Rolling Stones...

[Ted Dansons Wig]

I was quite looking forward to seeing the Stones until I read this thread. Now Im worried I might end up being stood near Arronbury.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Ted Dansons Wig

[russycarps]

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

gah surely not!!

God I hate that band. They represent everything that is wrong with everything.

Would still rather they headlined than the stones though!

[zahidf]

gah surely not!!

God I hate that band. They represent everything that is wrong with everything.

Would still rather they headlined than the stones though!

Sounds about right consideirng their album and ticket sales. I'd assume they'd get a lot more for headlining V/Reading

[SonOfTroyMcClure]

question to the more experienced Glasto-goers/insiders: has there ever been a double headliner? akin to Strokes/Pulp at Reading '11? (I believe they were officially a 'double headliner' but correct me if I'm wrong). Could it be a case of having Mumford AND Vaccines?

Edited October 16, 2012 by SonOfTroyMcClure

[mazola]

[russycarps]

Sounds about right consideirng their album and ticket sales. I'd assume they'd get a lot more for headlining V/Reading

damn I am well out of touch. I had no idea mumfords were that huge these days

[The Nal]

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!

No but its about as anti a Glastonbury point of view as possible. The festival isn't about one headliner. The festival, actually, isn't even about the music at all.

Also, The Stones have been a shite live band since 1974. 40 years of shiteness.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

No but its about as anti a Glastonbury point of view as possible. The festival isn't about one headliner. The festival, actually, isn't even about the music at all.

Also, The Stones have been a shite live band since 1974. 40 years of shiteness.

Isnt this the title of the new compilation?

[beesboy]

There appear to be two common themes running through this thread which are causing all of the hate.

1. Certain fans of the Rolling Stones believing their own hype so much to the extent that they are convinced that there are loads of great bands in the world and then up in the next stratosphere are the Stones.

2. These same deluded Stones fans didn't get a ticket on T-Day.

Add the two together and you have some very angry people. People that are prepared to rant at anyone who dares to have a different point of view.

Maybe it's time to ignore these fools and get back to what Glasto is all about.........130,000 people sharing a love of music and all things entertainment.

Personally I now hope that Sir Mick decides that he's not working for "peanuts" and fucks off to South America for the Summmer.

Edited October 16, 2012 by beesboy

[zahidf]

question to the more experienced Glasto-goers/insiders: has there ever been a double headliner? akin to Strokes/Pulp at Reading '11? (I believe they were officially a 'double headliner' but correct me if I'm wrong). Could it be a case of having Mumford AND Vaccines?

Nah. Why bother with all that? Vaccines aren't big enough to headline.

I think ( though not billed) the closest to that sort of thing was Rod Stewart and Roger Waters a few years ago

[Glastofan43]

... 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?

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.

My complaint about the Take That pink hat brigade was more feeling sorry for them than condemning. I see it every year, those who buy tickets for Glastonbury with no idea of what it's all about and are off home when the first rain drop falls. If you like Take That you want the Pyramid Stage spectacle, let's face it that's all most people have seen of Glastonbury at home on TV, and if you don't enjoy BB King on a muddy afternoon there isn't going to be much else going on out there to excite you.

But back to the Stones. I am a huge fan of the Stones but I don't think they are right for Glastonbury just as Bruce Springsteen wasn't right for Glastonbury. A previous contributor mentioned the Stones at the Isle of Wight, they didn't work there. Some bands are all about a communal experience, you know the songs, you take part and who gives a monkey's if Keef fluffs a note and Mick is looking like the wrinkly rocker he is? My two worst Glastonbury experiences were the Killers and Radiohead but I'm sure thousands enjoyed them.

[mrtourette]

question to the more experienced Glasto-goers/insiders: has there ever been a double headliner? akin to Strokes/Pulp at Reading '11? (I believe they were officially a 'double headliner' but correct me if I'm wrong). Could it be a case of having Mumford AND Vaccines?

Doube/co-headliners work at multi-site events as the two bands can actually swap over (The Strokes headlined Reading, Pulp headlined Leeds). A number of single-site festivals have promoted co-headliners (I'm not sure if Glasto is one) but in reality it's still one band playing after another. I don't see the point of it in that case.

[The Nal]

Isnt this the title of the new compilation?

Apart from a couple of moments, it basically sums up the band since Mick Taylor left.

[theampersanddevil]

The stones at glastonbury to me is like the footballer who plays his entire career at a massive club and then wants his little last hurrah at his local/childhood club that he's always wanted to play at. You know while he still can. His local club isn't exactly tiny but they could never pay the wages that he was used to, so at the back of his mind it would just be a nice little ending to do the things he always wanted (but you know never wanted that much).

In those situations I always think why indulge them?

I'd play the young guy just out the youth ranks whose scored a few and is just breaking into the international team.

[eFestivals]

question to the more experienced Glasto-goers/insiders: has there ever been a double headliner? akin to Strokes/Pulp at Reading '11? (I believe they were officially a 'double headliner' but correct me if I'm wrong). Could it be a case of having Mumford AND Vaccines?

nope, there never has been.

