Rolling Stones...

[Guest]

Their rehearsal setlist apparently is:

October 11:

• Miss you
  
• IORR
  
• Tumbling Dice
  
• You Got Me Rocking
  
• Let It Bleed
  
• Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay
  
• Respectable
  
• Far Away Eyes
  
• Doom And Gloom
  
• Paint It Black
  
• I Wanna Be Your Man
  
• Not Fade Away
  
• Brown Sugar
  
• If You Can't Rock Me
  
• Some Girls
  

October 12

• Bitch
  
• All Down The Line
  
• Rocks Off
  
• Dead Flowers
  
• Last Time
  
• Honky Tonk Women
  
• Going To A Gogo
  
• Lady Jane
  
• Doom & Gloom
  
• One More Shot
  
• Shine A Light
  
• YCAGWYW
  
• Happy
  

I'd love to see the Stones at Glastonbury. It will probably be my only opportunity to see them live and that set list will suit me fine. To make it perfect for me, I'd like to few more 60's numbers (19th nervous Breakdown, Jumping Jack Flash etc) but I'd just be happy to see them, however good or bad they are.

[neilloggie]

I'd love to see the Stones at Glastonbury. It will probably be my only opportunity to see them live and that set list will suit me fine. To make it perfect for me, I'd like to few more 60's numbers (19th nervous Breakdown, Jumping Jack Flash etc) but I'd just be happy to see them, however good or bad they are.

But then again "You cant always get what you want"

[Guest]

But then again "You cant always get what you want"

I "Ain't too proud to beg"

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ommadawn

[LondonTom]

every year, brilliant!

I'd go see them if they was there, more than likely but it'd be more out of curiosity so if there's some else on I prefer it's off to them after a bit! That said the ticket prices make me doubt a cut down glasto fee!

Edited October 15, 2012 by LondonTom

[Bobs]

I thought you were supposed to be a journalist of sorts... What an appalling response.

And please do clean your language up, it really does instantly categorise the type of person you are.

Is this Neil?

Same guy who used to run efestivals?

Clean up your language?

Did he use any derogatory words which insult you there?

You just don't like being wrong, i've had an issue with you in the past, and little to my shock, when this thread was brought to my attention, 'ahh yess, that person who hates Frank Turner' came to mine (to a lesser polite version). You cannot come onto a very popular website, run by a very successful person, who is usually very reliable (when he isn't, he holds his hands up and admits it), and call him a clown. So you were a music photographer were you, let me guess, once upon a time you were a nice normal lad just like the majority of the eFesters here, then you met Bono and thought, oh i've met bono, all you normal people haven't, there one step on the snobbery 'upper class' stick up your arse type of person? Yeahhhh you seem like the type.

£406 for a floor seat for Rolling stones is extortionate. To deliberately point out an example there, i could go and see Frank Turner 20 times for that, which is alot more fun, alot less expensive. I could go see Paul McCartney in the most expensive floor seats 4 times, and see him perform over 130 songs.

OR

I could go and see a band who are simply in it for the money, churn out 20 odd songs, they care little about to a half empty arena... easy decision.

If people truely believe that Mumford and Sons, Frank Turner and whatever other bland pop acts they care to name are more suitable headliners than the Stones then I'm sorry but they are ignorant of the world around them and should not waste a valuable ticket.

How dare you tell anyone who they can and can't like, I've been twice. I've seen Muse in full, I find Coldplay, Beyonce, Gorrilaz, to be crap, but that's my taste, and i can understand why they hauled a huge crowd... by like Mumford and Sons and Frank Turner, i'm not worthy of a ticket? You are pathetic, and potential a victim of frank turner, potentially in the explicit way? What other reason do you have for your hatred for a fella who goes out and does his job to the best of his ability?

other than 'OH HES RIGHT WING, AND WENT TO ETON' blah blah blah.... ever thought eFestivals, and Glastonbury isn't the place for you? Unless of course... You go VIP Style, Champagne bar everyday perhaps...

You're boring mate. No One cares about you being a big shot photographer... i personally care more for what a PROPER Glasto goer found on the base of their shoe after the night before.

I'd say ban him Neil, but then, what would we do for Comedy

But anyway.

I'm going to be nice now!

I've made my point politely and factually and not going to sink to the level some of you (mainly Neil) atelier trying to drag me down to.

I'm a busy man and don't have the time to argue against some of the loutish comments coming my way. I've tried to pick out the odd slightly more intelligent remark but I'm tired and have better things to do (bet someone still manages to drag me back in)

All the best!

