Posts by Jack Morgan2

Just picked up my day pass yesterday. Airbourne, I’m coming for you! Now I'm just sitting here hoping they drop the set times soon.

restlesslynx3 said:You can only pick up physical tickets at the New York Times Center

PHYSICAL TICKET SALES AT NEW YORK TIMES CENTERS:

Festival pass: $133
Daily pass: $83 (this price is valid through June 17th. Tickets are available via Ticketmaster or at New York Times Centers in Washington, D.C. From June 17th until the end of the festival, daily passes will be available for $97)

Let’s just say this is actually a pretty cheap daily ticket; if my memory serves me right, last year the daily rate was $117.
And you could only buy those on the actual day of the festival.

Thanks for the info. It feels a little ridiculous that you can only grab a ticket at the New York Times Centers in D.C.

Where can I grab tickets? Are they available at a local AAA office or something?

granitebison262 said:Right, fair enough. It looks like Darkwood gave you a solid answer, which is pretty much the benchmark there. Speaking from my own experience over the last 13 Lollapalooza festivals, there were only a couple of outliers when it comes to headliners—like how The White Stripes played for about 65 minutes, or Guns N' Roses went for 3 hours and 10 minutes... but generally, the big heavy hitters I've seen always land somewhere around the 90-minute mark.

I heard GNR absolutely killed it at Lollapalooza. And back in LA last year, they played for over three hours. You really have to hand it to Axl; those songs aren't exactly easy to belt out, especially given his specific vocal style, and doing that night after night when he’s definitely not exactly in his prime anymore? Impressive.

granitebison262 said:"Do the big headliners actually play their full sets?"

- Man, seriously, are you even following the festival scene at all?

Look, man, I’m not really a festival person. Honestly, I wouldn't even be hitting this one if Airbourne wasn't on the lineup. Plus, three days after this, I'm heading out to catch McCartney in Chicago.

restlesslynx3 said:Exactly.
Those smaller bands usually only get about 30 to 60 minutes on stage.
The main act kicks off somewhere around 1:30 or 2:00 AM.

Check out setlist.fm if you haven't already. It's basically the holy grail for anyone who obsesses over concert history. If you want to track exactly what songs were played at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival last year, or see if a certain band actually covered that one deep cut during their tour stop in Washington, D.C., this is where you go. It’s a massive crowdsourced database, which is great, though sometimes you have to squint to figure out if the data is legit. Still, it's an essential tool for any music nerd.

Just type in the name of the band you're looking for, and you can pretty much get a solid idea of what they’ll be playing at Coachella. Just look at their last few shows, you know? It gives you a decent heads-up on the setlist. 🙂

Thanks. I’m already on setlist.fm—that’s my go-to whenever I need to check out what an artist is actually playing before I head out. Honestly, I’m just looking at the first day of Lollapalooza right now, specifically Airbourne. They aren't exactly superstars, but they aren't some tiny indie act either, so I'm curious to see what kind of energy they bring to their opening set. How many stages are they running at the festival this year? I really hope they don't cut anything short and actually play through their full setlist.

restlesslynx3 said:They usually drop the lineup schedule about 7 to 10 days before the festival kicks off.

I guess they forgot to include 🙂
For instance, you've got heavy hitters like Editors and Basement Jaxx on the roster.

So does that mean we'll know the exact timing for every single act—like when they start and when they wrap up? How long do they typically play? And do the big headliners actually play their full sets?

Walter Cox6 said:People might want to come for me, but I honestly think Paul McCartney is the superior one. Especially when you look at his work after the Beatles split up.
But he’s definitely up there among the absolute greats.

About ten years ago, the Beatles were my go-to band (they're still in my top five today) and John Lennon was my favorite artist, hands down. But lately, even I've come around to thinking Macca's solo stuff is better than Lennon's. His quality was much more consistent, especially throughout the 70s.

I realized yesterday that it’s been 32 years since he was taken from us. Honestly, if it wasn't for him and The Beatles, my entire musical taste would probably look completely different today. For me, everything really kicked off back in '95 when I first started diving deep into The Beatles.

