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

31 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

Fuck me.  I work away for a day and a half and there's 25 pages to wade through?  You guys.....

Someone catch me up, I'm too busy to read it all.

To give you some actual context to the nonsense that ensued yesterday (which I was part of) Neil turned round and said he was never convinced about GnR, and that as far as he can remember he didn’t put them as a TBC.

Hence everyone going mad and suggesting acts like U2, Foos etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thewayiam said:

Even Floorfiller agreed with me and that says something.

No, I arrived here debating which is what a forum is about, that's the difference.

I arrived and said things you don't like, that is your comparison mistake. Yo

 

you arrived here pretending you weren't the geezer i'd just banned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EamerRed said:

I mean, you twisted things so much that you called out one of his posts in a *prediction* thread (i.e. no sources, just a bit of fun), and tried making out that he was posting information, when it was abundantly clear to everyone that he was not.

Everyone knows that posts in that thread are more for fun rather than info. And he posted it immediately after the last festival did he not? So it's quite clear that it wasn't him claiming to be in the know.

That's the basis of you calling his perfect record bullshit. And you are the only person on this forum to have interpreted it that way.

That’s how I remember it. Was it Madonna? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TGCarr said:

Don’t lie and act as if you all wouldn’t enjoy S Club 7 on the pyramid

I know this was probably said in jest but if they're there at all it would be in the pop slot on avalon causing a massive crush again because people will go see them if they're there.  HAVE THIS DREAM COME TRUE, PUT THEM ON THE PYRAMID. 

 

(not really, but not avalon either)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GeezLouise said:

I know this was probably said in jest but if they're there at all it would be in the pop slot on avalon causing a massive crush again because people will go see them if they're there.  HAVE THIS DREAM COME TRUE, PUT THEM ON THE PYRAMID. 

I only said the headline part in jest, if they're there I'll be there too. First tape I ever owned at an age I can't even remember. Good chance I'll go see them on tour for the beans.

The real spicy meatball this morning is that so many people wanna see Slipknot top the pyramid, it would be such a good left-field booking and they have the stage show to boot. Never happen, but god it'd be a laugh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hugh Jass II said:

Are they? How exactly? Because Sprinty Dave said nice things about them? Because they did that stunt at the C&G? They've played twice, and they were 20 years apart. Pretty sure Dave appearing this year was at Macca's request, not Emily or Michael's.

Coldplay are friends of the festival. Elbow are. Fatboy Slim is.

Foos aren't on that level.

Not on that level no - just if you create such a problem for someone as Foos did when they pulled out last minute, but then retain a working relationship and still play the festival at a later point, it requires a degree of friendship or at least camaraderie between the parties involved.  But you reckon they'll never play again then? Or you think Sheeran will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Not on that level no - just if you create such a problem for someone as Foos did when they pulled out last minute, but then retain a working relationship and still play the festival at a later point, it requires a degree of friendship or at least camaraderie between the parties involved.  But you reckon they'll never play again then? Or you think Sheeran will?

Surely if Foos agreed to play in 2015, it was for the fee + exposure like any other band, not as a favour to Glastonbury?

So why would they not want to rearrange and play again? What would that have to do with goodwill or camaraderie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Not on that level no - just if you create such a problem for someone as Foos did when they pulled out last minute, but then retain a working relationship and still play the festival at a later point, it requires a degree of friendship or at least camaraderie between the parties involved.  But you reckon they'll never play again then? Or you think Sheeran will?

I have never said they'll never play again, they probably will at some point, but 2023 feels too close to the last time they headlined (secret set somewhere would be much more palatable). Sheeran is probably one and done, but you never know.

The whole point of the Sheeran comparison, which I thought was obvious, was that he headlined the same year the Foos did. If he was being rumoured for this summer then every single person on here would be up in arms saying it's too soon and his set would be largely the same as the last one, nobody would think it a likely or good booking. Yet some are saying it hasn't been too soon for the Foos...

Another apt comparison is The Who. They headlined 2007 and again in 2015 (although there were mitigating circumstances behind that second booking), the second set was largely the same as the first and felt completely unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jose Pose said:

Surely if Foos agreed to play in 2015, it was for the fee + exposure like any other band, not as a favour to Glastonbury?

So why would they not want to rearrange and play again? What would that have to do with goodwill or camaraderie?

Bands who are forced to cancel festival appearances come back all the time, there was nothing out of the ordinary with the Foos coming back. It's not like they'd have burnt their bridges cancelling in 2015, the man broke his leg and couldn't travel. That's a pretty air tight excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jose Pose said:

Your MO seems to be latching on to one off events and then shaping the whole festival around them.

My MO is not dismissing as impossible things that have literally already happened. Doesn't make them likely, but it's like me going "there's no way the UK will ever go through three Prime Minsters in six weeks, anyone with half a brain cell can see that's impossible"

The sentiment there is in the right direction: it's unlikely. But to say it's impossible is the crazy position, given it's actually already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thewayiam said:

Even Floorfiller agreed with me and that says something.

No, I arrived here debating which is what a forum is about, that's the difference.

I arrived and said things you don't like, that is your comparison mistake. You don't even have a reputation count because it would fail miserably.

How's yours doing old son?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hugh Jass II said:

I have never said they'll never play again, they probably will at some point, but 2023 feels too close to the last time they headlined (secret set somewhere would be much more palatable). Sheeran is probably one and done, but you never know.

The whole point of the Sheeran comparison, which I thought was obvious, was that he headlined the same year the Foos did. If he was being rumoured for this summer then every single person on here would be up in arms saying it's too soon and his set would be largely the same as the last one, nobody would think it a likely or good booking. Yet some are saying it hasn't been too soon for the Foos...

Another apt comparison is The Who. They headlined 2007 and again in 2015 (although there were mitigating circumstances behind that second booking), the second set was largely the same as the first and felt completely unnecessary.

Well that's my point - people would be more shocked if Sheeran was rumoured, but's that is because everyone, including you, figured it would be a one and done. And everyone, including you, figures Foos will headline again at some point. That's why it's a disingenuous comparison.

You're correct in what you're saying - people would be more up in arms if Sheeran was rumoured, but it'd be because he was coming back at all, not because it's been such a short period of time. (Although I'll give you, they'd use the time period as a way to deny it's happening, just like folk who don't Foos are doing right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MEGABOWL said:

That’s how I remember it. Was it Madonna? 

everyone is always right if they can claim their wrongs as "just a prediction".

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...