Headliners 2016

[FloorFiller]

6 minutes ago, shoptildrop said:

errmmh could not the same be said for Stone Roses??? they ain't got a new album out yet 

never played before so it'd be a new thing for Glastonbury at least, but yeah this is pretty much what i've been saying about them headlining since they reformed - headline now, and it's a tired old set we've all seen before. headline after the album drops, and it's a set half full of shit (i'm assuming) new songs

[thewayiam]

7 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

never played before so it'd be a new thing for Glastonbury at least, but yeah this is pretty much what i've been saying about them headlining since they reformed - headline now, and it's a tired old set we've all seen before. headline after the album drops, and it's a set half full of shit (i'm assuming) new songs

And there is no doubt they are a headliner. Nailed on for 2017 along with Ed Sheeran I think.

[Bisque]

Is anyone actually doing any work today?

[FloorFiller]

1 minute ago, thewayiam said:

And there is no doubt they are a headliner. Nailed on for 2017 along with Ed Sheeran I think.

yeah Foos, Sheeran and Stones for next year is my current prediction

[T-Mouse]

1 minute ago, FloorFiller said:

yeah Foos, Sheeran and Stones for next year is my current prediction

Didnt the foos recently say they were going on a hiatus? Taylor was particularly bitter about it i think. Change foos to Radiohead and youve got yourself a deal.

[thewayiam]

3 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

yeah Foos, Sheeran and Stones for next year is my current prediction

Foo's have a long break, they may be out of question for next year. If they did come back early....then yes mine too.

[FloorFiller]

1 minute ago, T-Mouse said:

Didnt the foos recently say they were going on a hiatus? Taylor was particularly bitter about it i think. Change foos to Radiohead and youve got yourself a deal.

said a hiatus at the end of last year, but who knows how long that'll actually last - they never usually go away for more than a year or two. but obviously Radiohead in their place would be far more ideal! secret set this year - full thing next

[Alan_C]

I know Faithless aren't even on the same planet in brilliance, but would any of you lot moan about the same old setlist if Pulp were announced out of nowhere for the Saturday sub (with no new songs other than After You?). Just interested whether it's one rule for some and one for others? Never gonna happen of course, unfortunately. 

[SwedgeAntilles]

1 minute ago, Alan_C said:

I know Faithless aren't even on the same planet in brilliance, but would any of you lot moan about the same old setlist if Pulp were announced out of nowhere for the Saturday sub (with no new songs other than After You?). Just interested whether it's one rule for some and one for others? Never gonna happen of course, unfortunately. 

Pulp being there would almost make up for Radiohead not.

[thewayiam]

5 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

said a hiatus at the end of last year, but who knows how long that'll actually last - they never usually go away for more than a year or two. but obviously Radiohead in their place would be far more ideal! secret set this year - full thing next

Nees to stop getting your hope up for a Radiohead headline set.

[FloorFiller]

Just now, Alan_C said:

I know Faithless aren't even on the same planet in brilliance, but would any of you lot moan about the same old setlist if Pulp were announced out of nowhere for the Saturday sub (with no new songs other than After You?). Just interested whether it's one rule for some and one for others? Never gonna happen of course, unfortunately. 

i'd be less vocal as i like them (and they haven't played a proper set since 1998 if we're not including the secret one) but i'd still be pretty puzzled, especially as they already did a reunion tour so a second one without any new material would be a bit of a piss take, even for a band i love - at some point, you need new material or to break up

a band coming back six years later with fuck all new in the same spot? lazy booking

Just now, thewayiam said:

Nees to stop getting your hope up for a Radiohead headline set.

i don't think they'll be booked next year personally, but you never know. would be a hell of a lot more exciting than the other three i'm predicting 

[kingcrawler]

11 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

yeah Foos, Sheeran and Stones for next year is my current prediction

I still think Depeche Mode are an option for next year given there was all that talk of them turning it down in 2014 but yeah, Foo's, Ed Sheeran and one of Stone Roses/Depeche Mode.

[Alan_C]

2 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

i'd be less vocal as i like them (and they haven't played a proper set since 1998 if we're not including the secret one) but i'd still be pretty puzzled, especially as they already did a reunion tour so a second one without any new material would be a bit of a piss take, even for a band i love - at some point, you need new material or to break up

a band coming back six years later with fuck all new in the same spot? lazy booking

i don't think they'll be booked next year personally, but you never know. would be a hell of a lot more exciting than the other three i'm predicting 

I agree to an extent (although I would run around the house naked if Pulp played again). How long does an older band have to wait before it's maybe acceptable to return again without new material in a high slot? 

