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, Matt42 said:

Speculation guess but if Stormzy and the Cure were doing it virtually for free. They could give all the allocated headline budget to Fleetwood. I imagine that’s what they must of done in 2013 with the stones (despite what jagger says). Arctic’s and Mumfords would deffo do it for free

 

Why would any act headline for free?

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FMs tour schedule and current status (pushing a Greatest Hits) gives me some hope that it could be them.  They've got their huge money spinning show at Wembley already, and a televised Glastonbury extravaganza would give the album sale a huge boost before moving on.  I'm not saying its likely, but I don't think it would be the worst business decision in the world for them to take a lower than normal fee and headline.  IIRC they've only recently started doing outdoor shows (I think Stevie Nicks felt it affected the sound of her voice?).  They are doing festivals.

Obviously this all ignores Emily's denials, but the idea that she would have been told not to give any clues, or that negotiations were ongoing at the time, would fit my wishful narrative.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, jessden89 said:

Sorry unclear but I meant the baseline fee - I meant that they definitely would pay a big established headline act like Macca or the Mac more

Macca (in 2004) did it for the standard fee.

The only act to ever reportedly get more than the standard fee was the Rolling Stones. And Fleetwood Mac aren't the Rolling Stones.

Unless the festival gets seriously desperate (doubt we're at that stage yet), Fleetwood Mac would get the same as any other headliner. Including Stormzy.

They probably could pay more, but it's just not a precedent they want to set - you can get away with doing it once, for the Stones, but any more and it'd cause them problems on an ongoing basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incident said:

Macca (in 2004) did it for the standard fee.

The only act to ever reportedly get more than the standard fee was the Rolling Stones. And Fleetwood Mac aren't the Rolling Stones.

Unless the festival gets seriously desperate (doubt we're at that stage yet), Fleetwood Mac would get the same as any other headliner. Including Stormzy.

They probably could pay more, but it's just not a precedent they want to set - you can get away with doing it once, for the Stones, but any more and it'd cause them problems on an ongoing basis.

Bang on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

At a talk in Taunton this evening, Emily Eavis has said Glastonbury have NOT booked Madonna, Fleetwood Mac or Led Zep.

 

#Glastonbury #Glasto

 

GlastoThingy twitter post from October. That is literally it in terms of ‘ruling out’ FM this year. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Fleetwood Mac are your 2019 Saturday night pyramid headliners. Or I will eat my hat. 

As far as "literally it" goes, Emily telling a room full of people is a pretty big it.

@crazyfool1 was there and confirmed what was said.

You may need one of these...

Screenshot_20190131-114358_Chrome.thumb.jpg.42df4282132d4906b5dcb37c00551d08.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Who has? Name names.

I think R.E.M were supposed to have done it for free or cheap the second time. I don’t think that’s the only incident I’ve heard of either but still.

Though, waiving a fee probably means “add it to the charity kitty” rather than “give it to Mick Fleetwood”.

No reason to think The Cure would be doing it for free, especially with their fraught relationship with the fest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dentalplan said:

I think R.E.M were supposed to have done it for free or cheap the second time. I don’t think that’s the only incident I’ve heard of either but still.

Though, waiving a fee probably means “add it to the charity kitty” rather than “give it to Mick Fleetwood”.

No reason to think The Cure would be doing it for free, especially with their fraught relationship with the fest.

Yep. Coldplay have done it "for free" at least once, but what that actually meant was donating their fee to the festivals charities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dentalplan said:

 

Though, waiving a fee probably means “add it to the charity kitty” rather than “give it to Mick Fleetwood”.

Exactly, an act might donate their fee, that's up to them, but the festival are still paying someone. It costs the acts money to put on a headline show (who was it recently who lost money on one?) and I assume that the actual fee donated is after that is taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

As far as "literally it" goes, Emily telling a room full of people is a pretty big it.

@crazyfool1 was there and confirmed what was said.

You may need one of these...

Screenshot_20190131-114358_Chrome.thumb.jpg.42df4282132d4906b5dcb37c00551d08.jpg

Possibly! ‘Have not booked....’ said in October, is hardly ‘will not be appearing....’ though is it? I’m not denying it was said; just that it’s not a rule out in any serious way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

(who was it recently who lost money on one?)

According to Michael, U2 did, between private jets to get them to/from their shows in the US 2 days before and 2 days after, and all the extra screens and staging they brought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, incident said:

According to Michael, U2 did, between private jets to get them to/from their shows in the US 2 days before and 2 days after, and all the extra screens and staging they brought in.

That's right, Bono's phone bill after ringing the international space station mid-set must have been pretty high too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Possibly! ‘Have not booked....’ said in October, is hardly ‘will not be appearing....’ though is it? I’m not denying it was said; just that it’s not a rule out in any serious way. 

Depends if they had their headliners booked at the time. If they did, then it's not them, if not it's still a long shot due to the fees.

From what Neil has said though, the only time Emily has said an act was not booked and they did turn up was Stevie Wonder. After that, I'd say she's less likely to rule someone out unless it 100% isn't them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I’d say they’d have exhausted their efforts on persuading Madonna or Fleetwood Mac, arguably some more names, before they turned to The Cure in/before August. To hope for such a name to replace Macca since November or so seems unreasonable to me.

Edited by dentalplan
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...