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 😎

The stone roses


weeksy97

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

The Roses had far, far better and more famous songs than the Mondays. Yes their live reputation was shambolic at times, but even in the years in between the split and the reunion you would hear far more Roses songs out than you would Happy Mondays. Not even comparable. 

To be honest, I would have said that the Mondays got (and get) played more. So I suspect that depends entirely on where you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 797
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep, think they are owned by ticketmaster or one of the other big companies.

edit, maybe not actually, but they are legit.

 

12 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

They're owned by see - or have some link to them. 

Owned by promoters SJM Concerts and Metropolis Music. Managed by See and uses their tech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, annax said:

My first outdoor gig. Got a coach from Worcester. Think The Farm were the support. Got a coach back. Hadn't then prepared how to get back to my village, so knocked on the door of the homeless shelter. As a 16 yr old this seemed like a good thing to do. They were very welcoming. 

 

Edit: actually maybe 15...

i wasn't there (i do have the gig on cd).  there's a write up of the day here

http://sabotagetimes.com/football/are-you-man-utd-you-when-the-happy-mondays-played-leeds-elland-road

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FuzzyDunlop said:

 

Definitely go.

 

5 minutes ago, EamerRed said:

Yeah get on it, worse places to go than Glasgow!

So many tickets being sold for a fortune on StubHub and the like of course. Really like the idea of Twickets, though naturally there are none on there.

 

5 minutes ago, EamerRed said:

Yeah get on it, worse places to go than Glasgow!

So many tickets being sold for a fortune on StubHub and the like of course. Really like the idea of Twickets, though naturally there are none on there.

I would if glastonbury weren't that weekend! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, justperfect said:

I can't see any extra dates being added if none of the venue's have sold out by this stage (only a couple of hrs I know but 18months back these would have completely sold out in minutes)

 

Glastonbury is go............

No they wouldn't as Finsburys 2nd date took a little while compared to the 1st date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

No they wouldn't as Finsburys 2nd date took a little while compared to the 1st date.

That's what I'm saying you w*nkpuffin.the first sold out in double quick time, obviously the second date wouldn't sell out as fast as 70 odd thousand punters (random guess) had already got tickets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, justperfect said:

That's what I'm saying you w*nkpuffin.the first sold out in double quick time, obviously the second date wouldn't sell out as fast as 70 odd thousand punters (random guess) had already got tickets

No you weren't, your statement was wrong and then you became an arsehole. Finsbury is 50k which is massively different to Wembley.

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

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • 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.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...