The Stone Roses - Classic or Dud? And also, Search and Destroy?

Anyway, that's all besides the main point which is: The Roses didn't kill anything - they opened things up. They crossed genres and united rockers and ravers - they were the second summer of love.

And as m'learned friend above points out, indie as a scene anyway is defined by the marketing and distribution of independent labels, which were swallowed up and assimilated by the mainstream for various differing reasons. But I don't understand how you could blame the Roses in any way for the development of that process.

but unless you are keen on a wee bit of narcotic indulgence, you're not gonna dig shit like the Spacemen

(Spacemen 3)have made music influenced by and complimentary to the imbuement of narcotics.

Anything is good when you're off your face on drugs, therefore to say something is only good when you're off your face on drugs is totally stupid. I'm sure if we do a rollcall we can find fucking loads of Spacemen 3 fans who've never touched narcotics in their life.

I'm thinking of how much I used to listen to Spacemen 3 and Spiritualized at 16/17 and boy did I do loads of drugs then? Eh no wait I did none.

If your point is the first thing you said which I quoted in italics there, then I'd like to see you try and defend it.

If your point is the second thing I quoted, then say so in the first place.

sorry mark i can't stop, you'll have to beat me a few times then I just might stop.

''You sound like a child. Fucking hell kid, when I say aimed at too narrow audience, d'you think Pierce would argue that, actually, Spacemen, was aimed at the kickers and chequered shirt brigade who frequent the High Street chainstores and eat junkfood every day? You clearly are out of touch since as anyone who makes music knows, you gotta have some idea of who your audience is.''

I think most bands do but mostly they make music for themselves and whoever 'gets it' will 'get it'. they could 17 or 30 and they could be accountants, students or junkies or whatever. And that specially applies for musics that are quite hard to categorize.

''The 'commercialisation' of indie? People were dead excited when the Smiths went Top 10 and were on Top Of The Pops, I suspect. Part of what 'killed indie' in the UK was the collapse of the compromised dictionary-definition of indie i.e. independently distributed under the weight of tiny dance labels and PWL.''

agreed but part of that was bands like the roses, who made such a commercialized version of indie that it, yes, it led to oasis and coldplay and so on.

''They crossed genres and united rockers and ravers - they were the second summer of love.''

you've been reding history books. stop it!

yeah i hate his assumption that you need a certain consumption of narcotics to 'get' this.

What a lucrative market they are huh?

sorry that should read most do but the best ones...

I hear they were all fighting with chains and then I am the Resurrection came on and they put them down and started raving together to the 4 minute guitar outro.

I was trying to make the point to that other chap that Spacemen were heavily influenced by narcotics when they wrote music and as such, their prospective audience was stroke is likely to have similar interests.

I think perhaps you may be presupposing I am against such interests. Where does it say so in my ranting that this is so?

Don't be such a dufus. My references to Spacemen were used to underline my point that the music of the Roses was stroke is more open to mass consumption (though through no 'fault' of the band or sinister marketing tactic) than that of the Spacemen since the Roses' music was arguably less obviously informed by getting fucked up.

Although having said that, now that I think on it... I'm not so sure about that last bit. The Roses were crazy for it... Perhaps it is more oblique in their musical trajectory than in that of the Spacemen though. Or perhaps getting fucked up was less important to the music.

Anyway, chill mothafucka.

That's what I had the problem with, because it's just not really true and there's no sensible defence for it unless you think Spacemen 3 are shit and are being sarcy, which I doubt. I am chilled but I just think it's funny.

In future I will try to be more clear but I presumed perhaps foolishly, that it would be apparent what was being said between the lines ie: this fucking point about the Roses music being less informed and tuned to narcotic intake.

And as a footnote, there is absolutely no way Spacemen made music without narcotics. No way.

You don't know they took drugs because of how the music sounds(this is impossible), you know because it's well reported.

A command or a suggestion? ;-)

I really couldn't care whether during recording Spacemen 3 took enough mind-altering substances to choke a horse or not, the point is that I don't need them myself to enjoy the end results. That they loved their candy is pretty clear; I'm hardly beholden to follow them.

