Headliners 2015

[Guest]

Oasis and the Roses both have 1.6ish decent albums; their debuts and some of their sophmore efforts.

I love how people constantly forget the Masterplan when talking about Oasis. It is a fantastic collection of records. Why on earth they released them tunes as b sides I have no idea.

[fatyeti24]

I love how people constantly forget the Masterplan when talking about Oasis. It is a fantastic collection of records. Why on earth they released them tunes as b sides I have no idea.

or Turns Into Stone, when talking about the Roses. same thing more or less.

Edited April 6, 2015 by fatyeti24

[FloorFiller]

oh no we're back on the Roses

[Guest]

I was there on the Friday and can confirm it was incredible. The best atmosphere I've experienced at a gig. The band were tight as anything. Reni was in a full groove.

That atmosphere wouldn't be replicated on the pyramid though. Brown's vocals didn't matter at Heaton Park. I think they would at Glastonbury

Hence why I gave them a miss at V. I would hope the Glastonbury crowd would be a bit more forgiving than the 17 year old Disclosure and Ellie Goulding fans at V though.

Heaton Park will never be repeated will it? As I can't see The Smiths ever reforming.

[Guest]

or Turns Into Stone, when talking about the Roses. same thing more or less.

Yes good point. I don't think Turns Into Stone is as good as The Masterplan though.

[fatyeti24]

oh no we're back on the Roses

stick around for 10 mins, we'll get back on to someone else. you know how this works.

Prince!

[MEGABOWL]

I love how people constantly forget the Masterplan when talking about Oasis. It is a fantastic collection of records. Why on earth they released them tunes as b sides I have no idea.

Same could be said of Turns Into Stone

[Guest]

I think the critical difference between Oasis and The Roses is that the Roses only have one set. Oasis could do 3 different sets and everyone would still be happy.

[FloorFiller]

stick around for 10 mins, we'll get back on to someone else. you know how this works.

Prince!

unfortunately the Roses info seems to hold a little more weight (an actual 'quote' from one of the members). hope it proves to be bollocks. got my heart set on Prince now - no substitutions!

[DJL]

1. I like second coming including the intro - it is not padding as it builds to something imo

2. The Stone Roses debut is no less universally loved than Oasis' first two... but perhaps not quite as well known as What's the story. People who only owned three CDs in the 90s generally owned what's the story

3. Finsbury park didn't sell as quickly as heaton park partly because it was a year later and many (wherever they lived) had already seen them - i travelled with a group of my mates from london to heaton park to see the roses. It was epic, not sure they can recapture that.

[fatyeti24]

unfortunately the Roses info seems to hold a little more weight (an actual 'quote' from one of the members). hope it proves to be bollocks. got my heart set on Prince now - no substitutions!

i take the 'quote' with a huge pinch of salt. well more like an entire salt mine, tbh.

[FirsG]

Who thinks its coming tonight?

[Poliwhirl]

Who thinks its coming tonight?

Me, just like I've thought for every single day for the last week or 2

[Woffy]

Yes good point. I don't think Turns Into Stone is as good as The Masterplan though.

Something's Burning takes a bit blissed-out gleeful shit over any Oasis b-side.

Like one of those uber-satisfying, personal-life-philosophy changing turn-outs you can have when on LSD.

Ahhhhhhhh.

[DJL]

So do we have any more than a guy on twitter with a photo that could have been taken amy time and a quote that could be made up?

[Slugworth]

It's going to be the Stone Roses isn't it?

FFS, nevermind.

[Guest]

So do we have any more than a guy on twitter with a photo that could have been taken amy time and a quote that could be made up?

No not really lol

[FloorFiller]

So do we have any more than a guy on twitter with a photo that could have been taken amy time and a quote that could be made up?

nope that's it. there seems to be far more pointing towards it not being the Roses than it being them, but i guess with little else info it's something! more than we've had on Prince i suppose

[Woffy]

3. Finsbury park didn't sell as quickly as heaton park partly because it was a year later and many (wherever they lived) had already seen them - i travelled with a group of my mates from london to heaton park to see the roses. It was epic, not sure they can recapture that.

Made all the better by watching the nude bike ride through Central London earlier in the day.

[ChrisTGA]

So do we have any more than a guy on twitter with a photo that could have been taken amy time and a quote that could be made up?

That's more than most tho. And if we're going with that attitude, we can discount every piece of evidence we get for every rumoured act in the future.

[Woffy]

That's more than most tho. And if we're going with that attitude, we can discount every piece of evidence we get for every rumoured act in the future.

LET'S DO THIS!

[the wonderwhy]

Lovely day on the south coast, topped off by a great 3 points for the mighty Pompey.

I'm guessing nothings happened today?

[FloorFiller]

That's more than most tho. And if we're going with that attitude, we can discount every piece of evidence we get for every rumoured act in the future.

although Neil seems to have something pointing to Prince that he hasn't shared with us so there's always that. i still think it'll be Prince but i wouldn't totally ignore this new Roses info

[Thelips]

Will, that's just not true.

Christ, I think that the hype and 'declared popularity' for the Roses is bigger now than when they were around properly. They have managed, somehow, to develop a disproportionate level of nostalgic notoriety for reasons beyond me. Were they popular at their initial zenith...well, yes, a bit. But then Second Coming was such a trial for the band, and so universally panned, that they faded pretty quickly , if not not obscurity, certainly out of the common consciousness.

They hold a single, OK, album in their canon. They retain a fervent, mostly UK-based, fanbase amongst, in the main from a single demographic. The mystique surrounding the band has piqued the interest of indie kids of the subsequent generation to a point where they are often considered legends. But are they?

And, moreover, are they really a band bigger than most headliners GF has ever had. REALLY?

A very brief discussion with Dr Google, looking anti-chronologically for reference has created the following little list, just from the last few years. The Stone Roses...bigger than:

U2

Bruce Springsteen

Muse

The Rolling Stones

Metallica

The Who

Paul McCartney

Oasis

R.E.M.

Coldplay

Radiohead

Blur

I could go on.

I'm not denying the place the Roses hold in the hearts of many British music fans. I'm not saying they wouldn't be an enormously popular announcement for GF2015. But let's keep things in perspective...?

Ben

Fully agree.

Nobody loved their debut more than me but it amazes me how a band can hold onto such 'legendary' status. It's been 20 years since they released an average album and nothing since.

The roses are a nostalgia act, a reason for people to reminisce whilst dusting off the old flares and bucket hats.

Fair play to them for being savvy enough to keep the hype going whilst doing zero I suppose.

[kaymh80]

Silently changing the subject from stone roses

But is the lack of announcement due to the purple one being in discussion with Miss Evis about TV coverage? A bit like Rolling stones??

Could be a factor ;-)