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 😎


Acid_Haze

Recommended Posts

well Taylor's tour dates match up to begin with, and unless Katy's announced some more surrounding Glastonbury that i can't see, her's don't. plus, Neil had info that it might be Taylor - i don't believe he's had anything on Katy

But that doesn't mean there's 'zero chance'. Kanye's dates didn't add up & Neil didn't have any info on him either...

The way it read was that you were suggesting Katy Perry wasn't suitable for it, which I wouldn't have argued with had you not been rubbing one off for the past couple of months at the prospect of TS. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • FloorFiller

    1190

  • Rose-Colored Boy

    1060

  • Matt42

    1040

  • eFestivals

    1008

But that doesn't mean there's 'zero chance'. Kanye's dates didn't add up & Neil didn't have any info on him either...

The way it read was that you were suggesting Katy Perry wasn't suitable for it, which I wouldn't have argued with had you not been rubbing one off for the past couple of months at the prospect of TS. :P

well yeah i also view Katy as much more of a manufactured pop act than Swift who seems far less likely to be in the Eavi's eyelines headliner-wise, but let's not get in to all that again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor - prince - roses

One of them three are the only with 'info' suggesting they are doing it - but not all info is as credible as others.

yeah, Taylor definitely seems like she has the most gossip surrounding her. i believe Neil has bits and pieces that could link to Prince. and we still have Big Vern's bit of info suggesting Roses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this year seems the most likely for prince, they have been able to keep it under wraps as well

the only talk about Prince was Eavis right after last year's festival saying something like 'we've got our three headliners for next year, and one of them isn't Prince'. SOUNDS LIKE IT'S PRINCE TO ME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's gonna be Foals now. Just been announced there's a new album released later this year. I wouldn't have put them as a headliner, if it wasn't for Emily's comments about giving smaller acts the bump up...

Edit: read an unreliable article, no confirmation if an album. But they've been announced to play festivals this summer, so I think they'll be there.

Edited by StevenGreeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor - prince - roses

One of them three are the only with 'info' suggesting they are doing it - but not all info is as credible as others.

There's no 'info' Prince is doing it is there? Dunno what's going on with the Roses either.

Also, Neil said he thought the ones he'd heard saying Taylor were guessing so that means there's no 'info' there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the actual info on prince?

i believe Neil said he's had some bits and pieces that could link Prince to the festival, but he hasn't said what these bits and pieces are. he had Prince down as a rumour for Isle Of Wight for a short while so it's possible he got it wrong and he's at Glastonbury instead (this is all guesswork by me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not put any hope on P at the moment, he's meant to be doing a US Hit and Run tour but has done 4 gigs over a weekend in Louisville(March 14th and 15th) then was meant to play at SXSW but ended up back at Paisley Park announcing a new album produced by him for his new protege...Acting bizarre even for him

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...