Stone Roses fans

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
what is it about this lot. their dogged loyalty and absolute refusal to believe that the roses were not the single most important band of the last 15 years is extremely annoying. also in my many encounters with them they seem particulary poor at fighting their corner, depending mainly on the weight of sheer enthusiasm, and the old saying "you had to be there". any advice on how to put em in their place would be much appreciated. and what other bands have you found to have particularly irritating fans.

lucy, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Well the problem is that there aren't really watertight logical arguments one way or the other so enthusiasm is always going to win. It's the music-talk dilemma: without enthusiasm music fandom is a grey and shabby thing, but the most interesting conversations tend to be between people who are vaguely sceptical.

Tom, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Mention Ian Brown's performance on Jo Whiley - that should do it. I've never been a fan - can't really see the appeal. You're not supposed to citicize Nirvana either....Elvis is another.

I hope I haven't upset anybody ;-)

Jez, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Mehhhhhh, the Stone Roses were okay. I have this feeling that it was just the right combination of time and place: it was a fairly original sound when it came out, if I'm remembering my history correctly, and turned music on its ear for those in the right frame of mind (sort of like Loveless did for others a few years later). I admit that I raved about it quite a bit at the time, but then I moved on. Possibly part of the ongoing mystique is the fact that it wasn't followed up for so long, and stood alone as some solitary statement of genius--you didn't see people getting QUITE as worked up about the Charlatans, didja?--but by that logic Second Coming should have firebombed everyone into shutting the hell up.

Sean Carruthers, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Maybe a line of argument you can follow is - "if the Stone Roses changed your life then it can't have been a very good change if you've never liked anything as much since". It's a bit pathetic to spend yr listening lifetime pining for an album that came out 13 years ago.

Tom, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Well, speaking as someone who thinks their debut album is the best thing ever in the world and was only ten when it was released... You didn't have to be there. I can vaguelly remember hearing the tunes coming from my older brother's bedroom when I was younger, and disliking them simply because my brother liked them...

It was about five years later that I got into them properly, through a couple of mates...

What is it? I've spent so many night sitting up till 3am or whatever with friends, discussing what it is about them. Firstly, I never bore of the early tunes, any of them. But I'm not a musicoligist, so I can't say why. I love the lyrics, I love the subtleties of the production, I love the rhythm section, Squire's guitar work...

But beyond that, I don't know. Maybe it's magic. I just love 'em.

Nick Southall, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

'it was a fairly original sound'

??????

dave q, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

exactly dave q...early roses always reminded me of "velocity girl" by the scream

lucy, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I don't understand the religious fervour, I mean it's a nice album and everything, that's about it...

DG, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I think the actual quality of the Roses is a bit irrelevant (probably cos we've talked about them forever) compared to the interesting qn of how do you talk to rabid fans - of anything, really?

Tom, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Admittedly I'm not rabid, I just think they were ace. I've met a couple of rabid fans. One of them was also rabid about NOFX. Scared the shit out of me. Used to wander round with a bag of Berrocca tablets pretending it was drugs rather vitamin C etcetera. Odd boy.

Nick Southall, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I think the actual quality of the Roses is a bit irrelevant (probably cos we've talked about them forever) compared to the interesting qn of how do you talk to rabid fans - of anything, really?

Well, I suspect you UK folk haven't had to deal with the rather ugly American (get it?) phenom of DEADHEADS. There's no talking to these folks about music -- I know a guy who is a fabulous guitarist, plays classical piano, and has perfect pitch (i.e. born musician) who was infected by the Deadhead virus in high school and wasted his talent first by playing endless covers of "Scarlet Begonias" and then by playing originals in the same vein. I tried to talk to him about it, but he had a rebuttal for every criticism I made, and finally ended up with "you just need to go to a show man." He made me three ninety minute cassettes to try to convert me. Cripes.

J, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

It's a bit pathetic to spend yr listening lifetime pining for an album that came out 13 years ago.