In my book, they aren't even in the same league as Deep Purple or Rainbow! They’ve got a handful of decent tracks, but that’s about where it ends. It feels like every other song has "love" slapped in the title, and the lyrics? Pure cliché. Don't get me wrong, they definitely had some incredible musicians passing through the lineup—they really did—but if you're asking me who my favorite member of Whitesnake ever was, it's gotta be Cozy Powell.

Honestly, I don't think the new album is anything to write home about.

silvernomad3 said:I honestly can't believe this thread was resurrected from the dead! 😲

Europe is such a fantastic band made up of incredibly talented musicians. They always were—even back in their hair metal days, you can't deny they often outshone those typical glam hits with stuff that was way more melodic and powerful. The fact that they drifted into "softer" territory with TFC can be blamed partly on their former manager’s opportunistic ambitions and their own naivety—I mean, come on, they were only in their early twenties.

And this new era from 2004 onwards is just too good; it completely solidifies them as a serious, high-quality band, even if hardly anyone in the States seems to recognize that. For anyone still doubting them, please, just listen to 2009 Last look AT Eden before you start spitting on something you clearly know nothing about (and there are 🙂 people like that everywhere). What they're doing now is pure hard rock, occasionally blending in some blues elements and that classic 70s rock vibe... They're essentially picking up right where they left off with that second album from 1984.

Yeah, I would drop everything to catch one of their shows if they ever toured through Washington, D.C. Though, unfortunately, that's pretty unlikely, and maybe it's for the best—what would it even look like if they played to a crowd of only 500 people?! 😢

They have a new album ("Bag of Bones") coming out late April or early May this year... And I would seriously love to go to a concert if they play anywhere nearby (like Vienna or something) 🙂

Count me in, let's go together🙂

I actually found myself pretty pleasantly surprised when I sat down to dive into their full discography. Honestly, Joey Tempest is easily the best vocalist to ever come out of that whole glam metal era, and "In the Future to Come" is hands down their best track. If I had to guess, I’d say we can expect a new album from them sometime later this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOecBHVhLg

In my book, Dio was the greatest replacement for an original frontman we've ever seen—he and Ian Gillan both stepped up perfectly when they took over for legends like Rod Evans. While I still think Paranoid is the absolute peak of Black Sabbath, Heaven and Hell is right up there with it. Honestly, I’ve never really been into Ozzy Osbourne's solo stuff; he just sounded so much better when the band was absolutely tearing it up with him.

Not many people can brag about having recorded absolute classics with three different legendary bands.

rising (Rainbow)
Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath)
Holy Diver (Dio)

In my book, he’s easily the greatest singer out there, right after Freddie Mercury.

Rory Gallagher's entire discography is seriously underrated. His albums are absolute perfection. The guy hated singles and refused to release them, but man, those songs were pure genius. Half of them could have been massive hits, but he stuck to his guns, and honestly, that just gives him more street cred in my eyes. To me, he’s a god. You know how much hype Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton get? Well, Rory deserves even more than that!

I’d argue that Queen actually carries more weight today than they did twenty years ago. In fact, they might be more influential on the musical landscape in general than bands like Black Sabbath or Deep Purple, who really focused their impact specifically on hard rock and metal. It feels like every time I turn around, someone pops up claiming Freddie and Queen were their biggest inspiration. I won't get too bogged down listing all the 80s acts they shaped—think Metallica, Def Leppard, Extreme, Guns N' Roses, and so on—because there's a massive wave of newer artists from the 90s through today who owe them a debt. We're talking everything from rock heavyweights like Muse and Foo Fighters to artists you wouldn't immediately link back to Queen, such as Lady Gaga, Mika, Scissor Sisters, Keane, or My Chemical Romance... they even left a mark on Green Day, despite them being categorized as punk or pop-punk.

The Beatles, the Stones, Pink Floyd, Dylan, Elvis—and let’s not forget how much Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, and Elvis himself shaped those 60s icons—they all seem to have this universal, untouchable influence. Then you look at the 70s, where you see bands heavily inspired by that 60s era, which in turn paved the way for the evolution of hard rock and metal through acts like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Queen, Uriah Heep, and Lynyrd Skynyrd...