DS Forums

 
 

Were the Stone Roses a great band


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-08-2016, 23:50
owen10
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 30,384

They did not last long but they created some memorable songs, and i have to say one of the best bands Britain has produced and certainly the best band to come out of Manchester

How good would they have been, if the band did not split up

Do you think they were a great band, or do you think were overrated
owen10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-08-2016, 00:16
barbeler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,708
Personally I think they were highly over rated. I think you had to be at the right age at the right time and also probably on the right drugs.
barbeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 00:29
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
They did not last long but they created some memorable songs, and i have to say one of the best bands Britain has produced and certainly the best band to come out of Manchester

How good would they have been, if the band did not split up

Do you think they were a great band, or do you think were overrated
The best band to come out of Manchester was Joy Division.

Personally I think they were highly over rated. I think you had to be at the right age at the right time and also probably on the right drugs.
I'm not sure what's wrong with that combination as long as you don't overdo the drugs.
Some of the best music is part of the alternative culture.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 02:34
spaceygal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,587
I loved their debut album. It still sounds great today, I think. Not so keen on their 2nd album and haven't heard their latest stuff. Their debut is a classic though, but I do think Ian Brown is an atrocious singer!
spaceygal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 07:26
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
To u der stand this you have to appreciate the chart climate in 1988-1989, indie music was in the fringes , rock was mostly hair metal bands and pop was mostly SAW.

Suddenly a band from Manchester was rising from the underground and it was changing the lives of people when they heard me included. I heard the album playing the next room at a party and I basically had to stop doing what I was doing and ask 'Whst is that, that sounds amazing !!?' I had heard of The Stone Roses usually as a quick clip on the indie top 10 on The Chart Show but it didn't hit me till I heard the album.

I fo agree with barbeler that it is a time and generation thing , everyone has had Brit Pop and indie rock for 25 years now so hearing it now won't change people in the same way.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 07:28
wakey1512
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 441
The best band to come out of Manchester was Joy Division.
That's in your opinion of course - I think stone roses were better than joy division and certainly had more chart success.

As a reformed new order however, is a different story..
wakey1512 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 07:38
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,761
Personally I think they were highly over rated. I think you had to be at the right age at the right time and also probably on the right drugs.
think youve nailed it there ..... they did nothing for me, but i can see why some would like them.

To u der stand this you have to appreciate the chart climate in 1988-1989, indie music was in the fringes , rock was mostly hair metal bands and pop was mostly SAW.

Suddenly a band from Manchester was rising from the underground and it was changing the lives of people when they heard me included. I heard the album playing the next room at a party and I basically had to stop doing what I was doing and ask 'Whst is that, that sounds amazing !!?' I had heard of The Stone Roses usually as a quick clip on the indie top 10 on The Chart Show but it didn't hit me till I heard the album.

I fo agree with barbeler that it is a time and generation thing , everyone has had Brit Pop and indie rock for 25 years now so hearing it now won't change people in the same way.
hmm.... actually if you look at the charts from 88-9 youll see that guitar based bands , indie, had greater chart representation then SAW, its just the SAW appeared to dominate the top with their samey sounding drivel which possibly made it seem like there was more around then there actually was.

not sure what you meant by your last paragraph... indie was big ever since its conception out of the punk explosion, the smiths possibly the most obvious example through the mid 80's period (leading up to madchester).
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 08:14
Ronald_Dixon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 227
Awful band., with a completely tone deaf singer.
Ronald_Dixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 09:03
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
Age I was 17 at the time , I didn't about stuff like that , they were my indie band barely knew who The Smiths were and i hated punk music , I hardly listened to 'old' music when I was a teenager.

Although I did actually get into the Smiths but not till 1991

Yes there was plenty others like Primitives, wonder stuff, wedding present etc etcbut none if those were producing life changing music just pop jangly ditties that were great but hardly as life affirming as The Stone Roses. Only other band that arguably had the same effect in the indie scene was The Pixies but even still in 1989 I had only heard two of their songs , I am not using my greater knowledge of that era I have know I am basing it on 17 year old me.


