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

  • Replies 11.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yeah I know - else how would they have been able to do the album in the first place? I was taking the piss.

The real reason for them not touring this year is that they want to see how the album is received first, because it's quite a radical change because it's got no computers.

I've heard a couple of 4th hand reports from people who've heard the album, and both of those have said it's excellent. What I don't know tho is whether those people's tastes and likes are worth listening to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Ooh excited for this album now, would the live show change completely then or would they just bring out the instruments now and again?

I have absolutely no idea. If the album bombs, then we might never find out. :lol:

I wonder if the sales will live up to the DP hype that's around currently? I suspect they won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O_o

Go away for an hour and the game has all changed!! :P

Arctics may not be correct after all, or maybe they are the backup band? Could they/would they be willing to also sub the Stones? (Though I liked the suggestion of Pulp someone made.)

Mumford/Prince would make sense, if they are booking later this year maybe Prince has fitted into plans :D and Mumfords well...they are Mumfords and Eavis reportedly loves them.

Mumford & Sons,

Noel G

Rolling Stones

Pulp (Maybe, maybe some one "new...Florence?)

Prince

Chase & Status

;)

That would be pretty damn good!

and oh Daft Punk album sounds interesting! Wonder what the show would be like if it does well!

Edited by LondonTom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah.

But he'd only be right saying Arctics if they are actually playing of course. While I think they very probably are, I'm still not certain.

I've wondered for a while if Mumfords might be set to play before the Stones* (and Michael has supposedly said he has a back-up in place if the stones don't play after all), but then I'd have thought they might have been switched to Sunday when Fleetwood Mac said they couldn't play after all.

(* that would be as a repellent :P ... it would stop the crowd building up too much in advance)

So anyway, I'm none the wiser really on 2013.... which makes it so very odd that I know all three acts that Michael has lined up for 2014. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah.

But he'd only be right saying Arctics if they are actually playing of course. While I think they very probably are, I'm still not certain.

I've wondered for a while if Mumfords might be set to play before the Stones* (and Michael has supposedly said he has a back-up in place if the stones don't play after all), but then I'd have thought they might have been switched to Sunday when Fleetwood Mac said they couldn't play after all.

(* that would be as a repellent :P ... it would stop the crowd building up too much in advance)

So anyway, I'm none the wiser really on 2013.... which makes it so very odd that I know all three acts that Michael has lined up for 2014. :lol:

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

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • 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.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...