The Stone Roses - Classic or Dud? And also, Search and Destroy?

SEARCH: the first album DESTROY: the cover art of THE SECOND COMING.

SEARCH for Squire's backwards guitar opus "Simone", DESTROY , well, not much. I sort of like it all regardless of how unpopular that idea might be.

DESTROY - John Squires hair, Ian Brown's voice, all their fans, the first 'critically acclaimed' album which is nothing more or less than a collection of pleasant sixties-inflected jangly guitar songs with a funk wigout at the end and a shit singer, anyone who seriously thinks Ian Brown is the second coming of the Messiah, Mersey Paradise, Ian Brown's solo career, The Seahorses, Reni hats, flares, Cressa, that ridiculous 'monkey-man- dance, lemons, Cackson Bollocks, The Second Coming (especially Ten Storey Love Song), playing songs backwards, spurious reinventions of the phrase 'Northern soul', Aziz Ibrahim, the opening of So Young and most importantly Your Star Will Shine, the worst song ever recorded.

P Scream's Velocity Girl + C Twins' Orange Appled x The Byrds.

Squared by the Smiths :)

The remainder is still utterly wonderful and unique.

Destroy: Full Fathom Five amd any one who reckons the Roses are not where it's at.

The truth is guys, The Roses rock. Today's bands are still trying to come to terms with the songcraftery of the first album, 'Fools Gold' opened up the 90's and Second Coming, well, OK they are clearly coked out of their minds (the sheer indulgence could only come from a coke habit, for Chrissakes you can hear it in Brown's throat "sheeee's my sisterrr") but it's one of those albums you can just fucking dig right into late at night, for all its flaws.

So what that Brown could never sing live for shit and none of the band have since lived up to the Roses' status. That kind of brilliance is impossible to sustain. I don't think you could reasonably suggest that the Roses are anything less than classic. You can say you don't like that stuff, but it ain't the same thing - that's more to do with your own deficiencies. They WERE classic. End of story.

Do you wanna bet on that!

I suppose if that easy to destroy indie then good riddance.

And as for Garage Rock, as practiced by the Stripes, and in the UK the Black Madonnas et al, it didn't come about cos of the Roses. If Brownie and the boys are responsible for anything it's Oasis, who don't even come close (and I think a fair portion of the blame for the Brothers Gallagher can be laid at the feet of the Mondays).

Why do you think people went out to buy the Roses albums? Because they contain fine, beautiful songs perhaps?

The claim that indie died might hold some weight, (although with Garage Rock kicking off on both side of the Atlantic I think you might be talking utter shite) but if it did die, it's ignorance on the part of the music buying public which killed it, not the fucking bands themselves.

because they are fucking idiots.

''Because they contain fine, beautiful songs perhaps?''

overproduced, comedy tunes nonsense say I.

''And as for Garage Rock, as practiced by the Stripes, and in the UK the Black Madonnas et al, it didn't come about cos of the Roses. If Brownie and the boys are responsible for anything it's Oasis, who don't even come close (and I think a fair portion of the blame for the Brothers Gallagher can be laid at the feet of the Mondays).''

the roses were responsible for the beginning of the commercialization of indie. you can trace that to this first album (though if it wasn't them it would've been someone else for sure).

''The bands you mention do rock but unless you are keen on a wee bit of narcotic indulgence, you're not gonna dig shit like the Spacemen, right? It's aimed at too narrow an audience.''

what's all this aiming at an audience. You sound like a bloody marketing executive from a rec company!

The 'commercialisation' of indie? People were dead excited when the Smiths went Top 10 and were on Top Of The Pops, I suspect. Part of what 'killed indie' in the UK was the collapse of the compromised dictionary-definition of indie i.e. independently distributed under the weight of tiny dance labels and PWL.

Yeah! Good point!

Anyway, that's all besides the main point which is: The Roses didn't kill anything - they opened things up. They crossed genres and united rockers and ravers - they were the second summer of love.

And as m'learned friend above points out, indie as a scene anyway is defined by the marketing and distribution of independent labels, which were swallowed up and assimilated by the mainstream for various differing reasons. But I don't understand how you could blame the Roses in any way for the development of that process.

but unless you are keen on a wee bit of narcotic indulgence, you're not gonna dig shit like the Spacemen

(Spacemen 3)have made music influenced by and complimentary to the imbuement of narcotics.

Anything is good when you're off your face on drugs, therefore to say something is only good when you're off your face on drugs is totally stupid. I'm sure if we do a rollcall we can find fucking loads of Spacemen 3 fans who've never touched narcotics in their life.

