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 😎

2025 Headliners


Guest

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

Tabloids? This is the BBC article:

 

Glastonbury Festival organiser Emily Eavis has said she has recently been offered a "really big American artist" who she hopes will headline next year.

 

She didn't reveal their identity, but told BBC podcast Sidetracked she is aiming to book two female headliners.

 

 

Ok maybe she was talking about Dua and Madonna but if you are saying you're getting flack for having 0 female headliners in 2023 then for 2024 say you're aiming for 2 female headliners, you're kinda backing yourself into a corner. 

 

Which is exactly how it played out cause she booked SZA to do it to a tiny crowd. She clearly was trying to make the 2 female headliners happen at almost any cost cause she felt bad about 2023.


Now look what that became when it hit the tabloids

 

The Suns reimagining

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Yeah - she was on the defensive, when she didn't really need to be.  Arctics / GnR / Elton still a strong trio.


Agreed. Glastonbury as a festival have done more for gender diversity than most others, and she had three actual stadium acts headlining for the first time ever, and she got heavily criticised for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:


Now look what that became when it hit the tabloids

 

The Suns reimagining

Yeah for sure, the Sun was talking shite but still Emily set out the 2 female headliners thing:

 

“But next year it's looking like we’ve got two female headliners, so fingers crossed.”

 

I'm aware that she isn't guaranteeing anything there but she never needed to say that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Yeah for sure, the Sun was talking shite but still Emily set out the 2 female headliners thing:

 

“But next year it's looking like we’ve got two female headliners, so fingers crossed.”

 

I'm aware that she isn't guaranteeing anything there but she never needed to say that. 


That’s the point. She doesn’t say that.

 

She says “

“So I feel like the pool is going to be bigger soon. And who knows next year, we might get two.

And I'd certainly I can say that the legend is female.”

 

Thats from the actual transcript.

 

From Sidetracked with Annie and Nick: Emily Eavis on Glastonbury, Footballers Tackling Music and Life Is A Cabaret, 26 Oct 2023
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:


That’s the point. She doesn’t say that.

 

She says “

“So I feel like the pool is going to be bigger soon. And who knows next year, we might get two.

And I'd certainly I can say that the legend is female.”

 

Thats from the actual transcript.

 

From Sidetracked with Annie and Nick: Emily Eavis on Glastonbury, Footballers Tackling Music and Life Is A Cabaret, 26 Oct 2023
 

Apologies I assumed it was a direct quote 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:


Agreed. Glastonbury as a festival have done more for gender diversity than most others, and she had three actual stadium acts headlining for the first time ever, and she got heavily criticised for it. 

Much easier I would say as well to book 3 male stadium acts.

 

Just for instance, what are people saying if Emily booked Olivia, Beyonce and Adele as that's probably what we're talking about for 3 female acts that can headline stadiums acts in the UK to play. How would that go down? I would only watch one now, I can't see it going down well but you're probably booking the 3 biggest female artists in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is some degree of risk with whacking 3 female stadium acts in the same year

 

The pool is about what - 20% of the male pool, it could mess them up for future years and lead to a repeat of the 2022 blokefest. Would be an unreal trio tho what was mentioned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Apologies I assumed it was a direct quote 


No need for you to apologise, it’s the crappy paper misleading everyone 😀

 

Thats how it all gets twisted though. The Sun story got copied by Somerset Live and the Evening Standards website because of the way these things recirculate. I could see on a Google Search it getting reposted on Reddit etc. It then kind of becomes accepted as truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, northernangel said:

Much easier I would say as well to book 3 male stadium acts.

 

Just for instance, what are people saying if Emily booked Olivia, Beyonce and Adele as that's probably what we're talking about for 3 female acts that can headline stadiums acts in the UK to play. How would that go down? I would only watch one now, I can't see it going down well but you're probably booking the 3 biggest female artists in the world.


I’d like to think it would go over well, that’s a good mix of genres. But there would be plenty of people unhappy. There always is-see 2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

The word got tipped on here before the ticket sale, so must have been October-ish.

 

Yeah, all 3 of the eventual headliners had been named on here as likely by October, and all of them by people with credibility.

 

Arctics people accepted pretty much along. Elton the initial doubts were mainly due to his previous record of playing nearby and swerving the festival and the (as best I can tell unfounded) belief he hated the festival for some reason or another. But then he got announced first, in December so that was a "done deal".

 

GnR there were doubts over mainly because of the bizarre and sh*tty one man campaign to try and discredit the person who brought the information, which I have to think is the only reason there's a perception they were booked late. They definitely weren't a late replacement by any standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MEGABOWL said:


I’d like to think it would go over well, that’s a good mix of genres. But there would be plenty of people unhappy. There always is-see 2023

 

It's not going to please people outside of the female pop world though on the whole is it? It would be for a set of 3 probably my ideal females 3 but I don't think I'm in a minority of people that would say where is the alternative options. Male stadium acts have a broader range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Hmmmm.   Suggests that if something is happening next year it's coming under a new banner.

 

Though no idea what that means for the Manchester dates.

No refunds issued there yet, from what I understand, so assume they are still happening.

 

Unless she is making an immediate leap into a summer festival/stadium tour and combines the two into a night at Old Trafford Cricket Ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, northernangel said:

 

It's not going to please people outside of the female pop world though on the whole is it? It would be for a set of 3 probably my ideal females 3 but I don't think I'm in a minority of people that would say where is the alternative options. Male stadium acts have a broader range. 


They’re very very different artists in different genres

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...