Showing posts with label glastonbury 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glastonbury 2013. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Glastonbury 2014: Removing a stain on the Rabbit Hole Stage

I'm not sure it's quite the first booking for next year's Glastonbury, but one band has already been signed up.

There's a background: the Rabbit Hole Stage was struggling to find someone prepared to play their headline slot against The Stones on Saturday this year, so Hamish Guerrini made up a silly name - The Railing Stains - and put that down for the slot.

The trouble is, nobody at the festival realised it was a joke, and the band name started to appear in promotional literature.

They even got picked as a "top thing to see".

Still, no harm done, eh? It's not like there's a real Railing Stains.

Except there is. They're a Brighton-based Stones tribute, and naturally they were surprised and excited to discover they were playing Glastonbury.

They tried to find out how to get in, but failed. The Argus captures the happy ending:

After hearing of the band’s disappointment through The Argus, Mr Guerrini added: “When I found out we tried to get in touch, it would have been great to have them play.

But unfortunately it didn’t happen.

“As a way of making it up to them I would love to book them for next year on the Rabbit Hole stage.”
That's, of course, assuming Eavis doesn't poach them for the Pyramid stage.


Monday, July 01, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: Suzanne Moore goes to Pilton

There's a "ooh, I've gone to Glastonbury I could have stayed at home IN MY GARDEN" bit from Suzanne Moore in today's Guardian.

The tale of hardship...:

What I couldn't get to grips with was the rubbish. Cans are strewn through every field. Lager carnage. Meanwhile there are the banners for Greenpeace and WaterAid everywhere. I imagine the average Ayia Napa crowd is more environmentally aware.
... is a little bit undermined:
Thanks to Yurtel for Suzanne's accommodation.
Yes, she was staying in the luxury area. They even fetch her a television. It's akin to filing a piece from Oxford, but basing your impressions on staying in the Holiday Inn on the by-pass.

Would Suzanne eventually embrace the true festival spirit?
"What about the Stones?" people keep saying when I whinge. "You have to see them." I did. In the 60s.
Arbitrary rank-pulling over having seen a headline band somewhere cooler? Oh, Suzanne, you might rail against the event, but you are so Glastonbury.


Glastonbury 2013: Late breaking news

I have no idea how accurate the description in the tweet is, but... it's believable, isn't it?


Glastonbury 2013: It's all over bar the abandoned tents making a mockery of the festival's attempts to be green

From a long, long way away, that looked like the best Glastonbury in quite a while - especially if you put a hand over one eye and ignore the over-freighted Rolling Stones bit.

Sure, it edged ever closer into the belly of the establishment:

Delivering his regular Sunday morning press conference at 11am today (June 30), Glastonbury founder Michael Eavis confirmed that Prince Harry attended the festival on Saturday.

The 77-year-old farmer and festival organiser revealed that he told the royal he should stay up all night to get the best of the event: "I recommended that he should go through the night, because the nightlife is really what Glastonbury is all about," said Eavis.
Well, no, Michael; visits from heirs to the throne seem to be closer to what Glastonbury is all about these days.

Mind you, you've got love Eavis' apparent unawareness about Harry's reputation:
"At three in the afternoon, you won’t get it, will you? So I told him to get his taxi driver to come back at five in the morning and, you know what, he lasted until four in the morning, so he saw all the best stuff," he said.
Michael Eavis is the only person left alive who'd be surprised that Harry held his end up until the small hours of the morning.

Harry left eventually, though, mumbling that he didn't want to be around when Mumford And Sons turned up as "they make me feel common."

I'm not sure that Uli Jon Roth out the Scorpions coming on stage during the Smashing Pumpkins set made anything better, but it was probably the most inspired collaboration of the weekend. Except for that bit when it wasn't entirely clear if Kenny Rogers had just hallucinated having Sheena Easton on stage.

But I think we can agree that The XX won Glastonbury this year, yes?


Sunday, June 30, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: The Stones rolled on

The Rolling Stones at Glastonbury was, you'll have spotted, hugely overhyped, like some sort of crossover episode, or the completion of a set of Pokemon collections.

Given that it had been given the full moon-landing-status before, it's going to take something special for Michael Eavis to rise the occasion for his traditional complete overstatement. It's a challenge... but he'll do his best:

The Rolling Stones' hit-packed Glastonbury debut has been hailed as "the high spot of 43 years" of the festival by organiser Michael Eavis.
And I think we can confirm that, yes, this is the most overblown statement of 43 years of statements on Glastonbury from Michael Eavis.

Most people seemed to enjoy it in their own way - people whose musical tastes ossified somewhere around the time they started shooting Crossroads in colour had a great time; everyone else made their own entertainment before turning over to watch Public Enemy.

What's strange, though, is that the existence of people refusing to pretend this was anything other than an adequate performance by a band who've been trotting their retirement-fund greatest hits set round the globe for three decades now seemed to outrage the believers. Suddenly, people who you thought would know better were fuming at the very idea that there was snickering at the back.

Andy Kershaw pulled a grim face:
Meanwhile, a depressing amount of bitter, mean-spirited, cynical comment was posted about the Stones on my Facebook page last night.
Imagine that, eh, cynical comment about a band who arrange their world tours to minimise their tax liability. What a world, eh?
Almost all of that hostility was based on the band members being old.
Here's a funny thing, though - obviously, I can't speak for the people who were throwing things in Andy Kershaw's direction, but that isn't true.

Sure, there were a lot of jokes about how old they are - although that was more than balanced by the (surely more patronising) posts about 'goodness, they're moving around, at their age, aren't they marvellous'. But there were also snarks about the songs the Stones have flogged to advertisers; Jagger's strange costume choices; the bizarre film effect that had been slapped all over the footage; the way they only let one chunk of the set go out on TV; the audience being a mix between the bored and the bad dancers.

Now, perhaps Kershaw would dismiss all this as being bitter, mean-spirited and cynical - but given we've just sat through two solid weeks of reverential whispering that 'The Stones are honouring the world with a gig at a music festival', culminating yesterday in John Humphrys being sent off to a yurt for a meeting with Jagger hi'self - I'd suggest it was just the realistic sound of a crowd objecting to being told what to think. The sort of thing you'd have thought Andy Kershaw would welcome.

But what of the 'old' jokes? Even Danny Baker - jesus, DANNY BAKER - pulled an 'Oprah looking stern' face at them:

It's like seeing Hetson Blumenthal saying he doesn't understand why putting an egg into a saucepan makes it go hard, isn't it?

First of all, 'Rolling Stones being old' as the point of a joke have been around for almost as long as they have - I can remember cartoons depicting Mick Jagger with a Zimmer Frame in the 1980s.

At that point, it wasn't so much about them being old, as having been around a long time. Remember that their main rivals, The Beatles, barely scraped into the 1970s. In the 1980s, the very idea of a rock band still going after a couple of decades was, in itself hilarious - they were in middle age, pursuing a career which had only ever been followed by youngsters. It wasn't old, it was just older.

Cliff Richard, who also endured, endured much the same thing even when he wasn't actually, or actuarially, really past it.

And now, in 2013? There's still a lot of that at the heart of the jokes - a general perception that they've got stuck in a job which is really intended for people to do at a younger age. Mick himself admitted more-or-less this in his interview with Humphrys:
“[A]ll these things that you think of when you’re a teenager you could think, well I would have liked to have done that, but that’s completely pointless. I’m very pleased with what I’ve done.

“Everyone wants to have done more things in their lives. But it’s a slightly intellectually, undemanding being a rock singer but you know you make the best of it.”
Doubtless Baker and Kershaw will be giving him a dressing-down for that refusal to treat his work with the due respect.

Danny's comparison with Al Green and Aretha Franklin? I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, given that neither of them are rock stars. Their chosen field has always cut across the generations; soul music never built upon a lyrical groundrock on simply being young in the way much of rock music did. The same is true of Country, for example. Or the blues. If The Stones had just stuck closer to the source material, the 'old' jokes wouldn't work; they would just be coming to the end of taking fifty years worth of cracks at how they're quite young to be doing this. ("You woke up this morning, did you, Mick? Yeah, and you were born yesterday.")

Added to that, there's also the unavoidable, extraordinary durability of the Stones. They've been going longer than the venerable event at which they were playing, and much (oh, so much) had been made of that in the run-up. If you spend weeks pointing out how long these cultural touchstones have been rolling, can you really be surprised if that gets reflected back by those who are less than impressed?

