The Stone Roses/Ian Brown

[dronefromsector7g]

It's not about fucking how good they can sing, it's about stage presence, fantastic drumming, epic guitar riffs, that giving it to the man as they swagger about the stage half cut putting on a fucking boss show. I spent a fucking fortune on planes, a hotel, beer, beer, beer, beer and more beer to see them in Glasgow and vocally they weren't the greatest but it was a top show, If I wanted superb vocals I'd go to the fucking opera.

Maybe I'm being old fashioned, but do you not think that the singer of a band should be able to, er, sing if they're going to stage a concert? And that the inability of said singer to be able to sing is a bit of a minus point? Just a thought.

Has EVERY singer of EVERY band you've ever liked been a great vocalist?

Energy, melody, rhythm, going mental in a moshpit - music is much more than the singer's voice.

 

[nobody can eat fifty eggs]

Some people don't get it do they? Many of the most influential bands of our time have lead singers who the purists say can't sing. John Lydon, Ian Brown, Ian Curtis, Ian Dury, Shaun Ryder, Ozzy Osborne, Mark E Smith to name but a few.

I'd prefer to listen to them than Michael Ball or George Michael any day.

 

[manimanc]

It's black and white, you either got the Roses or you didn't..
Some people on here obviously haven't understood what it was like growing up in Manchester in the late 80's, with thatcher and no future, the Roses gave everybody that escape...
Who is and who isn't??

 

[stony]

It's black and white, you either got the Roses or you didn't..
Some people on here obviously haven't understood what it was like growing up in Manchester in the late 80's, with thatcher and no future, the Roses gave everybody that escape...
Who is and who isn't??

Absolute fucking bollocks. What you really mean is you either liked them or you didn't. As for the rest of your post, it's cringeworthy in the extreme.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

It's black and white, you either got the Roses or you didn't..
Some people on here obviously haven't understood what it was like growing up in Manchester in the late 80's, with thatcher and no future, the Roses gave everybody that escape...
Who is and who isn't??

I'd say that was ecstasy and acid house.

 

[jimharri]

It's not about fucking how good they can sing, it's about stage presence, fantastic drumming, epic guitar riffs, that giving it to the man as they swagger about the stage half cut putting on a fucking boss show. I spent a fucking fortune on planes, a hotel, beer, beer, beer, beer and more beer to see them in Glasgow and vocally they weren't the greatest but it was a top show, If I wanted superb vocals I'd go to the fucking opera.

Maybe I'm being old fashioned, but do you not think that the singer of a band should be able to, er, sing if they're going to stage a concert? And that the inability of said singer to be able to sing is a bit of a minus point? Just a thought.

Has EVERY singer of EVERY band you've ever liked been a great vocalist?

Energy, melody, rhythm, going mental in a moshpit - music is much more than the singer's voice.

Maybe not all great, certainly. But definitely they were all powerful vocalists, something Brown most definitely isn't. And they all had stage presence and charisma. Again, qualities that Brown just doesn't have. Front men are front men for a reason; they have to project themself when they're on stage and yes, put on a show. That's what the fans are there for. Mercury, Plant, Waters, Anderson, McCartney, Jagger, Marriott, any of the classic Motown singers, Daltrey; there are more I could list, but they were all fantastic singers and/or frontmen. Brown certainly isn't. The rest of the band are competent musicians; Squire is a very good guitarist and the rhythm section are a good pairing; they're just let down by their singer. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on him.

 

[Davs 19]

Maybe I'm being old fashioned, but do you not think that the singer of a band should be able to, er, sing if they're going to stage a concert? And that the inability of said singer to be able to sing is a bit of a minus point? Just a thought.

Has EVERY singer of EVERY band you've ever liked been a great vocalist?

Energy, melody, rhythm, going mental in a moshpit - music is much more than the singer's voice.

Maybe not all great, certainly. But definitely they were all powerful vocalists, something Brown most definitely isn't. And they all had stage presence and charisma. Again, qualities that Brown just doesn't have. Front men are front men for a reason; they have to project themself when they're on stage and yes, put on a show. That's what the fans are there for. Mercury, Plant, Waters, Anderson, McCartney, Jagger, Marriott, any of the classic Motown singers, Daltrey; there are more I could list, but they were all fantastic singers and/or frontmen. Brown certainly isn't. The rest of the band are competent musicians; Squire is a very good guitarist and the rhythm section are a good pairing; they're just let down by their singer. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on him.

