Headliners 2016

[EamerRed]

Not that I'm saying that Coldplay are as good as the Roses, but Yellow came out in 2000, so they only have to still be popular in 10 years. I reckon if Coldplay did fuck all other than 1 tour in the next 10 years there would be plenty of demand if they were to return. 10 (more like 9) years doesn't seem too far away any more does it? Given they were headlining Glastonbury 10 years ago and they could well be headlining Glastonbury again next year, they do appear to have some staying power.

Yeah Coldplay I can see that to be fair, but Adele sell out 150,000 tickets in a heartbeat in 25 years time? No chance imo.

[eFestivals]

Yeah Coldplay I can see that to be fair, but Adele sell out 150,000 tickets in a heartbeat in 25 years time? No chance imo.

Hmmm, I think I disagree.

There's always a big on-going market for music for middle-aged mums. Rod Stewart has put 40 years on his career via that, for example.

Unlike Rod Stewart, Adele doesn't even need to slant her output for that market.

[stuartbert two hats]

Yeah Coldplay I can see that to be fair, but Adele sell out 150,000 tickets in a heartbeat in 25 years time? No chance imo.

I've no idea, but 19 came out in 2008, so that's 18 years from now, not 25.

[stuartbert two hats]

This is just the same snobbery that said nobody would be listening to The Beatles in 20 years unlike a proper singer like Sinatra.

[mrtourette]

http://www.nme.com/news/the-stone-roses/65973

Would love to know how a fact about them being the fastest selling gigs in history is meaningless in a conversation about the speed at which gigs sell out 

You're funny.

Firstly a Guinness record for "the fastest selling rock concerts in UK history" is not the same as 'the fastest selling gigs of all time' or 'the fastest selling gigs in history'.

Secondly, it's meaningless as a comparative measure because unless Adele tries to sell exactly the same amount of tickets in exactly the same circumstances it doesn't matter one fucking bit how quickly they sold (or she would sell) tickets. It's a stupid comparison to make (I know it wasn't initially yours but trying to wield a 'fastest/most selling' 'fact' as proof of anything is massively flawed).

 

[paulmuchmore]

Do we really think these Stone Roses gigs will sell out as quickly as last time round?

Seeing that this is their second comeback, and there isn't any indication of new music (yet), I know there's plenty of excitement on this forum and certain circles of the internet, but among the general public, surely a lot of people who wanted to see them saw them last time and won't bother this time around?

Might just be that I'm really not that bothered about them beyond a few songs - She Bangs the Drums is a classic, I'll give you that, but I'd prefer Muse or the Foos to the Stone Roses at Glastonbury!

[Rose-Colored Boy]

He's more tolerable when he's sitting in a chair and not running around like a prick.

He and that other nice man who runs around were touring together earlier in the year, what a treat for exercise fans.

[russycarps]

I'd prefer Muse or the Foos to the Stone Roses at Glastonbury!

fucking hell

[EamerRed]

Hmmm, I think I disagree.

There's always a big on-going market for music for middle-aged mums. Rod Stewart has put 40 years on his career via that, for example.

Unlike Rod Stewart, Adele doesn't even need to slant her output for that market.

Yep agreed, but have any artists in that mould sold out gigs quite like that? Admittedly they haven't had such a huge absence but the Roses following stuck around because of the cult following, and the fact they were genuinely on the brink of becoming the biggest band in the world, there's a mystique around that. Adele is one of if not the biggest artist in the world already, so I can't imagine such a hysteria for her in 20 years time should she decide to quit now. I'm not qualified of course, it's just an observation and there's no way of saying who's right or wrong.

You're funny.

Firstly a Guinness record for "the fastest selling rock concerts in UK history" is not the same as 'the fastest selling gigs of all time' or 'the fastest selling gigs in history'.

Secondly, it's meaningless as a comparative measure because unless Adele tries to sell exactly the same amount of tickets in exactly the same circumstances it doesn't matter one fucking bit how quickly they sold (or she would sell) tickets. It's a stupid comparison to make (I know it wasn't initially yours but trying to wield a 'fastest/most selling' 'fact' as proof of anything is massively flawed).

 

So you're saying that we are unable to discuss it unless the exact same parameters are set? Please. I've used the best comparative measure we have and by quoting the Guinness record for fastest selling gigs (or whatever semantically-correct definition you want me to use) against an argument claiming Adele would sell out faster than the Roses that is a pretty valid comparison.

Mathematically no of course it's not comparable exactly, especially when you add to the fact that they're at different stages in different careers, but it's definitely a discussion point.

Edited November 3, 2015 by EamerRed

[Festival Liam]

Also fasting selling gig is surely determined by the internet servers not the amount of people buying the tickets. What a meaningless statistic. 

[Festival Liam]

Rod Stewart was on BBC breakfast this morning and he said he (+ The Faces) was not booked for Glastonbury next year. "As far as I know, next year's bill is set in stone", but he said he would love to do it in 2017 and they should call him. 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

"As far as I know, next year's bill is set in stone", 

Massive over-analysis of this quote to begin in 3..2..

Edited November 3, 2015 by Zac Quinn

[Festival Liam]

Massive over-analysis of this quote to begin in 3..2..

Ha I might have been paraphrasing, I can't fully remember. Might have just been "the bill is set". Which makes it sound like he has heard that at least the headliners, and maybe the legends slot, is booked. 

[eastynh]

In regards to who's the biggest and fastest selling, does it really matter at the end of the day? All that matters is the quality of the songs. 