But, I think, the main reason why people make jokes about the Stones being old - in a way you tend not to hear about Paul McCartney, for example - is more familiar. It's the same reason why people make jokes about David Cameron's posh background, or Donald Trump's hair.

Calculate how long Jagger must spend prancing on a running machine. Add up the number of times Keith Richards mentions all the drugs he takes.

The Rolling Stones cling desperately, visibly, to their youth. There's something awkward about a bunch of men who seek praise for a fifty-year career while trying to pretend they're not pushing seventy. It's a like a man who was in the Bullingdon Club trying to hide his kitchen suppers.

Of course people are going to find that funny. Of course that's going to be the fault line where a nation, force-fed the idea that these tax-exiles offering to be paid for doing a couple of hours work in Somerset on a Saturday night is an epochal moment, will gather to snigger.


Glastonbury 2013: Rob DaBank: It wasn't me

I've updated the iDiot with an iPad story to reflect this, but just to clarify - Rob DaBank wasn't the bloke who was using an iPad to video from the Chic stage on Friday; indeed, the video he shot from the stage captures the bloke using the iPad.

Apologies to Rob for the misidentification, both of him and his video technology.


Saturday, June 29, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: We're reconstructing a faux pas


Glastonbury 2013: Dinosaur Jr

Very much enjoyed Dinosaur Jr last night on the Press Red stream.

Until July 29th, 2013 you can watch the set on iPlayer.

Possibly more resilient will be this track, from the BBC's YouTube presence, of Watch The Corners:


Glastonbury 2013: How did Beady Eye do?

Yesterday, as if the story of Wayne Rooney turning up with a box of Tesco Vodka and a Pot Noodle wasn't enough to convince you that Glastonbury isn't officially dead, Beady Eye turned up to "open" the festival.

Except they were over on the Other Stage, so it wasn't really opening anything. As initiations go, it's on a par with 'first person to buy a blanket at Joe Bananas'.

You'd have to conclude that what happened here was that the appropriate slot for Liam and his Rest Of Oasis to play would have been so far down the bill that this "surprise" opening slot was a compromise that soothed Gallagher's ego without having to move more successful or interesting groups off the stage later.

But what did people think?

Tim Jonze for the Guardian particularly liked the covers of Oasis songs:

Beady Eye tracks such as The Roller are, it has to be said, shown up by the former bands' glories, but closing track Bring the Light matches their peaks for sheer verve at least.

The NME report was, erm, surprisingly factual:
Playing a set heavy on material from their latest album 'BE', they began with 'Flick Of The Finger', one of a few songs to employ trumpets and saxophones in an effort to recreate the album's psychedelic sound.
I'm presuming that sentence didn't require someone to solve a CAPTCHA before publishing it.

The Guernsey Press And Star captured Gallagher as he twisted about, trying to reconcile the last eight years he's spent boring on about how the Festival was terrible with turning up to start things on one of the secondary stages. Why, Liam declares, he hasn't changed. It must be Glastonbury that's changed:
Liam said the festival had got better, crediting the organisers for its success. “It’s Michael Eavis, isn’t it, and the family who run it,” he said. “They put a lot of work into it.”
If only they'd been involved in 2004, eh, Liam?


Gordon in the morning: Glastonbury 2013

If you have sides, say farewell to them now.

Gordon's doing a meme:


Friday, June 28, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: Weather update

I swear these two tweets were right next to each other, from seconds ago:




Thank God for Twitter, otherwise those of us not in Pilton would have no idea whether it's raining there or not.


Glastonbury 2013: Sunderland

There's been a fundamental change in Glastonbury reportage this year. In place of the usual comparison - that the festival site is now the biggest town that side of Bristol - the BBC news reports are focusing on how the site is the size of Sunderland.

For American readers, you'll need to adjust your recipe on the basis of 'roughly the population of Salt Lake City'.


Glastonbury 2013: Throwing Stones

Are The Rolling Stones too old to play Glastonbury?

Of course not. What a stupid question.

Or, rather, what an interesting question to focus on rather than the surely more important one about if they're too far past their creative peak; or too ill-fitting, as a stadium dinosaur in what used to be a smarter festival than that; or too tax-exiley for a gathering that used to have a heart.

But, instead, let's focus on if they're too old. What do you think, Keith Richards?

They have an average age of 69 with some saying they are too old to play.

"I'd say, 'What do you know about it? You've never tried it'," laughs the band's guitarist Keith Richards.

