Confirmed

[Derby_Dave]

How anyone can describe Stevie Wonder as dreadful is beyond me. It shows a supreme lack of taste given the wonderful contribution he has made to music through a career of coming up for fifty years and he provides a very real link back to the dawn of popular music. Shame that some people are simply too fixated on the here and now to understand how little about popular music they really do understand.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Derby_Dave

[Mardy]

Good bookings, all three of them, but I'll not be watching any of them. Can't knock the size/quality of those headliners though. Just not my bag.

[Langdale Wolf]

Good bookings, all three of them, but I'll not be watching any of them. Can't knock the size/quality of those headliners though. Just not my bag.

[MEGABOWL]

I have to say that I preferred last year's headliners to this. It's just a personal thing - I'm a big Springsteen fan, Neil Young was great and Blur were fantastic too.

That said, I echo most of the other sentiments in this thread. U2 and Stevie Wonder are a fantastic coup for the festival and Muse are reputed to be really good live. I may well end up watching all three, depending on what's on other stages at the time.

It's so refreshing to see a festival that doesn't trot out the same headliners year after year.

Oh, and just because you don't like a particular band/artist does not make them 'dreadful' or unworthy of headlining.

Kev

[Mardy]

hehehe, but realistically, it's just as well I'm not in charge of the bill, I'd have Jeffery Lewis, Lambchop and the Notwist headlining and 124999 angry punters looking to lynch me...

Edited February 12, 2010 by Mardy

[jbutcher]

Ditto to that, Good bookings but I reckon Il only be seeing one of them.

If you dont like them go to another stage,

and Stop Moaning! Simple.

[eFestivals]

Does this make it official yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/1...vie-wonder-muse

Not quite, as the fest haven't said it themselves .... but the wording of that piece makes it look like they'd be making that confirmation shortly.

I expect it'll go up on Q Mag's site (it's not there yet, I just checked) before the fest confirm it themselves, as I believe the deal they have with them requires that.

[4AssedMonkey]

Ah, and we're back to Jay-Z again aren't we?

"He's not a Glastonbury act!" screamed the masses!

To repeat - what is a Glastonbury act? Rolf Harris? Cypress Hill? Ladysmith Black Mambazo? N.E.R.D.?

Could it be that... gasp of gasps... that (unlike Rage, Metallica and KOL) I've already seen Muse and U2 ... and PERISH THE THOUGHT ... Stevie Wonder just doesn't do it for me?

You guys are just as closed minded... only in reverse!

[eFestivals]

Don't know what the whole "Stones is cancelled because Ronnie's a drunk" thing is about to be honest, seems a bit of an unfair presumption.

Last I heard, Ronnie was planning a solo album & tour.

The stones were very definitely planning to tour this year - but then they cancelled their touring plans.

Just before they announced that they'd be no tour this year, there were stories in the press about them having trouble getting insurance for the tour, because of Ronnie's drinking. So I suspect it was that issue which caused them to cancel their touring plans.

Info I've had (tho nothing I can be 100% certain about) all strongly indicated that before all of that they were talking to Glastonbury about playing this year.

So while I can't be sure, it does appear that it was Ronnie's drinking that scuppered it all.

[future_shock]

Yeah awesome bookings for the festival, I'm sure those who watch them will have a brilliant time but I won't be anywhere near them. I don't enjoy any of the headliners announced but it doesn't bother me I'll be off doing something somewhere else as is often the case at Glastonbury, most years the headliners don't really interest me.

As for the Metallica thing I'd much rather they headlined but purely from my own personal taste. I wouldn't say they were better/worse or more deserving of a headline slot than the three we have. To say any of the listed bands are not worthy is just nonsense whether you like them or not you have to admit they clearly are acts of headline stature.

I'm still waiting for Prince to headline one day though .

[Ed209]

The stones were very definitely planning to tour this year - but then they cancelled their touring plans.

Just before they announced that they'd be no tour this year, there were stories in the press about them having trouble getting insurance for the tour, because of Ronnie's drinking. So I suspect it was that issue which caused them to cancel their touring plans.

Info I've had (tho nothing I can be 100% certain about) all strongly indicated that before all of that they were talking to Glastonbury about playing this year.

So while I can't be sure, it does appear that it was Ronnie's drinking that scuppered it all.

[Tugger2k]

wasn't the fee an issue?

[eFestivals]

You guys are just as closed minded... only in reverse!

