When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Stone Roses Discussion
Supraman
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by Supraman » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:31 pm

Money was a huge driving factor I'd imagine to Squire and Reni in doing the reunion both of them couldn't stand Brown but as soon as a pot of gold was put in front of them they could be his best buddy and pretend they loved everything about been in the Roses ,Brown and Mani didn't need to do it as both had successful careers in music ,after the first 2 years of touring and whatever promoter had paid them to contractual do a certain number of gig's they were probably left to their own devices but as usual messed it up by not delivering an album and touring sporadically ,did they even do 10 gig's this year?Obviously Reni and Brown can't work together Reni whatever planet he lives on doesn't seem to want to commit to being in the Roses full time,we've seen it so many times GnR ,The Police,Verve, they all just got back together for the cash yet all hated each other ,on stage is one thing but going into a studio for months with ppl you don't like is a step too far for most reformed band's.No doubt IB will reveal all when he is promoting his solo stuff he spent nearly 2 decades bad mouthing his former band mates and just about everyone else on his other solo project's.

thewiseman
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by thewiseman » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:15 am

Brown needed the money - to pay for his divorce.

Squire I think could take it or leave it, but clearly had been making overtures to Brown (the demos he sent him) since 2008 ish?

Reni was clearly reluctant, but the pressure in turning down the chance to be financially set for life must be immense.

Mani must sometimes regret leaving Primal Scream.

Mark my words, they'll be back again when funds get low ! Despite his big gob, I wouldn't bank on Brown revealing much (if he has any sense) just in case that magic Rose-shaped money tree is needed again

eviltimeban
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:44 am

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by eviltimeban » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:20 pm

Interviewed after the Q Awards, Liam said that Oasis weren't getting back together, but the Roses "might be" and the Verve "might be". This was referring to his Tweet from a while back where he said he wanted to get the three bands on the same bill for a summer gig.
Image

User avatar
squiresguitar
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 1:28 pm
Location: england

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by squiresguitar » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:47 pm

0800666ohyeah wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:35 pm
squiresguitar wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:12 am
a few weeks before June.
May ? ;)
yeah sherlock

Mcc
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 6:13 am

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by Mcc » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:46 am

thewiseman wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:15 am
Brown needed the money - to pay for his divorce.
I know this has melted into accepted truth, what with the quip at the Presser re: Ryder. But surely divorces don't clean folk right out. Lets say she got half, it still leaves him with ..... half. And I reckon he probably had a few bob given his successful solo years.

Regan 2.0
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by Regan 2.0 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:41 am

Mcc wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:46 am
thewiseman wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:15 am
Brown needed the money - to pay for his divorce.
I know this has melted into accepted truth, what with the quip at the Presser re: Ryder. But surely divorces don't clean folk right out. Lets say she got half, it still leaves him with ..... half. And I reckon he probably had a few bob given his successful solo years.

Although Brown's solo career was relatively successful his albums would hit the charts high in the first week then drop off rapidly so, other than his core fan base, his sales must have been quite modest. He was also very generous with co-writing credits from his first album onwards, meaning the majority of his royalties were probably split 2 or 3 ways. Also, although he toured consistently over the duration of his solo career, he had quite a big band and crew at times all of whom he had to pay for their time, so I doubt he was as well off as you may think. He was clearly a wealthy man, but I don't think he was rolling in money.

Awful One
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 11:43 am

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by Awful One » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:36 pm

Regan 2.0 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:41 am
Mcc wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:46 am
thewiseman wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:15 am
Brown needed the money - to pay for his divorce.
I know this has melted into accepted truth, what with the quip at the Presser re: Ryder. But surely divorces don't clean folk right out. Lets say she got half, it still leaves him with ..... half. And I reckon he probably had a few bob given his successful solo years.

Although Brown's solo career was relatively successful his albums would hit the charts high in the first week then drop off rapidly so, other than his core fan base, his sales must have been quite modest. He was also very generous with co-writing credits from his first album onwards, meaning the majority of his royalties were probably split 2 or 3 ways. Also, although he toured consistently over the duration of his solo career, he had quite a big band and crew at times all of whom he had to pay for their time, so I doubt he was as well off as you may think. He was clearly a wealthy man, but I don't think he was rolling in money.
Probably just a guess, but would not be surprised if about right. I would say be earned about half of his money since the reunion (again a guess)...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cele ... h/%3famp=1

Mcc
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 6:13 am

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by Mcc » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:50 am

My point is that he's not lost all his money.
Plus, folk dont go and earn more money to pay for a divorce. Thats concept just doesn't make sense.

thewiseman
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by thewiseman » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:06 am

Plus, folk dont go and earn more money to pay for a divorce. Thats concept just doesn't make sense.
I badly phrased that, I meant more he would have presumably had to pay out / split his assets. Big incentive then to recover your losses. If you want an example of how nasty an alimony battle can be, look at poor old John Cleese. One of the main reasons for the pretty dire Monty Python reunion a few years back and why you see him popping up in terrible ads.

I bet none of the Roses had a pension either.

rangers
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: When Did You Know It Was Very Likely To Be 'Over'

Post by rangers » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 pm

there is no doubt the divorce probably pushed it over the line but looking back I think the reunion or should I say live tour was on the cards anyway. Ian's record deal was up around that time, reni's cryptic poem about having one more go on the magic roundabout. The mani interview below seems to signify that it was only Ian holding it back. In hindsight also I've started to doubt whether an album was ever truly on the cards.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HspI8EZBnbc

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests