Rolling Stones...

[Jime1977]

This tour is probably bigger venues than the O2, but cheaper tickets. Can't see as many people paying £400 for a Stadium/outdoor venue as opposed to an Arena (although I can't understand why people paid that for the O2!)

Suppose the Stones getting a guaranteed pay day insulates them from the tour not selling out, but the promoters have to be careful. The O2 dates didn't sell out, and wasn't there an option for a third date that they didn't take up?

Also, if they're doing both, surely Hyde Park gets announced before Glasto?

[Matt42]

I don't think this is true to be fair, plus I don't see how this hurts glastonbury?

[Englishdragon]

The rolling stones are playing Glastonbury fact

Shhhh, the adults here are discussing actual facts here not what you heard in your made up pub conversations with Chris Jagger

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I don't think this is true to be fair, plus I don't see how this hurts glastonbury?

Because they're obviously very concerned they're not making enough money. They're realising they are not the draw they once were.

[Midnight Man]

Without trying to fathom all the possible implications of this article - that way madness lies - the thing that keeps occurring to me is that if they were never playing, it would have made sense for the band to have knocked it on the head early on any number of opportunities - bad PR otherwise - and also for the Eavii to lower expectations about headliners.

If it's been a possibility, then this surely makes no difference - it would always have been a separate gig to the rest of the tour, and the money would never have been the stumbling block because otherwise Glastonbury for the Stones would always be a non-starter.

So I hope they will still.

But I wish someone would say something soon...

[JBarbour]

It may have always been a non starter. It's kept them in the papers, magazines and people talking about them. Every interview a band member gets asked about Glasto.

They can come up with some bullshit excuse why they not playing.

I don't think it matters to the stones/jagger if they play or not. It's just another show. And one that doesn't pay 5 mil!

[Englishdragon]

It may have always been a non starter. It's kept them in the papers, magazines and people talking about them. Every interview a band member gets asked about Glasto.

They can come up with some bullshit excuse why they not playing.

I don't think it matters to the stones/jagger if they play or not. It's just another show. And one that doesn't pay 5 mil!

It never mattered at all. If the Stones play it will because of the money and the publicity, not because "its Glastonbury"

[mike99]

Shhhh, the adults here are discussing actual facts here not what you heard in your made up pub conversations with Chris Jagger

If thats what u think

[JBarbour]

It never mattered at all. If the Stones play it will because of the money and the publicity, not because "its Glastonbury"

[Gnomicide]

I have faith in the power of the Jagger offspring.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

It never mattered at all. If the Stones play it will because of the money and the publicity, not because "its Glastonbury"

I don't think that's true for all of them. Ronnie seems bang up for it, but as someone (Caledonian?) said, Ronnie has as much influence as me or you does.

[Midnight Man]

It may have always been a non starter. It's kept them in the papers, magazines and people talking about them. Every interview a band member gets asked about Glasto.

They can come up with some bullshit excuse why they not playing.

I don't think it matters to the stones/jagger if they play or not. It's just another show. And one that doesn't pay 5 mil!

fair enough- that's the other way of looking at it from the Stones POV - but it still makes no sense for Glastonbury to have let the story persist/ expectations get up if there was no truth in it and they're going to have to announce Arctics/Mumfords/? in a week or two. So it must have been on the cards, as far as they were concerned, and that means it still should be (I hope).

[The Nal]

The Stones headlining for publicity?

Surely if you're headlining Glastonbury you don't need the publicity.

[UEF]

Worked for Queen at Live Aid. They were finished by then.

[JBarbour]

fair enough- that's the other way of looking at it from the Stones POV - but it still makes no sense for Glastonbury to have let the story persist/ expectations get up if there was no truth in it and they're going to have to announce Arctics/Mumfords/? in a week or two. So it must have been on the cards, as far as they were concerned, and that means it still should be (I hope).

its an odd year. Evais saying from day one they are wanting the stones and struggling to find a third headliner.