Those you list are either dead or old Jim, nowt wrong with that, just an observation.

I think this may be an age thing as a lot of folk do tend to stick with the music they grew up with.


So to sum up , you stony and chabal are old c**ts stuck in the past while the rest of us are open minded bright young things with an eclectic taste in music ;.)

Sorted.

 

[noely]

The Roses albums are both great but in different way the 2nd coming is a great album but to compare it to the first abum is unfair as the style's are different

I've seen brown live on many occasions and knew that his voice wasnt great but it was ok because the music from the likes of Aziz's and also the venue he played made it work
However at Heaton park I was completely underwhelmed his voice and their sound got lost in the open fields and will probably do the same if they played Glastonbury if anything their songs off second coming would probably work better in big stages as it was a louder sound but the masses want to hear the songs by them that they play on the radio or in 5th ave

 

[jimharri]

Has EVERY singer of EVERY band you've ever liked been a great vocalist?

Energy, melody, rhythm, going mental in a moshpit - music is much more than the singer's voice.

Maybe not all great, certainly. But definitely they were all powerful vocalists, something Brown most definitely isn't. And they all had stage presence and charisma. Again, qualities that Brown just doesn't have. Front men are front men for a reason; they have to project themself when they're on stage and yes, put on a show. That's what the fans are there for. Mercury, Plant, Waters, Anderson, McCartney, Jagger, Marriott, any of the classic Motown singers, Daltrey; there are more I could list, but they were all fantastic singers and/or frontmen. Brown certainly isn't. The rest of the band are competent musicians; Squire is a very good guitarist and the rhythm section are a good pairing; they're just let down by their singer. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on him.

Those you list are either dead or old Jim, nowt wrong with that, just an observation.

I think this may be an age thing as a lot of folk do tend to stick with the music they grew up with.


So to sum up , you stony and chabal are old c**ts stuck in the past while the rest of us are open minded bright young things with an eclectic taste in music ;.)

Sorted.

Not 100% sure of the relevance of that comment Davs; I'm comparing them at their peak with Brown at his "peak". And I'm sure you'll agree he is nowhere near the level of any of those that I listed. I make no apologies for the fact that my preference is for the music of the 60s/70s (I gues that makes me a BOF!). If you read my post again, you'll see that I did acknowledge the musicianship of the rest of the band. And they did produce a few good songs; Resurrection, she bangs the drums (great intro, that), this is the one, shoot you down; all fine songs. Their weak point was undoubtedly the singer though.

 

[Davs 19]

Maybe not all great, certainly. But definitely they were all powerful vocalists, something Brown most definitely isn't. And they all had stage presence and charisma. Again, qualities that Brown just doesn't have. Front men are front men for a reason; they have to project themself when they're on stage and yes, put on a show. That's what the fans are there for. Mercury, Plant, Waters, Anderson, McCartney, Jagger, Marriott, any of the classic Motown singers, Daltrey; there are more I could list, but they were all fantastic singers and/or frontmen. Brown certainly isn't. The rest of the band are competent musicians; Squire is a very good guitarist and the rhythm section are a good pairing; they're just let down by their singer. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on him.

Those you list are either dead or old Jim, nowt wrong with that, just an observation.

I think this may be an age thing as a lot of folk do tend to stick with the music they grew up with.


So to sum up , you stony and chabal are old c**ts stuck in the past while the rest of us are open minded bright young things with an eclectic taste in music ;.)

Sorted.

Not 100% sure of the relevance of that comment Davs; I'm comparing them at their peak with Brown at his "peak". And I'm sure you'll agree he is nowhere near the level of any of those that I listed. I make no apologies for the fact that my preference is for the music of the 60s/70s (I gues that makes me a BOF!). If you read my post again, you'll see that I did acknowledge the musicianship of the rest of the band. And they did produce a few good songs; Resurrection, she bangs the drums (great intro, that), this is the one, shoot you down; all fine songs. Their weak point was undoubtedly the singer though.

My smiley thing didn't work, did it ?