Hey, I resemble that remark. ;-) Though 11 for me, and there's plenty I lurve since then. Still, it's weird thinking that I saw the last MBV gig ever almost ten years ago.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"Love Spreads" is by miles and miles the best thing they ever did. I just wanted to say that. Probably more appropriate on the CD/SD thread but whatever. "Love Spreads" rocks.

adam, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I say "fairly original sound" with "fairly" in there because yesh, it's not really original in the grand scheme of things, but it sure didn't sound like a whole lot else that was filtering down to the mainstream at that point. I speak from the perspective of someone who heard it when still a pretty sheltered ruralite. So take that into account, I suppose.

Sean Carruthers, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"Love Spreads" does rock, yes.

Norman Phay, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

i think it is funny how the tone of the question(as well as tom's reply) made nick sheepishly apologize for loving the roses. they were a the cystallization point of a key moment in time for me and i dearly loved them as well, i don't obsess over them now but still i haven't had an impact album like that since, not because the album was earth-shakingly original or innovative but it struck all the right chords for me at the time. i don't really know any roses fans who have the first album attached to their ankle as some sort of an anchor that is holding them in place until the reunion tour comes in 10 years.

keith, Tuesday, 23 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I always sheepishly apologise for everything on here because I'm not very integillegenty.

Nick Southall, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I don't know any either keith but Lucy apparently does, so I answered her question.

Tom, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

..strange, i now several extremely rabid stone roses fans...must be the company i keep..

lucy, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

strange, another band that's huge in the u.k. that nobody even cares about in north america. my best advice to anyone annoyed by the stone roses would be to move over here to canada. their only blip on the radar over here was that song, ummm geez i don't know what was it called "she's my sister" or something. why do people even like that band anyway? they're THIS close to being pub rock.

fields of salmon, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I'm with DG on this, I never really could be bothered with the Stone Roses either - then again I saw my early mewsick teens through a Manix filtah => Stone Roses = automatically rub. But even when the filter lifted I couldn't really see all the fuss unless it is about The Community and The Vibe and baggy troosis.

Sarah, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

The other thing to add (from my experience anyway) is that most of the fanatics I've known weren't There At The Time. I blame the NME, but then I blame them for everything.

DG, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Yanks cannot get The Stone Roses. It's too precious, and thank fuck for that, they're a national treasure - leave the Americans to Fred Durst.

Calum Robert, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes yes to our eternal discredit we are incapable of comprehending the majesty of the Stone Roses' dull, dull, repetetive yet not hypnotic tunes set to phoned-in production. I am ashamed to report that the excellence of English cuisine has also eluded us, as have the subtle joys of climate for which Blighty is so well-famed.

John Darnielle, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I wasn't 'there' at the time (I was somewhere else). I had contempt for them at the time, but now I quite like them.

David, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

one month passes...
I like the Roses. I was there when it happened in more ways than the usual. They were important because they paved the way for modern rock in this country, they were a joy to us as they produced music that didn't make you want to hang yourself and pulled the whole of the british music scene out of the terrible eighties. It's hard to think of another band that has had such a profound effect on music for the better in the last fifteen years, there certainly isn't anything that has changed music in the last five. I find some of the comments here quite funny, especially the american ones. Musically america is stuck in the eighties and looks like it'll stay there for years now with rubbish rap and banal white rock (shred). Britain has had multiple new styles since the early nineties and is paticularly rich musically. We're in a terrible state at the moment because American record companies have bought our record companies and closed them and turned instead to making a quick buck rather than nurturing bands - and there are plenty of good bands about. Put roses fans in their place by mentioning the second awful album and then tell them that the Monday's second album was a masterpiece They were good though - you had to be there.

pat butcher, Saturday, 1 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I remember hearing knowing a couple American who seemed mildly interested in them, and I remember hearing something by them that I kind of like, but my recollection is very vague. I wonder if I know anyone who could loan me their first album.

Dealing with rabid fans: why do you need to talk them out of their fanaticism?

DeRayMi, Sunday, 2 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

the stone roses had fans?