Where are all those threads about dance music and E? I'm sure Ronan weighed in on those too.

they are the late 80s version of CSNY for sure.

david- now go and put a good rec on: like big black's 'Steelworker'.

There's a difference between hearing something and deciding that it shows an understanding of how someone on E/whatever drug appreciates music, and being able to decide that something was made while the person was fucked.

For your claim to be true about any single genre in the world, everyone would have to hear things in the same way you do. Is that the case?

Whether something "sounds like it was made on E", "sounds like the Velvet Underground", or "sounds like metallica getting fucked in a blender" depends on who's listening.

Also the fact that being on E, for example, makes pretty much anything pleasurable means that "they made this on e" or "they made this for people on E" pretty meaningless. Of course I can say, as I have "Orbital is the perfect music for being on Ecstacy" and lots of people might agree, but only really because they like Orbital anyway.

The point I'm making is, any artist whose aspiration was "to make music for people on E" hasn't set his heights very high, in fact has no sights at all. Just because an artist wanting to make the perfect dance song or almost any type of dance song is going to end up appealing to people on E anyway this doesn't mean this has to be part of his intentions.

You're just working backwards from fans to producers.

And while it IS true that lots of happy hardcore people did do E (99 percent probably) it's impossible to say that based solely on their music and comments like "god they were fucked when they wrote this" I bet are only based on people's preconceptions and the stereotypes which surround a particular scene eg rock/hash dance/e etc etc etc etc.

You can hear drugs in music? Bullshit, you can make an interpretation based on all sorts of things periphery to the music, but that's all it is. And since there's a MILLION other factors which make someone write a song (it's a thought process, try and fucking quantify it we'll be here all day) it's worth nothing and can never be wholly proven.

Well, all it's worth is a discussion about whether the band were "so baked" or weren't "so baked" and since I'm not in college for the summer I'd rather not fucking go there.

I will say I think you'd have to do a fucking stupid amount of drugs to start thinking they were needed for anyone to like some music you like. (like Spacemen 3)

That's what I've been trying to say. There is no way of knowing the band were on drugs without hearing it for certain from a newspaper or something. Your own ears aren't even trustworthy, just like the way if you say "this sounds like band x" it isn't a fact, or "band x are good".

I can't really remember what I was arguing now but might I make a few points

1: Drugs (or at least the imbuement of substances and the heightening of the senses via external stimuli) and music have always gone together.

2: I am not a troll, I am a fascist. Close minded? Rather not prepared to accept the warblings of the blind.

3: The Stone Roses rock. CSNY are phenomenal (for at least their first two albums - c'mon, 'Deja Vu' - right off the first track and that Neil organ breakdown with David's bass working up the scale you know it's classic, you know it) and the MC5 are vastly overrated.

4: Nobody said nuthin' about the necessity for getting high to appreciate music so don't get all excited.

5: Errr

6: Ah.

7: Hello.

Nobody said nuthin' about the necessity for getting high to appreciate music so don't get all excited.

Sorry what was that? I'm dead excited now! Going mad I am. It's nice to see you can still remain calm though cos you might be able to give one distinct meaning for the bullshit sentence that is "drugs and music have always gone together". Yeah rock on man, then the ravers and rockers were united with the drugs and we all got fucking wasted. Hey rodge do you do pills man? We should go out some time and bang loads of pills! Yeah wicked! Cool! Pills!

And no, I never pilled in my life kid. Straight up. That's how wide of the mark you are and that's why I said I think there might be some cross purpose talk here.

the roses are really bad though and your enthusiasm for some of the bands (evevn the stuff i love like hendrix is kinda cartoonish).

Anyhoows, Ronan, I'm sorry my gash comment didn't amuse. I must say I thought it was quite funny in it's utter disregard. Still, you can't please all of the peole all of the time or whatever. As you say, I will attempt to employ more wit on the next ocassion I offer a critique of the artless self-parodying, marketing exercise of a tired, once great dance outfit.

