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

8 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I have long maintained on these pages that Juicebox is an absolute banger and their best effort by a mile. I like The Strokes, always have done, I just don't think they should be headlining Glastonbury in 2019.

Really I don’t think bands that peaked so long ago should be headlining Glastonbury either. Its forte used to be holding up a mirror to what’s current... but it isn’t anymore and the alternative is the fucking Red Hot Chili Peppers so getting The Strokes is a good result in my book.

Even Lady Gaga was yesterday’s news a few months ago. Now we’re looking for her to come over during her Vegas residency (think about that; a Vegas residency...) to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Really I don’t think bands that peaked so long ago should be headlining Glastonbury either. Its forte used to be holding up a mirror to what’s current... but it isn’t anymore and the alternative is the fucking Red Hot Chili Peppers so getting The Strokes is a good result in my book.

Even Lady Gaga was yesterday’s news a few months ago. Now we’re looking for her to come over during her Vegas residency (think about that; a Vegas residency...) to play.

Not sure current bands have really headlined the Pyramid that often - it's not really what it's for. Coldplay and Momford and Sons maybe? In that they did it after v few albums. Hardly the cutting edge though. Oasis the first time too.

Even when I started in the mid-90s it was stuff like Peter Gabriel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

Im shocked they are even under consideration as Pyramid headliners tbh. 

 

Here are the NHS guidelines, I hope there is someone to hand to care for you:

 

  • Lay the Person Down, if Possible. Elevate the person's feet about 12 inches unless head, neck, or back is injured or you suspect broken hip or leg bones. ...
  • Begin CPR, if Necessary. If the person is not breathing or breathing seems dangerously weak: ...
  • Treat Obvious Injuries.
  • Keep Person Warm and Comfortable. ...
  • Follow Up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Really I don’t think bands that peaked so long ago should be headlining Glastonbury either. Its forte used to be holding up a mirror to what’s current... but it isn’t anymore and the alternative is the fucking Red Hot Chili Peppers so getting The Strokes is a good result in my book.

Even Lady Gaga was yesterday’s news a few months ago. Now we’re looking for her to come over during her Vegas residency (think about that; a Vegas residency...) to play.

Whilst I'm not comparing the Stokes to the Stones, did you feel that way in 2013? Or is it just that this years are not that good?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

Whilst I'm not comparing the Stokes to the Stones, did you feel that way in 2013? Or is it just that this years are not that good?

 

The stupid thing is that I actually like The Strokes and The Cure - and I haven't got a f@cking ticket!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Homer said:

If people want to wilfully ignore this kind of stuff then it's their loss I guess!
 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I have long maintained on these pages that Juicebox is an absolute banger and their best effort by a mile. I like The Strokes, always have done, I just don't think they should be headlining Glastonbury in 2019.

 

28 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Christ that Juicebox song is annoying.

I prefer the original

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Sasperella said:

For reasons that I now can't quite remember (although, I suspect it's because at the time I was an obnoxious 16/17 year old metaller), I have it in my head that I hate The Strokes. I know the name of the album and that stupid/iconic album cover which was literally everywhere for years, obviously, but couldn't name any of their tunes....

Mentioned this to my Glastonbury chum the other day, who said "what, not even "Last Night"?". 

"Oh yeh, I really like that song!" Probably always did on the sly as well tbh...

Big up to the teenage metalheads pretending to hate everything else.

Happy days. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If The Strokes could be booked for the headliner budget, or less, I think they'd opt for that over bumping Liam up.

Did we not have info that Liam is on before Stormzy (I know that could have changed since). Also, if Noel is playing this year there's no way one is headlining with the other further down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

Whilst I'm not comparing the Stokes to the Stones, did you feel that way in 2013? Or is it just that this years are not that good?

 

I would have done, yeah.

Some people really like the idea of Glastonbury being able to fill in their ‘bucket list’ of artists but I really like the idea of the early 00’s and the 90’s where who was playing was a reflection of the culture at the time - though as Homer says that’s not necessarily a correct take on that era. But yeah even if it meant The 1975, Post Malone and a YouTuber dabbing and flossing for three hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like two points are being conflated here;

1. In 2019 The Strokes would be a weird and weak headliner for Glastonbury.

2. The Strokes in their pomp were fucking excellent and Is This It remains one of the best, if not *the* best record of the 00s.

These points are not mutually exclusive and are, actually, both correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SwedgeAntilles said:

I feel like two points are being conflated here;

1. In 2019 The Strokes would be a weird and weak headliner for Glastonbury.

2. The Strokes in their pomp were fucking excellent and Is This It remains one of the best, if not *the* best record of the 00s.

These points are not mutually exclusive and are, actually, both correct

I'd agree with both points, dunno if I'd call Is This It THE best record of the 00's (Funeral, in case you were wondering) but it's darn good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a Sheffield chap say, on an unrelated private forum, that he has a "good" source that it's Arctics. No idea how much weight to place on it, and I know the "iconic June festival" was said not to be G, but since then we've had Neil hearing they've been approached, and this: 

Would be 5 years since they last headlined. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mufcok said:

Did we not have info that Liam is on before Stormzy (I know that could have changed since). Also, if Noel is playing this year there's no way one is headlining with the other further down.

Yeah and that info came with news  of Paul McCartney headlining. If he’s headlining its since that fell thru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

I would have done, yeah.

Some people really like the idea of Glastonbury being able to fill in their ‘bucket list’ of artists but I really like the idea of the early 00’s and the 90’s where who was playing was a reflection of the culture at the time - though as Homer says that’s not necessarily a correct take on that era. But yeah even if it meant The 1975, Post Malone and a YouTuber dabbing and flossing for three hours.

But in the early 00s and 90s they didn't book the equivalent of what you're talking about there. If Glastonbury reflected the culture of the time, surely in, say, 2000, they would would have booked Spice Girls, Eminem and Linkin Park, not The Chems, Travis and David Bowie?

Glastonbury has always reflected a certain culture of the times, but that's usually alternative/counter culture. The lineups from the 90s/early 00s did not pander to the masses in the same way booking a YouTuber to floss would. 

Doesn't change the fact The Strokes aren't headlining though.

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...