Good mark up Sammy - a think the face value is around £30-£40 !!
I was looking at these tickets earlier and for the Roger Daltrey/Kelly Jones gig the night before the gallery standing tickets were £25 and had all gone. I managed to get a restrictred view one up in the gods for around £30. The Macca gig had all sold out according to ticketmaster & the albert hall, although there was a couple going from an agency at £95+10% booking fee (total £109.50) and they were for the stalls.
To be fair golfaddick , I had probably been ripped off by viagogo fOr the tickets ( yes they were £95 + booking fee ) but after seeing the tv programme about the ticket thing , I will be purchasing strait from the 'source '.. Any way got rid of them which was lucky
possible wham reunion at the closing ceremony of the olympics?
To be fair to the bloke, Fuji rock for 500,000 - I've been a couple of times and it is simply awesome - vs Greenwich for 75,000 (which seems a lot for that gig).. Still he shouldnt have welched on the deal if he had already agreed Greenwich
well after hearing him perform at the jubilee concert you would have to pay me £98 to go. Voice totally gone - doesn't matter what the song is if it sounds crap.
Don't sell them for 100 times what you paid Dave. The man is nothing short of a living legend. And he's still got it at the age of 70. As they said in The Times, he simply has the best back catalogue in the world.
As much as I love McCartney and the band he was in, IMO The Stones have the better songs and superior back catalogue. Wish I had known he was at the Albert Hall would have got tickets.
Oh Christ, no Greenie, I'm not having that ;-) Speaking as someone who love both bands. Certainly they had a winning run of singles that gave the Beatles a run for their money but throughout the 60's they struggled like every other band to match the quality of the Beatles albums. The first 3 Stones albums were basically blues covers and Chuck Berry rip-offs. To try and keep up with the Beatles they were forced to write the own album they came up with Aftermath; which is a great album, but kinda primitive when you remember it was released the same year as Revolver Next up was Between the Buttons which was pretty ordinary and then the laughable attempt to ape Sgt Pepper with Satanic Majesties (although there are some good songs there). It was only as the Beatles began to disintegrate that the Stones came into their own by playing to their strengths (and limitations) from the excellent Beggars Banquet through to Exile. I'd argue they haven't made a record anywhere nears as goods since - but then again neither has Macca, or any of the other 60's icons (cept maybe Dylan in the mid 70's)
Don't sell them for 100 times what you paid Dave. The man is nothing short of a living legend. And he's still got it at the age of 70. As they said in The Times, he simply has the best back catalogue in the world.
As much as I love McCartney and the band he was in, IMO The Stones have the better songs and superior back catalogue. Wish I had known he was at the Albert Hall would have got tickets.
Oh Christ, no Greenie, I'm not having that ;-) Speaking as someone who love both bands. Certainly they had a winning run of singles that gave the Beatles a run for their money but throughout the 60's they struggled like every other band to match the quality of the Beatles albums. The first 3 Stones albums were basically blues covers and Chuck Berry rip-offs. To try and keep up with the Beatles they were forced to write the own album they came up with Aftermath; which is a great album, but kinda primitive when you remember it was released the same year as Revolver Next up was Between the Buttons which was pretty ordinary and then the laughable attempt to ape Sgt Pepper with Satanic Majesties (although there are some good songs there). It was only as the Beatles began to disintegrate that the Stones came into their own by playing to their strengths (and limitations) from the excellent Beggars Banquet through to Exile. I'd argue they haven't made a record anywhere nears as goods since - but then again neither has Macca, or any of the other 60's icons (cept maybe Dylan in the mid 70's)
So you disagree, thats fine I still stand by my original comment. FYI I love the Beatles esp Lennon. But Keef and the Stones edge it for me. I guess its like asking someone if they prefer gold or diamonds!
Comments
I was looking at these tickets earlier and for the Roger Daltrey/Kelly Jones gig the night before the gallery standing tickets were £25 and had all gone. I managed to get a restrictred view one up in the gods for around £30. The Macca gig had all sold out according to ticketmaster & the albert hall, although there was a couple going from an agency at £95+10% booking fee (total £109.50) and they were for the stalls.
possible wham reunion at the closing ceremony of the olympics?
Still he shouldnt have welched on the deal if he had already agreed Greenwich
Voice totally gone - doesn't matter what the song is if it sounds crap.
Certainly they had a winning run of singles that gave the Beatles a run for their money but throughout the 60's they struggled like every other band to match the quality of the Beatles albums.
The first 3 Stones albums were basically blues covers and Chuck Berry rip-offs.
To try and keep up with the Beatles they were forced to write the own album they came up with Aftermath; which is a great album, but kinda primitive when you remember it was released the same year as Revolver
Next up was Between the Buttons which was pretty ordinary and then the laughable attempt to ape Sgt Pepper with Satanic Majesties (although there are some good songs there).
It was only as the Beatles began to disintegrate that the Stones came into their own by playing to their strengths (and limitations) from the excellent Beggars Banquet through to Exile.
I'd argue they haven't made a record anywhere nears as goods since - but then again neither has Macca, or any of the other 60's icons (cept maybe Dylan in the mid 70's)