2019 Headliners

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

15 minutes ago, OddRon said:

By the sounds of Macca the original big acts are also in it for the money now let alone the next tier

I don't disagree but I would say that: 1) McCartney has played before, and 2) to stay in the States and continue his tour makes sense logistically 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Supernintendo Chalmers

[Woffy]

1 minute ago, ghostdancer1 said:

most bands, especially foreign, will fly in that day, get picked up from the airport in people carriers, brought on-site, fuck around for a few hours, play their gig, and leave straight away, to a hotel, or back onto a plane/ferry on their way to the next gig, probably another festival in a field in Europe. the vast majority probably don't give a flying fuck about Glastonbury, or know much about it, apart from being the biggest in the UK (and then wonder why they're not getting paid correspondingly).

 

Exactly.

I'm digressing now, but the following two bellends were mentioned while I was enjoying my pate and crackers, so:

The above is just what Phil Collins - the total fuckin' 12-incher - would do.

Hopefully the fact that he won't get paid 'much' will deter the fucking Tory c**t from coming anywhere near the place.

Much like Williams he's another twat with delusions of adequacy.

Carry on...

[EamerRed]

Those Bon Jovi dates look extremely suspicious don’t they

[Woffy]

Just now, EamerRed said:

Those Bon Jovi dates look extremely suspicious don’t they

Much like his 'acting'.

[ghostdancer1]

Just now, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

I don't disagree but I would say that McCartney has 1) played before, and 2) to stay in the States and continue his tour makes logistical sense 

aye, I'm very much doubting he was every booked in the first place to cancel, and even if they approached him, that Vegas gig was probably booked long ago so he told them that he wasn't available. he's been drip-feeding these US dates one-by-one for quite a while, including dates before and after Vegas within the last couple of months.

[clarkete]

4 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

I don't disagree but I would say that: 1) McCartney has played before, and 2) to stay in the States and continue his tour makes sense logistically 

Even 25 years younger than him I wouldn't want to fly all the way from the US just for a day or two.  And I don't sleep on a bed of money.

[ghostdancer1]

17 minutes ago, OddRon said:

After the slaughtering The National got in that slot I think I'd avoid any band just before  a big headliner, though they did bring it on themselves with 5(?) new songs, I love both bands greatly but that slot is a death sentence for them

The National got a pretty decent crowd IIRC?

Set was seemingly just OK from a fans point-of-view, but people who didn't know them seemed to enjoy it.

hardly a slaughtering?

[OddRon]

3 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

The National got a pretty decent crowd IIRC?

Set was seemingly just OK from a fans point-of-view, but people who didn't know them seemed to enjoy it.

hardly a slaughtering?

I think if I wasn't so slaughtered myself I would have been more dissapointed, it just felt wrong, having seen them two times since in Manchester and APE it felt pitiful in comparison but that's expected when everyone is waiting for Foo

[ghostdancer1]

1 minute ago, OddRon said:

I think if I wasn't so slaughtered myself I would have been more dissapointed, it just felt wrong, having seen them two times since in Manchester and APE it felt pitiful in comparison but that's expected when everyone is waiting for Foo

oh yeah, it was definitely the least enjoyable of the times i've seen them, but that's probably because of several unknown songs, and the set was too short, and being on a great big massive outdoor stage.

they were perfectly fine IMO, but nothing to write home about, especially if you've seen the intensity of their own gigs.

[OddRon]

Just now, ghostdancer1 said:

oh yeah, it was definitely the least enjoyable of the times i've seen them, but that's probably because of several unknown songs, and the set was too short, and being on a great big massive outdoor stage.

they were perfectly fine IMO, but nothing to write home about, especially if you've seen the intensity of their own gigs.

Yeah that was my first time seeing them and alongside Radiohead they're my favourite band so it was defintely like built up hype in my head I think, defintely redeemed themselves in my eyes at the other shows

[Havors]

32 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Tame Impala got a tiny crowd last time they played the Pyramid. People mentioning them as a potential headliner don’t live in the real world. They’d be on the blower to Stereophonics before them.

Think they would be more likely to headline the other stage if they were to headline. 

