LAWKS! It's the next announcement thread

[The Nal]

36 minutes ago, sedra said:

Also tents in the pyramid field - 1986 

 

Same people in 2023

[Avalon_Fields]

You may have seen the Glastonbury line-up rumours is now being updated, I believe they'll include the GSH ones too. Here's my update for them, changes in red:

[efcfanwirral]

On 2/7/2024 at 9:28 AM, gigpusher said:

I'm sure they could and fair play to them. Just one of those bands that haven't taken me with them on their journey at all. I generally play most of their new albums. I do most big releases but if they played that setlist above the only ones I recognise by name are Paradise and Every Teardrop is a waterfall and I don't especially love either of those. I'm sure if you played some of the others I might recognise them to hear them but it does re-iterate why I definitely won;t be watching them.

I like to see this, it makes a big change from the tiresome "they were only good on the first two albums". 

One thing I do like about them though, is the sets are actually career spanning and inclusive. At Wembley 2022 they played Sparks, Politik, In my Place, Clocks, Yellow, The Scientist and Fix You all from the older days (the latter four have been played every time I've seen them). Politik was on one of the recent setlists in the past couple of weeks too. 

Some bands who go from being an "indie ish" type act to global megastars with legions of more casual fans would have disregarded the early stuff by now.  Its also no small thing that you see young people at the gigs who may not even have been born at the time sing along to The Scientist.

2016 was amazing, and I'll be gutted if I miss this one 

Edited February 8 by efcfanwirral

[fraybentos1]

I feel like Emily totally makes a rod for her own back with the female headliners stuff. Doing that podcast and after last festival saying there should be 2 female headliners in 2024 will just lead to even more backlash when there is just one. Feel like she just shouldn't hint at things like that until they're official which clearly wasn't.

Also weird that assuming coldplay and dua were locks from ages ago, Stevie wonder was actually mentioned in that podcast with annie mac and they actually turnout to be playing. Surely they wouldnt have been in the frame then when it was discussed?

[FloopFiller]

3 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I feel like Emily totally makes a rod for her own back with the female headliners stuff. Doing that podcast and after last festival saying there should be 2 female headliners in 2024 will just lead to even more backlash when there is just one. Feel like she just shouldn't hint at things like that until they're official which clearly wasn't.

Also weird that assuming coldplay and dua were locks from ages ago, Stevie wonder was actually mentioned in that podcast with annie mac and they actually turnout to be playing. Surely they wouldnt have been in the frame then when it was discussed?

You could tell from her tone in the Guardian interview accompanying the lineup drop last year that she wasn’t at all happy with how it all turned out, especially having no female headliners, so she was seemingly in damage control mode pretty early on and trying to appease the moaners, albeit very clumsily which has now somewhat blown up in her face. You’re right though, she often digs her own grave on these kinds of things, and I’m sure simply saying ‘we’re hoping to have at least one female headliner next year/in the following years’ would’ve sufficed.

The timeline of Madonna being in/out and Stevie being in the equation is a bit of a mystery. We had somebody reliable telling us Madonna was lined up for BST just a couple of months ago which is seemingly now not happening so it’s weird that Stevie was brought up so early. Perhaps he was always being eyed up to step in as Madonna’s replacement if she fell through for both Glastonbury and BST and was happy to wait on the sidelines until he did/didn’t get the call.

[stuie]

8 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I feel like Emily totally makes a rod for her own back with the female headliners stuff. Doing that podcast and after last festival saying there should be 2 female headliners in 2024 will just lead to even more backlash when there is just one. Feel like she just shouldn't hint at things like that until they're official which clearly wasn't.

Also weird that assuming coldplay and dua were locks from ages ago, Stevie wonder was actually mentioned in that podcast with annie mac and they actually turnout to be playing. Surely they wouldnt have been in the frame then when it was discussed?

She clearly said that's what they were working towards and they hadn't signed the second female yet. I think she was just being open and honest about her intentions.

