Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

2013 Headliners


Guest shangri-la_steward

Recommended Posts

Fans of the Rolling Stones hoping the band will one day headline at Glastonbury Festival, pricked up their ears when they heard festival founder Michael Eavis refer to the band in a Dutch interview carried on Youtube.

When the interviewer asked how booking headline acts is done, Mr Eavis replied: "Well I phone up Chris Martin, or do the Stones, or phone up Paul McCartney, so I do that myself."

The impromptu interview happened while Mr Eavis was in Holland to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award at this year's European Festival Awards. Back at his dairy farm at Pilton, near Glastonbury, yesterday Mr Eavis admitted the Stones: "are on a wish list".

"It would be brilliant if they came, and brilliant for them too. They are the only band in the world that we haven't had play the festival. Everyone else wants to play." But he added: "I would not ring the band myself – I have known the agent all my life." Mr Eavis is giving the Glastonbury Festival a year off this year.

Seems a good interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why would Glasto want to book money grabbing twats anyway? What's going to do, bring Mroon 5 out for an encore lol. Isn#t it actually stated that Eavis did not go for Rolling Stones are the whole big they tried to get them for last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from sure about that. The Stones essentially auction their tour dates to the highest bidder, and I can't see them changing that for what will be their last tour and so their last chance of earning. They love their money too much.

Having said that, I don't see it as impossible - but I'm a very long way from having the same certainty as you about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Pretty sure (could be wrong, maybe someone can confirm) but they were using solo for the Bigger bang tour, hence the reason they played IOW,

yep, they were, and they've had a very long association with Giddins so felt they could trust him to fulfil all their wants - which included their own special stage structure, which Glasto would be very unlikely to do I'd have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cos they haven't ever booked "money grabbing twats" before? Last year we had U2 and Beyonce headline well known before Glasto for doing low paid things... (and i have to say I think the stones for me will be much like that.

We know the stones are slightly more twatish when it comes to money, but if they was attaching it to a tour and it wouldn't cost them anything to get a full set broadcast across the nation then why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot more twattish. U2 can charge what they want and will sell out wherever as it's been show. The different is they wanted to play Glasto and paid as I remember though might be wrong for a fair bit of their show themselves. Jagger I doubt cares wether he plays or not, he's not bothered in 50 years, it doesn't give him his money. I'd be sceptacle about Glasto wanting to reach their demands rather than get a more accepting better lie act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah John Giddings who runs IOW is also the head? (may be wrong) of Solo who are a music agent and promoter who happpened to be working on the stones last tour, which helps explain why they've only ever played the IOW so far,

I still reckon given the status of Glasto, and the fact a 50th tour will ensure they break all previous records for highest grossing tour, a stop at worthy farm will happen as money won't be an issue, and it's the last big musical event they've not yet achieved!

Keep the faith!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah John Giddings who runs IOW is also the head? (may be wrong) of Solo who are a music agent and promoter who happpened to be working on the stones last tour, which helps explain why they've only ever played the IOW so far,

I still reckon given the status of Glasto, and the fact a 50th tour will ensure they break all previous records for highest grossing tour, a stop at worthy farm will happen as money won't be an issue, and it's the last big musical event they've not yet achieved!

Keep the faith!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how long was Eavis trying get U2 for? :P Anyway, I am not really arguing for them just saying some of your reasoning for it isn't quite as it seems.

I think its 55,000 and she had two presales this week, but impressive enough. Not seen an extra date added yet which seems odd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady GaGa doesn't really have any other space near her 2 UK dates before going into the rest of europe and southern europe. Maybe 1, 2 at a push after MEN date and same before, but I can't see why they wouldn't have been announced. It will shock me very much if she doesn't have a deal to play T/Oxygen and Glasto next year, as well as Wireless or V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, think I would be gutted if the Stone Roses headline Glastonbury next year after how much they have whored themselves out this year. They're everywhere. Although sadly I can see it happened for reasons already discussed in this thread. What about Arctic Monkeys, new album out in 2013 and they haven't done Glastonbury since 07 (I think?), or are they past their stock now? I think they would a pretty good booking myself, much more mature and better musicians since their 07 set which seemed to go down well, judging only from what I saw when I was younger on TV and youtube videos. Couldn't really say on the 3rd headliner, which I guess is more variety.

Would love Radiohead to be there though, wouldn't matter who else headlined.

Edit; on an unrelated note, as I didn't think it was worth creating a new thread so early. Can somebody clarify the ticket process for me, I have already registered for 2013, when the deposit scheme opens in October and you pay the £50, is that you safe until April as long as you pay the remaining £150, or is it another mad dash for tickets with no guarantee you'll get a ticket with your £50 deposit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, think I would be gutted if the Stone Roses headline Glastonbury next year after how much they have whored themselves out this year. They're everywhere. Although sadly I can see it happened for reasons already discussed in this thread. What about Arctic Monkeys, new album out in 2013 and they haven't done Glastonbury since 07 (I think?), or are they past their stock now? I think they would a pretty good booking myself, much more mature and better musicians since their 07 set which seemed to go down well, judging only from what I saw when I was younger on TV and youtube videos. Couldn't really say on the 3rd headliner, which I guess is more variety.

Would love Radiohead to be there though, wouldn't matter who else headlined.

Edit; on an unrelated note, as I didn't think it was worth creating a new thread so early. Can somebody clarify the ticket process for me, I have already registered for 2013, when the deposit scheme opens in October and you pay the £50, is that you safe until April as long as you pay the remaining £150, or is it another mad dash for tickets with no guarantee you'll get a ticket with your £50 deposit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they turn up and played the 1st two albums yes with Cornerstone included lol. If not, no, If Radiohead are there, we'll already have one band seen as depressive, we don't want two.

IMO, Arctics thought of to be matured now or not, their new stuff is too slow and boring, defo an aquired taste.

Edited by thesecretingredientiscrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their last three released tracks:

R U Mine?

You And I

Evil Twin

Three of their heaviest tracks released and probably their three greatest, and musically advanced tracks released. Also the fact you called Radiohead "depressive" says a lot. Lets have straight guitar bands, lad rock! Lets get Razorlight to headline! A Viva Brother reunion?!

I would like Arctics to do it, don't think they will though.

With regards to other people/other positions, chances of Santana? Has he played before? I know he's just started a residency in Vegas, but there's always gaps. Under Fleetwood Mac/Prince would be perfect.

On the Prince subject, would his headline slot last year have any impact on him playing?

Edited by gazza_20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm referring moreso to their last two albums.

Also, I hate Viva Brother lol. I did used to like Razorlight until their last album was out.

Doesn't have to always be straight guitar bands, but you like what you do. Personally caught James at Coachella and Grouplove and really enjoyed.

Actually listened to those just now and found Evil Twin only one I'd both again with I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk so much fucking shit on bands its unreal.

Anyway its not they have some slow songs, Suck it and see is a top album and not that slow... Its they don't really know how to perform live and I blame that on the enormous hype they had. They haven't learnt the craft of stagemanship to much yet.

any if they keep up with stuff like R U mine , and they imrpove on coachella performence we're looking at a decent headline act in about the time I'd expect an act to properly develop in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...