Stone Roses

[n_mcfc]

I really like the Stone Roses and would love to see them get back together.

I just think some people take music too seriously, especially on here. It's almost like there are two ends of the spectrum.

Those who love a band and big them up because they are from Manchester. I dread to think what these people would be like if some band like the Arctic Monkeys came from around here.
and,
Those who hate a band and really slate them because they are from Manchester. I dread to think what these people would be like if a band like the Beatles came from around here.

It's not just the SR, but other bands like the Courteeners, Oasis, Mondays, Joy Division etc.

It's irrelevant if they are from here, and even though there second album wasn't great, doesn't make them the Brown Nosed Gods of Mancunia. Some people just like the music.

And, no, they'll never get back together. Ever.

 

[Lucky Toma]

So one good album (in a lot of manc's opinions, not mine) makes them legends...do me a favour!
They changed the music industry? People always aspire to other people so just because bands like Oasis etc fit into a similar genre, that makes them amazing...not a chance!

It's clear that the majority agree that IB can't sing for toffee, and it's even clearer that 'The Second Coming' was dog turd...it was slated when it was released!

Added to the fact that they have a singer that can't sing, live gigs must be really good right?

Forget my love for a band that can play, sing and write good albums (Phonics)....the Stone Roses are a poor band that have legendary status because they are from Manchester and they had a couple of catchy tunes.

Your insistance on using a perfectly fine, but limited, pub-rock band as the measuring stick in which to guage the Roses is making you look a bit dim.

The Roses perfectly captured the mood of the times then became an important catalyst for cultural change. Its important to remember that they were initially considered an 'indie' band in an era dominated by the likes of Phil Collins and the Stock, Aitken and Waterman stable.
Indie music at that time was for people who looked at the floor looking glum who then went home to catalogue their record collection whilst some smug twat with hideous highlights fucked the pretty girl after dancing all night in his wank buttoned-up shirt to I Should Be So Lucky.

Suddenly along came a band who harnessed the attitude of the underground rave scene and blended a unique (at that point) cross-over of rock, funk and dance music that incorporated also elements of such past greats as The Byrds.
Their music had a looseness to it that was completely different to anything else around and came with intelligent artwork mimicking Jackson Pollock. The band influenced fashion. Even their interviews in the NME were 'events'.

They brought the underground rave scene into the mainstream charts.
They created a significant echo of the sixties hippy ethos that spread beyond the cities and into rural areas.
Tabloid newspaper had huge headlines proclaiming it to be the second summer of love. Have the Stereo fucking phonics ever impacted upon society in such a way? In fact, in any way at all?

Suddenly local clubs out in the sticks that used to be DJed by a young Smashie and Nicey wannabe who would 'spin' bland, insipid, manufactured dross now played Waterfall towards the end of the night and I (because I forgot to add that the aforementioned indie kid was me in this instance) would get the opportunity to dance and fuck the pretty girl in her new flowery dress.
Whilst the tosser with the Golf his daddy had bought him stood at the bar looking awkward and out-of-place and sipping his designer beer.

It would take an entire essay to fully explain why but you're just talking utter shite mate.

If you dont like the Roses' music fair enough. But stop showing such ignorance beyond that.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Someone said it's irrelevant where they were from?

No it wasn't....... The Stone Roses - as well as bands like Joy Division, The Smiths and The Fall are products of the city because they were simply influenced by what was going on around them - could they have written what they did coming from elsewhere?

The Roses were not only a top band but they (maybe unwittingly) helped create the whole Madchester / rave scene of the late 80's with bands like the Mondays and Carpets, to name two. When the whole music media and cultural media camped out in Manchester (until they had flogged it to death!!) and the city was the cultural capital of the country...... hundreds flocking here at weekends from all over the country for a taste of the nightlife and sounds. That has happened very few times since the days of Mersey beat and it happened in or very own city. The Roses legacy go far beyond one album and Spike Island.....

 

[mcmanus]

So one good album (in a lot of manc's opinions, not mine) makes them legends...do me a favour!
They changed the music industry? People always aspire to other people so just because bands like Oasis etc fit into a similar genre, that makes them amazing...not a chance!

It's clear that the majority agree that IB can't sing for toffee, and it's even clearer that 'The Second Coming' was dog turd...it was slated when it was released!

Added to the fact that they have a singer that can't sing, live gigs must be really good right?

Forget my love for a band that can play, sing and write good albums (Phonics)....the Stone Roses are a poor band that have legendary status because they are from Manchester and they had a couple of catchy tunes.

Your insistance on using a perfectly fine, but limited, pub-rock band as the measuring stick in which to guage the Roses is making you look a bit dim.