[stuie]

2 minutes ago, FloopFiller said:

You could tell from her tone in the Guardian interview accompanying the lineup drop last year that she wasn’t at all happy with how it all turned out, especially having no female headliners, so she was seemingly in damage control mode pretty early on and trying to appease the moaners, albeit very clumsily which has now somewhat blown up in her face. You’re right though, she often digs her own grave on these kinds of things, and I’m sure simply saying ‘we’re hoping to have at least one female headliner next year/in the following years’ would’ve sufficed.

The timeline of Madonna being in/out and Stevie being in the equation is a bit of a mystery. We had somebody reliable telling us Madonna was lined up for BST just a couple of months ago which is seemingly now not happening so it’s weird that Stevie was brought up so early. Perhaps he was always being eyed up to step in as Madonna’s replacement if she fell through for both Glastonbury and BST and was happy to wait on the sidelines until he did/didn’t get the call.

Hey Stevie Wonder we're really hoping Madonna says yes do you want to be backup in case she mugs us off? 

Can't see that. 

They could both be in though, for all we actually know. 

 

[incident]

1 minute ago, FloopFiller said:

We had somebody reliable telling us Madonna was lined up for BST just a couple of months ago which is seemingly now not happening so it’s weird that Stevie was brought up so early.

Did we, though?

As far as I've seen that was always speculation along the lines of "She won't do Glastonbury in isolation so there must be a BST show as well". So the idea she was doing BST and Glastonbury pretty much became a confirmation bias loop.

My view remains that Madonna was never properly "in". There may have been conversations, but I've still not seen anything vaguely solid to suggest she was ever planning on being active past the end of the tour. Not just the lack of solid BST info, but a complete absence of speculation about dates elsewhere beyond the end of the tour.

While yes, she can do stuff outside of the tour - if it's a highly choreographed show along her usual lines, then doing so will involve retaining her dancers etc on salary for an extra 10 weeks or so which won't come cheap. So realistically in this instance it'd need to be at least a few shows to make it worthwhile.

[gigpusher]

20 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

I like to see this, it makes a big change from the tiresome "they were only good on the first two albums". 

One thing I do like about them though, is the sets are actually career spanning and inclusive. At Wembley 2022 they played Sparks, Politik, In my Place, Clocks, Yellow, The Scientist and Fix You all from the older days (the latter four have been played every time I've seen them). Politik was on one of the recent setlists in the past couple of weeks too. 

Some bands who go from being an "indie ish" type act to global megastars with legions of more casual fans would have disregarded the early stuff by now.  Its also no small thing that you see young people at the gigs who may not even have been born at the time sing along to The Scientist.

2016 was amazing, and I'll be gutted if I miss this one 

I don't know that much derided Radiohead set was similarly career spanning. They even played Creep but if you only liked the first 2 albums and an artist has gone on to have 8-12 albums the small number you like won't be enough to sustain your interest. I think it's better for people to accept that for themselves though rather than blame the band for it. They moved on and you didn't move on with them. It's absolutely fine that happened in both directions but don't whinge because they refuse to go into some time machine and go back 20 years for the night at a festival. Go and see something else instead.

Similarly when people go to artists solo sets and complain that they are not playing their more famous band material when they are clearly doing the solo stuff to take a break from the more famous band.

[FloopFiller]

3 minutes ago, incident said:

Did we, though?

As far as I've seen that was always speculation along the lines of "She won't do Glastonbury in isolation so there must be a BST show as well". So the idea she was doing BST and Glastonbury pretty much became a confirmation bias loop.

My view remains that Madonna was never properly "in". There may have been conversations, but I've still not seen anything vaguely solid to suggest she was ever planning on being active past the end of the tour. Not just the lack of solid BST info, but a complete absence of speculation about dates elsewhere beyond the end of the tour.