Around 5 years ago they sort-of planned to have a "4th headliner" (who would have played before the Saturday headliner), but because of other commitments of that band it couldn't happen in the end.

[SonOfTroyMcClure]

Doube/co-headliners work at multi-site events as the two bands can actually swap over (The Strokes headlined Reading, Pulp headlined Leeds). A number of single-site festivals have promoted co-headliners (I'm not sure if Glasto is one) but in reality it's still one band playing after another. I don't see the point of it in that case.

that does make a lot of sense. fair point.

[jimmyk83]

nope, there never has been.

Around 5 years ago they sort-of planned to have a "4th headliner" (who would have played before the Saturday headliner), but because of other commitments of that band it couldn't happen in the end.

Who was that again?

[eFestivals]

Some bands are all about a communal experience, you know the songs, you take part and who gives a monkey's if Keef fluffs a note and Mick is looking like the wrinkly rocker he is?

ahh, so what you're saying is that some shows are shows where the quality of the content is of no matter. It can be shit and you don't care. Yep, that's what I've heard of the stones, and of stones fans.

If I wanted to go and see a shit band I've got thousands to chose from, not just the stones.

As I tried to get across to Arronbury, I don't do shit bands - apart from, perhaps, the odd shit band that I love as much as you love the stones. When that happens I know they're shit and I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion of them as me.

[eFestivals]

Apart from a couple of moments, it basically sums up the band since Mick Taylor left.

I'm gonna commit a heinous crime, one that's unforgivable to stones fans who have disappeared up their own arseholes.

My favourite Stones album is 'Emotional Rescue'. So shoot me.

[The Nal]

ahh, so what you're saying is that some shows are shows where the quality of the content is of no matter. It can be shit and you don't care. Yep, that's what I've heard of the stones, and of stones fans.

If I wanted to go and see a shit band I've got thousands to chose from, not just the stones.

As I tried to get across to Arronbury, I don't do shit bands - apart from, perhaps, the odd shit band that I love as much as you love the stones. When that happens I know they're shit and I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion of them as me.

Thing about the Stones is, you get the impression they're perfectly capable of producing greatness. the new song is pretty good. They just don;t seem to be arsed.

Look at the first 20 seconds of this, and try tell me this is a man who gives a single shit of what anyone thinks of him.

My favourite Stones album is 'Emotional Rescue'. So shoot me.

You haven't heard the others then?

Edited October 16, 2012 by The Nal

[russycarps]

Thing about the Stones is, you get the impression they're perfectly capable of producing greatness. the new song is pretty good. They just don;t seem to be arsed.

Look at the first 20 seconds of this, and try tell me this is a man who gives a single shit of what anyone thinks of him.

Dancing in the Street proves he is very self conscious......

[cornholio]

Can I add my bit as well? If the Rolling Stones do play it will be both brilliant and rather sad. Brilliant because for some people it would be the gig of their lifetime; brilliant for me because it means there will be so much more room in other places on the site for me to walk in. But sad because the Rolling Stones are such greedy bastards that charity will quite naturally take a hit.

Remember REM a few years ago? Played for nothing. Rolling Stones have been top of ME's list for years but they've always wanted too much to play. They are not the only band to charge a lot but let's face it, these people don't need it at all; after all from what I've heard even some rabid fans are baulking at the latest ticket prices. If it is their last tour then Glastonbury would be a good place for them to play but not at the expense of charity.

As for the tax protest, I'm not going to give them my time. There are plenty more of these type of people who hide money in far flung places; I've not heard the Rolling Stones deny it.

Enjoy all, I will be elsewhere...

[Ted Dansons Wig]

I'm gonna commit a heinous crime, one that's unforgivable to stones fans who have disappeared up their own arseholes.

My favourite Stones album is 'Emotional Rescue'. So shoot me.

You're just being ignorant and dont deserve a ticket

[mrtourette]

Remember REM a few years ago? Played for nothing. Rolling Stones have been top of ME's list for years but they've always wanted too much to play. They are not the only band to charge a lot but let's face it, these people don't need it at all; after all from what I've heard even some rabid fans are baulking at the latest ticket prices. If it is their last tour then Glastonbury would be a good place for them to play but not at the expense of charity.

It's alway struck me that his persistent courting of The Stones and his willingness to pursue them despite them showing 'anti-Glasto' behaviour and motivations in previously refusing a bit odd. I guess he wants to put on the biggest party he can, maybe that is the new Glato ethos.

[dingbat2]

For what its worth, which is nothing, I think the Rolling Stones will play. Just because of the amount of rumours flying around. If they weren't going to play I am sure one of the Eavis' would have said they weren't playing by now (like Emily did with the Stone Roses rumour) I know they cant confirm or deny all rumours, but the Rolling Stones rumour is so big, I am sure they would have denied it if they weren't in negotiations at the very least