I'm thinking of how much I used to listen to Spacemen 3 and Spiritualized at 16/17 and boy did I do loads of drugs then? Eh no wait I did none.

If your point is the first thing you said which I quoted in italics there, then I'd like to see you try and defend it.

If your point is the second thing I quoted, then say so in the first place.

sorry mark i can't stop, you'll have to beat me a few times then I just might stop.

''You sound like a child. Fucking hell kid, when I say aimed at too narrow audience, d'you think Pierce would argue that, actually, Spacemen, was aimed at the kickers and chequered shirt brigade who frequent the High Street chainstores and eat junkfood every day? You clearly are out of touch since as anyone who makes music knows, you gotta have some idea of who your audience is.''

I think most bands do but mostly they make music for themselves and whoever 'gets it' will 'get it'. they could 17 or 30 and they could be accountants, students or junkies or whatever. And that specially applies for musics that are quite hard to categorize.

''The 'commercialisation' of indie? People were dead excited when the Smiths went Top 10 and were on Top Of The Pops, I suspect. Part of what 'killed indie' in the UK was the collapse of the compromised dictionary-definition of indie i.e. independently distributed under the weight of tiny dance labels and PWL.''

agreed but part of that was bands like the roses, who made such a commercialized version of indie that it, yes, it led to oasis and coldplay and so on.

''They crossed genres and united rockers and ravers - they were the second summer of love.''

you've been reding history books. stop it!

yeah i hate his assumption that you need a certain consumption of narcotics to 'get' this.

What a lucrative market they are huh?

sorry that should read most do but the best ones...

I hear they were all fighting with chains and then I am the Resurrection came on and they put them down and started raving together to the 4 minute guitar outro.

I was trying to make the point to that other chap that Spacemen were heavily influenced by narcotics when they wrote music and as such, their prospective audience was stroke is likely to have similar interests.

I think perhaps you may be presupposing I am against such interests. Where does it say so in my ranting that this is so?

Don't be such a dufus. My references to Spacemen were used to underline my point that the music of the Roses was stroke is more open to mass consumption (though through no 'fault' of the band or sinister marketing tactic) than that of the Spacemen since the Roses' music was arguably less obviously informed by getting fucked up.

Although having said that, now that I think on it... I'm not so sure about that last bit. The Roses were crazy for it... Perhaps it is more oblique in their musical trajectory than in that of the Spacemen though. Or perhaps getting fucked up was less important to the music.

Anyway, chill mothafucka.

That's what I had the problem with, because it's just not really true and there's no sensible defence for it unless you think Spacemen 3 are shit and are being sarcy, which I doubt. I am chilled but I just think it's funny.

In future I will try to be more clear but I presumed perhaps foolishly, that it would be apparent what was being said between the lines ie: this fucking point about the Roses music being less informed and tuned to narcotic intake.

And as a footnote, there is absolutely no way Spacemen made music without narcotics. No way.

You don't know they took drugs because of how the music sounds(this is impossible), you know because it's well reported.

A command or a suggestion? ;-)

I really couldn't care whether during recording Spacemen 3 took enough mind-altering substances to choke a horse or not, the point is that I don't need them myself to enjoy the end results. That they loved their candy is pretty clear; I'm hardly beholden to follow them.

Where are all those threads about dance music and E? I'm sure Ronan weighed in on those too.

they are the late 80s version of CSNY for sure.

david- now go and put a good rec on: like big black's 'Steelworker'.

Why do cut-rate talents like Lloyd Cole try and piss on the Roses? Do they think it makes them sound edgy and revolutionary? Cos really it just makes them sound bitter and jealous...

Much later, I got it on CD and thought it fine indeed.

I could probably pull out a few tracks I still like - the 2nd album has more good stuff than the 1st, I think. I kind of like the less as the years pass though. They're another band who fucked up, and who could probably have done much better than they did, though admittedly they had some excuse in this case w/the rotten deal they got.

The drummer, by the time of the second album, was amazing. One of the few great british rock drummers of the nineties.

What I won't really get is that they're better than, say, the Boo Radleys. Better looking, better clothes / drugs etc, but song-for-song...?

