Entertainment For Lively Minds
A Good Year for the Roses?
Posted by Jamie_Bowman on 17 March 2009 - 1:48pm.
According to reports in the Mirror today the Stone Roses have agreed to reform:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/03/17/stone-roses-to-reform-mad...
I can honestly say they're the band who changed my life. I still think their debut is the greatest album ever and whenever I hear them I'm taken back to some wonderful teenage nirvana. I suspect many of you feel differently not least those who maintain "they were crap live" or that Ian Brown "can't sing".
So what do you think?
- More from Jamie_Bowman.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I've never
understood the fuss over the album, I think it's ok but overrated. As for the reformation, I'm not a big fan of them in general. But I can understand the excitement if it's a band who meant a lot to you. [Sorry I can't be more positive, but you did ask!]
I was a student
when they did their only real tour and it was an amazing time. What surprises me though is how a band so full of colour, joy and forward-thinking open-mindedness, who appealed to girls as well as the boys, and who seemed politically aware and emotionally intelligent could become a byword for laddism.
Somehow Oasis managed to rewrite the Roses' history. Has this ever happened before where a later band ruins an inspiration by stealing its clothes?
I am so excited
by the prospect of seeing the Stone Roses again that I may actually cry with happiness if this is true. I can't even put into words how wonderful it would be.
Like you say, the first album transports me back to a magical time and I dearly love the second album.
I still insist on wearing flared jeans and having what I would like to believe is an Ian Brown haircut
I think
The Mirror said exactly the same thing about The Smiths about three months ago. With quotes very similar to this. Turned out to be completely made up.
At the time The Smiths were releasing a greatest hits. Stone Roses are about to re-release their debut arent they? Do their record companies use the same PR company?
They were crap live and Ian Brown can't sing.
But, if they worked for you, at that point in life when you were primed and ready for your life to be changed by a band, who am I to argue.
They didn't have much impact on a 37-year old me at the time though.
Never got them
They do nothing for me whatsoever. Same with The Smiths.
Not even this?!
Reni, Mani and Squire at their best
Insider knowledge
I hear it's not true.
I spent many years
listening to the Stone Roses just about every day, and I have not managed to tire of them yet. They made some of the bestest songs in the world ever.
Probably not going to happen but...
The 'crap live' reputation does so p me off. If you want a perfect live singing voice, try the Royal Opera House. The nights of the Stone Roses at the Blackpool Empress Ballroom and at the ICA in London 20 years ago are evenings I shall never ever forget.
But they *were* crap live
I went to see them at Straford on Avon Civic Hall (rock'n'roll!) in 1985 when I was 20. Hadn't heard anything by them before but wanted to see them because of the buzz in the music press and was prepared to be impressed. Me and my friends left the gig laughing at their sheer ineptitude, crap sound & general badness. I completely agree that you don't need to be pitch perfect or a virtuoso to make great, moving music (& Reni, Mani & Squire could obviously play anyway) but it really felt like a classic style over content band at the height of their 'build 'em up' relationship with the weekly inkies.
1985?!
At the risk of being hyperbolic - isn't that a bit like judging The Beatles before they went to Hamburg?
They were great on the Second Coming tour - Made of Stone in particular sounded immense. They were great players.
True.
I saw them 88/89 and they were terrific. Reni's brilliant backing vocals gave IB's the support they needed. Also one of the best drummers I've ever heard.
Oh yes they were, oh no they weren't....
I suppose my point is that the live experience is what counts. I have the vid of the Blackpool gig and, sure, Ian's singing was off-key at times but I never noticed it when I was there having the time of my life, and that is what counts for me.
In fairness, they had quite a struggle to attain the status they eventually reached (with the inkies). John Peel had blanked them and if your 1985 show was reviewed at all, it would've been panned. If I remember rightly, Q magazine didn't even review the debut album when it was first released.
My poiint is...
that this was the first time that I'd heard anything by them & I was really hoping to be impressed (not least because I could then say that I'd seen them early in their career in a tiny venue - 'aw, you shoulda been there man!') but I remember feeling dismayed & not a little embarrased on their behalf because I'd heard local bands who would have blown them off the stage (& not with technical brilliance or 'stagecraft'). Being a bit rough around the edges can really add something to a live performance but not being very good at what you're trying to do can't.
I absolutely adore the first album
but I wouldn't go and see them live.
Always thought they were completely
uninteresting.
Shocking admission time
I have never knowingly heard a song by the Stone Roses. They were around in the period when I completely lost interest in bands. See also the Smiths, although I've heard quite a bit if them since.
Intriguing that the Roses
( basically a bunch of monosyllabic car thieves with untutored art-school pretentions ) are linked with the Smiths in this thread. Except for the tenuous link of geography the Smiths have nothing in common with Brown et al. The Smiths are, quite simply, the greatest British band since the Beatles.
And the Roses aren't.
The only reason...
...that I mention them together is that they both seem hugely significant to people roughly my age. And, in both cases, I just can't get excited about their music.
They get lumped together because...
...they're bands of the same era who are of no consequence to anyone outside their narrow 'indie-kid' fan-base.
Ah right.
That makes complete sense.
Ain't gonna happen
Brown has already denied all knowledge. Squire hung up his guitar a long time ago to concentrate on art and the rumoured 21 date tour will clash with his biggest art exhibition to date. Can't see it happening.
To the point
I read a piece with John Squire (I thought it was in Word, but clearly not) where he spoke about his complete absorbtion in his career as an artist and how he had no interest in playing guitar while his attitude to Ian Brown was somewaht antipathetic.
Make It Stop
Hope they are not reforming, I like some of their stuff, but is is just boring now, all these old bands reforming. Sometimes the past should be left well alone.
They weren't a great live band...
I saw them play with The Manics in 95 at Wembley Arena. We're not talking about a great live band here. Yes, the first album is great but don't forget how bad Brown is when singing live. I can't see any reason to excited about live dates by an average live band with a poor lead singer. Just enjoy the records, far cheaper and more rewarding.
I would not go and see them.
I am now a 37 year old man and it would be wrong.
The Stone Roses were part of my youth, probably the best years of my youth.
Being in a room with thousands of blokes just like me watching a a great band not being great anymore is not my idea of a good time.
There is no going back.
“Im no dog I’m a dolphin, I just don’t live in the sea”
The Stone Roses were a fantastic group. 20 years ago. So what if Ian Brown couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket; they looked great and sounded great. But “reunions” like this are always so lame.
They’ll never be as good as this again so why bother? Mug punters’ money, I suppose.
p.s. is it just me or does Ian Brown in this clip look a bit like late ’60s/ early ’70s Cliff?
"Power to all our Friends...
...to the music that never ends".
Yes you're right, never noticed that before.
Of course it never ends
if you put enough echo on it ;-)
"Power to all our Friends...
...to the music that never ends".
Yes you're right, never noticed that before.
Of course it never ends
if you put enough echo on it ;-)