The Stones headlining for publicity?

Surely if you're headlining Glastonbury you don't need the publicity.

Well it certainly ain't for the money!

So why would they do it?

[Englishdragon]

The Stones headlining for publicity?

Surely if you're headlining Glastonbury you don't need the publicity.

They need to sell out other dates and have albums to re-release for the 20th time. Look at what headlining Glastonbury does to your album sales.

[karlpowell]

MIke99 your cover has been blown or should I call you John Titor ? http://www.johntitor.com/

Edited March 20, 2013 by karlpowell

[JBarbour]

From another point of view Glastonbury may need them to make this year look a success. 3 average headliners is going to look weak from the worlds best festival! It may be the down fall of Glastonbury. Not just because of the Stones but the pull it has for big bands if general. This years success will determine if and how quickly it sells out next year

Yes, yes its not all about the headliners and all that shite. But i bet 90% of the people that bought tickets are expecting some big bands.

[LondonTom]

I don't think this is true to be fair, plus I don't see how this hurts glastonbury?

....On what basis do you not think its true? Strange statement and it's quite clear if it is true, they are going after fuck loads of cash which Glastonbury doesn't provide.

Anyway just to add, I am far from convinced but workers/locals at the site seem pretty convinced it is the Stones. Someone I know from Uni's boyfriend was working at the site yesterday and apparently said the Rolling Stones when I asked her for gossip. (This really does add nothing to discussion though, other than Mike99 may well be telling the truth with what his been told from around the area.)

[5co77ie]

yep, suddenly all was forgiven... all their shows in Sun City, etc, etc.. then using Live Aid to revitalise their career.

plus, they were still reliably good (if you like that sort of thing) live.. The Stones aren't

Err really????? Me thinks you re-write history - I remember the scramble to get The Works tickets in 1984 - I missed out and was considering getting them for Dortmund. That was before Live Aid - and months before Sun City, Live Aid was only 8 months after Sun City.

In 1984 'Radio Ga Ga' made Queen massive all of a sudden and all my Maiden, Saxon and Priest lovin' friends bought into Queen too then.

Edited March 20, 2013 by 5co77ie

[neilloggie]

It never mattered at all. If the Stones play it will because of the money and the publicity, not because "its Gl

They may be getting soft in their old age?

Worked for Queen at Live Aid. They were finished by then.

Hardly finished at all, Live Aid came at the end of their Massive Works Tour, a week in Sun City,2 Shows at Rock in Rio with 300,000 people per show, A kind of Magic in the pipeline.

Queen still remain by far one of the best live bands i have ever seen.

[dip]

It seems weird to discount The Stones because it won't be a $5million payday. They've clearly been in discussions for a while and that money will never have been on the table.

[neilloggie]

Err really????? Me thinks you re-write history - I remember the scramble to get The Works tickets in 1984 - I missed out and was considering getting them for Dortmund. That was before Live Aid - and months before Sun City, Live Aid was only 8 months after Sun City.

In 1984 'Radio Ga Ga' made Queen massive all of a sudden and all my Maiden, Saxon and Priest lovin' friends bought into Queen too then.

I was lucky my aunty lived in Birmingham and queued at the NEC box office and got us 3rd row seats.

They did have a slight wobble in popularity in the U.S with the I want to break free video,Yanks didn't get the Coronation Street humour in the video.,but they forgave them after Live Aid

Edited March 20, 2013 by neilloggie

[CaledonianGonzo]

To be fair, the 'Live Aid reinvigorated Queen's popularity' take on things is frequently brought out by (what's left of) Queen in interviews.

[eFestivals]

Without trying to fathom all the possible implications of this article - that way madness lies - the thing that keeps occurring to me is that if they were never playing, it would have made sense for the band to have knocked it on the head early on any number of opportunities

why would they with Glasto when they didn't with Coachella?