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

3 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

yeah maybe this seems like it because its more recent ...

The shitstorm that followed the Kanye announcement shows the GnR thing for what it is - just a few grumpy gits moaning.

Emily won't be getting death threats and Neil Lonsdale won't be starting petitions over GnR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quark said:

 

If anything, and this is gonna cause a scene, I'd equate them to Spice Girls. Massive name that everyone knows, huge fanbase, and absolutely dominated things while they were at the top.  But if you strip it back and take away the hype they both released a very limited number of albums in that time, and while they have some songs that are absolute monsters they actually don't have a huge number of songs that hit the popular  consciousness. It's just those that did really hit home.

Right, gonna sit back and watch responses. This should be fun.

I kind of get that reference in that for me I was hugely into them for a small period of time. (I even had Axl Rose posters on my wall) but it feels like a phase I have passed out of which I imagine would be similar for a lot of Spice Girls fans. 

I also think the negativity towards them is partly to do with the trio of headliners rather than just them. If Taylor was playing or Dua or even Harry Styles I don't think the remaining 2 would get anywhere near as much grief. It just feels like the contemporary memo has been missed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the GnR thing at all - I could understand if they were headlining Download but they seem a bit of an odd fit for Glastonbury. I totally got it when Metallica played as they had a huge back catalogue and, in my opinion, had loads more to offer. I don't think the same applies to GnR at all...I really do think that if they headline it could be one of the smallest crowds for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on here have this perception that I hate the Pyramid and deliberately miss headliners in some misguided attempt to be "cool".

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not the case. There's nothing quite like the atmosphere at the Pyramid when it's really "going off", e.g. Beyonce and Jay Z (for me).

But I ain't going to go to see acts I dislike just because they're headliners and it's the Pyramid.

Most years I see a headliner every night, just more often on WH or The Other. WH in particular tend to book acts I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorthernSoul52 said:

OK, here's one. 

If Elton John gets Kiki Dee and Dua Lipa out...

...who do Arctic Monkeys and Guns 'n' Roses whip out? (The latter have history for guests - Angus Young, Pink, Billy Gibbons, Dave Grohl and Carrie Underwood in recent years.)

Oh wow… I was 50/50 about seeing GNR but with the possibility of the absolute GOAT duck walking all over the pyramid stage is making GNR a must see. 
 

An Angus guest appearance setting up an AC/DC headline spot for 2024… One can dream right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

People on here have this perception that I hate the Pyramid and deliberately miss headliners in some misguided attempt to be "cool".

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not the case. There's nothing quite like the atmosphere at the Pyramid when it's really "going off", e.g. Beyonce and Jay Z (for me).

But I ain't going to go to see acts I dislike just because they're headliners and it's the Pyramid.

Most years I see a headliner every night, just more often on WH or The Other. WH in particular tend to book acts I like.

So why are you constantly complaining about the Pyramid headliners then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

 

He's not in the band anymore, he's was a guest, I was very excited to see him. His contributions were some of the highlights of the set.

Though he played the entire tour so it wasn't anything special for Glastonbury.

Billy Wyman or Bobby Womack would have been more of a moment given they played the same weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

The shitstorm that followed the Kanye announcement shows the GnR thing for what it is - just a few grumpy gits moaning.

Emily won't be getting death threats and Neil Lonsdale won't be starting petitions over GnR.

If people need reminding how bad the Kanye stuff was just remember it cost us Prince FFS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

People on here have this perception that I hate the Pyramid and deliberately miss headliners in some misguided attempt to be "cool".

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not the case. There's nothing quite like the atmosphere at the Pyramid when it's really "going off", e.g. Beyonce and Jay Z (for me).

But I ain't going to go to see acts I dislike just because they're headliners and it's the Pyramid.

Most years I see a headliner every night, just more often on WH or The Other. WH in particular tend to book acts I like.

Nobody is asking you to. I think you'll find most people here average one Pyramid headliner a festival and loads probably less than that. West Holts often does have the best options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I also think the negativity towards them is partly to do with the trio of headliners rather than just them. If Taylor was playing or Dua or even Harry Styles I don't think the remaining 2 would get anywhere near as much grief. It just feels like the contemporary memo has been missed. 