[Gnomicide]

13 minutes ago, EamerRed said:

Those Bon Jovi dates look extremely suspicious don’t they

I reckon they're just taking a break for a couple of weeks. Unless they added more shows, I can't see them either hanging around for 6 days or flying home, back for Glastonbury, back home and back to Europe again a week later.

[Hugh Jass]

11 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

The National got a pretty decent crowd IIRC?

Set was seemingly just OK from a fans point-of-view, but people who didn't know them seemed to enjoy it.

hardly a slaughtering?

I thought their crowd was tiny, was stood level with the urinals near the Cider Bus and the crowd has stopped by that point, people were gathering behind me in anticipation of the Foos.

[ghostdancer1]

29 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Tame Impala got a tiny crowd last time they played the Pyramid. People mentioning them as a potential headliner don’t live in the real world. They’d be on the blower to Stereophonics before them.

is this another one of those things that gets repeated on here enough times that people start to take as true?

I'm looking at the video of the set and the field is absolutely rammed. sure, most probably waiting for Adele, but there certainly wasn't a small crowd for Tame Impala. I agree that they're not remotely likely to headline though.

 

 

 

 

[OddRon]

8 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I thought their crowd was tiny, was stood level with the urinals near the Cider Bus and the crowd has stopped by that point, people were gathering behind me in anticipation of the Foos.

I got a right funny look by the people around me for belting Mr November, felt like an alien

[Superscally]

41 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

Coachella is the biggest festival on the planet in terms of importance (whatever that means).

Springsteen played Glastonbury because it fitted with his tour (Hyde Park the next night) and there was a business case for it. do you really think it took him/his band/his management/his touring agents until 2009 to "learn of" Glastonbury's importance (again, whatever that means)?

most bands, especially foreign, will fly in that day, get picked up from the airport in people carriers, brought on-site, fuck around for a few hours, play their gig, and leave straight away, to a hotel, or back onto a plane/ferry on their way to the next gig, probably another festival in a field in Europe. the vast majority probably don't give a flying fuck about Glastonbury, or know much about it, apart from being the biggest in the UK (and then wonder why they're not getting paid correspondingly).

 

A business case? Nah, no chance. It was of zero interest to him business wise. He only played it because it was Glastonbury. Like I said, it's whether management care or not and they did. When Bruce heard about the ethical reasons to play he was sold. You just proved my point. 

Also, they'd do exactly the same about Coachella. Coachella doesn't have the same impact on the wider US public as Glastonbury, it barely registers a ripple there where our national broadcaster pretty much flays itself before Worthy Farm to put it at the forefront of the nation's consciousness.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Superscally

[CaledonianGonzo]

2 hours ago, RarerThanDandyB said:

The Strokes defined indie 

The c**ts!

[EamerRed]

7 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

is this another one of those things that gets repeated on here enough times that people start to take as true?

I'm looking at the video of the set and the field is absolutely rammed. sure, most probably waiting for Adele, but there certainly wasn't a small crowd for Tame Impala. I agree that they're not remotely likely to headline though.

 

 

 

 

I was at Tame Impala and I 100% do not remember it being rammed at all. It wasn't dead but those pictures completely and utterly conflict with my memory of it. I had tons of space around me, and I didn't smell that bad.

[CaledonianGonzo]

2016 must have had historically low crowd movement

[Guest]

Tame Impala didn't half wind up Art Garfunkel

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Tame Impala didn't half wind up Art Garfunkel

the crowd singing the one about the rabbits instead of him wound up Art Garfunkel.

[Superunknown]

5 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

2016 must have had historically low crowd movement

Na 2018, it seemed empty

[andyhh]

5 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

2016 must have had historically low crowd movement

I'll see you 2016 and raise you 2015 with Paul Weller and The Who...no one was there for either of them!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the crowd singing the one about the rabbits instead of him wound up Art Garfunkel.

I got the feeling that Art's whole schtick was 50% trolling, 50% fragile ego. Or perhaps the ratio was different, I'm not sure, I was amused by him no end either way.

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

I got the feeling that Art's whole schtick was 50% trolling, 50% fragile ego. Or perhaps the ratio was different, I'm not sure, I was amused by him no end either way.

I quite enjoyed his set- went into it thinking it would be crap, but turned out to be better than Paul Simons pyramid snooze fest (which I'd gone into thinking would be good!)