Forum menu
Still have all their early EPs and first album, was very much into the Madchester thing (and house music, but less so) after Punk and Goth had died a death in the mid 80s (I'm 45 BTW). One Love and Fools Gold would probably feature in my all time top 20 (love a bit of Whah whah pedal I do). I Would have a passing interest if they reformed to do new stuff (2nd Coming was pretty good), but no interest if they just reformed to milk old times.
The lovers are usually ahead of the curve
Like drunk drivers crashed in a ditch because they didn't anticipate the bend 😀
first album up there,( one of the best of all time) out of date someone said hmm cant see that miself,timeless classic more like.just the sart of that album with I Wanna be Adored ahhh classic.
second coming was good too,underated a bit.
a band which at that time brought out such an album,****ing blew me away,
Fools Gold,Waterfall,Ressurection, just to name a few of the songs which will always be up there with the greats.
John Squire= guitarist of my generation anyway,no matter what 🙂
RichPenny - MemberYes but who influenced them?
A couple of generations worth of great musicians, and probably a similar amount of shady ones! Doesn't make their legacy any less, they still managed to create a work of art which shaped the development of many others. Wouldn't want to go and see them now though.
+1
Oasis Pah! average at best- predictive,they were Stone Roses wannabe's.
stone roses ****ked up and they took what was theirs.
If they reform maybes its good or bad,still dunt take away the music they created,and thats that,Ian Brown yes shit singer,but what about the music he's made-written,id rather listen to good well written music than Xfactor kareoke singers who can sing but music is shit.
Count, if you have been listening to music over the past 50 years then i would agree that at the half way stage you would be cringing at the new breed. Just like i cringe at todays music. The thing is,for folk around 17-23ish years of age around 1989-90.. this was a big part of their life and with the way music/generations go.. they will consider the likes of The Happy Mondays and Stone Roses to be their all time favourite bands til they die. Just like a lot of todays youth will go on to lurve Usher or Dizzee Rascal for ever more. Poor wee souls. :O)
Pulp had nothing new to say (as far as I know) but I'm sure glad they reformed as I got to see them after having missed seeing them the first time round. If the Roses reformed, I'd go to see them, but I'm not sure any new music they'd make would be any good.
I'm all for mercenary reforming if it means I get to see a band I missed the first time round 😀
i hope to **** they don't! it would be terrible!
some things reeeeeeeeeeally need to be left in the dust of the history books.
Thought they cooked there brains on Drugs & Beer
Saw them BITD, also saw Ian Brown last time round.... I would prefer if if they didn't get back together. The debut is timeless IMO, but I can get why some don't like it.
Looks like it's happening then.
Looks like it. Mixed feelings really but what the hell, the atmosphere at the gigs will be amazing.
Mixed here too but I suspect I'll lob the ridiculous price out for tickets. 😳
God nooooooooooooooooo.
awful, 😀 can you imagine loads of saggy 40yr old men digging out their baggy jeans. Wait till I tell my dad he'll pop with excitment.
mind you, I am the ressurection....Live....
[i]Looks like it's happening then[/i]
Maybe they'll do one of those revival tours with Steps.
Average at best?Yyou do understand that John Squire is one of the most accomplished guitarist of his generation, perhaps one of the most influential on the british music scene? that they were one of the defining groups of the 90's? I know you revel in your MOR taste in music PP, but you do say some of the silliest things.
I love all sorts of music, but I was not that impressed with the Stone Roses, even at the time. I saw them live (they were rubbish), and hated the second album with a passion. Self indulgent at best, unlistenable at worst.
There [i]were[/i] some great tracks on the first album (I Wanna Be Adored was stunning), but it wasn't marked out by individual virtuosity, rather by sounding collectively a bit different to the rest of the music scene at the time. Personally I could take them or leave them - I've never been able to get past Ian Brown's vocals.
As for John Squire being one of the most influential guitarists.....hardly. You got the right first name, but the surname you were looking for is Marr. Squire is undoubtedly talented, but just 'cos he was in an influential band doesn't make him great.....it's a bit like calling McCartney the greatest bassist becuase he was in The Beatles.
The thing with Blur and Pulp reforming, is that they are good live bands, so if you missed them the first time round, it's a great opportunity to listen to some classic 90s tunes. Whilst I love the Roses' first albnum, they were always pretty patchy live, so I think it could be one huge disappointment. Besides, I've seen the Clone Roses...
[i]The thing with Blur and Pulp reforming, is that they [s]a[/s][b]we[/b]re good live bands[/i]
Fixed 😉
Yes but who influenced them?
That phrase really grates with me, it's as if it's being said by someone who hates anything that anyone else has ever heard of.
Go back and listen to a recording (on awax cylinders obviously for it's tonal depth and magical wooo waaaaa sub atomic bass trebble mood**** compared to vinyl) of a neanderthal banging two sticks together, as that eventualy influenced someone with rythym, which infuenced a bit of grunting, etc etc etc.
If you want to hear their songs played well live I can recommend the 'Complete Stone Roses', really good!!
DezB, I can confirm that Pulp are indeed still a very good live band. Never seen Blur though. Y
The thing with Blur and Pulp reforming, is that they awere good live bands
No idea what they're like now, but there's more chance of a reformed band being decent if they were good live in the first place, no?