This is definitely a big part of it - of the three headliners they're the most objectionable so will draw the most negative attention. If they were headlining alongside Stormzy and Taylor Swift (to give just one of many more balanced examples) I doubt we'd be having this conversation. 

I won't be watching them personally but don't massively mind that they're playing - to me, the reasons they feel like a poor 'fit' are more to do with Axl's personality and reputation for turning up late than with their actual music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rwhitehouse13 said:

I don't get the GnR thing at all - I could understand if they were headlining Download but they seem a bit of an odd fit for Glastonbury. I totally got it when Metallica played as they had a huge back catalogue and, in my opinion, had loads more to offer. I don't think the same applies to GnR at all...I really do think that if they headline it could be one of the smallest crowds for a long time.

oh look another....at glasto we like and include all music.....oh wait its heavy go stick with Download festival....it has no place here!

 

Guns n Roses are not a small band!!! its unbelievable people think they are and that they would struggle to sell out academys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mouserat said:

This is definitely a big part of it - of the three headliners they're the most objectionable so will draw the most negative attention. If they were headlining alongside Stormzy and Taylor Swift (to give just one of many more balanced examples) I doubt we'd be having this conversation. 

I won't be watching them personally but don't massively mind that they're playing - to me, the reasons they feel like a poor 'fit' are more to do with Axl's personality and reputation for turning up late than with their actual music.

Yeah I agree with this. I might watch them, might not, but they make sense as a booking to me. I think @NorthernSoul52 is right that the trio feels a bit unbalanced as it's missing an up and comer but certainly not the first year that has happened.

Edited by Zoo Music Girl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

People on here have this perception that I hate the Pyramid and deliberately miss headliners in some misguided attempt to be "cool".

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not the case. There's nothing quite like the atmosphere at the Pyramid when it's really "going off", e.g. Beyonce and Jay Z (for me).

But I ain't going to go to see acts I dislike just because they're headliners and it's the Pyramid.

Most years I see a headliner every night, just more often on WH or The Other. WH in particular tend to book acts I like.

That pretty much describes me and the average punter but there’s just no need to keep saying things are shit because they aren’t what you’d book given the choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Yeah I agree with this. I might watch them, might not, but they make sense as a booking to me. I think @NorthernSoul52 is right that the trio feels a bit unbalanced as it's missing an up and comer but certainly not the first year that has happened.

Somebody call?

But yes, this exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mouserat said:

This is definitely a big part of it - of the three headliners they're the most objectionable so will draw the most negative attention. If they were headlining alongside Stormzy and Taylor Swift (to give just one of many more balanced examples) I doubt we'd be having this conversation. 

I won't be watching them personally but don't massively mind that they're playing - to me, the reasons they feel like a poor 'fit' are more to do with Axl's personality and reputation for turning up late than with their actual music.

Yep that definitely makes them the easier target. I also think the lack of self-confirms etc has more people obsessing over the headliners than would normally care. I have my one headliner in Elton so really wouldn't want anymore anyway so I am perfectly happy to not be too enthused about the others. 

I have a slight concern about rumours about Lizzo being the act on before GnR just in terms of will you have fans of GnR who wouldn't care about Lizzo hanging around and spoiling the vibe but I think it'll just be a case of getting in a good spot and hoping for the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Yeah I agree with this. I might watch them, might not, but they make sense as a booking to me. I think @NorthernSoul52 is right that the trio feels a bit unbalanced as it's missing an up and comer but certainly not the first year that has happened.

We still have two first time headliners though...

Said all along that AM feels the most stale booking of the three to me, despite them being massive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people throwing a tantrum that a band they dont like are headlining because they are in their opinion rubbish live and haven't released anything in 'years' ...would probably be over the moon if Stone Roses headlined

 

think it stems from it was meant to be Taylor Swift and are taking their anger out on the band that has replaced her..as if they changed her mind for her 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

 

I have a slight concern about rumours about Lizzo being the act on before GnR just in terms of will you have fans of GnR who wouldn't care about Lizzo hanging around and spoiling the vibe but I think it'll just be a case of getting in a good spot and hoping for the best. 

You may be overestimating the number of hardcore GnR fans at Glastonbury there...

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...