Now don't me wrong, I'm a massive fan. Saw them plenty of times in the early/mid 90's and thoroughly enjoyed the return concert in 2012.

This year however saw a marked difference in pure exploitism. Extra dates upon extra dates added, led to many fans struggling to sell unwanted tickets due to supply exceeding demand.

And now we have yet another round of concerts lined up for next year, 3 dates originally which will no doubt be added to again.

And all the while....still no new album

I can't be doing with any band that comes back trading on nostalgia, fine if they have some new music as you say, but why would I want to see a load of middle aged blokes going through the motions, better to stick with your memories ?

I don't understand your point about fans selling unwanted tickets. I don't see what that has to do with the Stone Roses.

It's the NME's fault building them up, in the rapidly declining cliché they have tried to manifest on people.A corporate (Time Inc) mag, now in free circulation that no longer concentrates on music anymore.

Quoting Caroline Sullivan in the Guardian :-

"NME bands" fall within very narrow parameters. In the 80s, the paper prided itself on its coverage of hip hop, R&B and the emerging dance scene which it took seriously and featured prominently – alongside the usual Peel-endorsed indie fare. Now, though, its range of approved bands has dramatically shrunk to a strand embodied by the [Arctic] Monkeys, Babyshambles and Muse – bands who you don't need specialist knowledge to write about and who are just "indie" enough to make readers feel they're part of a club. Like everything else in publishing, this particular direction must be in response to reader demand, but it doesn't half make for a self-limiting magazine"

Seems she forgot to mention Stone Roses as well.Another band they blew up out of all proportion & making 1st wave fans start to resent them now even.

If there is a new album, it had better have decent songs on it, unlike that 'All For One, One For All' song, or whatever it was called. That hardly set the world alight...

It was one of the biggest indie rock songs of the year probably the biggest seller if you don't count bands like Bastille and it did make everyone stop and listen for at least 24 hours , I think setting the world alight was a bit ambitious though.

Name me any band that has set the world alight in 2016 erm....

This is another new song released earlier this year, It's much better than All For One.

Beautiful Thing

Although it's probably true, that quote is eight years old and predates the NME's switch to the free sheet model by seven years. Sullivan was really pointing pointing out that the NME didn't take female musicians seriously, which may also still be true, though as it's almost impossible to get hold of the magazine these days, it's hard to say for sure.

If you want to talk about milking it then talk about the sun city boys aka Queen. From their days of entertaining the racists in South Africa at the height of apartheid to today. They would play in hell to the devil if it meant making another quid.

Why would a fan want to sell 'unwanted tickets'?? I don't understand.

If you mean....people snapping up tickets to sell for a profit and then being left with them....tough! Shouldn't be doing it anyway!

Yes. I've noticed i've had no reply after raising the same query.

Bastille.

Actually, literally:

https://www.eyeofthestormers.com

Talking of washed-up generic indie bands, I wonder how long before The Smiths reform now that Morrissey's solo career has stalled?

Actually, one band who reformed and toured this summer who actually seemed to be doing it for all the right reasons were Belly. The shows were incredible - I've never seen a band just enjoy themselves so much on a stage, with lots of great banter between them and the audience. The crowds were loving them, and they did seem to get genuinely emotional over it all. They were just paying for it all themselves - the entire crew was just the band plus three others. Couple of new songs in the set, one in particular was right up there with their best.

I don't think the success of Morrissey's solo career was the reason the Smiths haven't got back together.

In the frenzied rush to make sure me and my friends had tickets, with additional dates released almost immediately, we found ourselves in the position whereby we'd purchased too many tickets between us.

So how exactly is that the Stone Roses fault?

Stating a selected number of dates, then immediately adding more.

They knew what the demand would be like, they clearly already had secured the venues for the additional dates, they should have just released all of them up front.

That's how everyone does it.

In your first post you state that supply exceeded demand yet in this post you state that they would know what demand would be.

They did know what the demand would be, that didn't stop them exceeding it though.

I don't know what your problem is, but go and bother someone else.

So they deliberately put more tickets on sale than they knew they could sell?

No problem, I am allowed to reply if you put something on an open forum that makes no sense at all.

And if they hadn't exceeded it, and you hadn't all gotten tickets, would that have been better?

Yes, it would have.

only managed 30 years of success as a solo artist then

It sounds like you and your friends bought more tickets than you need with the presumption that you would have no problem selling on the excess. Perhaps to other fans at an inflated rate making a tidy profit in the process. If not so cynical then you simply messed up what is surely not that complex a task (i.e. buying the number of tickets you actually need). Struggling to get enough is one thing but ending up with too many?

Whatever your situation may be, if there are fans out there who thought they would make a few quid exploiting other fans and their plan has backfired, is this supposed to be a terrible thing or the band's fault?

Frankly I am trying but really can't see the argument that they are milking it by adding more dates. The drip feeding aspect is a typical tactic and makes sense from their perspective for all manner of reasons. If someone wants to go to one show they get one ticket and it doesn't matter if more shows are added. If they don't manage to get a ticket initially they can get one now as there are now more shows. In the end they will play as many shows as they desire with the limit of sales potential. If they play too many they will have their own problems due to bad planning. Much like the ad hoc touts who are perhaps suffering now (if there are any).

If adding more shows means milking it, why are you singling out the Roses? It is hardly uncommon. It's certainly not their fault if you, for whatever reason, ended up with too many tickets.