Is the Stone Roses debut really as good as is claimed?

I do like 'I wanna be adored' and 'I am the resurrection' but I wouldn't mind if the rest of the record had never existed.

The last time I played it (probably about a year ago) it did strike me as pretty patchy. I think Pills Thrills and Bellyaches has aged much better.

So I guess what I'm asking our British constituency is, why? Not asking if you PERSONALLY feel this way, but rather if there is some reasonable explanation for it, something surrounding them at the time, a la Oasis's boasting, the Manics' early press rush, the Spice Girls...well, tits, I guess. But SOMETHING that would explain why the debut album was treated and anticipated as a monumental release. I'm just curious because I've never seen an explanation and god forbid you ask a fan of the band (particularly Squire's fans) to explain it, because you'll never get beyond, "They rock! They're the best! Woo!"

Oh, and John Squire is the most absolute dud that ever existed in rock music.

I think a lot of the guitar playing on that record is quite inspired. Squire took your average chords and spiced them up a good deal with cool overdubs and interesting sounds. The John Leckie production is probablly the thing that doesn't age well for a lot of people. Its pretty "soft" and compressed. Subdued, I would say. Its immediately dating when you listen to it now. But the songwriting is nice and simple and catchy. Not every tune is amazing, but every one has some seriously redeeming qualities. Probablly the best overall quality of the album is that its well bookended. The best songs are in the beginning and at the end. The middle is a bit of fluff, but by the time "Resurrection" and "Fools GOld" play out, you've forgotten about the bathroom break that you took in the middle.

Either way, its definitely in my top 100. Probablly top 10.

And his hair!

I love the album because I saw it as real "Fuck you lot - I'm making a classic album" to the naval-gazing, mutually masturbating British indie scene of the time. God that swagger seemed attractive once.

DG - at the time the NME famously gave it a puzzled 7/10, mentioning that there were all these people in Manchester calling it the best album ever made. It took a while to take off and then 'Fools Gold' came out and everything went mad. It really did seem a word-of-mouth thing at first.

ha ha, the editorial policy with the NME for new, unknown records on indie labels is that unless a big gun is on to a record (Live Editor, Features Editor) or more than 8-10 journos vocally love it, whoever is reviewing the record is not allowedto give it more than 7/10, no matter whether they think it's the best album of all time. True!

Anyway, on to the album. I love it, despite the less-than-great production. The tension between the great melodies and the swaggering thuggish undercurrent of the lyrics is one of the great attractions for me. Great guitar playing - rhythmic, fluid and imaginative.

I agree that "Fools Gold" isn't much good, it sounds like a rehearsal- room idea slammed down on tape and released as is. As an indicator of Stone Roses' worth it's a red herring.

"Second Coming" works for me - the thunderous production does amazing things for the guitar and drums. The songs aren't as good though.

2. Naturally, I like weedy Byrds cover bands better than baggy shambling funky ones. That famous TotP was, from my POV, one of those awful musical experiences you never forget.

3. I never even heard this record till 1995; having nearly bought it, but not bought it, in spring 1989. Maybe many things would have been different for me if I'd bought it then.

4. I find it peculiarly enjoyable: just very easy to listen to, very unproblematic, one good pop track after another.

5. On the other hand, it was and is overrated - that much seems clear. When did it *start* to get overrated? That's a hard one to answer. Certainly it had this position by the mid-90s. But come to think of it, the overrating was clearly in place by the time of that woeful totp performance.

Anyway, Ally I just don't see how you could call Squire's playing on that album unoriginal or wanky or whatever. THe second album yes, is VERY wanky, but being a guitar player and listening to the first album, it seems obvious that Squire is a guy of average skill constructing sounds in a very original manner. I don't know what has happened to him since though. Mostly suck central. Maybe if I had heard the second SR record or the Seahorses first, I would feel differently about the first SR record, but at the time it came out, nobody played like the way that first album sounded.

I don't think they just repeated what people did before them. I agree with Dr. C here: "The tension between the great melodies and the swaggering thuggish undercurrent of the lyrics is one of the great attractions for me." Comparing the first album to the songs that came out on the singles is interesting cos then the awed, almost reverential, out-of-nowhere feeling on the album is evident. (Sorry I'm so bad at expressing what I mean.) The songs on the singles are brash and in love with life.

Finally, I think John Squire is inspiring. I read in an interview how he got off drugs. He decided to go cycling in the evenings instead and just worked at it. And the way he described it was so matter-of-fact. I like his hair, too.

There's a separate page that's the supposed core one:

http://welcome.to/onelovestory

...but that seems out of commission. So try this:

http://www .adamg.demon.co.uk/roses/onelovestory.html

I am not responsible for anyone dying from laughter from all this. He's all over the newly available Usenet archives at Google if you really want to look, and boy, do I have stories. As Ally had Ron Traino, I had Burnweed. Great.

His home page.

His Spice Girls page.