Oh damn, I am listening to the 3-CD 20th Anniv Edition of the S/T and hearing "Fools Gold" and "What The World Is Waiting For" and "One Love" all back to back made me realize they had more "Fools Gold"ish non-janglepop str8 funk dub jams than I realized

I kind of always thought of "Fools Gold" was just their "Soon" or something, like obv they've always been dance-ISH but "Fools Gold" is like CAPITAL-D DANCE and I never realized they devoted so many tracks to this sound (which is more or less absent from their albums w/ the exception of maybe "Begging You" and "Breaking Into Heaven"

and this too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxWohpJfCUw

Oh yes that came on after "One Lofe" and I meant to include that too!

"One Lofe"

standard bread order in manchester tbf

that makes sense because loaf is pronounced lofe in manchester

we don't need another louf

okay everyone always says "Second Coming" is v Zeppelin (who I never rly did get well acquainted with) and that aligns w/ the idea I have of Led Zeppelin w/ the songs that I've heard, but I mean did Led Zep really make songs w/ grooves as tight as "Breaking Into Heaven" or "Love Spreads" or "Driving South" and if so what are they???

Trampled underfoot
Out on the tiles

When the levee breaks obvy

hmm yeah musically this is p similar but I think I'm drawn to the production of "Second Coming" I guess bcz I'm not rly feeling the same response

I once read that Squire's axe heroics on SC were like him taking the Jimmy Page Riff-O-Matic out for a spin.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Several shops around the Northern Quarter filled their windows with the posters - and one shop keeper told us that he was asked to put them up on Monday morning but had been "sworn to secrecy about an announcement due in the next 24 hours".

What are The Stone Roses going to announce?

At 7pm today The Stone Roses are set to make an announcement.

It's 6:44pm now (UK time) and I've just seen this news. New LP perhaps, or more shows?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

preemptively: fuck off, The Stone Roses

it's only been 26 years since their last decent album so im on tenterhooks over here.

Lock the Best Comebacks thread and throw it away! History just rode into town

...aaaand, it seems to be an announcement for two gigs at Manchester Etihad Stadium next year, and a slot at T In The Park.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

Hehehehehe... so many people pissed off and ranting on their Facebook page that it's not a new LP.

why would they bother with a new album, they'll make more money just doing shows

Really amazing how this band stays in the news year after year without actually doing anything.

Yeah, I completely agree... this band seem to have "not actually doing much" down to a fine art, and to be quite honest it was a bit like this when they were in existence the first time around, so they've hardly fucked with the formula. Of course, there's many that would say that The Stone Roses "not actually doing much" is a good thing.

I'll be honest here: I have a lot of time for the self-titled Stone Roses album, possibly even more time for the B-sides and additional singles of their 1987-1991 period, and I even enjoy quite a lot of cuts from Second Coming. When I do listen to The Stone Roses, most of the appeal for me comes from what the rhythm section is doing, particularly Reni.

HOWEVER, I will never understand why some folks rate them as highly as they do. As great as Reni's drumming can be, the self-titled Roses album is more '60s pastiche than a fusion of "indie" and dance music to my ears. Their most widely-regarded track, the so-called "baggy anthem" 'Fool's Gold', is basically nothing more than a funk lick grafted onto a well-worn drum loop and to be quite honest, I find it to be one of their more overrated songs. Also, as pleasant as their 1987-1991 stuff is, there's nothing there that's particularly out of the ordinary, and some great performances by the rhythm section aside, it sounds even more and more ordinary with each passing year.

The hardcore Roses fanbase, too, particularly post-Oasis, seems to be made up of a large percentage of laddish tosspots.

Or, to slightly quote Neil Tennant, they've made such a little go a very long way.

meanwhile in America, practically no one I know has ever heard of them. Sounds like a lot of Brits would enjoy that circumstance...

Basically, they have a very, very, very over-inflated reputation here that doesn't correspond with what they've actually done, and that's something I guess that rankles people a lot, especially at this stage.

Always surprised that "Fools Gold" doesn't get a pass from haters, it's the best baggy song by a zillion miles, funky, minimal, deee-lite covering can

I really think the first album is pretty much flawless, in terms of guitar pop. If they hadn't released Second Coming, their mystique would be a little more understandable

have always liked "i wanna be adored" but it's nothiing that the bunnymen hadn't already done five years earlier. rest of the first album makes a good case for them being the missing link between the wonder stuff and dodgy

And now, the live TV broadcast you've all been waiting for. The Stone Roses!

...at Reading '96.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7IE3yhhR0xpXt_iP4NIt9nRkosjGswde

I didn’t really “get” the Sex Pistols influence with this band until I heard garage flowers

The worst concert ever on that stage.

Meanwhile, the best concert ever, on the other stage, at the exact same time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jst8yoqPTmo

that sounds like me singing along to that song in the car