I saw Pulp on their final tour at the Eden Project in 2002, and they were just awesome.
Saw them at Reading this year. They're still awesome. 🙂
+1 for the complete stone roses.. Seen them a couple of times in Newcastle, they were really good.
[i]If you want to hear their songs played well live I can recommend the 'Complete Stone Roses', really good!![/i]
Please tell me someone hasn't just recommended a TRIBUTE BAND?!?!?!? Oh dear.
I think the Stone Roses are overrated.
They were absolutely pants live- one of the worst gigs I've been to.
Both of their albums were ok. The 1st album is still considered a classic due to the timing of and the vibe of the time. On the back of the acid house and dance scene, bands like the Roses,the Mondays Primal scream etc were crossing rock & dance. Plus the fact that most of us were 'on one' at the time. It was a good time to be around.
Spike Island and the (2nd)summer of love helped raise the Stone Roses to 'legendary status'. Taking of the nostalgia tinged specs, they were an average studio band that borrowed heavily from Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel and Led Zeppelin.
Their debut LP was and still is a perfect pop record. Looking back now I can see it combines jangly guitar pop with a bit of funk, great songwriting and perfect production.
But at the time it was just so new, fresh and different to everything else - even the other Madchester/Baggy acts.
I get goosebumps listening to this now...
Not going to see them though. Been burned too many times before.
Radcliffe and Marconi were discussing this at lunchtime - in between the stammers and pauses they did come out with the reunion worth anything would be an Abba reunion, anything else is just going thru the motions for cash.
How true it is is hard to say.
If you want to hear their songs played well live I can recommend the 'Complete Stone Roses', really good!!
pmsl that is SOOOOOOOOOOOO true!
Remember a mate stealing a cassette of their first album the day it came out.
That night, we camped out, built a fire, got drunk and stoned and listened to that album over and over
I was 15 - THe Stone Roses are that band that got me into music - THe fact that they might not be the best musicians (apart from Reni) and Ian Brown isn't a great singer is neither here nor there - they're awesome: fact!
So its on then,agree with above bit mixed feelings
but listening to the reports on 6music all seem pretty
good humoured between them
BBC reckon it's on; we'll be going 🙂
Stone Roses to reunite for tour **
Influential Manchester rock band The Stone Roses announce the end of a 15-year split to stage a world tour and record new material.
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15348374 >
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
From a gigsandtours email earlier today. I will be perfectly honest here and admit I never, ever thought it would happen. I'm not a fan as such, I bought the first album from Fopp just for two tracks, and I'm not that bothered by them getting back together, for whatever reason. Money? So what? Everyone has to make a living, and if they can make a few bob, and possibly maintain it to get a new album out of it, well, lots of people will be thrilled to bits and I'm glad for them. As I said, a great deal of that period's music failed to move me, but I don't consider it rubbish either. I would be ecstatic if Talking Heads got back together, and Talk Talk too. Maybe now 'Roses have reformed against all odds, it's perhaps not beyond the realms of possibility that the 'Heads might get over their differences and tour and record again.
anything else is just going thru the motions for cash.
You mean they're only in it for the Mani?
arf arf
hope they don't record any new material, it's not likely to turn out that well is it?
No one really captured the zeitgeist quite like the Stone Roses. I think there's been many a true word said on the thread regarding their shortcomings, I'd even go further in some regards but none of that really matters. What they came up with first time around was magical - in that moment.
I wouldn't really expect them to come up with anything that I'd want to listen to now though, the moment has been and gone.
Yep, all over the news today. I must say I've gone to see one reformed band and they were bloody brilliant, but I'm far more interested in discovering new music.
However, there is a MASSIVE market for nostalgia these days, I sort of understand it, so they'll make a few bob.
Nice to hear them lumped in with Steps and f*%^ing Take That in the BBC news story though! The lads must be so proud... 😆
Dez, did you also catch Fiona Bruce saying "I used to love that album"?!
I never thought this would happen. It really shouldn't. It will murder the legacy even more than reading. So why do i still want tickets.
nice poster though.
[i]Dez, did you also catch Fiona Bruce saying "I used to love that album"?![/i]
Ha! No, I missed that 🙂
No one really captured the zeitgeist quite like the Stone Roses. I think there's been many a true word said on the thread regarding their shortcomings, I'd even go further in some regards but none of that really matters. What they came up with first time around was magical - in that moment.
Agreed. In my mind they only ever made one album.
I didn't even hear Second Coming until a few years ago because people told me how crap it was and I couldn't bring myself to.
Looking forward to this. I saw the Wonder Stuff recently in Melb while i was working there and they were magic.
Second Coming contains some gems IMO
I like Second Coming now... Wasn't all that keen when it was released.
The STW consensus appears to be that the stone roses were actually crap and/or a reunion is a bad idea so all the bloody sheep start bleating about how they feel the same way. That’ll be why they (the stone roses) will sell out Heaton Park x2 in quarter of an hour at some vastly inflated price.
Second Coming contains some gems IMO
Yeah, I realised that when I finally got round to listening to it.
There is a god after all, and he spends his spare time dancin like a monkey. Love to see then live and cant wait for the new music.