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

1 minute ago, Hawros said:

(Re: Tame Impala)

It took a while for them to click with me. With AM at Fins park was weak. Since then they've developed serious meat live. Last couple of times the light show has been spectacular, and is a real key part of their set (See: Mad cool).

I've never really paid much attention to them to be honest, never seen them live, never knowingly listened to any of their stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I've never really paid much attention to them to be honest, never seen them live, never knowingly listened to any of their stuff.

I quite enjoyed them at Mad Cool. Knew nothing about them previously so pleasently surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

for Emily, just once that might be said that I know of.

And Emily assures me that when she ruled out Stevie Wonder he wasn't in the frame to play.

However ... the wife was saying to me the other day that Emily didn't actually rule Madge out, but instead used more vague words. I haven't checked that tho.

I'll keep clutching at straws. I'd never pay to see her but I'd definitely turn up to see her at Glastonbury and I would imagine that Madonna would drive a hard bargain but she is a savvy businesswoman and if they pointed out the uptake in music and ticket sales following a Glastonbury performance she might be convinced. 

Emily may not have been lying at the time as negotiations could have stalled. Also. would back up whoever was saying that the person they had approached didn't usually do festivals. 

Edited by gigpusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Homer said:

If you listen to Radio X (I can't get 6 in the car), they've never been away!

Probably one of the most listened to stations among Glasto fans. And 6 Music probably have a Strokes hit on now and then.

But as you know, it’s not about what people who go to Glasto know, it’s about impressing those coworkers who don’t care about Glastonbury or music or anything really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Any clear reasons it couldn't be Roger Waters?  His 'Us+Them' tour has recently finished, he hasn't played for 17 years, and his political stance fits. 

 

One can hope but I very much doubt it. 

Edited by Xeph1995
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

I get your point but it wouldn't rule it out....the band would be well rehearsed, all the rig would be ready to go....

They’ll have all gone back to their normal jobs I reckon. Waters doesn’t really muck about with odd shows outside of tours does he? And he doesn’t seem to be doing anything so it’s a big deal to start up the machine for just a Glasto show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

for Emily, just once that might be said that I know of.

And Emily assures me that when she ruled out Stevie Wonder he wasn't in the frame to play.

However ... the wife was saying to me the other day that Emily didn't actually rule Madge out, but instead used more vague words. I haven't checked that tho.

she ruled her out in her talk in Taunton along with Fleetwood Mac and Led Zeppelin in October time but Did say she would like to book her.... is it not possible that at the point they thought they were sorted and things have happened since,  maybe involving Madonna ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

she ruled her out in her talk in Taunton along with Fleetwood Mac and Led Zeppelin in October time but Did say she would like to book her.... is it not possible that at the point they thought they were sorted and things have happened since,  maybe involving Madonna ? 

Very slim chance, I doubt she would be booked as second choice to Macca. You book Madonna or you don’t...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Im Clutching at Straws like about 615 pages of this thread :) 

I’d love it to and what it to happen but I’m don’t want to believe something that isn’t going to happen. I warmed to the idea of Gaga and prefer that over anyone that had been stated and I wanted the strokes but realise it’s not a great booking but looks like it’s them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Any clear reasons it couldn't be Roger Waters?  His 'Us+Them' tour has recently finished, he hasn't played for 17 years, and his political stance fits. 

 

nooooo dont get me excited!!! Been dying to see him again since his Dark side tour... 

OMG he fits with what Emily said as well.... they have booked 2 guys for headliners... .Stormzy and Roger??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Havors said:

nooooo dont get me excited!!! Been dying to see him again since his Dark side tour... 

OMG he fits with what Emily said as well.... they have booked 2 guys for headliners... .Stormzy and Roger??? 

Yeah it’s not going to happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xeph1995 said:

Id rather see Queens of the Stone Age be given a chance than Tame impala or Foals. Tame Impala are very boring live, when i saw them at the pyramid the other year It was a bit of a Snoozefest ( there not much better studio either)

Out of about 300 gigs attended, that Tame Impala set in 2016 remains my standout favourite. Wasn't even a massive fan of theirs beforehand.

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...