A concern over the Stones

[pyramidsong]

i don't think i even need to say that the stones are known for guzzling down astronomical fees after every single show they play, or that glastonbury offers the most comprehensive festival experience you could ever want. i'm just wondering whether, if what we hear is true and the stones really are nailed to play, if these two givens can reallllly be reconciled. i mean, there's a possibility that eavis has got so consumed by the idea of booking the all hallowed stones and landing that as this year's totem booking that he'll have signed away other aspects of the festival in order to compensate for the price and balance the books. basically, if the stones play, seeing as ticket prices haven't gone up that considerably, is it gonna mean a reduction in the things away from the main stages that make glastonbury what it is? that's my main worry, mick's relentless hunger for cash coming to the detriment of glastonbury as a whole.

[rexclark]

I personally don't think that the Michael or Emily would take money away from other parts of the festival just to keep one act sweet. I'd say it more a chance that the Glasto bookers have said to The Stones "here's the deal, take it or leave it". Glasto doesn't need The Stones and The Stones don't need Glasto so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

[The Nal]

Presume it'll be something like "We can only pay you 30% of your normal fee but you'll make the rest of the 70% up in record sales because your entire set will be watched by millions on the Beeb".

[pyramidsong]

i really hope so, but all i can say is, i'll be pissed if i walk into arcadia in june and find that the big spider isn't there anymore or something like that

[Ommadawn]

It will have been replaced by a giant pair of lips and a tongue.

Edit: I'm aware this could be interpreted in more than one way!!

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ommadawn

[Steveod]

Saw them in Dublin a number of years ago, was amazed how good they where. Count me in for headliner wish list. Much cheaper than London prices too!

[monkey1989]

I remember download 2010 , I love acdc but they took the piss a bit the under card quality suffered , they insisted on there own stage which meant we could watch the full show but then it just stood there for 3 days unused which just looked odd and lifeless and also they were not on any download tshirt s you know the ones with the lineup on the back , they had there own separate tshirt s. I don't think that glastonbury need Rolling Stones that much so I'm sure everything will be fiiiiiine. And they will play on the cheap and make the money back in album sales after all the promotion

[rug568]

Glasto doesn't need The Stones and The Stones don't need Glasto so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

Edited October 15, 2012 by rug568

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Rightly or wrongly Keith and the lads couldnt give a toss about Glastonbury. The money these days is made on the road - they wont play cos they can get bigger pay days elsewhere.

[beau1]

When they are charging £100 minimum for a ticket and up to £600 for other tickets at their own gigs I'd hope the Stones wouldn't ask for a high fee price.

But I doubt it very much as they are charging that much in the first place.

Edited October 15, 2012 by beau1

[Glastoboy]

The extra £5 increase per ticket gives them an extra £650 grand to chuck in one direction or another.

I am kinda torn. It would be great to have the Stones at Glastonbury. But then again,so many other bands could so easily drag me away to another part of the festival.

[Bobs]

i don't think i even need to say that the stones are known for guzzling down astronomical fees after every single show they play, or that glastonbury offers the most comprehensive festival experience you could ever want. i'm just wondering whether, if what we hear is true and the stones really are nailed to play, if these two givens can reallllly be reconciled. i mean, there's a possibility that eavis has got so consumed by the idea of booking the all hallowed stones and landing that as this year's totem booking that he'll have signed away other aspects of the festival in order to compensate for the price and balance the books. basically, if the stones play, seeing as ticket prices haven't gone up that considerably, is it gonna mean a reduction in the things away from the main stages that make glastonbury what it is? that's my main worry, mick's relentless hunger for cash coming to the detriment of glastonbury as a whole.

[James Bolivar]

I do hope they're there - the rest of the festival will be glorious with 120,000 people watching the Pyramid.

[sjhopewell]

Rolling Stones wouldn't be the first band that charge very expensive tickets prices, but have done "cut-price" Glasto. I don't think you can always judge whether a band will appear on their standard prices. Take Leonard Cohen and The Boss as examples.

[cornholio]

Rolling Stones wouldn't be the first band that charge very expensive tickets prices, but have done "cut-price" Glasto. I don't think you can always judge whether a band will appear on their standard prices. Take Leonard Cohen and The Boss as examples.

[eFestivals]

REM even played for free. Not a gesture I expect to see from the Rolling Stones.

Coldplay did too ... well, they didn't play for free, but they gave all of their fee to Oxfam (perhaps not in 2011, but defo the time they headlined before that).

[mrtourette]

I wouldn't expect them to break the bank or their existing pay structure for them, however I think they'd be likely to push very hard and spend a lot of time trying to convince them that it would be worthwhile. While the festival doesn't need The Stones (certainly in the short term, although it would be a good booking to maintain it's reputation as drawing the biggest acts) I think ME's desire to have them will mean that there will be more negotiations other than just "take it or leave it". Both parties will be well aware that this is probably the last opportunity, especially with them already playing live shows.

Edited October 16, 2012 by mrtourette

[The Nal]

Do Coldplay charge people to go see them?! Thats ballsy.

Its like Hitler charging Jews to get into Auschwitz

Edited October 16, 2012 by The Nal

[Sketchead]

Think the line Glasto doesn't need the Stones and the Stones don't need Glasto sums it up perfectly. I imagine/hope Eavis has said "listen, here's the fee, take it or we'll get somebody else."

[Sabcully]

Bloody hell. Never really been a great Stone's lover but would be reasonably looking forward to seeing them...with all the stuff on here about what a bunch of w*nkers they really are it is starting to put me off. Hope there will be a good clash alternative !

[Jie Bie]

Coldplay did too ... well, they didn't play for free, but they gave all of their fee to Oxfam (perhaps not in 2011, but defo the time they headlined before that).

[eFestivals]

2002? Pretty incredible gesture if so, as at the time of that Glasto they hadn't even released their second album yet.

didn't they play another time? 2005 or something? From memory, I don't think it was as long ago as 2002.

[tijuana_man]

didn't they play another time? 2005 or something? From memory, I don't think it was as long ago as 2002.

[eFestivals]

Surely Eavis wouldn't compromise other parts of the festival for them though?! And re. the comment on the increased ticket price meaning extra cash to throw at them; I really hope not, I'd rather any extra money (after adjustment for inflation) was being spent on improvements to the festival itself.

I don't think he'd compromise other parts of the festival. I don't think the people running those other parts would let him compromise them, either.

And the price rise this time is lower than it should be when taking two years of inflation into account - so it's a less-than-inflationary rise, to cover the extra costs of other things which have increased in price over that two years.

[strangetown]

I am old enough to have seen their farewell tour at Wembley circa 25 years ago-but would definitely like to seem them "Live" again. If it happens at Glasto-great. If not theres plenty of other things to occupy my time!