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 😎

2019 Headliners


rzwodezwo

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

Not knocking either band but TWOD into The Cure is a good recipe for the emptiest pyramid night in history :P

I broke my prediction into three distinct days (which never, ever happens in reality).

Friday - Da yoof 

Saturday - Chin strokers

Sunday - Massive crowd Sunday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

I broke my prediction into three distinct days (which never, ever happens in reality).

Friday - Da yoof 

Saturday - Chin strokers

Sunday - Massive crowd Sunday

Ya see I think people really overestimate how much Glasto pair their subs and headliners together. Usually unless the bands specifically request a certain pairing they prefer to contrast things a bit - and booking a 'chin strokers' night ain't what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 1975, The Cure and Paul Mccartney would be a good trio because it will definitely soften bucket listers attendees hopes for Glastonbury.

and no I’m not bitter because i’m missing out this year :( 

if I was going and those were the headliners I think it would be the first year I’d go and probably not see a single one. Might see a bit of the cure but I doubt I’d stick around for the whole thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mouseboy11 said:

AC/DC back with Brian Johnson is probably my dream booking on the farm now, alas it's highly unlikely.

Apparently he's back recording with them at the moment

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/brian-johnson-and-phil-rudd-appear-to-be-back-in-studio-with-ac-dc-photographic-proof/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh I think people overstate the "contrast" thing. Every year I've been they've pretty much put the subs under the most fitting headliners. I don't think they actively go out and get subs that complement the headliners but I think they put the subs they've got under the most suitable headliner for em.

Even last year, when we got a weird one like The National under Foos, you can see the sense behind it. Biffy were the obvious one to go under Sheeran seeing as they were the most "pop" of three subs and the only one who'd have songs that the casual music fans turning up for Sheeran would know. Then out of The xx and The National, stylistically it's a pretty obvious move to have The xx under Radiohead and The National under Foos.

In 2016 Foals under Muse was obvious, and the remaining two didn't fit under either headliner, but I guess the way it ended up made most sense with Coldplay probably having some fans of their earlier work who may be into Beck.

2015 needs no explaining - Foos/Flo, Kanye/Pharrell, The Who/Weller.

2014 as well - Arcade Fire/Elbow, Metallica/Jack White, Kasabian/The Black Keys.

2013 you've got The Stones requesting Primal Scream before them so ignore that one. Dizzee under Arctics makes sense and Nick Cave below Mumfords is mental but it'd have been exactly the same under Arctic Monkeys, even if they did cover Red Right Hand once.

Then you've obviously got the fact some acts are only available on specific days, and the fact bookings can change. Maybe in 2013 they were chasing someone else for the Sunday headliner (e.g. Depeche Mode) when they booked Nick Cave, and then ended up having to have him sub Mumford because he was already booked for that day.

I don't see any evidence of them actively seeking a contrast. I see evidence of them booking the subs they want and then fitting them below the most suitable headliner for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

Ya see I think people really overestimate how much Glasto pair their subs and headliners together. Usually unless the bands specifically request a certain pairing they prefer to contrast things a bit - and booking a 'chin strokers' night ain't what they do.

Yeah I only really noticed after I posted. Slight revision...

1975 - Vampire Weekend - Dua Lipa - Ashcroft

The Cure - Stormzy - LDR

Macca - LG - Ezra - Kylie - Crowe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gucci Piggy said:

Even last year, when we got a weird one like The National under Foos, you can see the sense behind it. Biffy were the obvious one to go under Sheeran seeing as they were the most "pop" of three subs and the only one who'd have songs that the casual music fans turning up for Sheeran would know. Then out of The xx and The National, stylistically it's a pretty obvious move to have The xx under Radiohead and The National under Foos.

 

Biffy are more pop than the xx agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gucci Piggy said:

Even last year, when we got a weird one like The National under Foos, you can see the sense behind it. Biffy were the obvious one to go under Sheeran seeing as they were the most "pop" of three subs and the only one who'd have songs that the casual music fans turning up for Sheeran would know. Then out of The xx and The National, stylistically it's a pretty obvious move to have The xx under Radiohead and The National under Foos.

I contest this one. The xx into Ed Sheeran, The National into Radiohead and Biffy into Foos makes way more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Spider43 said:

Based on record sales I’d say considerably more...

True but the point I was trying to make was a lot of people would only know a small percentage of the bands at Glastonbury and even the ones they've heard of unless they are fans they wouldn't know many songs . That's just an age and taste thing . If Taylor swift played I would struggle to name 2 songs same with stormzy . But that's my age and taste in music . I'm an old fart who likes the cure a lot ... and radiohead 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

In any case I don't think they're likely to book a double-bill of chin strokers, even if they go together. More likely to have someone 'mainstream' under The Cure imo.

Lana plays both sides so she always comes out on top. Two mainstream hits and then ten for the chinstrokers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

I contest this one. The xx into Ed Sheeran, The National into Radiohead and Biffy into Foos makes way more sense.

As much as I enjoyed The xx last year The National > Radiohead would've been my beard-stroking heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

Biffy are more pop than the xx agreed

I dunno if this is sarcasm or not but Biffy Clyro surely have more songs that your average Ed Sheeran crowd will know? Many of Horror, Mountains, Bubbles, The Captain, Biblical, etc.

5 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

I contest this one. The xx into Ed Sheeran, The National into Radiohead and Biffy into Foos makes way more sense.

I was gonna add that that way round probably makes a bit more sense but I dunno about "way more". Depends where they begin when lining them up, for me. If their first priority was to put someone below Ed Sheeran who aren't just gonna be talked through like Beck before Coldplay the previous year then Biffy are the only ones who fit that imo. 

3 minutes ago, Mash011 said:

In any case I don't think they're likely to book a double-bill of chin strokers, even if they go together. More likely to have someone 'mainstream' under The Cure imo.

Yeah despite all the above I agree with this, mostly because of what you said about the field being empty all night if they stick someone like TWOD on before them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

Where has the Mumford's info come from? Its on the NIN thread?

 

I was joking with my post but it's just because everyone else seems to be getting ruled out while they're active and headlining other festivals around Glastonbury, there's no info on them (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 https://www.glastofestfeed.com/latest/news/emily-eavis-reveals-3-big-name-acts-not-headlining-glastonbury-2019/

 

Madonna, Led Zeppelin and Fleetwood Mac ruled out according to this. No idea how realisable the site is, just popped up on my page. These were all pretty long shots imo anyway with Zeppelin just not gonna happen and Mac not much more likely. 

Get a bit more of a realistic rumourmill killing the usual suspects wlthat never happen off early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SCG95 said:

Plenty of discussion about Stormzy...

Is all the hype because of his insta post a while back or do people genuinely think he’s ready to headline the pyramid? 

88571B74-540F-4773-AE9F-A94069B089BF.thumb.jpeg.93b26b33e0406086bbf6f94cc4fe1526.jpeg

Well, both. He was already being discussed before he posted that and him posting that obviously led to more people thinking he may be playing.

Obviously no one thinks he's currently a Pyramid headliner but those predicting him to do so are obviously assuming he'll have a second album out that's as successful as his first one was, warranting the bump up.

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...