Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎


Acid_Haze

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • FloorFiller

    1190

  • Rose-Colored Boy

    1060

  • Matt42

    1040

  • eFestivals

    1008

The R&L board is largely people reporting Will's movements, 10:34am; spotted Will in a caravan park in Sc**thorpe, looking shifty... and stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great music is great music, doesn't matter when you heard it or when they recorded it, don't be so tied down to time fella.

Some of the best music happened a feck of a long time ago, Robert Johnson, Beatles, Bob Marley, Stones, Who, Hendrix, Clash, Stone Roses, Nirvana etc etc etc , some happened 5 minutes ago, PABH, Royal Blood, Drenge, Temples etc etc ...... Just get it, love it ...... deal with it.

F T L.

You're missing my point.

It's not a time thing at all. I love that album and I love that era, it was the era I grew up in and probably the era that I still listen to most.

My point is that all the deserved hype they had in the late 80's didn't materialise the way it should have and their carrear was over before it began.

The old bands you list all did the one thing the roses didn't and that was to create an extensive back catogue and leave a long varied body of work.

The Roses can not, in my opinion, be in the 'legend' status on the strength of one outstanding album and one half decent album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I took a proper look at The Roses live videos on Youtube there. I thought they were pretty bad. They sound really flat live and the lead singer has an awful voice, I didn't realise quite how bad he was live. Not much energy on stage, just sort of all bunched up in the middle standing around.

Yes, I'm sure it's brilliant in a field packed with hardcore fans for a comeback gig but lets be real, I'd wager the majority of Glastonbury would know Fools Gold, I wanna be Adored, maybe I am the Resurrection. It'll be another Gorillaz.

They were around before I was born so I can't look at them with rose tinted spectacles, maybe I don't 'get' the whole Madchester thing, but from an impartial musical and performance point of view, they seem shit to me.

You are spot on with this. Im not a roses hater btw, i just dont get them headlining after all this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably already been said at some point but wasn't Emily quoted saying she's always been keen on The Stone Roses and sees them as a potential headliner? Think it was a couple of years back

Found the article http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/glastonbury-organiser-emily-eavis-on-the-return-of-the-sacred-stones-8561544.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably already been said at some point but wasn't Emily quoted saying she's always been keen on The Stone Roses and sees them as a potential headliner? Think it was a couple of years back

She's probably said that about a lot of people. Including other people rumoured for the same slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I took a proper look at The Roses live videos on Youtube there. I thought they were pretty bad. They sound really flat live and the lead singer has an awful voice, I didn't realise quite how bad he was live. Not much energy on stage, just sort of all bunched up in the middle standing around.

Yes, I'm sure it's brilliant in a field packed with hardcore fans for a comeback gig but lets be real, I'd wager the majority of Glastonbury would know Fools Gold, I wanna be Adored, maybe I am the Resurrection. It'll be another Gorillaz.

They were around before I was born so I can't look at them with rose tinted spectacles, maybe I don't 'get' the whole Madchester thing, but from an impartial musical and performance point of view, they seem shit to me.

ru9n9l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more of nothing still equals nothing........but that means I dont exist.....but I must do.....oh god I have zero mass! its ALL A LIE!

But I can feel it in my bones, and the tea leaf in my tea cup point to a female third headliner so it's gotta be one of those 3. If in wrong I will eat my ouija board.....

Edited by morph100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably already been said at some point but wasn't Emily quoted saying she's always been keen on The Stone Roses and sees them as a potential headliner? Think it was a couple of years back

Yeah, certainly interesting that she said that back in 2013, 2014 not being a possibility due to their contract for the run of gigs they did.... and now that's over and big talk of a new album... I dunno, I find it weird how Neil hasn't put them as at least a rumour by now but *shrug* I suppose he has his reasons.

Edited by FrancisH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point.

It's not a time thing at all. I love that album and I love that era, it was the era I grew up in and probably the era that I still listen to most.

My point is that all the deserved hype they had in the late 80's didn't materialise the way it should have and their carrear was over before it began.

The old bands you list all did the one thing the roses didn't and that was to create an extensive back catogue and leave a long varied body of work.

The Roses can not, in my opinion, be in the 'legend' status on the strength of one outstanding album and one half decent album.

Yep, looking forward to Lionel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point.

It's not a time thing at all. I love that album and I love that era, it was the era I grew up in and probably the era that I still listen to most.

My point is that all the deserved hype they had in the late 80's didn't materialise the way it should have and their carrear was over before it began.

The old bands you list all did the one thing the roses didn't and that was to create an extensive back catogue and leave a long varied body of work.

The Roses can not, in my opinion, be in the 'legend' status on the strength of one outstanding album and one half decent album.

As I think any like minded person would say ....

do one....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, certainly interesting that she said that back in 2013, 2014 not being a possibility due to their contract for the run of gigs they did.... and now that's over and big talk of a new album... I dunno, I find it weird how Neil hasn't put them as at least a rumour by now but *shrug* I suppose he has his reasons.

i don't think he has any info to suggest it's them - the only info any of us have had have been from random idiots coming on here and talking nonsense and then the odd person meeting one of the band members and getting a cryptic answer back, whereas he seems to have something for Prince. but what with the huge lack of info on all fronts this year, it really could go either way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think he has any info to suggest it's them - the only info any of us have had have been from random idiots coming on here and talking nonsense and then the odd person meeting one of the band members and getting a cryptic answer back, whereas he seems to have something for Prince. but what with the huge lack of info on all fronts this year, it really could go either way

Aye think you're right there, Neil knows something for sure else I reckon they'd be on by now. Also does seem like pretty much all of the Roses stuff seems to come from this forum or unreliable and incredibly bias stone roses fans on twitter...

Edited by FrancisH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superbly put. Pints in June.

Deal. On the Wednesday, I believe.

The mother in law is no longer coming to her first Glasto due to entirely reasonable personal reasons.

I will therefore be getting c***ed at the efests meet rather than being a 'responsible guide'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing my point.

It's not a time thing at all. I love that album and I love that era, it was the era I grew up in and probably the era that I still listen to most.

My point is that all the deserved hype they had in the late 80's didn't materialise the way it should have and their carrear was over before it began.

The old bands you list all did the one thing the roses didn't and that was to create an extensive back catogue and leave a long varied body of work.

The Roses can not, in my opinion, be in the 'legend' status on the strength of one outstanding album and one half decent album.

Quantity over quality then, fair enough ....... I'll see you at the next 1d concert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...