Headliners 2015

[stuartbert two hats]

If one of the main reasons for The Stone Roses shout is that they have unfinished business with the festical, I can see that that same logic would apply with The Killers....

(Would be the worst headliner booking in my lifetime tho. Including Kasabian and Rod Stewart.)

What, because last time they played it was a bit quiet? Not exactly the same as having to pull out of a headlining slot 20 years ago.

[amyrockslots]

really starting to think it may be the purple one...

someone on twitter saying the stone roses turned down sat night 6 months ago...?

[01seb]

Radiohead or Prince imo

[Djb.com]

*DISCLAIMER*

if it's Take That, i reserve my right to fully retract any and all opinions i may have expressed regarding people who start petitions about Glastonbury headliners.

I'm with you on that, it would be a shocking year for glastonbury if it turned out to be take that

[Untz]

The Kanye booking for Saturday makes me think that Swift is much less likely for the Sunday now - given how much controversy Kanye has caused, I expect that the Sunday headliner will be a fairly safe booking.

Given how much stress the Jay-Z situation caused re: ticket sales, I can't see them going for two fairly "controversial" headliners in one year - it would surely be too much of a risk.

But the headliner has been booked for ages, before the Kanye drama even started. I don't see them changing a headliner because of it either.

That said, I do feel like Madonna is a pretty safe booking despite her being a notrockorindie act.

[Mezhyp1]

Radiohead or Prince imo

Radiohead unlikely to me with Phil Selway and Jonny Greenwood doing their own thing, they would be my first choice though

[stuartbert two hats]

Would kate bush 100% not do it do people think? I know little about her but I understand it's more theatrical than musical, and more for the small stage...is it definetly a show that couldn't be adapted for glastonbury?

In theory, she could play. Although the bulk of her shows were theatrical song cycles, she did do a few straightforward performances of other songs, but...

Doing some highly controlled performances in a small single venue is a lot less risky than touring and touring is a lot less risky than playing festivals. Given that Glastonbury isn't that far off, there really aren't any signs that she's likely to:

1. Start playing a straightforward set of songs.

2. Play in a festival, where the crowd is massive and the stage production is far less in her control.

3. Play anywhere at all.

Still, no-one would have believed that she would release an album at all in 2005, or release two in quick succession with Directors Cut/50 words and no-one would have believed that she would have played live at all last year. She might play one day, but in three months time? Nah.

Edited March 23, 2015 by stuartbert two hats

[Mouseboy11]

Prince or The Stone Roses are my bets.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Mouseboy11

[01seb]

Radiohead unlikely to me with Phil Selway and Jonny Greenwood doing their own thing, they would be my first choice though

Definitely my first choice too.

Phil's only got Parklife, then nothing until the end of July. Johnny is playing festivals the week before & the week after Glasto, but they are the orchestra shows which seem like they are more about him playing with the orchestra rather than them playing with him.

Still think Radiohead isn't greatly likely, but the band is so unpredictable and haven't played Glasto in so long, that I think it's definitely something that they would do.

[ivan]

Well if the Roses have unfinished business so has Kylie !

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

In theory, she could play. Although the bulk of her shows were theatrical song cycles, she did do a few straightforward performances of other songs, but...

Doing some highly controlled performances in a small single venue is a lot less risky than touring and touring is a lot less risky than playing festivals. Given that Glastonbury isn't that far off, there really aren't any signs that she's likely to:

1. Start playing a straightforward set of songs.

2. Play in a festival, where the crowd is massive and the stage production is far less in her control.

3. Play anywhere at all.

Still, no-one would have believed that she would release an album at all in 2005, or release two in quick succession with Directors Cut/50 words and non-one would have believed that she would have played live at all last year. She might play one day, but in three months time? Nah.

You've kind of gone against your own argument there. She's notoriously unpredictable, so the fact that Glastonbury is in 3 months time really means nothing because for all anybody knows she could have been rehearsing for the last 6 months in preparation.

As it stands I'd agree that she's highly unlikely. But if she ever does do it, I imagine it will come as a massive surprise without any prior indication.

[dentalplan]

Prince or The Stone Roses are my bets.

I am of the same opinion.

[the wonderwhy]

Balls, now I'm gonna have to shell out for Hyde Park

[the salmon]

I am a Stone Roses fan, and am not a Kate Bush fan.

Why is Kate Bush a headliner? Is it because she didn't play live for so long? Does that make her a headline act?

The best thing that happened to the Roses was their undoing, all them years later and the demand for them to reform is so high, loads of money on the table and the hype around it.

Both very different scenarios but both seem to have benefitted from not being an active tourer/releaser of albums (maybe some of the current headline bands should learn from this).

Back to my original question, what makes Kate Bush a potential headliner??? Its not a dig at her its a genuine question.

[ryan.smith]

Doubt it'll be prince. Rob da bank was on Scroobius Pip's podcast last week discussing it and he said he knows pretty much the full Prince story for this Summer and it doesn't loon like he's doing any UK festivals

[Wooderson]

I am a Stone Roses fan, and am not a Kate Bush fan.

Why is Kate Bush a headliner? Is it because she didn't play live for so long? Does that make her a headline act?

The best thing that happened to the Roses was their undoing, all them years later and the demand for them to reform is so high, loads of money on the table and the hype around it.

Both very different scenarios but both seem to have benefitted from not being an active tourer/releaser of albums (maybe some of the current headline bands should learn from this).

Back to my original question, what makes Kate Bush a potential headliner??? Its not a dig at her its a genuine question.

Switch to decaf.

[Mouseboy11]

I am of the same opinion.

They're probably the only two headliner's left that I'd bother to go watch as well, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Dora]

You don't need Prince there when you can have Rob Da Bank B2B with Tayo in the Beat hotel playing a Purple rave prince set like last year. That was amazing

[Matt42]

Glad I got a hyde ticket now!

[Fivefingerjohn]

Is george Michael a possible headliner. I know it's dreadful, but personal feelings aside, is he big enough?

[FloorFiller]

aye thought Blur were out of the running anyway but it's nice to have a confirmation. definitely at IOW. i know i shouldn't tempt fate but i'm gonna say it's Prince (with Swift subbing as a backup headliner as they seem so accustomed to do with the little purple shit).

[giantkatestacks]

So now we are looking at Swift, Madge, Stone Roses? I'll take Madge then but Foos, Kanye, Madonna far too strong I think.

I would be going sub bump up for Sunday. So an Ed Sheeran type booking.

[Untz]

Is george Michael a possible headliner. I know it's dreadful, but personal feelings aside, is he big enough?

He seems more like a sunny afternoon set kinda guy. I'd go to that.

[ericlered]

Take That. Scarily bad if it happens.

[JoBalls]

But the headliner has been booked for ages, before the Kanye drama even started. I don't see them changing a headliner because of it either.

That said, I do feel like Madonna is a pretty safe booking despite her being a notrockorindie act.

No, but the Eavis's have been doing this for years, they must have known that the Kanye announcement would be met with a certain amount of complaint (though it seems to have been way more than expected given the petition and Emily's article in the Guardian).

Whether you like Taylor or not, I don't think anyone can argue that she's not a "safe" booking, for similar reasons to Kanye - whilst she's massive worldwide at the moment she's not your "typical" Glastonbury headliner. I'm not suggesting they would change the headliner now - I don't think that the Eavis's would take the chance of booking two controversial headliners in one year in the first place. I think the Sunday headiner will be in the rock or indie "NME" genre, or be a mega mega star (or both). I think it could go one of two ways - either we're going to get someone quite run of the mill, or we're going to get someone huge like Madge or P****e.