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 😎

Headliners 2023


Crazyfool01

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

The Who, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Metallica and The Cure have all headlined in the past decade. Not exactly vital, fresh new sounds coming from El Pointo every night.

its not about the age of gnr, its about that they're shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Far be it from me to defend a band where (at least) one member turned out to be a raging Nazi but Mumfords were one of the most in-demand bands on the planet at the time they played. This year’s trio of past it legacy acts doesn’t compare well to 2013 at all. 2014 though yes absolutely diabolical, even before the Win Butler stuff .

This is the biggest trio they've ever had. You're kidding yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Hopefully Park or John Peel have something for me. Maybe even the Other. Looking forward to seeing the alternatives.

Is the consensus that AM are Friday due to tour dates so GnR Saturday? 

Also the guy on the AM forum who has spot on info for them said Friday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, giantkatestacks said:

Now I really need it to be AM so that I dont spend all three nights at the Pyramid. Love this time of year, so excited for June!

Me too, I'm pretty excited now. Feels like it's actually happening!

Two headliners I'd quite like to see but no 100% must-sees for me is a nice position to be in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

The Who, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Metallica and The Cure have all headlined in the past decade. Not exactly vital, fresh new sounds coming from El Pointo every night.

In fairness all of those are still releasing new material. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will concur with the belief that there's been few bigger trios than an Arctic Monkeys/Guns 'n' Roses/Elton John combo. (The 2016 run of Muse/Adele/Coldplay and 2017 run of Radiohead/Foo Fighters/Ed Sheeran certainly springs to mind.)

It's three stadium acts effectively, or at the very least three who have played stadiums in the eighteen months surrounding their Glastonbury appearance.

But I concur Guns 'n' Roses feels a strange booking. I'm all for Glastonbury embracing hard rock and heavy metal options atop the bill, and there are only a few who could feasibly hold a candle in size to go alongside the appeal of the other two. But still, there is something a little... odd about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorthernSoul52 said:

But I concur Guns 'n' Roses feels a strange booking. I'm all for Glastonbury embracing hard rock and heavy metal options atop the bill, and there are only a few who could feasibly hold a candle in size to go alongside the appeal of the other two. But still, there is something a little... odd about it.

It's an openly progressive festival with a huge focus on gender equality in recent years, booking one of the most ladsladslads acts out there. 

(Not saying they shouldn't, just that's why it feels weird)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

In fairness all of those are still releasing new material. 

GNR released 2 singles last year.

I assume they're dogshit, but so is basically everything released by those acts in the last 20+ years. I assume. I haven't listened to them. Like 99% of people who know songs by them.

People just want the hits. No-one gives a fuck about new material.

And GNR have plenty of hits.

Edited by ghostdancer1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Neil said:

its not about the age of gnr, its about that they're shit.

They're shit in your opinion. I quite like some of their songs

Do think they look shit live though so will most likely be elsewhere. Axl was rubbish when I saw them 11 years ago 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It's an openly progressive festival with a huge focus on gender equality in recent years, booking one of the most ladsladslads acts out there. 

(Not saying they shouldn't, just that's why it feels weird)

The fact that gender balance is now a key consideration and a significant topic of discussion is a positive step forward. So it feels like a weird trio because that's where (most of) our heads are (rightly) at these days. 

Ensuring that balance will undoubtedly be on GFL's mind, certainly on Emily's. Pulling that off with who's available is a challenge. I'm sure Emily will address it publicly over the coming months once the lineup really takes shape, in fact she's probably got something already mapped out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, she bangs the drums said:

Slash was fantastic last time he played in 2010 and my 10 year old daughter at that time is caught singing on camera 55 seconds in!

Imagine what it is going to be like with 60,000 watching and the full band. I cannot wait

 

 

Let's just hope there's no football on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, a6l6e6x said:

They're shit in your opinion. I quite like some of their songs

 Axl was rubbish when I saw them 11 years ago 

in more than just my opinion!

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...