Spot the connections if you can.

Patrick: I'll give you the scoop. Ron Traino is an internet nutter of the first degree, who is obsessed with the Spice Girls. He also became rather bizzarely obsessed with me, first becoming convinced I WAS Geri Spice, and then deciding he hated me because I was NOT Geri Spice, despite me never actually claiming to BE Geri Spice. He has sent me loads of pornographic emails, and creepy stuff detailing weird death fantasies he's had about each Spice Girl - which "tormented" him because he really LOVED the Spice Girls and didn't want to kill them. Riiiiight. I was on a crappy college mail server at the time and I couldn't block him because it had no block, so I was at the mercy of him.

He is also a rather obsessive Catholic, who believes any non- Catholic, meaning someone who doesn't follow his specific rules, is going to hell. And he is like 35 or 40 and lives in his parent's basement. Which is odd. In case you didn't know.

But back to the Stone Roses! That story is FUCKED UP, I remember that shit. The person used to post it to the Oasis newsgroup and the Manics newsgroup ALL THE TIME.

I think the utterly snoozeworthy middle section completely knocks this album out of contention for classic status. I really like it up through "Don't Stop", then I skip ahead to "I Am The Resurrection".

One thing about "Fool's Gold" that I think is cool is how it's based on a 10-beat drum loop. You get these weird phase shifts in where the strong beats of the loop fall because the song itself is in strict 4/4 over it. Lovely stuff, IMO.

And if I haven't mentioned it, the Seahorses were stank.

Anyhow, here's a question: the topic of the Seahorses tainting Squires legacy has come up a few times, but what of those of us who thought he was crap before the Seahorses?

A: Heard "Second Coming" first.

B: Heard "The Stone Roses" first in about 1995. By that time, the onslaught of Squire imitators (read: Oasis and their ilk) was so deafening that even the "real thing" might not be discernable from the din. By that time, even I had tuned out my ears to it.

But anyway, Stone Roses first album. I remember hearing it for the first time, soon after it came out, when my music scene was drowning in a sea of goth-industrio-techno-bollocks and it really did just shock and amaze me. How could something so simple be so amazing, and something to retro be so fresh?

Melodically and harmonically, it's beautiful, the guitarwork is perfectly balanced between naive psychedelic haze and blazing technique (clearly, Squire went well off the wrong end of that balance later) but it is simply the amazing BASS on that album that renders it forever a total CLASSIC.

The cult of the Stone Roses, Madchester, the next album and the collection awfulness of the solo output, the whole Manchester Oasis Britshit that followed... none of this can taint the fresh, startling effect that hearing that album for the first time had on me. Och, you just had to be there. Reading about it must be like seeing a butterfly preserved in a formaldehyde jar and wondering what the hype was about.

I'll agree on the bass, by the way. But surely the way the bass sounds is tantamount to the album being seen in some quarters as 'goth bollocks,' including the members themselves. ;-)

I mean, I can sit here and assume all people who are propping John Squire are idiots who are unfamiliar with X, Y, and Z but it wouldn't necessarily be true, and I doubt you'd like it if I said it.

C: Your ears are "made of stone". (Hahahahahaa.... sorry, I couldn't resist! ;)

I love the way the record has started appearing in lists of the top ten albums of all time; it's like a victory for my generation over the boomers.

I picked this up today, finally replacing the cassette I bought back in '89 as a callow youth. I just had a listen on some headphones while watching the football, and it does sound utterly gorgeous. It sounds amazing actually. Especially the second side (as was) which is just ice cold solid gold from end to end.

So many great memories tied up with this album, but it sounds so fresh here as well.

Twenty years. Where did all the time go?

Unfortunately we have another month wait for this here in the States, not even up on the U.S. iTunes yet. But all the good word on this thread leaves me anxious.

saw the box at work this week as an import - it's freaking HUGE but completely drool-worthy. $190 price tag will ensure i wait for the domestic, which is supposedly $130. a bit less unreasonable!

So, is the sound *that* much better?

I'd say so, yes.

It's not going to compare with the Beatles remasters when they come out, because the original CDs were horrific and the remasters will have had a lot of money spent on them, and also the Stone Roses debut wasn't, I suspect, all that well recorded in the first place. But I've enjoyed it more than I have in years.

See, I was awaiting the issue of this LP after seeing the Stone Roses on Tony Wilson's "Other side of midnight", even taping it and showing our drummer "This! This is the future" (he didn't see it himself, so once again we were six months behind as opposed to a year ahead la di dah etc)..

.. and wanted "Waterfall" to be a single. Which it was, eventually, as a remixed/retooled edition.

Which I quite liked. Maybe even preferred in isolation, to the LP version (but not in the context of the LP if you get me..)

If the whole LP was remixed/etc like those singles were, that'd be good interesting also. But that's not happened, right?

Nope; it's literally just remastering; a little bit more volume, a little bit more bass, a little bit more detail, a little bit more (obvious) use of space.