I hope Neil and friends enjoy Frank Turner's mind blowing headline set late in June. Let's hope the crowd stay quiet enough for you to judge him and rip every moment apart for the 11 months that follow. Kisses x

Polite? Oh please. You're telling people, you deserve a ticket more than them? You clearly don't get the etho's of glasto, you self obsessed prick (how's that for rude language), it's a happy place, where you can meet people and share memories, but more importantly be in the greatest place on the world, away from the news and all that, whilst mind numbing imbeciles like you stay at home calling everyone at glasto 'hippies'.

So, when reading this, and seeing you didn't get a Glastonbury Ticket, i smiled, nearly laughed, because now me and all my Frank turner cronies can go see Frank Turner and Rolling Stones can play to a man and his Dog. I really don't care how petty that sounds!

You out of anyone who 'deserves' a ticket, certainly come last in the queue.

Moron.

Oh and on a different topic, Stones are just really in it for the money.

I saw the beach boys a couple of weeks ago at Wembley. They performed over 60 songs, even though Brian Wilson isn't in the best health, and that was a proper 50th Anniversary. That's what music is about, especially with their new track, which really is fantastic. They'd be a treat at Glastonbury for sure.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Bobs

[monkey1989]

jeez that's a lot of words :3 , kiss and make up

[Craigston]

Just catching up with the thread myself and it would appear so. Apparently being a Stones fan makes you superior or something, albeit unable to process the concept of other people having opinions.

This.

And I reckon some bitterness at not having a ticket while it is rightly or wrongly slowly dawning that the stones may play.

Verging on trolling the inflammatory nature some of it.

[johnny-yen]

Keef has just done a small interview on BBC 6 music and was asked if they will be playing Glasto. His reply was none comital and cryptic but I'm guessing, reading between the lines, they will be playing. He certainly didn't deny it.

Can't exactly remember what he said but it was something like "depends on which way the wind is blowing" and "let's get these 4 shows out the way and see what happens" and "anythings possible"

Sounds probable to me.

[Guest]

Well, let's hope so but it seems the last thing you should do is 'read between the lines' where the Stones are concerned.

[eFestivals]

I've made my point politely and factually and not going to sink to the level some of you (mainly Neil) atelier trying to drag me down to.

what you're missing is that you were already in the sewer and you couldn't get any lower. My words were merely to bring that home to you.

Too sadly, you're too stupid to realise and believe yourself in the place to take high moral ground. It doesn't get anymore laughable than that.

If anyone who dislikes a particular band who no one knows to actually be playing as yet, they are not undeserving of a ticket .... unless Michael Eavis is also undeserving of running a music festival because he wastes shit loads of effort and money on providing another 50+ alternative stages to visit when that band might be playing.

I hope Neil and friends enjoy Frank Turner's mind blowing headline set late in June. Let's hope the crowd stay quiet enough for you to judge him and rip every moment apart for the 11 months that follow. Kisses x

PMSL. You really don't have the first idea what you're talking about do you? Oh dear.

[eFestivals]

Yes I am new here. As an old timer you can possibly tell me if the admin person regularly abuses people who disagree with his/her views

I merely threw the abuse back at the moron who believes that every ticket holder who is not stood religiously in front of the Pyramid stage should the Stones play does not deserve their Glastonbury ticket.

I can choose how I might point out someone's stupidity. Firstly I tried with gentle words. When more abuse came back I let rip.

and does eFestivals make a habit of listing rumours, that probably encourage people to buy tickets, and then realise they've got it all wrong?

That's the nature of rumours. If they weren't rumours I would be saying "this a is guaranteed".

I guess the Eavii get no guilt themselves for also having mentioned the stone roses?

Tell you what tho, as it's upset you so much I'll happily pay you the ten quid loss you'd make in cancelling your ticket. Deal? or is it that you're being an empty-headed moron?

[eFestivals]

I think you need to read back and see how polite I have actually been here.

It's possible to be a racist in a polite manner. It doesn't change what's within the words.

You're clearly too stupid to realise just how objectionable your words were.

Asking a simple question as to whether Neil had seen them.

and you got a perfectly polite and well meant reply to that question.

Actually read back and see how he reacted.

that was to your further post, when you proved yourself to be a small minded moron.

Turns out His research was a friend of a friend didn't care for them much but I'm told to f off etc.

No, it turns out my research is from thousands who have seen the stones in recent years, and think them a shadow of their former selves and a poor alive act.