The Roses perfectly captured the mood of the times then became an important catalyst for cultural change. Its important to remember that they were initially considered an 'indie' band in an era dominated by the likes of Phil Collins and the Stock, Aitken and Waterman stable.
Indie music at that time was for people who looked at the floor looking glum who then went home to catalogue their record collection whilst some smug twat with hideous highlights fucked the pretty girl after dancing all night in his wank buttoned-up shirt to I Should Be So Lucky.

Suddenly along came a band who harnessed the attitude of the underground rave scene and blended a unique (at that point) cross-over of rock, funk and dance music that incorporated also elements of such past greats as The Byrds.
Their music had a looseness to it that was completely different to anything else around and came with intelligent artwork mimicking Jackson Pollock. The band influenced fashion. Even their interviews in the NME were 'events'.

They brought the underground rave scene into the mainstream charts.
They created a significant echo of the sixties hippy ethos that spread beyond the cities and into rural areas.
Tabloid newspaper had huge headlines proclaiming it to be the second summer of love. Have the Stereo fucking phonics ever impacted upon society in such a way? In fact, in any way at all?

Suddenly local clubs out in the sticks that used to be DJed by a young Smashie and Nicey wannabe who would 'spin' bland, insipid, manufactured dross now played Waterfall towards the end of the night and I (because I forgot to add that the aforementioned indie kid was me in this instance) would get the opportunity to dance and fuck the pretty girl in her new flowery dress.
Whilst the tosser with the Golf his daddy had bought him stood at the bar looking awkward and out-of-place and sipping his designer beer.

It would take an entire essay to fully explain why but you're just talking utter shite mate.

If you dont like the Roses' music fair enough. But stop showing such ignorance beyond that.

Spot-fucking-on

 

[AlexWilliamsGloves]

Your insistance on using a perfectly fine, but limited, pub-rock band as the measuring stick in which to guage the Roses is making you look a bit dim.

The Roses perfectly captured the mood of the times then became an important catalyst for cultural change. Its important to remember that they were initially considered an 'indie' band in an era dominated by the likes of Phil Collins and the Stock, Aitken and Waterman stable.
Indie music at that time was for people who looked at the floor looking glum who then went home to catalogue their record collection whilst some smug twat with hideous highlights fucked the pretty girl after dancing all night in his wank buttoned-up shirt to I Should Be So Lucky.

Suddenly along came a band who harnessed the attitude of the underground rave scene and blended a unique (at that point) cross-over of rock, funk and dance music that incorporated also elements of such past greats as The Byrds.
Their music had a looseness to it that was completely different to anything else around and came with intelligent artwork mimicking Jackson Pollock. The band influenced fashion. Even their interviews in the NME were 'events'.

They brought the underground rave scene into the mainstream charts.
They created a significant echo of the sixties hippy ethos that spread beyond the cities and into rural areas.
Tabloid newspaper had huge headlines proclaiming it to be the second summer of love. Have the Stereo fucking phonics ever impacted upon society in such a way? In fact, in any way at all?

Suddenly local clubs out in the sticks that used to be DJed by a young Smashie and Nicey wannabe who would 'spin' bland, insipid, manufactured dross now played Waterfall towards the end of the night and I (because I forgot to add that the aforementioned indie kid was me in this instance) would get the opportunity to dance and fuck the pretty girl in her new flowery dress.
Whilst the tosser with the Golf his daddy had bought him stood at the bar looking awkward and out-of-place and sipping his designer beer.

It would take an entire essay to fully explain why but you're just talking utter shite mate.

If you dont like the Roses' music fair enough. But stop showing such ignorance beyond that.

Spot-fucking-on

x2...

And Toma, im glad you didnt pigeon hole them purely as a Manchester thing...they had a HUGE impact over here too

 

[Cellarite]

So one good album (in a lot of manc's opinions, not mine) makes them legends...do me a favour!
They changed the music industry? People always aspire to other people so just because bands like Oasis etc fit into a similar genre, that makes them amazing...not a chance!

It's clear that the majority agree that IB can't sing for toffee, and it's even clearer that 'The Second Coming' was dog turd...it was slated when it was released!

Added to the fact that they have a singer that can't sing, live gigs must be really good right?

Forget my love for a band that can play, sing and write good albums (Phonics)....the Stone Roses are a poor band that have legendary status because they are from Manchester and they had a couple of catchy tunes.

Your insistance on using a perfectly fine, but limited, pub-rock band as the measuring stick in which to guage the Roses is making you look a bit dim.

The Roses perfectly captured the mood of the times then became an important catalyst for cultural change. Its important to remember that they were initially considered an 'indie' band in an era dominated by the likes of Phil Collins and the Stock, Aitken and Waterman stable.
Indie music at that time was for people who looked at the floor looking glum who then went home to catalogue their record collection whilst some smug twat with hideous highlights fucked the pretty girl after dancing all night in his wank buttoned-up shirt to I Should Be So Lucky.