While yes, she can do stuff outside of the tour - if it's a highly choreographed show along her usual lines, then doing so will involve retaining her dancers etc on salary for an extra 10 weeks or so which won't come cheap. So realistically in this instance it'd need to be at least a few shows to make it worthwhile.

Somebody in the BST section who had gotten some of the prior announcements right said Madonna was doing it, which is when a lot of people went from ‘Madonna just speculation’ to ‘It’s on!’, but that has seemingly fallen through given the more recent BST leak of headliners which looks to be correct given they got Stray Kids right who literally nobody was predicting. 

Edited February 8 by FloopFiller

[mouserat]

19 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I feel like Emily totally makes a rod for her own back with the female headliners stuff. Doing that podcast and after last festival saying there should be 2 female headliners in 2024 will just lead to even more backlash when there is just one. Feel like she just shouldn't hint at things like that until they're official which clearly wasn't.

Also weird that assuming coldplay and dua were locks from ages ago, Stevie wonder was actually mentioned in that podcast with annie mac and they actually turnout to be playing. Surely they wouldnt have been in the frame then when it was discussed?

I stand by the line of thinking that she considers there to be four headliner slots (3 + legend) and that any comment about 'two female headliners' is intended to also include legend. And if she had Dua and Shania as locks ages ago then she may well have made the comment about two female headliners when she knew it was already 100% confirmed.

[incident]

Just now, gigpusher said:

I don't know that much derided Radiohead set was similarly career spanning. They even played Creep but if you only liked the first 2 albums and an artist has gone on to have 8-12 albums the small number you like won't be enough to sustain your interest. I think it's better for people to accept that for themselves though rather than blame the band for it. They moved on and you didn't move on with them. It's absolutely fine that happened in both directions but don't whinge because they refuse to go into some time machine and go back 20 years for the night at a festival. Go and see something else instead.

Similarly when people go to artists solo sets and complain that they are not playing their more famous band material when they are clearly doing the solo stuff to take a break from the more famous band.

But the Radiohead set wasn't considered crap because of the setlist, it was primarily crap because of the bullshit they pulled with the screens. It basically meant that anyone past the front third of the field was struggling to engage for the entire show. People up front loved it, and the people watching at home didn't feel as negatively about it.

Genuinely believe if they'd done the same set and not done that, it'd be much better regarded.

[FloopFiller]

1 minute ago, incident said:

But the Radiohead set wasn't considered crap because of the setlist, it was primarily crap because of the bullshit they pulled with the screens. It basically meant that anyone past the front third of the field was struggling to engage for the entire show. People up front loved it, and the people watching at home didn't feel as negatively about it.

Genuinely believe if they'd done the same set and not done that, it'd be much better regarded.

Yeah I agree with this. The set was great, but if you were a more casual fan watching from the back and all you could see were these fuzzed out screens it’s not hard to see why you’d be disconnected from it and not enjoy it as much. Such a strange choice.

[Drinky]

Radiohead 2017 overtakes Oasis 2004 for me as the most disappointing return headliner  - the screens totally ruined it, with long silences between songs and little interaction with the audience unless you were inside the front barrier you were totally disconnected from it. I wish we’d left for the Flaming Lips an hour earlier

Edited February 8 by Drinky

[gigpusher]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

But the Radiohead set wasn't considered crap because of the setlist, it was primarily crap because of the bullshit they pulled with the screens. It basically meant that anyone past the front third of the field was struggling to engage for the entire show. People up front loved it, and the people watching at home didn't feel as negatively about it.

Genuinely believe if they'd done the same set and not done that, it'd be much better regarded.

I think it might be better regarded but not by much. If you are at the back you don't get to see that much anyway. As a short person I rarely see much of any headliner especially now that flags often block the screens. I saw next to nothing of Elton for example but I knew pretty much every tune so it didn't matter.

[SilverLining]

16 minutes ago, incident said:

But the Radiohead set wasn't considered crap because of the setlist, it was primarily crap because of the bullshit they pulled with the screens. It basically meant that anyone past the front third of the field was struggling to engage for the entire show. People up front loved it, and the people watching at home didn't feel as negatively about it.

