Next Announcement 2017 Thread

[the wonderwhy]

Mark Lanegan is confirmed for Friday anyway 

[thewayiam]

3 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Surely xx too big for park? Definitely bigger than the other 2 you mention

Only way that is happening is if they have a TBA slot at another time

[bennyk]

3 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Surely xx too big for park? Definitely bigger than the other 2 you mention

Quite possibly, as you can see I don't post on here too often, so I wouldnt come on parading rubbish, equally its not that exciting....Only going from what I've been told, but he gave me LCD on the Sunday a while before anything was even about. I want to believe him with Emily's comments around 'big things' for the park this year. We'll see

[ghostdancer1]

5 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Surely xx too big for park? Definitely bigger than the other 2 you mention

way too big for an announced set. they're Other headliners or Pyramid subs and nothing else.

[bennyk]

3 minutes ago, MattDavies__ said:

Mark Lanegan is confirmed for Friday anyway 

Hadn't seen in all honesty. Only just looked to see it was TBC 

[Gucci Piggy]

4 minutes ago, MattDavies__ said:

Mark Lanegan is confirmed for Friday anyway 

I think he meant he was given the info on Saturday

[bennyk]

1 minute ago, ghostdancer1 said:

way too big for an announced set. they're Other headliners or Pyramid subs and nothing else.

If I remember correctly, they did a secret on BBC introducing in 2013

[bennyk]

1 minute ago, Will-2609 said:

I think he meant he was given the info on Saturday

correct....to clear anything up

[Keithy]

24 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

They said the same about The Stones due to money.....rewind a couple of years....Probably U2 as well.

No they didn't.

Roses not headlining is nothing to do with money anyway. 

[OddRon]

I think everyone is hyping up the xx  to be bigger than they are, their new album is shite and they weren't the best when they made ambient peaceful stuff rather than slow disco, with the amount of festivals having them as headliner or sub I know they probably will be sub but Christ

[stuartbert two hats]

7 minutes ago, Keithy said:

No they didn't.

Roses not headlining is nothing to do with money anyway. 

Isn't it? I thought there was a poster on here who ended up in a pub with Mani and he said it was everything to do with money.

[thewayiam]

6 minutes ago, Keithy said:

No they didn't.

Roses not headlining is nothing to do with money anyway. 

Well they did because everyone on here was it's going to happen as Jagger won't accept the fee blah blah.

Nope, Mani didn't tell anyone a while back that they aren't doing it due to the fee, we'll see next time. They aren't on a 3rd reunion or whatever it is because money isn't wanted/Ian doesn't didn't need to pay for a divorce etc etc.

[thewayiam]

2 minutes ago, OddRon said:

I think everyone is hyping up the xx  to be bigger than they are, their new album is shite and they weren't the best when they made ambient peaceful stuff rather than slow disco, with the amount of festivals having them as headliner or sub I know they probably will be sub but Christ

They sold out 6/7 nights at Brixton....I don't think its hype. I don't like them at all but many do like the new stuff. It'll be a Pyramid sub/Other stage headliner but actually billed as one this time plus a secret set on The Park probably if true.

[Keithy]

19 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Isn't it? I thought there was a poster on here who ended up in a pub with Mani and he said it was everything to do with money.

It's a controversial opinion but IMO Roses not headlining is because they are not a band worthy of headlining the pyramid stage at any point since about 1996 and the Eavii haven't seen otherwise.

If it was all about money, they'd take the standard headliner fee and tv exposure and subsequent album sale boots. Surely 300k and album sales is more money than not playing and getting nothing.

[Gucci Piggy]

1 minute ago, Keithy said:

It's a controversial opinion but IMO Roses not headlining is because they are not a band worthy of headlining the pyramid stage at any point since about 1996 and the Eavii haven't seen otherwise.

If it was all about money, they'd take the standard headliner fee and tv exposure and subsequent album sale boots. Surely 300k and album sales is more money than not playing and getting nothing.

