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

2011 headliners were announced between Feb 15th and 23rd. So I don't think it's going to be too long until the offical annoucement.

Rolling Stones will be the last headliner announced after their other shows have gone on sale and most likely sold out. With Glasto being on TV, I can't see them doing it the other way around.

Can see it being: Arctic Monkeys - Rolling Stones - Mumford & Sons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Stereoboard stuff makes some sense. I Brits appearance, good few million watching on the tv, announce tour dates on the back of the publicity.

I may be alone but I am mighty excited at the thought of The Stones at Glastonbury. It's The Stones FFS!

Maybe the BBC have upped the payment they make given the extensive coverage they are providing, that will help pay.

Anyway, by the time we get to page 1004 of this thread, The Brits appearance will be slated by many, loads on here will say what a waste of money they are and how they won't be watching. They'll go and watch anyway, blame mates for 'dragging them along' and say it was shit.

I will have fond memories of singing the wrong words to Tumbling Dice in the rain with a red wine in my hand.

Debates will then be held over who was more shit, Stones or Bruce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% of the people who'll be at the farm in June weren't even born when they were relevant. Most just want to say that they have seen them. Another crossed of the list etc.

I'm in my 20's so obviously wasn't around either. I'v always been a beatles man rather than a Stones man to be honest. I bet there is not many on this forum that own more than the odd Stones album anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they announce the Stones. Think it would be great for all parties. I understand the negativity of some people who post on here and the reasons, but I think most people at the farm will be chuffed to see one of the biggest bands in history - even if they're well past their prime.

My main concern is the undercard. I assume it won't really be hit by a big payment to the Stones, but I'd be annoyed if it was. Glastonbury is a world apart from other fest because of the quality and variety available all day. That's the best part for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to throw conversation off. But I had to ask somewhere. I attended OXEGEN festival last year, was planning to do glasto and that again. But i've been searching and it's like the festival doesn't even exist/ever did exist? Has it been cancelled or something? Or are organisers keeping things secret for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they announce the Stones. Think it would be great for all parties. I understand the negativity of some people who post on here and the reasons, but I think most people at the farm will be chuffed to see one of the biggest bands in history - even if they're well past their prime.

My main concern is the undercard. I assume it won't really be hit by a big payment to the Stones, but I'd be annoyed if it was. Glastonbury is a world apart from other fest because of the quality and variety available all day. That's the best part for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been around for most of the time the Stones have been playing and, in honesty, I've never been a fan. I would never have gone to watch them but decided that I would have a nice little wander around a quiet Glastonbury while they attracted most of the people attending. Absolutely had no problem with that. Each to their own, etc etc etc.

But I find it absolutely appalling that they might take/be given money from the charities the festival supports or reduce the quality/status/whatever of the other bands that might play or impact upon future festivals. I can just see the "Well, the Stones got a mill when they were shite, I'm/we're at the top of our game so give us £2m". It could/will become a status thing .... just the same way that being asked to headline used to be. It's a slippery slope and far, far worse for the festival's future than off-site camping or anything else that people have gotten incensed about might be.

I would rather have three ok-ish headliners this year. May not cause great excitement but wouldn't devalue the ethos of the festival and would give real Glastonbury fans a greater chance of getting tickets next year (no matter who they have playing this year it'll at least get close to selling out next year, though I suspect that the October panic will still be there). Then we can go back to normal.

In this case, and in this case only, I like normal. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to throw conversation off. But I had to ask somewhere. I attended OXEGEN festival last year, was planning to do glasto and that again. But i've been searching and it's like the festival doesn't even exist/ever did exist? Has it been cancelled or something? Or are organisers keeping things secret for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it a lot of multiple stabbings and other problems at Oxegen last time? I think i've read that someone said they wouldn't get a new license and that's why the information is lackin.

Or they just drop the lineup and tickets in march..

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...