2013 Headliners

[Guest]

I don't understand how Coachella would be too soon for The Stones, seeing as they've just done a handful of shows.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Too soon to crank up their touring juggernaut and not worth doing it for just a one-off show.

[Guest]

Too soon to crank up their touring juggernaut and not worth doing it for just a one-off show.

[The Nal]

If they charge what they did for their last shows (or even close), how many would go?

[eFestivals]

I thought that. But they could do the festival, as an extension of the last shows, if they wanted to...

to be honest, I'm more intrigued what their plans are than whether they do Glastonbury. Could they do another stadium tour? If they charge what they did for their last shows (or even close), how many would go?

I suspect it'll be a stadium tour, but one that doesn't go to as many countries as before, and with fewer shows in some of the countries they do do.

So I'm expecting something like 3 London shows (Wembley, or Olympic Park, or Twickenham, or perhaps even Hyde Park), about 6 or 10 USA shows, and then perhaps another half-dozen in countries where they're still one of the bigger bands around.

I can't see them doing the almost-endless touring that they've done before.

[Mardy]

Yeah, Neil, I agree with that, I don't think they're quite the draw in the UK that they think they are. A couple of very high profile shows in the UK, some bigger US cities, and then some in countries where their stock is still quite high, Latin America, maybe one or two in Asia, and wouldn't be surprised of they do one here.

It's a gamble for them, doing Glastonbury. If they don't think tickets are going to sell that well for their shows and there's enough of a gap between Glastonbury and their own shows, AND they think they can put on a good enough show at G, they might do it to ensure that people buy tickets for their own shows later in the summer. But, and this is the problem, they might not see it that way, and any single one of those factors could be enough to persaude them not to do it. I see it as properly on a knife edge. Could go either way based on not much more than a gut feeling by anyone in the Stones' organisation

Edited January 30, 2013 by Mardy

[Spirit of 71]

Yup id expect 2 london shows then one up north and glastonbury then pretty much what you said

Ps does anyone think theyll book the libertines to sub the stones, then if the stones pull the plug they'll step up?

[Ed209]

Libertines - most over rated band, ever.

[Guest]

It's a gamble for them, doing Glastonbury. If they don't think tickets are going to sell that well for their shows and there's enough of a gap between Glastonbury and their own shows, AND they think they can put on a good enough show at G, they might do it to ensure that people buy tickets for their own shows later in the summer. But, and this is the problem, they might not see it that way, and any single one of those factors could be enough to persaude them not to do it. I see it as properly on a knife edge. Could go either way based on not much more than a gut feeling by anyone in the Stones' organisation

[Guest]

Yup id expect 2 london shows then one up north and glastonbury then pretty much what you said

[Mardy]

I doubt that any live showing of one of their performances would help sell tickets to any shows. It's more likely to put them off.

they've done small shows (100 Club, and Shepherds Bush Empire) to 'promote' up coming stadium shows, but they've been very low key, and they were back in the day (before smart phones videoed every second of every show) when anyone outside of the gig wouldn't have much much of an idea how good or bad it might have been

the Shepherds Bush Empire show was well below par, but it generated the necessary publicity to help sell tickets

[eFestivals]

They can clearly make enough upfront money from the tour but id imagine jaggers ego will want all the country talking about his band when they prepare to headline. Id imagine its entirely dependant on whether the US bookers want them overseas first though

my take on Jagger is that he'd far rather have the money in his pocket than anything to massage his ego. And 'money in his pocket' means up-front, rather than a jam-tomorrow thing of a boost to back-catalogue sales - which would be the pay-off from Glastonbury.

My gut feeling is that Glastonbury think he'll say yes because he's not yet said no, but I think Jagger doesn't feel he's able to make the decision until he makes a decision over all of the shows that they'll do.

[Guest]

They can clearly make enough upfront money from the tour but id imagine jaggers ego will want all the country talking about his band when they prepare to headline. Id imagine its entirely dependant on whether the US bookers want them overseas first though

[russycarps]

mad isnt it that someone as rich as mick jagger is still so utterly consumed by making ever more money.

truly, some people can never ever have enough

[Ed209]

I know Glastonbury is good for sales, but the whole country isn't there or watching it on tv. It's mostly good for sales with newer bands simply getting their name in the conscious of music fans.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Seriously - the Libertines? They weren't big enough in their pomp let alone in 2013!! Radiohead would be a far more likely, although I could see any of The Who (Quadraphenia set), Kasabian, or Mumford and Sons being 'reserve'.

Pete (I'm sorry Peter) Doherty and co were never brilliant musicians, their band had new and excitement about them but that has gone with time. Their music sounds quite dated now.

[CaledonianGonzo]

In reasoning why, you need to consider the colossal extent to which he was ripped off by Allen Klein at the end of the 1960s. It seemed to change his entire outlook, financially speaking.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I know Glastonbury is good for sales, but the whole country isn't there or watching it on tv. It's mostly good for sales with newer bands simply getting their name in the conscious of music fans.

Edited January 30, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[eFestivals]

am digging around on a rather unexpected name in the frame for headliner right now ... more news if I'm able to pin anything down.

[Guest]

I don't think that's totally true to be honest, tony. Yes the new bands can do very well out of it, but in 2011 U2 and Beyonce saw a rise of over 700% each, and Coldplay saw a 1200% rise. admittedly Janelle Monae, a new act, saw a 5000% rise. But a 5000% rise on her sales is still going to be less money than a 700% increase on someone like U2's sales.

source:

http://www.gigwise.com/news/64345/coldplay-u2-and-mumford-&-sons-secure-post-glastonbury-sales-boost

[FloorFiller]

am digging around on a rather unexpected name in the frame for headliner right now ... more news if I'm able to pin anything down.

[Guest]

am digging around on a rather unexpected name in the frame for headliner right now ... more news if I'm able to pin anything down.

[TheBoz]

am digging around on a rather unexpected name in the frame for headliner right now ... more news if I'm able to pin anything down.

[cokebabies92]

am digging around on a rather unexpected name in the frame for headliner right now ... more news if I'm able to pin anything down.

[eFestivals]

Intriguing.

Cliff Richard?

yep, with his defrocked vicar friend on tambourine.