I'm pretty sure the Eavii have said recently they want them. Them not playing will surely be because of the money.

Edit: The problem is they most likely wouldn't let their set be broadcast and therefore wouldn't benefit from the TV exposure which makes up for the lower fee. They'd be taking a lower fee to play Glastonbury with no upsides.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Will-2609

[jparx]

The xx's new record is fine. People just have to categorise everything as amazing or shit with no middle ground. Stuff can't just be 'good' anymore.

I don't think they will play the Park stage, but I also don't think it's completely impossible if they are booked against Sheeran. I still thoroughly expect them to sub the Pyramid.

[Keithy]

Just now, Will-2609 said:

I'm pretty sure the Eavii have said recently they want them. Them not playing will surely be because of the money.

Eavii aren't asking them to do it for free though. If  they're in it just for the money then surely you'd take the 300k, primetime tv and album sales boost and be done with it.

[Gucci Piggy]

2 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Eavii aren't asking them to do it for free though. If  they're in it just for the money then surely you'd take the 300k, primetime tv and album sales boost and be done with it.

But instead of doing it they could just do another date of their own and earn millions? Or play another festival and earn twice as much? They won't take primetime TV, I assume, because they know how shit it'll sound.

[Keithy]

1 minute ago, Will-2609 said:

But instead of doing it they could just do another date of their own and earn millions? Or play another festival and earn twice as much? They won't take primetime TV, I assume, because they know how shit it'll sound.

As far as i can recall, they've been free every single Glastonbury recently so the 'in it for the money' band have decided to not play and sit and earn nothing at home? Nothing to stop them still playing other festivals or their own dates.

Your last sentance hits the nail on the head. Its one thing to sound awful at your own stadium gig in front of 50,000 pissed up adoring fans, it's a whole other thing to stink the place out on primetime tv.

Eavii might want them but it won't be as a pyramid headliner. 

[dentalplan]

5 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Eavii might want them but it won't be as a pyramid headliner. 

They do want them as a Pyramid headliner. You don't.

[evannn]

So if it's not the money, and it isn't that the Eavii don't rate them, are we to assume the Roses themselves just don't want to do it? 

 

[thewayiam]

35 minutes ago, Keithy said:

It's a controversial opinion but IMO Roses not headlining is because they are not a band worthy of headlining the pyramid stage at any point since about 1996 and the Eavii haven't seen otherwise.

If it was all about money, they'd take the standard headliner fee and tv exposure and subsequent album sale boots. Surely 300k and album sales is more money than not playing and getting nothing.

The only reason Radiohead are there is because they aren't and many on here reluctantly have agreed. 

[Gucci Piggy]

22 minutes ago, Keithy said:

As far as i can recall, they've been free every single Glastonbury recently so the 'in it for the money' band have decided to not play and sit and earn nothing at home? Nothing to stop them still playing other festivals or their own dates.

Your last sentance hits the nail on the head. Its one thing to sound awful at your own stadium gig in front of 50,000 pissed up adoring fans, it's a whole other thing to stink the place out on primetime tv.

Eavii might want them but it won't be as a pyramid headliner. 

It's about earning as much money as possible for as little work as possible. They'll have a minimum amount they're willing to play a show for. If I offer them a few hundred pounds on a free night of theirs to come and play some tunes for me and my mates would they do it? No, because it isn't enough to make them want to do it.

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, thewayiam said:

The only reason Radiohead are there is because they aren't

If Radiohead are there and they aren't can they be said to make a sound?

[Gucci Piggy]

2 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

The only reason Radiohead are there is because they aren't and many on here reluctantly have agreed. 

I don't agree. If they had to bin off any of the three headliners I assume it'd be Foo Fighters, as they know they'll probably be back next Summer, and if not they're here every few Summers anyway. God knows when Radiohead will next be doing destivals.