Mumford and Sons

[mudmonkey]

Sounds like they intend on doing the gig one way or the other. But if they do drop out its unlikely to improve the line up, it will just be re-jigged amongst the existing bands, maybe someone like the XX will move across, or Nick Cave move up, about the best you could hope for is Portishead or Chic being persuaded to come back on the Sunday, removing Friday night clashes for many.

Incidentally I'm not sure how Mumford are Pyramid headliners and Noah and the Whale halfway down the Other Stage when they're basically the same band, but I guess thats another discussion.

[siblin]

Incidentally I'm not sure how Mumford are Pyramid headliners and Noah and the Whale halfway down the Other Stage when they're basically the same band, but I guess thats another discussion.

[sinhala]

They're not gonna kiss goodbye to £100k just because one of them is unable to perform.

[russycarps]

They're not gonna kiss goodbye to £100k just because one of them is unable to perform.

[tevaburger]

Incidentally I'm not sure how Mumford are Pyramid headliners and Noah and the Whale halfway down the Other Stage when they're basically the same band, but I guess thats another discussion.

[siblin]

Dont know if this has been posted yet - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/glastonbury-fears-as-mumford--sons-bassist-ted-dwane-treated-for-blood-clot-on-his-brain-8654307.html

A Glastonbury source told The Mirror: "While Mumford & Sons still plan to perform at Glastonbury, organisers will surely be a little concerned about Ted's health and will be having a look at possible stand-ins should the worst come to the worst."

[JoBalls]

"A Glastonbury Source" is probably just some bloke who lives in Glastonbury town!

[ThomThomDrum]

I get the distinct impression reading this thread that M&S are only being called c**ts for going ahead with this gig without their mate because some find their music to be shit; they find what they "represent" to be reprehensible; and that those moaning would much rather they did not play so as maybe someone else may step in who might be more palatable to said moaners.

This idea that they should not play so as to "stand by their mate" is quite childish really and smacks of petulance. This sort of thing happens a lot in music and I am sure they guy would love for his "mates" not to give up the biggest gig of their life and go out there, smash it and "do it for him". Equating that to them being pricks/c**ts or whatever, is frankly stupid and is very much based on hatred toward them in the first place..........

I would have a guess that if Charlie Watts broke his hand and a sub drummer played on the Saturday The Stones would not be called c**ts for getting on with it.

[2/Z]

I would have a guess that if Charlie Watts broke his hand and a sub drummer played on the Saturday The Stones would not be called c**ts for getting on with it.

[Spindles]

Thanks for that Thomthom, pretty tired of reading the bollocks people have been spouting this thread.

[tevaburger]

I get the distinct impression reading this thread that M&S are only being called c**ts for going ahead with this gig without their mate because some find their music to be shit;

[pedmills]

I would have a guess that if Charlie Watts broke his hand and a sub drummer played on the Saturday The Stones would not be called c**ts for getting on with it.

[Guest]

They replaced Keith Moon mid-gig after he passed out at Cow Palace!

[russycarps]

I get the distinct impression reading this thread that M&S are only being called c**ts for going ahead with this gig without their mate because some find their music to be shit; they find what they "represent" to be reprehensible; and that those moaning would much rather they did not play so as maybe someone else may step in who might be more palatable to said moaners.

This idea that they should not play so as to "stand by their mate" is quite childish really and smacks of petulance. This sort of thing happens a lot in music and I am sure they guy would love for his "mates" not to give up the biggest gig of their life and go out there, smash it and "do it for him". Equating that to them being pricks/c**ts or whatever, is frankly stupid and is very much based on hatred toward them in the first place..........

I would have a guess that if Charlie Watts broke his hand and a sub drummer played on the Saturday The Stones would not be called c**ts for getting on with it.

[Guest]

come off it mate, you can hardly compare the childish music of the who to the complexities of a band like mumford & sons

[Wooderson]

I get the distinct impression reading this thread that M&S are only being called c**ts for going ahead with this gig without their mate because some find their music to be shit; they find what they "represent" to be reprehensible; and that those moaning would much rather they did not play so as maybe someone else may step in who might be more palatable to said moaners.

This idea that they should not play so as to "stand by their mate" is quite childish really and smacks of petulance. This sort of thing happens a lot in music and I am sure they guy would love for his "mates" not to give up the biggest gig of their life and go out there, smash it and "do it for him". Equating that to them being pricks/c**ts or whatever, is frankly stupid and is very much based on hatred toward them in the first place..........

I would have a guess that if Charlie Watts broke his hand and a sub drummer played on the Saturday The Stones would not be called c**ts for getting on with it.

[russycarps]

Bit of a sermon from you here chief.

No one is saying that they couldnt come back next year when they're back to full strength.

For the record I wouldnt like to see the Stones play with a stand in drummer.

By your rationale where does this stop btw? Is 1/2 or even 3/4 of a band as stand-ins acceptable given your viewpoint? Mick/Keith/Charlie all encourage Ronnie to "go out there and give 'em a hell of a show Ronnie"

Ron Wood on his own as the Stones? I'm exhaggerating but you get the point. Bands either put on a unified front or they don't. When they don't theres a thin line before the whole thing becomes diluted.

Edited June 12, 2013 by russycarps

[mozzy]

yes, well..... for about one song

[Wooderson]

Bon Jovi shouldve cancelled their tour when Sambora got the hump aswell. Their fans are cheesed off about it.

[The Nal]

Bon Jovi shouldve cancelled their tour when Sambora got the hump aswell. Their fans are cheesed off about it.

[swede]

Hes actually an important part of the band though. Hes their Keef.

[ThomThomDrum]

Going ahead with a gig without a member all depends on the band really and who is unable to play. If the band feel they can do the gig without whichever member is missing/unable and that missing member is saying that even without them "the show must go on" then there is nothing wrong with them doing the gig.

I would have my doubts that this guy told the rest of the band to cancel and ask if they can do it next year, only for them to say nah we are doing it without ya buddy, cause we are a bunch of dicks. Im pretty sure he would very much want them to do it, even if saddened that hes not there.

Canceling the gig does not necessarily show unity/solidarity to the extent that not canceling does not..........Im sure if they go ahead it will be very much about their missing comrade at points in the show...........

[dan05delaney]

Bon Jovi shouldve cancelled their tour when Sambora got the hump aswell. Their fans are cheesed off about it.

[The Nal]

a Friend of mine is a big bon Jovi fan and sold her ticket because he wasn't there,

[dan05delaney]

They're playing Slane this weekend and they haven't even sold half the tickets.