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

From yesterday.

Asked if they'd (Metallica) like to headline Glastonbury, Ulrich said: "We've never played Glastonbury. I don't know if Michael would ever invite a harder rock band to play. It's something I would love to do at some point. We love playing, we love connecting with people, and you want to try to do that in as many situations as possible. Mid May to September in Europe, it doesn't get better than that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

From yesterday.

Asked if they'd (Metallica) like to headline Glastonbury, Ulrich said: "We've never played Glastonbury. I don't know if Michael would ever invite a harder rock band to play. It's something I would love to do at some point. We love playing, we love connecting with people, and you want to try to do that in as many situations as possible. Mid May to September in Europe, it doesn't get better than that."

it's not the first time they've said something like this. Hopefully it'll be ignored in favour of the bands the Eavii would chose above Metallica.

I know that Foos have been considered as headliners - I'm not sure if it's been ruled out or not - but also know that Michael was hovvering around the idea that they were too heavy for Glastonbury. So it's probably less likely that Metallica would headline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not the first time they've said something like this. Hopefully it'll be ignored in favour of the bands the Eavii would chose above Metallica.

I know that Foos have been considered as headliners - I'm not sure if it's been ruled out or not - but also know that Michael was hovvering around the idea that they were too heavy for Glastonbury. So it's probably less likely that Metallica would headline.

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Santana ever played? I know he was rumoured a few years ago, but didn't know if he's ever actually played?

I'd love (well I say love, I fecking hate Mumford but could see them featuring in this type of thing) something like this:

Fleetwood

Mumford

Santana

Dylan

Don't think it's too unrealistic. Stevie N has been saying Fleetwood would be going back out, was supposed to be this year, but she's on tour with Rod Stewart (I shudder to mention that name in connection with Glasto), Mumford will more than likely be back, and could more than likely sub, especially under an act like Fleetwood, Santana is the one i'm questioning, I'd love Dylan, and he hasn't played in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kanye did not go down well with Big Chill regulars and was probably not promoted enough as you said to attract more numbers off the back of him headlining. It sounds like a contradiction but he was probably too big a name for the festival in the first place.

Big Chill is/was a pretty decent festival that has a bit of an identity crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Kanye is one of the top acts that I really want to see live, but there was no way I was paying to go to see that bag of shite line-up, other Kanye fans I know felt the same.

There were some dreadful acts on the bill but there were also an lot of gems. If Kanye fans couldn't see that then that's saying something about Kanye fans. :P:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of 2ManyDJs and Crystal Fighters and seen them both numerous times before so that wasn't going to sway me, also a fan of Metronomy and seen then so many times, because they've played everywhere. It was mainly the fact that Jessie J was the sub that put me off to be honest, things like that make a line-up look terrible, like Paramore under The Cure at R&L this year makes the line-up look much worse than it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally understand what you're saying with that one, I've always maintained that the subs can either make or break a line up, for example Biffy under Metallica & Soundgarden under Sabbath at Download looks huge, where as in comparison as you say Paramore subbing the Cure makes R/L look weaker than it should.

As for Jessie J, she wasn't that bad on the day, though by no means was she good either, I guess the reasoning behind booking her was to try & tempt in the more 'mainstream' pop audience who may not have been persuaded by Kanye alone. Though I have a feeling lack of exposure killed that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

back in 2003 i think they were second-from-top on the sunday Other Stage bill right before Doves, so..10 years later they'd be in with a shout to close things out. (I could be wrong, but was trying to think why I missed them that year, and i think it was because I was catching the Manics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I asked about Sigur Ros the other week. I think they're worth a shout, Bestival is their only UK show this year (so happy I'm going), so next year, they'll probably be playing a lot more shows + a tour probably. Glasto would be wonderful (fingers crossed I can actually go!?).

Are they too big to headline the 3rd stage? I've never been before so can't tell hah.

Edited by Joe-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My beautiful dark twisted fantasy is my favourite album of the last few years. Utterly bonkers of course, samples of king crimson, raol Dahl (sp) quotes and devil in a new dress is beautiful. Lots of Gil Scott Heron.

Anyone who hasn't heard it should listen to all of it. Now.

Edited by sifi
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...