Rolling Stones...

[Mud Dweller]

It maybe seems like a small thing, but I wouldn't discount the role that Jagger's daughters probably played in getting the old goat to agree to play for a fraction of his usual asking price.

Think its been a big influence. Ronnie was always up for it, Jagger not so much. Good to see he'll be there all weekend. Imagine him popping up somwhere like strummerville unannounced

[Zoo Music Girl]

Sorry to go back to it but the Bowie gig in 2000 was rammed from front to back. I began watching it from high up on the hill and it was bloody murder trying to get further forwards, and this was pre-camping chairs days! It had been rumoured that he would run through the hits for weeks and EVERYONE went to see him (apart from a couple of people who shall remain nameless but will never forgive themselves) plus it was the year that sooooooo many people bunked in that they had to invent the "Superfence"! the festival and its demographic have changed a lot since then but I think it'll be similar for The Stones, if it's dry.

That's what I thought! I couldn't afford to go but I remember there was a lot of hype about Bowie in the run-up and being insanely jealous of my friend who was going.

Just brought it up as a comparison really - would Stones be more or less crowded?

[monkey1989]

I wish they would drop one more shot from the setlist it's pants and think of the awesome hits that could fill its slot

[monkey1989]

Do we think they'll do a set that long?. I can see it being around 18 songs

Brucey springwinkles set was about 2.5 hours wasn't it ?

[FloorFiller]

I wish they would drop one more shot from the setlist it's pants and think of the awesome hits that could fill its slot

they have dropped it at one of their recent shows, and due to them probably having a restricted timeslot at Glastonbury, hopefully they'll drop it again. can understand that they want to play new songs and that those two songs are probably the only ones they aren't sick to death of (yet) but Jagger himself said that when they play live shows he knows people don't want to hear the new stuff. can't imagine the crowd reception to One More Shot is particularly great (in comparison to every other song)

[FloorFiller]

Brucey springwinkles set was about 2.5 hours wasn't it ?

it was supposed to be 1.45 / 2 hours (i think?) but he went way over his allotted timeslot

[GlastoSimon]

it was supposed to be 1.45 / 2 hours (i think?) but he went way over his allotted timeslot

According to the 2009 clashfinder, he was meant to be 2h25, so maybe we will see a 23-song set after all!

[FloorFiller]

ah right i didn't think Glasto had ever given such a long slot, regardless of who it was. i've always thought he went wayyy over. if Bruce got 2.25 then surely the Stones will get the same

[scaryclaireyfairy]

how long was macca's set? it was around 2h, wasn't it?

i'm heartened by the news that mick's spending the weekend at the festival. he was down to the fest before for a shufty, now he's signed up to play and staying a while. he must have liked what he saw, daughter pester power aside. how many headliners actually hang around before and after? only the ones who really 'get it' afaik. i reckon getting a bit of a feel for the place can only help his performance on the night.

[Justiceforcedave]

Bruce played 25.

[Justiceforcedave]

Bruce played 25.

...but clearly has more energy and enthusiasm. The Stones'll play for as long or as short as they want to methinks.

[Justiceforcedave]

2009 Neil Young also had 2:15 slot, even Blur had 1:55.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

11 more shows to go in the US and Canada, with the final pre-Glasto show in DC on Mon 24th of June.

Hopefully that 4 day lay-off and Transatlantic flight won't throw any spanners into the works.

And hopefully they have a rehearsal room booked somewhere for the Saturday to help iron out any kinks.

Ray Davies is playing?

[Trebor]

Roger Waters was two as well and he wasn't even the last act on. I think they'll get a long set as long as they actually want one.

[CaledonianGonzo]

It's a difficult one to predict. I wonder if their shortened / 15 song IOW set in 2007 was due to curfew issues.

[FloorFiller]

i'll imagine they'll want to do a set as similar to their current one - they've been doing 2 and a half hour shows every night so i can't see why they'd want to do any shorter really (lesser fees aside)

their IOW set is a bit of a weird one. i imagine it must've been due to time constraints. it would be quite underwhelming if we got a set with no surprises and it was just a basic greatest hits set

[GlastoSimon]

They only played 90 minutes at IOW, so I think we'll get more than that.

[Mardy]

I think this could be the reverse of the Springsteen gig, you know.

One of the reasons Springsteen felt a bit flat was that he is used to their fans knowing every single fucking word and going absolutely fucking mental. When that didn't happen, they were a bit lost, I reckon.

With the Stones, I get the feeling that their crwds these days are a bit subdued, for a variety of reasons. I reckon get them up close and personal at Glastonbury with the crowd going batshit mental, then it could really knock the band for six (in a good way)

[Wooderson]

Springsteen's first hour was full on negative-nora stuff. Just looking back over it now makes me wince. He chronically misjudged the setlist in my humble etc.

When compared to similar sized acts, Macca for example (or even the much maligned U2 turn), these lads dont feck around with a bunch of drunks, semi-fans and 'stand at the back with arms folded "Impress me you c8nt" old tarts' in the crowd.

The Stones need to front-load that sucker. That, and a little warmth in the air should be all they need to get the crowd on side.

Once this happens its an unstoppable, irresistable combination.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Wooderson

[GlastoSimon]

why?

To which bit?

Not sure why they only got 90 minutes at IOW, does seem a bit odd. I think it may have been to fit in with their 2007 tour, as those sets were pretty short.

In terms of why I think we'll get more, I can't see Glastonbury chasing the Stones for so long and then giving them a (relatively) short set time.

[The Nal]

I think this could be the reverse of the Springsteen gig, you know.

One of the reasons Springsteen felt a bit flat was that he is used to their fans knowing every single fucking word and going absolutely fucking mental. When that didn't happen, they were a bit lost, I reckon.

With the Stones, I get the feeling that their crwds these days are a bit subdued, for a variety of reasons. I reckon get them up close and personal at Glastonbury with the crowd going batshit mental, then it could really knock the band for six (in a good way)

The first half of the Springsteen setlist was shite - even for Springsteen fans. A bizarre choice of setlist all round really. Some of the omissions were criminal for a festival show. Apart from one or two, The Stones setlists seem relatively solid.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Their current opening quartet (Get Off Of My Cloud, IORR, Paint It Black and Gimme Shelter) is - as opening salvos go - pretty formidable.

[The Nal]

Their current opening quartet (Get Off Of My Cloud, IORR, Paint It Black and Gimme Shelter) is - as opening salvos go - pretty formidable.

Yeah that'll work! Compare that to 5 or 6 of the first few tunes Bruce played - My Lucky Day, Outlaw Pete, Out in the Street, Working on a Dream, Seeds, Johnny 99.

bizarre stuff.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Yeah that'll work! Compare that to 5 or 6 of the first few tunes Bruce played - My Lucky Day, Outlaw Pete, Out in the Street, Working on a Dream, Seeds, Johnny 99.

bizarre stuff.

cf The Stones six years earlier at IOW:

Start Me Up, You Got Me Rocking, Rough Justice, Love In Vain (feat. Paulo Nutini)

[Mud Dweller]

Going by the set list this tour it looks like the last 4 or 5 songs are pretty much set in stone (pardon the pun!)

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mud Dweller