(sorry)

geeta, Sunday, 2 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Search: The first album, everything from "Sally Cinnamon" to "One Love." Totally classic pop, up there with the Beatles. Well, "Fools Gold" is overrated and unnecessarily long, but still better than anything the Happy Mondays ever did.

Destroy: Ian Brown, the Seahorses, Second Coming, the really early stuff (ever hear "Tell Me" or "So Young"?), and actually Stone Roses fans in general. The liner notes to the Complete Stone Roses compilation alone are the most nauseating sycophantic nonsense written about a band ever and the whole quasi-religious aura that surrounds them is almost enough to make me hate them. But I can't argue with "Made of Stone" or "Sugar Spun Sister." If ever a band needed to spontaneously combust after its 'moment' had passed, this was the one.

Justyn Dillingham, Monday, 3 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

''I like the Roses. I was there when it happened in more ways than the usual. They were important because they paved the way for modern rock in this country, they were a joy to us as they produced music that didn't make you want to hang yourself and pulled the whole of the british music scene out of the terrible eighties.''

Sorry but this is utter crap! They had terrible riffs, a singer who couldn't fucking sing. Also, can you tell me what is 'modern rock', how different is it from old rock?

And were the 80s terrible? What about the SST label, Homestead plus at the time we had spaceman 3, MBV, SY (many other good american bands).

''It's hard to think of another band that has had such a profound effect on music for the better in the last fifteen years, there certainly isn't anything that has changed music in the last five. I find some of the comments here quite funny, especially the american ones. Musically america is stuck in the eighties and looks like it'll stay there for years now with rubbish rap and banal white rock (shred).''

They had a profound effect in this country. Just like Thatcher destrying the country, the Roses destroyed music in britain. And I'm english.

''Britain has had multiple new styles since the early nineties and is paticularly rich musically. We're in a terrible state at the moment because American record companies have bought our record companies and closed them and turned instead to making a quick buck rather than nurturing bands - and there are plenty of good bands about.''

Like what exactly? Britpop! (which is just a rehash of 60s pop, after all). You must be also thinking abt Jungle and UK Garage. Gimme a break!

Lets start by naming some bands here (which you haven't). And thanks for the report on the music industry. You don't need corporations to 'nurture' bands. Music (whatever its forms) must exist outside corporations. It must not be funded by the government or any 'industry'.

''Put roses fans in their place by mentioning the second awful album and then tell them that the Monday's second album was a masterpiece They were good though - you had to be there.''

Destroy it! Destroy it all!

Julio Desouza, Monday, 3 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

twelve years pass...

Yanks cannot get The Stone Roses. It's too precious, and thank fuck for that, they're a national treasure - leave the Americans to Fred Durst.

― Calum Robert, Saturday, 27 April 2002 01:00 (12 years ago)

the final twilight of all evaluative standpoints (nakhchivan), Thursday, 9 October 2014 19:25 (nine years ago) link

the stone roses were absolute 100% dogshit & every time a song of theirs* comes up on my shuffle i resolve to delete them from my mp3s, before forgetting to because they're so inconsequential

*beggin' you excepted

Ƹ༑Ʒ (imago), Thursday, 9 October 2014 19:27 (nine years ago) link

'Begging You' sounds like 'Slap & Tickle' by Squeeze

Mark G, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:14 (nine years ago) link

Single highest % ratio of arsehole fans for any guitar band aside from Oasis?

I say yes.

Master of Treacle, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:23 (nine years ago) link

Dunno. The Stone Roses, and Oasis as well I guess, are so mainstream that they probably have loads of perfectly decent fans. From the outside, I'd say Kasabian probably have a higher ratio, but really I bet neither of us knows enough about this culture. There will be a guitar band none of us has heard of with 100% arsehole fans. We will never know the band. We will never know the fans.

Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:11 (nine years ago) link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skrewdriver

Ƹ༑Ʒ (imago), Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:12 (nine years ago) link

Klaus Dinger's cat

Chimp Arsons, Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:46 (nine years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.