Genuinely believe if they'd done the same set and not done that, it'd be much better regarded.

yep I saw them twice on this tour. Once they played for 3 hours at RW in Belgium and I was so far back, it was such a let down, did not feel engaged with it at all.

The second time, I forced my way to the front and it was much better but still a very strange decision IMO.

[fraybentos1]

29 minutes ago, stuie said:

She clearly said that's what they were working towards and they hadn't signed the second female yet. I think she was just being open and honest about her intentions.

I understand that she never said 2 confirmed but she did a podcast essentially focused on this second act and how they'd phoned them up recently etc etc. It immediately led to intense speculation when she could have just said nothing or been way less specific. If she was so disappointed in 0 females in 2023 why focus on there being 2 in 2024 if it isn;t gonna happen

 

19 minutes ago, mouserat said:

I stand by the line of thinking that she considers there to be four headliner slots (3 + legend) and that any comment about 'two female headliners' is intended to also include legend. And if she had Dua and Shania as locks ages ago then she may well have made the comment about two female headliners when she knew it was already 100% confirmed.

Nah she was clearly referring to actual headliners. I don't remember Cat Stevens being considered a 4th headliner? They didn't even put him top line.

I think they worry too much. Anyone with half a brain can see the effort they make with gender diversity. Some things are out of their control.

[JayDiesel]

25 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

I think they worry too much. Anyone with half a brain can see the effort they make with gender diversity. Some things are out of their control.

Completely agree. The perimeters that an artist needs to fit inside to headline Glasto are pretty insane as it is (stadium act, available, willing to do it for little ££), and it is sadly a fact that there are just substantially fewer female acts of those conditions than males.

There is a reasonable argument to be made that Glasto could promote a 'nearly there' female act to the top, and aid the scene in general (still unsure why Emily didn't just let Lizzo headline last year), but you can't be seen to do that year on year, it becomes almost a charity slot if its repeated constantly.

Similarly, Primavera has made a big deal of having male/female headliner splits this year, but in all honesty, the female headliners are stretching the definition. As referenced, you can get away with a 'push' up to headline for an act here or there, but the Primavera Sunday is FIVE headliners, all women, and all, well, not really headliners? PJ Harvey, Charli XCX, Mitski, all fairly solid level acts but they're headlining the same festival as Lana del Rey, Pulp and same day as SZA, who is comfortably larger than the others.

Edited February 8 by JayDiesel

[gherkin8r]

They worry too much because people go on about it incessantly as can be seen in this very thread. "Why did she say this?" "She could have said that." "She could have said nothing or been less specific." "Why say it if it wasn't confirmed?"

If "anyone with half a brain can see the effort they are making with gender diversity" as you say then what's the point in scrutinizing and critiquing every word she has said on the issue and giving the impression you feel let down in some way when her own hopes to have female headliners don't come to fruition 

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, gherkin8r said:

They worry too much because people go on about it incessantly as can be seen in this very thread. "Why did she say this?" "She could have said that." "She could have said nothing or been less specific." "Why say it if it wasn't confirmed?"

If "anyone with half a brain can see the effort they are making with gender diversity" as you say then what's the point in scrutinizing and critiquing every word she has said on the issue and giving the impression you feel let down in some way when her own hopes to have female headliners don't come to fruition 

I don't feel let down I just feel like it's silly and creates a hoo ha over nothing. I never had a problem with 2023 panning out the way it did, I was gutted Swift wasn't there and replaced by GnR but I don't think for one second it's Emily's fault. I do think it's silly that she was like ' aw lizzo is basically a headliner' cause well, she isn't and wasn't. They could have made her a headliner but they chose to book a male band. Again, I think why even say it? Seems insincere to me.

