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

he tries, although sometimes not with the best results haha, when he does sing he has a backing track to back him up, or is auto-tuned.

check out this footage from coachella: he always dedicates this song to his deceased mother:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wham is music for people with no interest in music or culture. Morons basically. People who think Friends is the greatest TV show ever. The same people who paid for the Crazy Frog ringtone, say "simples" a lot and laugh after, who whistle the "Go Compare" song from the ad and still do the "whassaaapp" thing from the Budwesier ad when they answer the phone and think it hilarious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah has everyone been sniffing glue... mentioning Kanye to headline is a laugh but plausible but Wham! come on lets give our heads a shake and get some realism back here...

The festival would not go from U2, Coldplay, Beyonce to possibly (worse case no stones) Arctic Monkeys, Mumford and Sons, Wham!

:banghead: if Wham! headline you might as well let Steps headline the Saturday instead of the Stones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what I'm getting at is there something inherently "cheesy" about Glastonbury. Its never professed to be some kind überhip lightningrod. Theres been a broadminded populism to their bookings for years. Particularly on the main stage. I don't particularly like it when they try to change this dynamic quite honestly.

Scoffing at George Michael playing Glastonbury is bizarre. Puts you in the same anachronistic liferaft that that ape Noel Gallagher was in prior to JayZ's appearance.

Let the festival book something different and comment afterwards. None of us know what it could be like. I've stated that Neil Diamond was gawd awful on here many times - yet there were 60K at that show. People loved it. The hordes turned up their collective noses at Robbie Williams but his appearance at Glasters saved his fucking career.

Give the rockism a rest lads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as bad as his singing is, id much prefer it over his auto-tune. he released a whole album worth of auto-tuned singing which i still think is his poorest release by miles. want some more footage to slate? check this out:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've neither preference nor control either way folks. I just don't like seeing naked rockism. Thus my defence of Wham or George playing, either as headliner or first on in the bandstand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah has everyone been sniffing glue... mentioning Kanye to headline is a laugh but plausible but Wham! come on lets give our heads a shake and get some realism back here...

The festival would not go from U2, Coldplay, Beyonce to possibly (worse case no stones) Arctic Monkeys, Mumford and Sons, Wham!

:banghead: if Wham! headline you might as well let Steps headline the Saturday instead of the Stones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dislike of him is nothing to do with him not being rock... I'd be happy with Joanna Newsom, Feist, Reggie Watts, Hidden Orchestra, any number of non rock acts. In fact rock comes fairly low on my listening priorities these days
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Michael's got some tunes. Would it not be similar to Rod Stewart headlining? Whether you think it was a good idea or not, it happened.

I personally think he'd be a weak headliner marketing wise, as somebody already said, he's not incredibly popular with many under thirty.

His cache would've risen tenfold had he just performed Freedom '90 at the Olympics and not ruined whatever mood that there wasn't by playing that interminable new single as well. Hopefully if he's booked it won't be as a headliner and he'll have the promotional wherewithal to perform a Greatest Hits set and remind the crowd how many tunes they actually know. If he plays, I call sub-headliner a la Scissor Sisters.

Edited by tylerdurden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that album has grown on me with time but yeah, definitely a big misstep in his career. all the power to him for doing it though. most artists wouldn't consider such a possible career suicide move but good ol' Kanye just does what he does

think he still plays a couple of songs from that album live and they're widely regarded as the low points of the set - time to go for a piss or get yourself a pint etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Michael's got some tunes. Would it not be similar to Rod Stewart headlining? Whether you think it was a good idea or not, it happened.
Edited by tonyblair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I stand by my opinion on Wham. Awful. The sort of low budget entertainment you'd see at in a cheap Spanish resort at best.

Being happy to see them headline Glastonbury is absolutely crazy.

"Sorry pal can't make your stag I got a ticket for Glastonbury"

"Ah Jesus no probs mate. Glasto is unmissable in fairness, no bother. Who's headlining by the way?"

"Wham".

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...