Suddenly along came a band who harnessed the attitude of the underground rave scene and blended a unique (at that point) cross-over of rock, funk and dance music that incorporated also elements of such past greats as The Byrds.
Their music had a looseness to it that was completely different to anything else around and came with intelligent artwork mimicking Jackson Pollock. The band influenced fashion. Even their interviews in the NME were 'events'.

They brought the underground rave scene into the mainstream charts.
They created a significant echo of the sixties hippy ethos that spread beyond the cities and into rural areas.
Tabloid newspaper had huge headlines proclaiming it to be the second summer of love. Have the Stereo fucking phonics ever impacted upon society in such a way? In fact, in any way at all?

Suddenly local clubs out in the sticks that used to be DJed by a young Smashie and Nicey wannabe who would 'spin' bland, insipid, manufactured dross now played Waterfall towards the end of the night and I (because I forgot to add that the aforementioned indie kid was me in this instance) would get the opportunity to dance and fuck the pretty girl in her new flowery dress.
Whilst the tosser with the Golf his daddy had bought him stood at the bar looking awkward and out-of-place and sipping his designer beer.

It would take an entire essay to fully explain why but you're just talking utter shite mate.

If you dont like the Roses' music fair enough. But stop showing such ignorance beyond that.

there goes toma again, zooming up my league of favourite posters.

if you have the time pal, could you give us a similar explanation into the greatness of charlotte church?

 

[BTH]

Surely it's time common sense broke out?

I see shawluka's dared to kill one of BM's sacred cows. This is BM heresy and has made him, his house and his family a target for the BM music fascists.

I'm not a fan of the 'Phonics myself, but I don't think he said they were better that 'The Roses' ( as all real fans must dutifully and reverentially refer to them as). He simply stated his preference and while his opinion might not be a popular one on here, he is entitled to hold it.

For what it's worth it is my opinion - albeit one that is shared by many, but my opinion nevertheless - that The Stone Roses only made one great album.

Furthermore, the over-eulogising of this band is second only to that of The Smiths, mainly due to the evangelical, rag-like mindset of their fans.

It is also my opinion that the The Second Coming - after a wait of several years - was comparatively dire: a compendium of self-indulgent noodling that went nowhere, fast. Don't believe me? Fork out a mere £3 for it in Fopp and trust your own ears.

But how ironic it is that everyone wants a slice of The Roses legend, except for the legends themselves! But this thread isn't about a band who grew up and grew apart, like so many others. It is about the fans who wish and hope, if only to recreate their youth for an hour or two in a muddy field somewhere in England to enable them to say: "I was there (well, at the reunion at least)."

And for those who have got nothing better to do than wait for what would inevitably be The Third Coming, consider another ground-breaking band who dined out on their one album for a generation or more - the Sex Pistols - and the pitiful sight of a middle-aged Johnny Rotten bouncing around a stage that - for a couple of hours at least - will always be England in that long-gone summer of '77.

To quote a genuinely legendary band: "Let it be."

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

To quote a genuinely legendary band: "Let it be."

the over-eulogising of this band is second to no other band, mainly due to the evangelical, rag-like mindset of their fans and the media

 

[Seosa]

To quote a genuinely legendary band: "Let it be."

the over-eulogising of this band is second to no other band, mainly due to the evangelical, rag-like mindset of their fans and the media

The thing is, the worship of the Beatles is easy to understand, the worship of the Stone Roses isn't.

 

[Shands]

Surely it's time common sense broke out?

I see shawluka's dared to kill one of BM's sacred cows. This is BM heresy and has made him, his house and his family a target for the BM music fascists.

I'm not a fan of the 'Phonics myself, but I don't think he said they were better that 'The Roses' ( as all real fans must dutifully and reverentially refer to them as). He simply stated his preference and while his opinion might not be a popular one on here, he is entitled to hold it.

For what it's worth it is my opinion - albeit one that is shared by many, but my opinion nevertheless - that The Stone Roses only made one great album.

Furthermore, the over-eulogising of this band is second only to that of The Smiths, mainly due to the evangelical, rag-like mindset of their fans.

It is also my opinion that the The Second Coming - after a wait of several years - was comparatively dire: a compendium of self-indulgent noodling that went nowhere, fast. Don't believe me? Fork out a mere £3 for it in Fopp and trust your own ears.

But how ironic it is that everyone wants a slice of The Roses legend, except for the legends themselves! But this thread isn't about a band who grew up and grew apart, like so many others. It is about the fans who wish and hope, if only to recreate their youth for an hour or two in a muddy field somewhere in England to enable them to say: "I was there (well, at the reunion at least)."

And for those who have got nothing better to do than wait for what would inevitably be The Third Coming, consider another ground-breaking band who dined out on their one album for a generation or more - the Sex Pistols - and the pitiful sight of a middle-aged Johnny Rotten bouncing around a stage that - for a couple of hours at least - will always be England in that long-gone summer of '77.

To quote a genuinely legendary band: "Let it be."

Somewhat of a strange post.