Take away all the hype and everything that has built up around the Roses and what you are left with is one truly stunning album in the debut, a stand alone genre defining true classic in Fools gold and there is a clutch of very good tunes as back up. The left overs can be disregarded really. 

Compare that to Coldplay and Adele, their music does not really come anywhere near close. Coldplay have some decent tunes and are all good musicians. Adele is a good singer but she's no Whitney really. Neither of them have the magic the Roses HAD.

[Andy0808 v5]

Massive over-analysis of this quote to begin in 3..2..

stone temple pilots are headlining?!?!?

[mrtourette]

So you're saying that we are unable to discuss it unless the exact same parameters are set? Please. 

Of course you can discuss it, but like I said there's no 'proof' or 'evidence' solely in the information about how quickly the Roses tickets sold.

 

I've used the best comparative measure we have and by quoting the Guinness record for fastest selling gigs against an argument claiming Adele would sell out faster than the Roses that is a pretty valid comparison.

Best, maybe, but still not enough. How can it be a comparison when there's nothing to compare it against? What you're basically saying is that Adele wouldn't sell 150,000 tickets in 14 minutes, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but nothing more.

 

 (or whatever semantically-correct definition you want me to use)

Just the truth, no need to lie to make it sound more impressive.

 

Mathematically no of course it's not comparable exactly, especially when you add to the fact that they're at different stages in different careers, but it's definitely a discussion point.

It certainly is a reasonable discussion point, but nothing more, and no amount of alleged records set by the Roses will change that.

Edited November 3, 2015 by mrtourette

[justperfect]

Do we really think these Stone Roses gigs will sell out as quickly as last time round?

Seeing that this is their second comeback, and there isn't any indication of new music (yet), I know there's plenty of excitement on this forum and certain circles of the internet, but among the general public, surely a lot of people who wanted to see them saw them last time and won't bother this time around?

Might just be that I'm really not that bothered about them beyond a few songs - She Bangs the Drums is a classic, I'll give you that, but I'd prefer Muse or the Foos to the Stone Roses at Glastonbury!

yes, they'll be gone in 20 mins. 

Then they'll put the sunday on and they'll go in a further 15

 

By half 10 on Friday seatwave will be making a killing

[EamerRed]

It certainly is a reasonable discussion point, but nothing more, and no amount of alleged records set by the Roses will change that.

Exactly, which is all that was intended. You question it as if I was quoting the fact in a manner which meant to disprove the original point, when it's not possible. You're essentially arguing against a point that I wasn't trying to make to be honest mate.

Edited November 3, 2015 by EamerRed

[eFestivals]

Yep agreed, but have any artists in that mould sold out gigs quite like that? Admittedly they haven't had such a huge absence but the Roses following stuck around because of the cult following, and the fact they were genuinely on the brink of becoming the biggest band in the world, there's a mystique around that. Adele is one of if not the biggest artist in the world already, so I can't imagine such a hysteria for her in 20 years time should she decide to quit now. I'm not qualified of course, it's just an observation and there's no way of saying who's right or wrong.

rarity values inflates the price (and hype) hugely, so i'd say that if she quit now she'd definitely have the hype in the future, much as the Roses have been able to trade off.

It wouldn't be quite the same thing, tho. Part of what makes the Roses so popular today is that they weren't really fully appreciated until after they'd gone. Much of that is probably down to Oasis.

[eFestivals]

Also fasting selling gig is surely determined by the internet servers not the amount of people buying the tickets. What a meaningless statistic. 

This ^^

[mrtourette]

Exactly, which is all that was intended. You question it as if I was quoting the fact in a manner which meant to disprove the original point, when it's not possible. You've created an argument against a point that I wasn't trying to make.

I'm arguing against the use of worthless facts being deployed in a hypothetical argument as if they carry some weight while at the same time doubting the validity of the data and the general use of such a pointless fact/record. Whether that directly contravenes your point or just piggybacks it doesn't really matter to me, the original point still remains that facts or data about x selling so many more or y selling so much quicker are greatly flawed and meaningless. It wasn't pitched as a direct argument to what you were trying to say.

If you don't think Adele could sell records as quickly as the Roses then fair enough, but if you want to bring facts into the discussion the be prepared for them to be picked apart. By using that fact I can only assume that you think it's trustworthy and worth something, which I what I disagree with, which was my original point.

Edited November 3, 2015 by mrtourette

[Rose-Colored Boy]

Part of what makes the Roses so popular today is that they weren't really fully appreciated until after they'd gone. Much of that is probably down to Oasis.

Another reason to hate Oasis, get in!

The Gallaghers wil be claiming responsibility for Jake Bugg next.

[Andy0808 v5]

Stone Roses are class.

Oasis pre-2000 are class (bits and bobs after too)

Jake Bugg is pure shite

[maelzoid]

 I think a big draw is the fact that so many people didn't get to see the Roses first time round.  Multiply that by a 20 year lay-off and you have huge demand.  If you think Adele wouldn't spark the same level of hysteria is she took 20 years off and then announced a triumphant return, you're just naïve.  I expect even Coldplay reforming in 2035 after 20 years would be seen as utterly epic by enough people.

Imagine the furore if The Smiths announced a return.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

  If you think Adele wouldn't spark the same level of hysteria is she took 20 years off and then announced a triumphant return, you're just naïve. 

She's sparked twice the Roses' level of hysteria after only three years off.