Which part of that true statement are you having such problem comprehending?

[mrtourette]

I think you need to read back and see how polite I have actually been here.

Asking a simple question as to whether Neil had seen them. From his previous statements (which most on here seem to take as the word of God) it was pretty obvious he hadn't and with such easily influenced followers like yourself I just wanted to check he was well researched before depriving you from an amazing experience you won't be able to take advantage of for much longer.

Actually read back and see how he reacted.

Turns out His research was a friend of a friend didn't care for them much but I'm told to f off etc.

But not to worry.

Kept me quite entertained and hopefully a few others.

I'm not interrested in your requset of Neil, however I question your politeness when you start calling other people ignorant just because they diagree with your opinion on the Stones.

I've had my fair share of run-ins with Neil so you're better off thinking of a better deflection than 'you're all sucking up to admin'. People are telling you that you're acting like a tit because you're acting like a tit, not because you're arguing with admin.

Ignorance is not understanding my basic point.

I'm not going to be painted as some wannabe fascist dictator.

Taste and preference in music is one thing. Lack in understanding of cultural significance to think Mumfords (or similar) are a more suitable headliner is... Ignorant!!

This would make sense if The Stones being a more suitable headline was a quantifiable fact and you could prove people wrong, but it isn't. There is no formula or equation to calculate who the better headliner would be, it's a matter of opinion. If you put a lot of stock in cultural significance then you come up with The Stones but it doesn't say anywhere that cultural significance is the be all and end all. Other people value other things and therefore come up with what they think are more suitable headliners. It is a matter of opinion, if you disgaree with them then fair enough but suggesting that the only reason that people have a difference of opinion to you is due to them being ill-informed or lacking knowledge is offensive. If you disagree with someone or they disagree with you then get over it, but don't call them ignorant and suggest that they're only disagreeing with you because they don't understand your point. People understand your point and are still disagreeing with you, move on.

[russycarps]

Ignorance is not understanding my basic point.

I'm not going to be painted as some wannabe fascist dictator.

Taste and preference in music is one thing. Lack in understanding of cultural significance to think Mumfords (or similar) are a more suitable headliner is... Ignorant!!

For one of the precious tickets to be used up by someone seeing a band who will play every festival, every year until no one cares anymore is a waste. Come on but it is. If genuine music and Glastonbury fans were not denied tickets by those who "just want to tick it off the list" or think Mumford and Frank Turner were the highlight then I would be happier. Whether I was going or not.

That's not me knocking people's taste (unless they like Frank Turner in which case they know themselves deep down inside that they have awful taste) but to not be aware of what an important event they will be witnessing and to not realise how lucky they are to have taken a place millions would pay thousands for is a shame.

It is. That doesn't make me Hitler!

oh this is lovely stuff.

I would much, much rather the festival threw a few grand at mumford & sons and the vaccines - or any other band who are up and coming and would actually appreciate a headline slot - rather than throwing a million quid at some dinosaurs who couldnt give a shit about being there and who will fax in yet another laughably shit performance which is just a sad parody of a once great band.

Would I go and see mumfords or the vaccines? Of course I wouldnt. I dont like them. But I would much rather the festival was giving bands like that a shot at the bigime rather than churning out so-called "legends" who are ridiculously costly, put in shite boring performances and who look at is as just another payday.

I saw the stones at the isle of wight and the best bit was the opening notes of start me up. The anticipation was incredible.....then the gig started and it was utter utter shite. Terrible, dreadful stuff. You are quite right to say the audience members are often in tears at a stones gig. I certainly witnessed plenty of tears at their isle of wight gig - bitter, angry tears of disappointment.

[eFestivals]

Straight is not miss quoting me and failing to understand my point.

It's not a mis-quote.

And I'll tell Michael next time I see him that he's wasting his time with those other stages with other acts as alternatives to the Pyramid. Arronbury said so.

Now, please try to avoid that spike going up your arse next time you get off your high horse, eh?

I didn't say "anyone" who agrees with site admin, I just find it comical how many have a different tone when the teacher walks back into the room.

Those who have been here a while know just how ridiculous that statement of yours is.

And what you say is against the facts. Plenty of people were already pulling you up on your appalling opinions before I posted (and I posted back to you politely until you did your moron act in my direction).

[oneeye]

Blimey; I'm not feeling the Glasto love on this thread this morning, talk about War and Peace, whatever happened to the Glasto ethos?

