Elbow to headline in 2014

[arcade fireman]

I dunno I think this is just eavis being too nice to his friends...

[Kowalski]

Jesus Christ, how fucking bland do you want to get?

[TheNewUnion]

no clues .... but I doubt anyone would get both of them (erm ... bar a few people that I know also know, of course).

Edited July 4, 2013 by TheNewUnion

[ninetyeightytwo]

Jesus Christ, how fucking bland do you want to get?

[somecoolusername]

Guy Garvey seems like a really cool dude, but god, Elbow are so dull

[Andeeroo]

I'm on board. Great choice if so.

[eFestivals]

You do realise you were in a minority of people who thought the Stones' gig wasn't a resounding success right? Have a look through the responses on this forum, which wouldn't be liable to be biased towards the Stones.

The Stones absolutely smashed the place, I think Elbow are a worthy headliner even though I'm not sure I'd see them even if I was going. Far more so than Mumfords.

Whoa!!!! My comment was not anything detrimental to the Stones. Just because I said I didn't think them worth watching (from where I was, cos there was no experience to be had of the band as far as I was concerned) doesn't get to mean that anywhere I've said they were shit or even mildly substandard.

You do realise that comments and opinions that don't 100% match your own are allowed, right.

I know the opinion of the stones was that they were great, but even some of their biggest fans have posted on these forums to say that it didn't reach the heights of some other performances over the years. However good it might have been, I've not seen one comment that suggest it was any sort of outstanding 'Glastonbury moment', it was only a great band being great.

That's where the difference is likely to be. Elbow have brought that 'moment' more than once to their Glastonbury performances. I don't doubt that they'll do it again.

Edited July 4, 2013 by eFestivals

[funksoulfever]

So they gunna play one day like this 15 times. Quiye like elbow but lets be honest lot of it is off one song

[Matt42]

So Mumfords are worthy headliners but Elbow aren't?

[Dave The Hedgehog]

Honestly... for the first time in years for a festival headliner I simply couldn't give a shit. It could be Kasabian, Elbow and Killers for all I care; and a Pyramid stage undercard that matches even your worst V festival; and I'll probably be off somewhere else watching Soundgarden or Horace Andy clashing with Orbital or Paco De Lucia having a whale of a time.

[Essex_George]

Yep, Glastonbury headliner.

I guarantee that they'll smash the place, by waaaaay more than the Stones managed.

After all, they managed that when they subbed in 2011.

[ninetyeightytwo]

So they gunna play one day like this 15 times. Quiye like elbow but lets be honest lot of it is off one song

[Andeeroo]

The fact that the only really decent thing about the Arctic's set was a Guy Garvey produced section leaves me with no doubts that they'd know exactly how to fill that headline shot and smash it.

Very happy if it materialises!

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Haha, Mumford and Sons are much more defined headliners than Elbow.

[arcade fireman]

Whoa!!!! My comment was not anything detrimental to the Stones. Just because I said I didn't think them worth watching (from where I was, cos there was no experience to be had of the band as far as I was concerned) doesn't get to mean that anywhere I've said they were shit or even mildly substandard.

You do realise that comments and opinions that don't 100% match your own are allowed, right.

I know the opinion of the stones was that they were great, but even some of their biggest fans have posted on these forums to say that it didn't reach the heights of some other performances over the years. However good it might have been, I've not seen one comment that suggest it was any sort of outstanding 'Glastonbury moment', it was only a great band being great.

That's where the difference is likely to be. Elbow have brought that 'moment' more than once to their Glastonbury performances. I don't doubt that they'll do it again.

[Craigston]

Absolutely a headliner.

....loads of albums....

Edited July 4, 2013 by Craigston

[ninetyeightytwo]

You do realise that comments and opinions that don't 100% match your own are allowed, right.

[Ed209]

Haha, Mumford and Sons are much more defined headliners than Elbow.

[stokelad84]

So Mumfords are worthy headliners but Elbow aren't?

[**claire**]

Yep, Glastonbury headliner.

I guarantee that they'll smash the place, by waaaaay more than the Stones managed.

After all, they managed that when they subbed in 2011.

[eFestivals]

When did I suggest that your opinions weren't allowed?

when you made up an opinion for me which was not something I'd ever expressed.

It is actually possible for a band to be better than the stones @ Glastonbury, and I fully expect Elbow in 2014 to be one of those bands (because they've managed to be that before). Get used to it.

[ninetyeightytwo]

Well according to wikipedia Elbow have won 6 awards in their career while Mumford have won 11.

Or if you go off cd sales, Mumfords last album was number 1 here and in America while Elbows came in at number 2.

[matthewsdad1968]

Thank you so much you have made my day. Saw them again at the o2 last year and in 2011 at Glasto and they were fantastic and certainly knew how to work the crowd.

Edited July 4, 2013 by matthewsdad1968

[**claire**]

Well according to wikipedia Elbow have won 6 awards in their career while Mumford have won 11.

Or if you go off cd sales, Mumfords last album was number 1 here and in America while Elbows came in at number 2.

[stokelad84]

I thought U2 were outstanding. But then again I didn't spend 2 years saying Bono was a c*** like some people on here

Mumford are more popular, yet they apparently weren't worthy enough. So using that logic neither are Elbow.