is so out of proportion to their talent that it beggars belief. A good debut followed by a lard-arsed second full of stolen Led Zeppelin riffs. A singer who sounds like the drunk in the corner of the pub singing along tunelessly to the jukebox. Yes, they'll probably reform... good luck to them. I personally am wondering whether in the next 20 years their true worth will finally be recognized... ie: a good band with a few good tunes, nothing more.

...it makes me realise how powerful the drugs must have been back in the days of Madchester for people to be still making a fuss about them nowadays. Without benefit of said chemical aids they are surely revealed as even more trudgy than Oasis.

...they were already a nostalgia act.

They were rubbish.

Never, ever got the point of the Stone Roses.

The Mondays were genuinely original and innovative.

But repackage bog standard mid-eighties indie in faintly fashionable late eighties colours and the world - or at least certain parts of Britain - goes mad.

The drugs must have been the strongest ever.

at Larks in the Park in Liverpool. They weren't that good. Saw them again in '88 or '89 and they were amazing. First album is at least as good as anything by The Smiths, Blur or Oasis (for my money the three bands who have defined "indie" over the last 20 years or so, whatever "indie" is, in that they showed the rest of the "indie" crowd the possibility of ambition and reaching out to bigger audiences, even though this happened mostly retrospectively for The Smiths), while the second is also pretty good, while being completely different.

However history treats them I hope to never see a time when Fool's Gold isn't justly considered to be not only important in terms of musical development, both for the band and "the genre" but also a damn good, bad-ass, funky masterpiece.

Apologies for the inverted commas - never quite sure whether using them makes me a twunt, or not using them makes me a knobsack.

Aside from the fact the debut was an absolute corker without a duff track, they also:

* influenced the biggest band of the time - U2 - who would not have made their best record (Achtung Baby) without hearing The Stone Roses.

* directly influenced / produced the two biggest bands in the UK that followed (Blur & Oasis). In fact there’s a good argument that says neither would have been signed without the Roses.

* so by influencing those two they were the forefathers of Britpop, which changed music in the UK – certainly in terms of radio play & chart positions for ‘indie’ guitar bands.

* they also influenced opinion in reverse. Prior to the Roses, The Beatles “masterpiece” was always regarded as Sgt Pepper. After 1989, Revolver was always declared the best, because the Roses said it was and everyone agreed.

He hasn't played for years and has no interest in making music anymore.

Then again, if the cheque is big enough...

One of the few bands who not only offered great music but also a lifestlye should you choose to accept and many did.
Possibly responsible for introducing (or at the very least bringing back) the concept of the concert as an occasion. Not playing the tired circuit around the country. Had a rock band played the Blackpool Empress Ballroom before?
Playing massive once only affairs such as Spike Island which are now as common as muck.

And I will always admire the fact they gave their first interview after years away recording The Second Coming exclusively to The Big Issue.

Many bands make great records and go onto influence future bands who turn what their forerunners did into something less interesting - but you can't blame them for that. Radiohead are such a band I would say and so were Stone Roses. Their debut is nimble where Oasis trudge, at their worst Oasis are the epitome of trudge. The Stone Roses debut has that jingly '60s Simon and Garfunkel-like pretty tune thing married to a funky, riffy groove (thanks to excellent rhythm section) that was totally contemporary, in tune with the whole rave culture and bands like Primal Scream and Happy Mondays. Waterfall, I Wanna Be Adored, I Am The Resurrection and She Bangs The Drums all still sound pretty good to me. Ian Brown is not a particularly good singer but what he did on the first album has the right laid back, languid sort of feel that works for the record. Second Coming is a bit of a trudgy drag for me though.

I don't really care for a reunion, but I'm not really much interested in reunions generally. I don't feel the urge to just go and see a band so I can say I saw them. I would have far rather seen bands in their heyday. Seeing them after many years following a reunion just isn't the same for me. But if they want to do it I don't see why they shouldn't.