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

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