I am english though i am in toronto at the moment (will be back in 10 days when this account will go). I thought you were american actually.

"I don't have the venom of old, but I still hate the first Stone Roses album as much as ever. They were just a bunch of car thieves. Nothing wrong with being a car thief as long as you don't make crap records.
Overrated rubbish."

tee hee!

Why do cut-rate talents like Lloyd Cole try and piss on the Roses? Do they think it makes them sound edgy and revolutionary? Cos really it just makes them sound bitter and jealous...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Several shops around the Northern Quarter filled their windows with the posters - and one shop keeper told us that he was asked to put them up on Monday morning but had been "sworn to secrecy about an announcement due in the next 24 hours".

What are The Stone Roses going to announce?

At 7pm today The Stone Roses are set to make an announcement.

It's 6:44pm now (UK time) and I've just seen this news. New LP perhaps, or more shows?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

preemptively: fuck off, The Stone Roses

it's only been 26 years since their last decent album so im on tenterhooks over here.

Lock the Best Comebacks thread and throw it away! History just rode into town

...aaaand, it seems to be an announcement for two gigs at Manchester Etihad Stadium next year, and a slot at T In The Park.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/12/article-1085232-026585B6000005DC-832_468x286.jpg

Hehehehehe... so many people pissed off and ranting on their Facebook page that it's not a new LP.

why would they bother with a new album, they'll make more money just doing shows

Really amazing how this band stays in the news year after year without actually doing anything.

Yeah, I completely agree... this band seem to have "not actually doing much" down to a fine art, and to be quite honest it was a bit like this when they were in existence the first time around, so they've hardly fucked with the formula. Of course, there's many that would say that The Stone Roses "not actually doing much" is a good thing.

I'll be honest here: I have a lot of time for the self-titled Stone Roses album, possibly even more time for the B-sides and additional singles of their 1987-1991 period, and I even enjoy quite a lot of cuts from Second Coming. When I do listen to The Stone Roses, most of the appeal for me comes from what the rhythm section is doing, particularly Reni.

HOWEVER, I will never understand why some folks rate them as highly as they do. As great as Reni's drumming can be, the self-titled Roses album is more '60s pastiche than a fusion of "indie" and dance music to my ears. Their most widely-regarded track, the so-called "baggy anthem" 'Fool's Gold', is basically nothing more than a funk lick grafted onto a well-worn drum loop and to be quite honest, I find it to be one of their more overrated songs. Also, as pleasant as their 1987-1991 stuff is, there's nothing there that's particularly out of the ordinary, and some great performances by the rhythm section aside, it sounds even more and more ordinary with each passing year.

The hardcore Roses fanbase, too, particularly post-Oasis, seems to be made up of a large percentage of laddish tosspots.

Or, to slightly quote Neil Tennant, they've made such a little go a very long way.

meanwhile in America, practically no one I know has ever heard of them. Sounds like a lot of Brits would enjoy that circumstance...

Basically, they have a very, very, very over-inflated reputation here that doesn't correspond with what they've actually done, and that's something I guess that rankles people a lot, especially at this stage.

Always surprised that "Fools Gold" doesn't get a pass from haters, it's the best baggy song by a zillion miles, funky, minimal, deee-lite covering can

I really think the first album is pretty much flawless, in terms of guitar pop. If they hadn't released Second Coming, their mystique would be a little more understandable

have always liked "i wanna be adored" but it's nothiing that the bunnymen hadn't already done five years earlier. rest of the first album makes a good case for them being the missing link between the wonder stuff and dodgy

And now, the live TV broadcast you've all been waiting for. The Stone Roses!

...at Reading '96.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7IE3yhhR0xpXt_iP4NIt9nRkosjGswde

I didn’t really “get” the Sex Pistols influence with this band until I heard garage flowers

The worst concert ever on that stage.

Meanwhile, the best concert ever, on the other stage, at the exact same time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jst8yoqPTmo

that sounds like me singing along to that song in the car