"It's good for your health to play rock'n'roll in a clean living band like The Rolling Stones. You should try it. It's better than church."
Very droll. I suspect Brian Jones might raise an objection to that thesis, but having been dead for four decades he probably won't.

There is a weird sense hanging over the booking, like it's been driven by a desire to complete a line on a bingo card rather than any artistic reasons. Richards seems to confirm this:
"It just never occurred. Many times it has been on the list of tours and stuff and for one reason or another it never coincided," explains Keith Richards in an exclusive interview with Newsbeat ahead of Glastonbury.

"[It's] like a black hole in space or something but in we go this time.

"I'm looking forward to it because it is an iconic gig and it's an iconic band and finally the two meet at last.

"In a way it's kind of weird that at last we've made it to Glastonbury. It's like building Stonehenge right?"
It's a crossover event. But it feels more like the Dukes Of Hazzard/Alice crossover rather than, say, the Cybermen taking on the Borg.


Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: pulled from Worthing screen

News from the Evening Argus:

Worthing's answer to Glastonbury...
Hang about, what now? Worthing has an answer to Glastonbury?

It turns out that this 'answer' consists of showing bits of Glastonbury on a big screen, which isn't so much an answer as a capitulation. But they were going to charge - yes, to watch television on a beach - so they had learned something from Cashtonbury.

Now, though, it's not going to happen:
Worthing's answer to Glastonbury has been cancelled at the 11th hour due to safety fears.
Attempts to find a solution - cutting the number of marks from 500 to 350, trying to persuade the council to let them create an extra exit by taking down a fence panel - have foundered.

The good news, though, is that people from Worthing can still watch Glastonbury on televisions all over the place this weekend. Just not out of doors.


Sunday, June 23, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: Kill the badgers

Here's something cheery to think of as you see all the environmental pledges scattered across the Glastonbury site: Michael Eavis wants to kill badgers.

He supports the Tory coalition's badger cull:

"As a dairy farmer I am not on the side of the badger," he told the Guardian, in his first public comments on the controversy over badgers' role in causing bovine TB in cattle. "They've also uprooted all the orchids, and killed or eaten all the hedgehogs. They're still treated like a protected species, but they're actually quite a damaging animal."
Eaten all the hedgehogs, eh?
Hugh Warwick, a hedgehog ecologist, said that Eavis was mistaken in believing that badgers were responsible for the loss of hedgehogs in the countryside.

"Hedgehogs and badgers have coexisted for millennia. When there is plenty of food for both, these animals can live together," said Warwick. "The reason we're seeing a decline in hedgehogs cannot be wholly blamed on badgers although badgers have some part to play in it."

Badgers and hedgehogs compete for the same food – worms – but when food is scarce, badgers will turn on hedgehogs. Hedgehogs do suffer if badger populations reach a certain density but they are also rapidly declining in areas where there are no badgers.

And badgers uprooting orchids? Perhaps they do - although the government's cost-benefit analysis of a badger cull repeatedly makes clear that sending people into habitats to cull badgers actually puts orchids at risk through having flat-footed gun-wranglers trampling across the landscape.

And as the EU discovered last year, the main culprit in the spread of TB amongst cattle is dairy farmers being sloppy about following guidelines:
Cattle in England must be regularly tested for TB, and those found to have the disease must be quickly isolated and then removed. But the EC report, based on inspections made in September 2011, found numerous "shortcomings", including missed targets on both the rapid removal of cattle with TB and the follow-up of missed tests, and "weaknesses in cleaning and disinfection at farm, vehicle, market and slaughterhouse levels, exacerbated by lack of adequate supervision". All these problems increase the risk of TB spreading between cattle.

The EC gave the UK €23m in 2011 for bovine TB control measures. Its inspectors found that the removal of cattle with TB was below the target of 90% in 10 days, and that in the first half of 2011 more than 1,000 cattle had not been removed after 30 days. They found that there were 3,300 overdue TB tests as of May 2011 and that "many" calf passports – used to track movements – were incomplete. They also found that only 56% disease report forms had been completed on time, with the authorities blaming lack of resources. Funding cuts were cited as the reason for the failure of local authorities to update central databases systematically.