Imo after 2023 the most she should have said, would be something like - 'we tried really hard to get a female headliner but they fell through last minute'. Instead she said 'lizzo is kinda a headliner and we are close to getting 2 females next year' and the first statement is essentially a lie and the latter never materialised which just rolls it over again another year.

[fraybentos1]

15 minutes ago, JayDiesel said:

Completely agree. The perimeters that an artist needs to fit inside to headline Glasto are pretty insane as it is (stadium act, available, willing to do it for little ££), and it is sadly a fact that there are just substantially fewer female acts of those conditions than males.

There is a reasonable argument to be made that Glasto could promote a 'nearly there' female act to the top, and aid the scene in general (still unsure why Emily didn't just let Lizzo headline last year), but you can't be seen to do that year on year, it becomes almost a charity slot if its repeated constantly.

Similarly, Primavera has made a big deal of having male/female headliner splits this year, but in all honesty, the female headliners are stretching the definition. As referenced, you can get away with a 'push' up to headline for an act here or there, but the Primavera Sunday is FIVE headliners, all women, and all, well, not really headliners? PJ Harvey, Charli XCX, Mitski, all fairly solid level acts but they're headlining the same festival as Lana del Rey, Pulp and same day as SZA, who is comfortably larger than the others.

They clearly just did not think she was big enough. Possibly a mistake I agree but she still got a huge slot and then you just get another headliner too. 

Another mistake they made was Florence who should have just got the nod on merit not as a back up. Maybe Lana could have headlined? Her reading & leeds announcement seemed to have some hype.

Other than that there is not many options. Dua is this year, Swift/Rhianna/Madonna they have tried. They are in a position where they want female headliners but the pool is small and they can't always get them and then they also don't want to bump up borderline ones like Lizzo/ Lana/ Florence so tbh they're stuck. 

[gigpusher]

37 minutes ago, JayDiesel said:

 

There is a reasonable argument to be made that Glasto could promote a 'nearly there' female act to the top, and aid the scene in general (still unsure why Emily didn't just let Lizzo headline last year), but you can't be seen to do that year on year, it becomes almost a charity slot if its repeated constantly.

 

 

I suspect she did want to do that last year but that GnR had already been locked in and they wouldn't do sub headliner. I hope that we get to a stage where our expectations of women are equal to men and they don't have to push so far to be considered deserving. I mean if The Last Dinner Party have one other album that does as well as this they could easily headline the Pyramid based on similar male indie bands getting the slot at similar stages in their career.

[Avalon_Fields]

2 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

I feel like Emily totally makes a rod for her own back with the female headliners stuff. Doing that podcast and after last festival saying there should be 2 female headliners in 2024 will just lead to even more backlash when there is just one. Feel like she just shouldn't hint at things like that until they're official which clearly wasn't.

 

I always believe it should be on merit and merit only, if it's 3 female headliners one year, great. If it's 3 male headliners one year, great. As long as over the course of the festival year on year it's transparently not biased in any manner.

[Beerqueen]

2 hours ago, Drinky said:

Radiohead 2017 overtakes Oasis 2004 for me as the most disappointing return headliner  - the screens totally ruined it, with long silences between songs and little interaction with the audience unless you were inside the front barrier you were totally disconnected from it. I wish we’d left for the Flaming Lips an hour earlier

That's exactly how I felt when I saw them at V in 2006ish.  No atmosphere, no interaction and as I was only really a casual fan at best felt very underwhelmed.

[4AssedMonkey]

6 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

I always believe it should be on merit and merit only, if it's 3 female headliners one year, great. If it's 3 male headliners one year, great. As long as over the course of the festival year on year it's transparently not biased in any manner.

I completely agree with this in principle.  To be truly unbiased the only criteria should be "are they big/good enough?"  However as the music industry has evolved over many years - with only the last few really being more enlightened with regard to equality - it has become the case that those who are big/good enough are in the main, male oriented (and also guitar based rock/indie acts).  For that reason I think some positive discrimination is probably appropriate for now.