No.

Our minds our open to more than just the things we'd personally like.

I defo won't watch Muse. I might watch US, I might watch Stevie - but they're a very long way from what I'd personally like to be watching.

But I'm not so daft as to think it's a festival that's being put on for just me. I'm smart enough to realise that (perhaps apart from Muse) they are the biggest headliners that it's possible to get, and a line-up announcement of those three acts would have it sell out in minutes.

Perhaps ask your mum what 'selfish' means? And then wake up the fact that the world doesn't revolve around just you.

[GlastoEls]

Who said anything about Jay-Z? If I'd been there that year I'd have seen him no worries. It's not about what is/isn't a Glastonbury Act, it's about what IS a Download/Reading Act, such as, oh I don't know, maybe Metallica, or KoL, or RATM, you know something like that.

[judyblue110]

wasn't the fee an issue?

[-pogo-]

To be fair, Muse and U2 are pretty deadful!

[eFestivals]

I'm not saying that this is wrong, but surely if the stones had cancelled all their tours/gigs when drink and drug addictions had been a problem, they might never have played a gig ... ever

How things were in the past - for tours in general, and for the stones - is not how things are now.

The stones tours are the biggest in the world - and so the most expensive. Which means that if things go tits-up during the tour for any reason, someone has to pick up the tab for the cancelled shows.

Without insurance, it would be the band who picked up the costs of cancelling. As they're a band who nowadays only tour for the money they make, that could make touring financial pointless - and possibly hugely expensive (dependent on how soon into the tour they had to cancel).

From what was rumoured in the press, the band considered doing the tour without Ronnie, to get around the insurance issue. It seems that they decided not to do that - perhaps out of loyalty, or perhaps out of a fear that the shows would be less popular.

[ivan]

The stones were very definitely planning to tour this year - but then they cancelled their touring plans.

Just before they announced that they'd be no tour this year, there were stories in the press about them having trouble getting insurance for the tour, because of Ronnie's drinking. So I suspect it was that issue which caused them to cancel their touring plans.

Info I've had (tho nothing I can be 100% certain about) all strongly indicated that before all of that they were talking to Glastonbury about playing this year.

So while I can't be sure, it does appear that it was Ronnie's drinking that scuppered it all.

[GlastoEls]

No.

Our minds our open to more than just the things we'd personally like.

I defo won't watch Muse. I might watch US, I might watch Stevie - but they're a very long way from what I'd personally like to be watching.

But I'm not so daft as to think it's a festival that's being put on for just me. I'm smart enough to realise that (perhaps apart from Muse) they are the biggest headliners that it's possible to get, and a line-up announcement of those three acts would have it sell out in minutes.

Perhaps ask your mum what 'selfish' means? And then wake up the fact that the world doesn't revolve around just you.

Edited February 12, 2010 by GlastoElliot

[emilyrose]

I really can not see why some people seem to think that the 3 headliners ( not yet confirmed but lets be honest its going to happen ) are DREADFUL!

Depending on what is happening at the time, i'm not that bothered about U2 or Stevie!

Friends have told me to see U2 saying they are fantastic live.

As for Stevie the man is a legend!

Muse are a fantastic live band i have seen them a few times, and each time they have impressed me! I recommend for people that think otherwise to watch there 2004 performance at Glastonbury especially Stockholm Syndrome! Just to see that they are just as good without the fancy stage setup! and i cannot wait for these 3 guys to take to the pyramid stage again!!

[BlackHole2006]

Can't we all just get along!!

[GlastoEls]

Can't we all just get along!!

[norainplease]

"Our studies indicate that your recent opinion of Stevie Wonder at Glastonbury has identified you as a vapid waste of carbon. That is all."

Edited February 12, 2010 by norainplease

[BlackHole2006]

Alas, there does seem to be a strange culture sometimes on this site.

For example - duck if you ever mention the words "I like Oasis".

Or if someone dares to publicly dislike Radiohead.

Or when the webmaster insults you for suggesting that you agree with a poster when they state they would prefer a hypothetical set of bands headlining over those already booked!

[4AssedMonkey]

Perish the thought one could enjoy ALL types of music at Glasto - even, you know, metal, and stuff. I'm the one here being inclusive. You're the one suggesting some acts aren't welcome as they're "Reading" bands - which is exactly the sort of lame debate we had most famously over Jay-Z!