The EC report stated: "Local authority surveys provided evidence that some cattle farmers may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags, ie retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place." There are 8.5 million cattle in Great Britain on 81,000 holdings, with 2.4m movements a year. In 2011, about 7% of herds were under restriction due to TB and 26,000 cattle were destroyed.
It should be stressed that, nevertheless, nobody is suggesting a cull of dairy farmers.


Saturday, June 22, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: Rocks off

Okay, I'm prepared to believe the sole reason for getting The Rolling Stones to play Glastonbury was so they could be satirically scheduled straight after Primal Scream.


Saturday, May 18, 2013

Gordon in the morning: Rolling Stones told they're old

At last. Someone's suggesting that maybe The Rolling Stones glory days are behind them by quite a distance:

“I think there’s a point when you’ve got to say, ‘Enough’s enough’. I just think they’re old, they’re old f*rts. I just think they ain’t rock ’n’ roll any more."
It's a good point - although arguably they might very well be rock and roll, and it's just rock that has got old and slow and tired.

Tell us, Gordon, who is this young buck calling for the old guard to roll over and let the kids through?
POP loudmouth PETE WATERMAN has blasted THE ROLLING STONES as “old f*rts” who are too ancient to tour.
Oh, yes. Young Pete Waterman.

Gordon Smart, of course, is not going to entertain the idea that once creaky old figureheads who've lost their vim should not be allowed to hang around making vast sums of money for subpar performances. Not with his boss.

So he sets about taking apart Waterman's grasp of facts:
The former Pop Idol judge, who managed RICK ASTLEY, ranted: “I’m 66 and I wouldn’t go and play. They’re 76. Them at Glastonbury – not for me."
Gordon presses his big red button.
Pete needs to get his facts straight. None of the Stones are near 76.
Charlie Watts will be 72 by the time Glastonbury starts, which is fairly near 76. But, to be fair, Ronnie Wood is actually younger than Pete Waterman.

What else you got, Pete?
“You wouldn’t see ANDY WILLIAMS at Glastonbury, would ya?”
Gordon, I see you have an objection.
And you’re unlikely to see Andy at Glasto – he died last year.
That's a good point, but unfortunately it's the wrong point. Andy Williams was supposed to play Glastonbury in 2010 - when he was 82, and thus older than any of the current Rolling Stones by a good decade - but (presumably due to his failing health) never made it.

And also: seeing Andy Williams play would have been more exciting and vital than the Stones' tax-balanced schtick, surely?


Friday, April 19, 2013

Gordon in the morning: Kasabian not happy

Apparently Kasabian are under the impression they should appear at Glastonbury every year, like mud, Billy Bragg, and those people who steal stuff from tents:

[Tom] said: “I’m not playing second fiddle to those bands. We’re just as good, if not better.

“We’re the ultimate, we’re the headline band. But he didn’t call us, the b******.

“Glastonbury’s on our ‘to-do’ list. All he’s got to do is pick up the phone.

“We’ve got every f***ing right to headline Glastonbury ’cos we’re good enough. It will happen.”
Oh, yes, not just playing at Glastonbury, but headlining the event. By - you will have spotted - right.

It's amusing, actually: Kasabian tend to be the sort of placeholder headliner you'd stick on if you couldn't get your first choice - popular enough to make logistic sense, but not the sort of booking that's thrilling.

Now they're becoming placeholder outragees for the press - not saying Liam-style stupid grand claims, but just squeakily outraged enough to make a headline.


Thursday, March 28, 2013

Glastonbury 2013: Gimme shelter, perhaps in Joe Banana's tent while it rains

The Rolling Stones are taking a hell of a risk agreeing to headline Glastonbury, surely? It can take so long to get out the car park there they might end up burning through the whole of the time they're allowed to be on UK soil before they become eligible for paying tax here.


Sunday, October 07, 2012

Glastonbury 2013: they've got it down, right?

They've been doing Glastonbury online ticket sales for years. They've had a year off, so 24 months to prepare. So this year they stand a good chance of ticket sales not being a fiasco, right?

Wrong.

It's not just the computers causing problems, but The Independent points out an extra zinger waiting to shake people down:

We're hearing some complaints that callers may be charged just for reaching the engaged tone, and with many hitting redial repeatedly, be careful, this could be expensive. The note on Glastonbury's small print reads:

Please note some network providers will charge for an engaged tone
Paying to hear Glastonbury not answer its phones. Charming.