Stone Roses - Stone Roses: C/D?

xp. they're talking total pish.

one of the worst mark g posts ive seen and that's saying something

i actually listened to the first album for the first time in a very long time recently. it still sounds pretty good. the pop catchiness of the songs definitely a strength. the second album was okay but not nearly as smooth a listen obviously. and nowhere near as good as the second suede album. the baggy dudes don't age well in general though. they are all kinda burnt from their party daze.

i checked out the new song on their youtube channel and yeah its pretty lame. but diehard fans will probably force themselves to love it. also just sound-quality-wise it sounds terrible on youtube. demo-ish.

That's exactly what i said upthread, it sounds like a demo.

I'm just being wacky, don't mind me.

because the songs are important, but only a quarter of what makes it

I'm trying to understand what the other 3/4s is, because I live in the US and didn't really discover them until about 1999 or so, so I didn't have any historical context or timing issues to consider. I think I just like the songs and the production?

anoraks, swagger

Anoraks?

This entire thread should explain it to any puzzled Americans

Y'know, for some reason this new track feels like an edited down version of something longer. I wouldn't be surprised if there turned out to be a much longer version of it. I agree that it sounds very demo-like too.

lol at eyeball kicks' pic in that thread. no way those dudes are wearing properly fitted shoes

Also sounds like an edit to me. Concise solidarity/good vibes number, musically it's in the vein of the first half of 'Standing Here,' but obv more energetic. I like it.

dunno, my position here is that I could make an album with 12 songs as good as that 1st album.
timing, of course, is the essence. Also, they did it, I did not.
― Mark G, Friday, May 13, 2016 1:19 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol this is all time, wow

all-time wrong.

not defending the band ever, just wrong.

My problem with All For One (All Bore One amirite) is that it feels so obvious. Like an Oasis demo, my wife said. What I love about the first album and the early stuff in general is the sense of menace and unpredictability. Their songs went in weird directions. They had real chemistry as a band, which I think just dissipated in all the years of not making records.

Like even on "Sally Cinnamon," the bridge gets all jagged, "Your eyes are gazing back from every little piece of glass," and then there's a whole raucous outro. The timing and dynamics are so fluid.

Awful One.

Standing Here is one of the tunes I immediately went to as contrast for why the new one is so bad! The drums are so supple and swinging, Squire's guitar is constantly varying from bar to bar, the melody goes in all sorts of directions. This just repeats repeats repeats, and not in a good way, in a horrible Stock Aitken Waterman 'open with the chorus three times' pub rock way.

you leave SAW out of this son

TBH if I was guaranteed fawning adulation regardless of quality I probably wouldn't make much of an effort either.

Good morning.

I made a fairly obscure point last night.

Sorry if it upset people who like the stone roses mor than they realise.

Short version: I did say 'could'

Long version maybe later, its the weekend and the sun is out.

People that possess more musical potential than The Stone Roses ever did:

Mark G and his washboard
My Pissed up dad playing his dusty old accordion
Mc Smilie freestyling outside Huddersfield job centre

diehard fans will probably force themselves to love it

Yup - this from a friend on FB

St_____ Mc________

Having listened to the new Stone Roses song constantly for the last 24 hours, I can honestly say it is quite possibly the best thing I've heard in the last 21 years.

haha. there's some absolute gold on Facebook.

Fool's Gold!

John Leckie on what happened to their chemistry during the long layoff:

"I worked on the second album (The Second Coming) for over a year and for various reasons I didn't finish it with them. I left of my own choosing so it's not a case of would I have liked to have finished it — no I wouldn't; they'd changed from being a unit. That bond didn't exist between them."

(From a good interview in the Quietus, which may be linked elsewhere in this thread but here it is: http://thequietus.com/articles/02579-stone-roses-radiohead-producer-john-leckie-on-that-album-the-trouble-with-kids-these-days)

The thing is, about half of Second Coming blows this track out of the water. It's been amazing to see the mixed reaction to this... it seems that most people that were arsed about it consider it a disappointment, and the rest are being comically angry about the negative reaction. I'm reading a lot of "What's with the negativity? This is the STONE FUCKING ROSES, and you're not, so shut the fuck up! This track will age like a fine wine!"

im kinda bored by it already. its a decent song but not amazing yet it couldve been so much worse. Im hoping the album version is longer and better

On a stereo at proper volume, sounds like the Who. Rock n roll. Swings plenty for me!

hi

Yeah, if he sings about being a wall a hundred more times and they throw in three more solos the song will really take off. Fingers crossed for that longer version.

Haha, Sleaford Mods dude is having it: "They wangled it I'm a victim" https://twitter.com/sleafordmods

I'm guessing this will go top ten in the 'nowadays meaningless' UK singles chart this Friday?

Played the debut album and a handful of the b-sides and singles surrounding it last night at record club. Given that there are two 40-something Mancunians in the party now it's baffling that we've never really spoken about them before.

Number 17

seeing a lot of "let's see you do better" type defences of the song online. I thought Roses fans would be above that

did you really? ha

actually can't think of a fanbase more likely to swallow any old load of turgid shit and get agro with detractors than roses obsessives

oasis

ocean colour scene

most bands

plenty of oasis fans accept that later oasis is crap, probably partly because of the fact that noel is quite outspoken with how bad he thinks a lot of that material is.

stone roses have a mythical quality that oasis and ocs (lol, just not a relevant band at all) can't touch.

I'm more than happy to defend the first two Oasis albums and their assorted B-sides. They would have been thought of a lot more fondly in the long term if they'd split up after Knebworth, I think. I'll never be able to find it in me to defend Ocean Colour Scene, though.

Likewise, I'm more than happy to defend the first Stone Roses album, quite a lot of Second Coming and the B-sides. I can't defend the new track at all.

Still, I was listening to Turns Into Stone recently, and even though it's a compilation of non-LP singles, B-sides and assorted stuff, I actually think it's their best album - better than the debut, even. The thing is, all this stuff probably took them less time to write and record than anything else they've done, which says it all.

the roses should have split after they released 'fool's gold' tbh

group suicide pact would have cemented their legacy

Dumpy's Rusty Nuts made the same mistake, they just keep chasing that magic.

DRN more relevant and enjoyable in 2016 tho tbf