Stone Roses: Embarrassing Or Genius?

This a a photo of the Stone Roses as few days before they play a series of reunion gigs in Manchester at the weekend:



They embarrass me. They were a fairly decent band in the 90's. Bit of a one hit wonder I guess, but they did ok considering their lead singer couldn't actually sing, but look at the state of them, they all look about 65!

This reunion is obviously about money, and that's fair enough, but who the fuck wants to see this bunch of geriatrics in 2012?

Really can't stand "indie" music personally.

For me the stone roses are terrible but many many people think they're seminal so, all subjective.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Really can't stand "indie" music personally.

For me the stone roses are terrible but many many people think they're seminal so, all subjective.

I knew we would agree eventually. 'Fools Gold' is pretty good but the rest of their stuff was crap in my opinion.

Natasha Whittam wrote:This a a photo of the Stone Roses as few days before they play a series of reunion gigs in Manchester at the weekend:



They embarrass me. They were a fairly decent band in the 90's. Bit of a one hit wonder I guess, but they did ok considering their lead singer couldn't actually sing, but look at the state of them, they all look about 65!

This reunion is obviously about money, and that's fair enough, but who the fuck wants to see this bunch of geriatrics in 2012?

That photo was taken when they announced the tour, many months ago.

The Stone Roses were a pioneering band, it is true they have a relatively small discography, but they were a massive influence on popular music in this country.

I don't know which 'one hit' you are referring to, but they had a fair number of hits.

You will find many 30-somethings deliriously happy at the prospect of getting to see them play, as they did relatively few gigs first time round, so that's who will be paying to see them at Heaton Park and elsewhere.

I'd consider John Squire to be in the musical genius category, as it applies to contemporary artists.

largehat wrote:

That photo was taken when they announced the tour, many months ago.

Right, so they look even older today. It's all a bit embarrassing really.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

That photo was taken when they announced the tour, many months ago.

Right, so they look even older today. It's all a bit embarrassing really.

John Squire, 49.
"Flava Flav", 53.

The Stone Roses will never be held in the same esteem as ABBA.

largehat wrote:

John Squire, 49.
"Flava Flav", 53.

You miss the point again. Public Enemy are still releasing quality material in 2012, they'd be letting fans down if they didn't do the odd gig.

The Stone Roses are playing crap from the 90's to top up their bank balance.

I don't think I do miss the point. Your original post asked "who wants to see this bunch of geriatrics in 2012?" That's an age related comment - I'm just responding to what you wrote.

People only moan about reunions when it's someone they didn't like first time round. The band is obviously not reuniting for the benefit of people who weren't fans to begin with, is it?

The three gigs at Heaton Park sold out in under 90 minutes, so clearly, lots pf people still want to see them. Of course they're doing it for the money, like all professional musicians.

Natasha Whittam wrote:This a a photo of the Stone Roses as few days before they play a series of reunion gigs in Manchester at the weekend:



They embarrass me. They were a fairly decent band in the 90's. Bit of a one hit wonder I guess, but they did ok considering their lead singer couldn't actually sing, but look at the state of them, they all look about 65!

This reunion is obviously about money, and that's fair enough, but who the fuck wants to see this bunch of geriatrics in 2012?

Can't disagree


Smackhead music; for smackheads, by smackheads

Lyric Todkill wrote:
Can't disagree

Smackhead music; for smackheads, by smackheads

Most ill-informed and provocative non-Natasha comment I've read on this forum. Proper 'hit and run' artist, aren't you Lyric? Post short, controversial comments and then bugger off.

largehat wrote:I don't think I do miss the point. Your original post asked "who wants to see this bunch of geriatrics in 2012?" That's an age related comment - I'm just responding to what you wrote.

People only moan about reunions when it's someone they didn't like first time round. The band is obviously not reuniting for the benefit of people who weren't fans to begin with, is it?

The three gigs at Heaton Park sold out in under 90 minutes, so clearly, lots pf people still want to see them. Of course they're doing it for the money, like all professional musicians.

I have no problem with people earning money, I just don't understand why someone would want to pay money to see them. Fair enough if they had a new album out or in the pipeline, but they don't.

People are stupid.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
I have no problem with people earning money, I just don't understand why someone would want to pay money to see them. Fair enough if they had a new album out or in the pipeline, but they don't.

People are stupid.

But they do have a new album in the pipeline.

They did very few gigs when they were active in the late 80s and early 90s and a generation of people have in the meantime discovered their music. Why you don't understand how these people, as well as older fans, would want to pay money to see them, I don't know. And you think -I- am the one missing the point.

largehat wrote:

Lyric Todkill wrote:
Can't disagree

Smackhead music; for smackheads, by smackheads

Most ill-informed and provocative non-Natasha comment I've read on this forum. Proper 'hit and run' artist, aren't you Lyric? Post short, controversial comments and then bugger off.

Still here!

I wonder if they get the wigs mixed up and appear with the wrong one.

I have a 'kind of' Stone Roses anecdote. The first time I went to Glastonbury, in 2002, I sat with my mates getting absolutely smashed and enjoying the afternoon performances on the main stage. I think it was Jools Holland followed by No Doubt, and then Ian Brown.

Anyway, by the time Ian Brown came out I was absolutely fucked. His band started doing the intro to 'Fool's Gold' and the place went absolutely mental, I started jumping up and down like a lunatic. Then, just at the point where the opening line of Fools Gold would be sung, the band abruptly stopped and Ian Brown said, "I don't play that shit any more", to loud boos and disappointment.

He then went on to play 50 minutes of his own material and every minute of it was absolutely shite.

largehat wrote: Why you don't understand how these people, as well as older fans, would want to pay money to see them, I don't know. And you think -I- am the one missing the point.

I used to watch Rainbow every single day at lunchtime, eating warm bread and butter from the bakery in Little Lever.

I don't do it now.

When I was a kid these were my favourite group. I'm showing my age now but they could sing and entertain. Clean cut, clean shaven, well presented. A proper group.

https://youtu.be/rvwfLe6sLis

Imagine the crowds if these lads performed at Glastonbury.

https://youtu.be/6l6vqPUM_FE

One of my lads appeared in the Stone Roses first video as an extra. I was slightly concerned at the time as he was very young and trawling South Manchester schools for kids was bordering on the dodgy. As a band they were OK, but were very derivative - hardly groundbreakers as they were recycling stuff in the same way Oasis did - and both bands ripped off Inspiral Carpets who were also famous recyclers themselves. Still they could knock out a decent tune from time to time and providing you didn't take them too seriously they were decent light entertainment. Their fans have every right to see them perform even if SR are just tapping into the cash cow one more time - both parties deserve each other and seem happy with the arrangement, so why not just let them get on with it?