Page 1 of 2

The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:07 pm
by garth cartwright
Can anyone explain to me what the fuck the British obsession with The Stone Roses is all about? I heard their debut album in 89 when I was still a youth and dismissed its badly sung and derivative melodies as "sub Jesus & Mary Chain". I heard the Second Coming when it came out - a flatmate bought it on cassette - and it was just bad, sub-Cream pub rock. Got to see their final gig at Reading Festival - shockingly poor. Ian Brown the worst vocalist I have ever seen on stage - perhaps even worse than I've seen in karaoke bars.

Yet they get spoken about as one of the great bands of all time. The Observer's rubbish and now long defunct music mag called their debut The Greatest Album Ever while Tom Robinson announced that 6 Music listeners voted them their fave band ever. And their reformation gigs have done incredible business.

Is it something about being English? I don't hate all indie rock. I do like some of The Smiths and lots of Radiohead. But the Stone fuckin' Roses with that dreadful singer and those leaden rhythms and that smugness and sense of self importance and lack of emotion and wit and joy and.... THE MOST OVERRATED BAND EVER!

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:25 pm
by Adam Blake
Hahah! I never got it myself. All that 'Madchester' scene left me completely cold. And I wanted to like them... Maybe that's it. Tell yourself something is great often enough and all that. Compared to The Stone Roses, Blur were like the second coming of The Beatles.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:20 pm
by NickH
I was quite impressed with the Stone Roses when I saw them on Tony Wilson's OSM TV show in the late 1980s and went to see them in Aldershot's West End Centre club around the time their first LP was released (strange to see it released on Loudon Wainwright III's Silvertone label, by the way). I seem to recall The Stone Roses having only three good songs on that debut record. I do wonder how they fill 90 minutes of a stadium rock show (perhaps they do a few cover versions?). Ian Brown isn't the greatest vocalist, but he is a terrific frontman for the band. They're certainly better than Oasis too. I've not listened to their difficult 2nd LP release from several years ago I read so much about. Perhaps I'll borrow it from the library...

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:53 pm
by AndyM
If the Stone Roses had had Liam Gallagher as lead vocalist, they would have been amazing.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:30 pm
by garth cartwright
Got to say that I disagree with Nick and Adam here. In my humble opinion Oasis's first album had some great songs - Live Forever, Shakermaker, Supersonic, Slide Away - songs way ahead of the Roses, Mondays, Blur etc. A pity they got so famous so fast - they might have really developed into something special.

Blur: easily the band I dislike most of all the big Britpop acts. If I ever hear Boys & Girls and Country House on the radio I run screaming for the off switch. That Damon was very pretty in the early 90s and the band had a safe smug middle class aura to them that won them an audience who found Oasis/Roses/Monday's northern oikish swagger a bit rough.

Andy: the Roses with Liam? Well, he is a better singer than Ian Brown but I can't say that Fools Gold or I Wanna Be Adored are up there with the best Oasis songs. Tho admittedly they are better than Blur's hits.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:15 am
by Adam Blake
I didn't slag off Oasis, Garth, me old china. I don't include them in the 'Madchester' bands. Maybe I should. To me, they were the Slade of Britpop. I liked their first album very much at the time and allowed myself to get excited about them. The second album was only slightly less good than the first but the third was an out and out stinker and I lost interest.

We'll have to agree to differ on Blur. I thought they were a clever-clever bunch of Art school wankers until I saw them live at Wembley - chaperoning a 14 year old student (the occasional perks of the job). There I was, surrounded by thousands of teenage girls screaming "Damon!! Damon!!" thinking to myself: "They're really not bad". Actually, they were excellent. They really cut it live and I was sold from then on. Unlike Oasis, they grew and developed and made a fair few really good records.

It's not a class thing. Don't make it into one. God knows we have enough of that without inventing more. Blur were just more musical than Oasis and I knew many, many people at the time who loved them both.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:40 am
by NormanD
Adam Blake wrote:It's not a class thing. Don't make it into one. God knows we have enough of that without inventing more.
I agree, as far as the music goes. But Alex James really is a prat, though, with his cheese and Chipping Norton, and the 'repudiation' of his past excesses that he makes sure we all know about. Pah. I'd sooner eat Dairylea than any of his creations.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:19 am
by Adam Blake
Quite right. He should be hauled up in front of Keith Richards, Iggy Pop and Lou Reed and sentenced to ten years of drug addled confusion.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:19 pm
by AndyM
It is a class thing.

And a region thing.

That's why it's interesting.

And yes, I also liked Oasis (early only) and Blur.

But Pulp were better than both.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:24 pm
by Adam Blake
If you say so, Andy. But Pulp only made one really good album, and even that has fillers on it.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:26 pm
by AndyM
And some great singles elsewhere. But maybe you're right. Pulp were conceptually better. How's that ?

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:28 pm
by Adam Blake
OK. I'll buy that.

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:05 am
by NickH
I rather approve of Ian Brown having a go at insulting the monarchy ('Queen witch') before The Stone Roses performed their Elizabeth, My Dear song at the weekend. A refreshing change from Macca, Cliff and Elton's nauseating performance in front of the royals a few weeks ago.
http://www.nme.com/news/the-stone-roses/64774

In the great Blur v Oasis war (1995-96), I was always on the side of Blur. For me, the only half-decent Oasis song released was their Don't Look Back In Anger 45. However, I agree with Norman about cheese making country squire Alex James. That photo taken last summer of James with his Chipping Norton pals Cameron & Clarkson should test the loyalty of even the most ardent Blur fan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... dream-died

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:49 am
by garth cartwright
Common People and Disco 2000 were brilliant singles. But I must admit to not having really enjoyed anything else Pulp/Jarvis cut - not that I've heard all their albums, just the last 3 and one of his solo efforts. He certainly has dined out well on those hits.

Alex James: don't get me started...

Re: The Stone F***ING Roses

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:16 am
by AndyM
'Babies' is the Pulp masterpiece. Best indie (if one must) British single of its decade. Alan Bennett writes for The Kinks.