.. which is probably better, for an album.

Oh without a shadow of a doubt. Just buy it, dude; however, I'd recommend just going for the basic 1-disc version; the 3-disc adds the live at Blackpool DVD which is readily available elsewhere for pennies, and a CD of demos which are shite. The uber-box has all the b-sides and non-album singles, but it's £100; if you're desperate for the b-sides you can buy individual tracks off iTunes, and I'd hope that they'd get a 1-disc release of their at some stage too (a remastered Turns Into Stone perhaps).

Wait, so did they leave in the vinyl-scratch *glitch* on the fadeout of "Elizabeth My Dear?"

The 3 disc version is £27 in HMV, I mean, eh?

And I do wonder if the big box will turn up in Fopp in 6 months...

Wait, so did they leave in the vinyl-scratch *glitch* on the fadeout of "Elizabeth My Dear?"

That's meant to be a gunshot, though it's always sounded a bit shit. I'm guessing they didn't replace it with an Uzi or something for the remaster? Shame.

The glitch is still there, yes, and definitely is NOT a gunshot; does sound like a vinyil glitch, aye.

A silenced gunshot, indicating the work of a stealthy assassin? I'd assumed it was a flaw on the tape of my cassette, until I bought the CD.

There was a video of them live in '89 on one of the satellite music channels over the weekend, jesus they were fucking shite live weren't they?

The 40 track legacy edition can be downloaded from 7Digital for £7.99 at the moment, if that's of interest to anyone?

http://www.7digital.com/artists/the-stone-roses/the-stone-roses-20th-anniversary-legacy-edition-2

Wow - ILX opinion has turned around on this one, huh?

Oddly, the Legacy edition is £10.99

Buy two copies for £4.99 total!

how?

I actually thought the demos were great in most cases. lots of extended jams ("One Love" is a highlight), and in particular "Shoot You Down" sounded pretty spectacular. i loved 'em, ymmv.

live it seems Ian's inability to stay on pitch is the cause of their live=shite problems...

Having downloaded all the b-sides and AAs, I'm actually tempted to get the stupoid box just because I love these tunes so much; more so than the debut album. Simone and Guernica sound so good.

They make me go all Bimble. I'm sad he missed this.

bump becasue Pitchfork gave this a 10.0 today

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13449-the-stone-roses/

I like the "Best New Music" tag

Is this a remastered version of sorts or just a regular reissue?

Wait, I just read and apparently it's remastered. Anyone heard it?

Scroll up this very thread just a little.

Excellent review.

Wait, so did they leave in the vinyl-scratch *glitch* on the fadeout of "Elizabeth My Dear?"

Always thought that was meant to sound like an archer loosing an arrow. Intentional sound effect.

I thought it sounded like a silenced pistol.

I think they probably left it in because everyone expects to hear it.

I thought it sounded like a silenced pistol.

that's what it's supposed to be. it's a sound effect.

I had a tape of this when I was younger and I remember it sounded like cheesed-out 90s dance beats with guitar pop music over it. But now I tolerate cheesed-out 90s dance beats way more, so maybe I would like it. But my mom maybe threw away my tapes?

i really wanted to buy this so i ordered it through the mail, usually buy all my stuff at Amoeba Hollywood. anyways, i thought the second CD was the B-Sides CD but instead it's The Lost Demos CD. all i really wanted was the remastered B-Sides collection on CD without buying the super deluxe version. so i'm really sad tonight...

I think it's as good as most people say it is. I love the album, would call it a classic, but it certainly isn't in my top 20 albums of all time. There are some weak songs on it, but the first three, I Am the Resurrection, Made of Stone, etc. make up for them.

BeeOK, the 'big box' is available for cheap at the download shop.

It's minus the extra 'backwards' tracks, but that is all.

Or try Spotify even. (i.e. it's definitely there)

You can just buy the remastered b-sides individual from the iTunes store; that's what I did. Hopefully one day they'll see sense and release them as a CD on their own.

well ok the remaster is actually a *~~~revelation~~* to my ears

I recently heard Steve Miller's "Space Cowboy" and realized that it's 100% responsible for the Stone Roses' schtick.

― Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:59 AM (3 years ago)

Tried listening to this album today and had to bail out yet again. Three years later, I still stand by the above statement.

The only exception I'll make is for Mani's freakout in the extended version of "Fool's Gold"

it was 2000, and much as i hate slipknot et al, they were a fuckload more interesting than stereophonics or travis.

Then again, music isn't about being "interesting", it's about being nice. And Travis were a lot nicer than Slipknot.
― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:54 PM (nine years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Still the greatest post of all time.

It's up there.

I'm still not convinced that Geir isn't simply an artificial intelligence program with many bugs that were never worked out.

On the contrary, I think they achieved near perfection with Geir.

I take it the first line was someone else

Yes.

say what you want about tenets of geirbotism, at least it's an ethos

music is about being nice