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

2 minutes ago, Brave Sir Robin said:

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. 

Interesting! At this point I'm convinced the reason no one know is because there isn't a third headliner yet, Macca dropped out and they've been scrambling to confirm someone else ever since ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brave Sir Robin said:

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. 

On one hand it would be a decent booking because they're bigger and more relevant than most of the names mentioned since Macxit.

On the other it would be pretty underwhelming, that would be three times in twelve years (same as Muse) and although I enjoyed it, their last headline set didn't by most accounts set the world on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

On one hand it would be a decent booking because they're bigger and more relevant than most of the names mentioned since Macxit.

On the other it would be pretty underwhelming, that would be three times in twelve years (same as Muse) and although I enjoyed it, their last headline set didn't by most accounts set the world on fire.

They stank the place out at Mad Cool last year. The Spanish lads are still cleaning trying to remove the stench of mediocrity from the site.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jparx said:

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.

What even is counter culture nowadays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
6 minutes ago, Brave Sir Robin said:

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. 

The info I had about an approach came from someone in Sheffield, so it's going around there - and I wouldn't say a repeat of it is particularly telling.

If they're pulling out of US dates, tho, then that's more suggestive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

On one hand it would be a decent booking because they're bigger and more relevant than most of the names mentioned since Macxit.

On the other it would be pretty underwhelming, that would be three times in twelve years (same as Muse) and although I enjoyed it, their last headline set didn't by most accounts set the world on fire.

*didn't by most accounts set efestivals on fire. In the outside world, it's seen as a resounding success and is talked about in glowing terms (including the setlist and crowd interaction, both of which have been weaker since). However, as I've said before, Arctic Monkeys in 2019 doesn't make much sense for either party. 2020 with a new album on the other hand, very much does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic Monkeys would probably be a good solution for them. They are big enough to carry the banner, still relevant as a headliner, would appease the indie crowd and would be newsworthy. 

Ive seen them three times so I wouldnt be much fussed to see them myself but I dont think they would be as devisive as Strokes or Gaga would be so if they are available its probably the safest booking they could make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SwedgeAntilles said:

Given that current state of play I'd be delighted with Arctic Monkeys. 

I know their previous attempts at headlining the Pyramid are lambasted regularly on here but as I've said before, they sounded great at TRNSMT last year 

I'd be up for a Pyramid rendition of Pretty Visitors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

In Rainbows v Funeral. Now that is a tough one... There's only one way to settle it:

File:Harry Hill Fight.jpeg

To be honest with you anyone of the Kings of Leon albums from the 00's would be up for the fight as well. For me... especially Aha Shake Hearbreak or Youth & Young Manhood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SwedgeAntilles said:

Given that current state of play I'd be delighted with Arctic Monkeys. 

I know their previous attempts at headlining the Pyramid are lambasted regularly on here but as I've said before, they sounded great at TRNSMT last year 

I really enjoyed them at the O2 last year. My concern would be they either ditch the TBHC stuff (which I like) completely, or they do it and everyone talks through it while they're waiting for Dancefloor.

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

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • 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.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...