[FloorFiller]

1 minute ago, Alan_C said:

I agree to an extent (although I would run around the house naked if Pulp played again). How long does an older band have to wait before it's maybe acceptable to return again without new material in a high slot? 

can we name many acts who've returned to play high positions without any new material? i'm sure there are a few but none spring to mind - most high up acts have either not played before so do a greatest hits set, or have got something new to play

[Honeybane]

Please can we start a rumor that Pulp are playing so Jarvis hears it and decides to play

[Honeybane]

22 minutes ago, Couchy said:

Is anyone actually doing any work today?

if you are my boss - yes

if otherwise - no

[Alan_C]

8 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

can we name many acts who've returned to play high positions without any new material? i'm sure there are a few but none spring to mind - most high up acts have either not played before so do a greatest hits set, or have got something new to play

It's generally reunions really, like you seen with Blur. The Who have done it obviously. There probably isnt many people who have done it. Does it require a reunion though? If The Rolling Stones had headlined in 1990 for example, nobody would have complained in 2013 that they had came back without any new material (other than Doom and Gloom). A decent time gap surely makes it more acceptable?

Edit - Blur did have 13 and Think Tank since they had last headlined so that was a shit example.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Alan_C

[FloorFiller]

Just now, Alan_C said:

It's generally reunions really, like you seen with Blur. The Who have done it obviously. There probably isnt many people who have done it. Does it require a reunion though? If The Rolling Stones had headlined in 1990 for example, nobody would have complained in 2013 that they had came back without any new material (other than Doom and Gloom). A decent time gap surely makes it more acceptable?

yeah obviously a decent time gap and some timeless material helps, but the six years since Faithless last did it seems a bit shitty. if they play third down it'd probably seem less of a shit booking, but subbing again is a bit much. i don't think they'll be subbing Adele anyway - reckon it'll be somebody more current

[Festival Liam]

23 minutes ago, Alan_C said:

I know Faithless aren't even on the same planet in brilliance, but would any of you lot moan about the same old setlist if Pulp were announced out of nowhere for the Saturday sub (with no new songs other than After You?). Just interested whether it's one rule for some and one for others? Never gonna happen of course, unfortunately. 

If pulp had subbed on their last reunion and were then subbing again this time, people would be moaning I'm sure (albeit less than faithless, but that's just because they are more popular). 

[Alan_C]

2 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

yeah obviously a decent time gap and some timeless material helps, but the six years since Faithless last did it seems a bit shitty. if they play third down it'd probably seem less of a shit booking, but subbing again is a bit much. i don't think they'll be subbing Adele anyway - reckon it'll be somebody more current

Agree with that. Just while I post this Queen Bitch has just came on and the thought that I'll never see David Bowie  

[Alan_C]

3 minutes ago, Festival Liam said:

If pulp had subbed on their last reunion and were then subbing again this time, people would be moaning I'm sure (albeit less than faithless, but that's just because they are more popular). 

I guess you're right. Pulp should have headlined in 2011. Michael said that neither Pulp or Radiohead wanted to headline that year. How much better them headliners would have looked. If Pulp do return again, they still have a headline/sub Glastonbury credit in the bank because it was a secret set. 

[ericlered]

41 minutes ago, FloorFiller said:

yeah Foos, Sheeran and Stones for next year is my current prediction

The Stones? Think they were a definite Glasto one off. Unless you meant the Roses?

Edited March 18, 2016 by ericlered

[Alan_C]

Is there any beef between the festival bookers and The Prodigy these days? It seems a strange one that they haven't played the Other Stage since 2009, considering the type of acts they book on there. They have new material, and  they can't be that expensive if they've played the festival so many times?

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, Alan_C said:

Is there any beef between the festival bookers and The Prodigy these days? It seems a strange one that they haven't played the Other Stage since 2009, considering the type of acts they book on there. They have new material, and  they can't be that expensive if they've played the festival so many times?

They probably think that 2009 is quite recently enough to have some middle aged blokes pretending to be dangerous on one of their big stages.

[FloorFiller]

9 minutes ago, ericlered said:

The Stones? Think they were a definite Glasto one off. Unless you meant the Roses?

oops yeah i definitely did

2 minutes ago, Alan_C said:

Is there any beef between the festival bookers and The Prodigy these days? It seems a strange one that they haven't played the Other Stage since 2009, considering the type of acts they book on there. They have new material, and  they can't be that expensive if they've played the festival so many times?

doubt there's any beef - guess they've just had other options and so booked em instead of repeating another Other headliner (already got Chemical Brothers on their four year cycle)