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

I am really suprised to hear that anyone in the music business has to be educated about Glastonbury even if they are the most ignorant of Americans. I imagine that all Chris Martin has actually done is put in a recommendation after Michael has made an approach.

Thom Yorke and Chris Martin twisting arms and brokering deals doesn't quite ring true to me. I am sure that they helped in the decision making process but probably not what clinched it.

Edited by hawkzred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How do you mean the type of act booked to headline is going to change? I'd be quite happy for Glastonbury to go back to booking acts on the way up/with something to prove, the last 3 years have been an unusual exception in getting some of the biggest acts of the last 40 years to headline and I think that's unsustainable. That could be what you mean of course, I'm just asking :bye:

Edited by thesecretingredientiscrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case then they have definitely earned their place.

They are obviously very well connected and seemingly the nice guys in music so I am sure they have helped out if needed.

Just don't see Stevie Wonder, U2 or Springsteen having no knowledge of the festival, unless it had to be explained how it could be beneficial to play.

I have heard that almost 2 million has gone to charity after the festival in the past and that Michael Eavis takes no more than 60k, local talk so can't be 100%.

Edited by hawkzred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, maybe I am completely naive but I really do find that suprising. I know a lot of Americans don't know that there is life the other side of the oceans, but a well travelled musician to have never heard of one of the world's biggest music festivals. Thanks for the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Elton's slightly different ....

I read something recently which said that over half the shows that Elton John has done in recent years have been charity benefits of some kind ... so it might be the case that he'd rather do those and give support directly to causes he wants to support than be slightly removed from that process by playing Glasto and indirectly supporting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the festival can only attract 'Glastonbury connected acts' then the possibilities are Kanye, Mumford, Florence, Kasabian, Radiohead and Kylie for next year!

I still believe its a massive pull for any artist and a priviledge. Especially in light of the names that have headlined in recent years; which increases the profile and paves the way for others.

There is as much pressure on artists from their record companies to sell records as there is for tour agents to get lucarative gigs, so this counterbalances when signing up for Glastonbury.

There are bands/ artists that have reached a level where they have the final say, for instance if Michael Eavis offered a lesser amount to what Reading are paying this year; for the Foo Fighters to play next year at Glastonbury, I doubt the Foo's would let their tour agent stand in their way.

Edited by hawkzred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what I mean :) Glastonbury is going to turn to booking acts on the way up/with something to prove, hence the 2008 comment.

I'm sure Efests will back me up, as he's the one that said it, but Martin has played a massive role in ensuring the fest goes ahead and getting acts who need a bit more persuading. After they headlined first time, they donated their fee to charity, played Pilton Party, as well as Martin personally pleading with Shepton Mallet council when it looked like a licence was likely to be refused. As I said, I really can't stand Coldplay, but they've earned their place to headline every five or six years in my book.

Remember, up until recently (it may still be the case), Glasto was taking the bare minimum as company profit, and putting the majority into the charity, so acts like Coldplay putting their fee back in, and helping use their influence is vital to save funds. As i've stated though, there's very few "Glastonbury connected" acts left, so they're going to have to make new "Glastonbury connected" acts, like 2008.

Edited by MEGABOWL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.digitalsp...lastonbury.html

You can read it in yourself there, Emily says:

""There's so much bartering and hustle with the booking agents. A lot of agents are not that keen on Glastonbury.

"They just don't get it because it doesn't pay enough money."

There's also an article about how they needed to produce a booklet to persuade Springsteen to play, as, and this is word for word, he responded: "glaston-what?" when asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all this talk about Glastonbury struggling to get acts is pretty unlikely. The festival wen through a difficult period around 5-10 years ago, but has bounced back stronger than ever.

Look at last year - U2, Coldplay, Beyonce - acts as big as any festival could book... and then the 'Glastonbury supporters club' appearing on the Park Stage, Radiohead and Pulp, who could easily have headlined.

Add to that Chems, QOTSA and Primal Scream on the other stage... I mean you really can't ask for anything more. You could take out 3-4 of those acts and still sell out a festival

p.s. I haven't even mentioned the likes of Wu-Tang or BB King. Trust me... they aren't going to have problems booking any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of British acts like Clapton, Elton John, Kate Bush and the Rolling Stones. Not necessarily touring but some of the biggest names in the industry.

Would these type of artists although being able to earn more elsewhere turn down the headline slot?

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...