Correct.....Live Nation, who bought out Mean Fiddler (who used to run the whole shebang), make their $$$$$ out of TV broadcasts world-wide. Jagger refused to play along - he maintained that the Stones signed up for a 2-hour gig and Live Nation/Mean Fiddler/ Michael 'lovely' Eavis and the Beeb could go **** themselves! ....You had to be there, pop-pickers!
Or it could been because they had a documentary coming with concert footage? Of the 5 or 6 pro shots on youtube he's sounded quite good. Yeah, he does have a ropey voice. But he's no worse then Jagger.
I've just got home from Glastonbury and I feel exhausted! Stones were incredible and it was jam packed. I heard some of the audio equipment wasn't working properly which effected the television audio although it sounded fine were I was stood. Mick Jagger was incredible at crowd interaction. Highlight of the weekend for me. Goat, Dinosaur Jr and Portishead were favourites too. Wasn't bothered about Arctic Monkeys as I've grown out of them. I find their new stuff quite tedious and a chore to listen to personally. I was also disappointed with Tame Impala; they're much better at indoor shows. Glastonbury is much more than the bands though. For example, Shangri La and Block9. The creativity behind them areas of the site is unreal. I also managed to bump into Seasick Steve!
He does, he looks like KD Lang. If you put a blind fold on an old fogey and played some Artic Monkeys they'd be bopping along thinking it was the cheeky window cleaner from Wigan. Utter ****.
He's only catagorised as punk by idiots, neither himself or his fans consider him to be punk. It comes from lazy journalism as he played in Million Dead for a good few years before making it big.
Also back from Glasto. The atmosphere watching the Stones was something else....just watched the BBC iplayer coverage...no wonder some of the comments I’ve heard are poor..however the full 2 1/2 hour set was amazing. The ShaffterLife theme in Shangri La is the most surreal experience.
Why don't they deserve it? I'd rather they got the spot than some over rated trash like the Arctic Monkeys or The Killers who had a few hits a almost a decade ago and have done nothing of worth since. Even worse someone like Beyonce who gets booked purely for viewing figures, sponsorship deals and press attention. It does seem to be the in thing to dislike Mumford & Sons at the moment though.
They are crap. My opinion. End of story. Sorry to act like a 5 year old, but I can't be arsed to argue.
Nothing 'in thing' about it as far as I'm concerned, Ive despised them ever since they first vilolated my ears. And then when I found out they werent even Irish I was livid - I at least thought they had an excuse to be ****ing turgid.
Also, the fact that they have had only one big album (which was rated averagely by most critics) shows that they haven't earned that honour, whereas The Killers and Arctic Monkeys are multi-award winning bands who both have critically acclaimed albums under their belts and also are now considered some of the main artists in their genre.
Didnt The Killers headline Glasto after 1 album? I'm pretty sure they did and I was there. Edit - nah, Sams Town had come out by 2007.
Which album are you referring to the one that went multi-platinum in 8 countries or the one that was nominated for 4 Grammy awards? They are popular and relevant, more importantly they are talented musicians (regardless of your opinion on their music), they can more than justify their booking. For what it's worth I'm not a massive fan, they have a few tracks I like and many I don't, I just disagree when people think headline slots should bands playing a set of greatest hits rather than giving the newer more relevant bands a chance.
They first headlined in 2007, after 2 albums. Arctic Monkeys headlined the day before as well. They did play lower down the bill in 2005 though after the first album. If Mumford are going to play, it should've been lower down the bill. Not headlining.
Artic Monkeys headlined just 2 months after their 2nd album came out. Dont get me wrong, Im not defending MUmford and ****s cos I ****ing hate them, but plenty of relatively new bands have headlined.
To be fair, their first album was/is the biggest and fasting selling debut album album ever, and the second sold around the same within a couple of months. I don't know where you got that last bit from though, I just had a peek on Glastonbury's wiki page, and virtually every headliner in the past 20-25 years was an established artist.
Had a quick browse after you posted that and your not wrong, most headliners have been pretty established but there's been a fair few newer artists as well down the years. What I did notice was how much ****e has headlined down the years, some absolute dross!