Reading back over the past 24 hours my feeling is that there has been a certain amount of fishing gone on, with a few nibbles

I'd like to think that most of what has been posted has been said in jest, if not then there are some very sad/bitter individuals lurking amongst us

[mrtourette]

That damn Glastonbury ethos. Isn't it against the Glastonbury ethos to use lacking the Glastonbury ethos as a way of putting people down?

[eFestivals]

I'd like to think that most of what has been posted has been said in jest, if not then there are some very sad/bitter individuals lurking amongst us

my missus has been wetting herself over my rant at Arronbury ("best post on efestivals in ages") - because she knows exactly where I'm coming from and what I was meaning with my words. And jest was it - but jestful words designed to hit home (sadly they didn't, but there's no accounting for Arronbury ).

[Joeskeppi]

Then you shouldn't have a ticket.

I or one of the hundreds on here who failed to get lucky last Sunday should have your place.

Ignorant fools like yourself make me angry.

What a waste.

What the hell is this? Never heard such tripe.Anyway, apparently cheapest ticket to see the stones at the O2 is £106, makes glasto look cheap if they do play

[Glastofan43]

oh this is lovely stuff.

I would much, much rather the festival threw a few grand at mumford & sons and the vaccines - or any other band who are up and coming and would actually appreciate a headline slot - rather than throwing a million quid at some dinosaurs who couldnt give a shit about being there and who will fax in yet another laughably shit performance which is just a sad parody of a once great band.

Would I go and see mumfords or the vaccines? Of course I wouldnt. I dont like them. But I would much rather the festival was giving bands like that a shot at the bigime rather than churning out so-called "legends" who are ridiculously costly, put in shite boring performances and who look at is as just another payday.

I saw the stones at the isle of wight and the best bit was the opening notes of start me up. The anticipation was incredible.....then the gig started and it was utter utter shite. Terrible, dreadful stuff. You are quite right to say the audience members are often in tears at a stones gig. I certainly witnessed plenty of tears at their isle of wight gig - bitter, angry tears of disappointment.

I saw Mumford and Sons on the John Peel Stage. Their album was well produced with some good songs but their live act musically was a shambles and they displayed all the charisma of a tent abandoned in the Glasto mud. I would describe them as sub-Waterboys karaoke. As for the Stones, at least they offer pre-booking for their concerts to those who have supported them through the years. Ten minutes after the announcement was made I'd secured mine. Having not missed Glastonbury for many years I spent my annual Sunday morning on the phone and computer only to discover I couldn't get tickets but a number of people I know whose peak of live entertainment experience has been a Take That variety show are packing their pink cowboy hats and heading for Worthy Farm. All this thanks to someone who knew how to by-pass the fool-proof "new system" and skip all the waiting time holding everyone else up.

[SonOfTroyMcClure]

I saw Mumford and Sons on the John Peel Stage. Their album was well produced with some good songs but their live act musically was a shambles and they displayed all the charisma of a tent abandoned in the Glasto mud. I would describe them as sub-Waterboys karaoke.

Agreed on Mumford. But despite their terrible-ness, there will be endless people prepared to watch them and their insane popularity at the moment means they're a decent/realistic shout for headliner.

[eFestivals]

Having not missed Glastonbury for many years I spent my annual Sunday morning on the phone and computer only to discover I couldn't get tickets but a number of people I know whose peak of live entertainment experience has been a Take That variety show are packing their pink cowboy hats and heading for Worthy Farm.

... and who have no less right to a ticket than yourself, and who are perfectly free to watch whatever act they wish across all the the very many stages - instead of seeing the stones (if they get get past their greed to actually play) - because it's a festivals with all of those different choices available to them.

FFS.

And we thought the Radiohead and Bruce fans were bad? :lol:

All this thanks to someone who knew how to by-pass the fool-proof "new system" and skip all the waiting time holding everyone else up.

All this thanks to a cock-up at See Tickets, which meant that those who know about computers were able to work around that cock-up - and who were quite happy to freely share that knowledge too.

You can post your own version of the truth as much as you like. It will never make it true.

[russycarps]

fifty grand on mumford & sons or a million quid on rolling stones. It's not a hard choice in my mind.

[oneeye]

That damn Glastonbury ethos. Isn't it against the Glastonbury ethos to use lacking the Glastonbury ethos as a way of putting people down?

I think so

[eFestivals]

fifty grand on mumford & sons or a million quid on rolling stones. It's not a hard choice in my mind.

except Mumfords (at standard prices) would be £250k+ I reckon.