And anyway how can I be wrong about how a band felt to me and many others , it was our experience, our time.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 09:14
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
Oh and I said pop was mostly SAW I didnt say the charts only had SAW in them, gawd so picky anyway I liked lots of music in the charts and I was a rock fan mostly but The Stone Roses were something else above all of that. They literally changed my life.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 09:17
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,602
I was 16 when they were around at the back end of the 80's, so they (and the Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets etc) were the kind of music I was listening to. Ian Brown isn't a good singer by any means, but I have met him and he is genuinely a nice chap, and was happy to chat with me and have a picture taken. John Squire is a remarkable guitarist however, very, very talented. The debut album is great, the B-Sides "Turns into Stone" has my favourite of all their songs, the ubiquitous "Fools Gold". Second Coming was a bloated, overdone album, and as for their new stuff, we'll have to wait and see...
eggchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 09:25
barbeler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,708
Amate of mine was taken in by the hype and bought the 12" single of Fools Gold without having heard it. He put it on and we listened expectantly, but it was absolutely nothing, boring in fact. Then I tuned in to the BBC live broadcast of what I think was their performance at the Reading Festival. I honestly cringed with embarrassment, as it sounded as if some random drunk had jumped up from the crowd and grabbed the microphone. One track I genuinely did like was I Wanna Be Adored, but that was quite different from everything else they did. Why they chose such a gormless, talent-free, tone deaf 'singer' will remain one of life's great mysteries. I was also puzzled by the popularity of Happy Mondays and couldn't be bothered to make the effort to watch them when I was at Glastonbury.

On the other hand, the status of Joy Division seems to grow and grow. They were startlingly original and sound just as fresh today as they did at the time. New Order are like a cabaret act by comparison.
barbeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 09:55
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
Well I can't be a revisionist I had never even heard of Joy Division until 'Atmosphere' was issued in the late 80s and I thought it was so depressing then I found out they were the band that did 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' which I had heard of course which I liked.

But even now I still don't really 'get' them loved New Order though
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 10:35
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 815
Age I was 17 at the time , I didn't about stuff like that , they were my indie band barely knew who The Smiths were and i hated punk music , I hardly listened to 'old' music when I was a teenager.

Although I did actually get into the Smiths but not till 1991

Yes there was plenty others like Primitives, wonder stuff, wedding present etc etcbut none if those were producing life changing music just pop jangly ditties that were great but hardly as life affirming as The Stone Roses. Only other band that arguably had the same effect in the indie scene was The Pixies but even still in 1989 I had only heard two of their songs , I am not using my greater knowledge of that era I have know I am basing it on 17 year old me.


And anyway how can I be wrong about how a band felt to me and many others , it was our experience, our time.
R.E.M.
Rocketpop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 10:38
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
Yeh true but they weren't really an indie band certainly by this point. But yes loved them i bought 'Document' and 'Eponymous' at the time but still they didn't change my life just great songs. Stone Roses led to a whole culture of clubbing, drugs, crazy fashions and girls which REM would never have done.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 10:46
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
....

On the other hand, the status of Joy Division seems to grow and grow. They were startlingly original and sound just as fresh today as they did at the time. New Order are like a cabaret act by comparison.
Well I can't be a revisionist I had never even heard of Joy Division until 'Atmosphere' was issued in the late 80s and I thought it was so depressing then I found out they were the band that did 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' which I had heard of course which I liked.

But even now I still don't really 'get' them loved New Order though
There is something of a Joy Division/New Order dichotomy. After 'Ceremony' New Order went in a different direction, became more electronica and dance oriented which is at times likeable in its own way.

Joy Division have made a lasting impact because they did speak of the place and time their were from but in a way that has a meaning that outlasts the era. Just watch the Grant Gee documentary ('Joy Division') and you will get the idea.

JD elevate music to art, have two great albums (the Roses only have one), a producer of godlike genius, a lyricist with a poetic vision and an iconography that challenges.

Also for those of you that think music is of its time. That's a not a bad thing at all. Great art can say something about its time as well as reflecting grander more lasting themes.
When Dylan was singing about 'Times they are a -changing', times were changing but of course his song could be applied to different eras of change. We are living through another now.

And I remember the late 80s when the Roses appeared, I was more inclined to listen to U2 at the time. The Roses seemed stroppy and laddish like the Mondays, less articulate than The Smiths or U2 but more real. The Spike Island movie reflects some of those sentiments very well.

I'm not sure if The Roses are a great band, they are not very prolific but they have made one great album.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 10:50
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 815
Stone Roses led to a whole culture of clubbing, drugs, crazy fashions and girls which REM would never have done.
Yeah REM weren't laddish and didn't write music for yob culture (which Oasis took to the next level...)
Rocketpop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 10:56
Pink Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,457
Wishy washy band who were the current trendy thing to be into at the time. Some bands are more about building up a coolness rather than substance. Stone Roses are a prime example. Not a fan.
Pink Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 10:58
swingaleg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,850
I would have been mid 40s when they came along and I completely missed them as I'd lost interest in pop music........similar with Joy Division, Happy Mondays, Nirvana and I'm sure there's loads of others

Since I've had cable TV and YouTube and people on DS link to various things that I click on I've listened to a couple of tracks by the Roses and like them

I'm sure I would have thought they were terrific if I'd heard them at the time.
swingaleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 11:29
Apollo Creed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 588
I think The Smiths and Joy Division are way above The Roses. As the years pass the legacy of the previous two gets bigger and bigger
Apollo Creed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 11:34
clm2071
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,293
Best Manchester band?

That would be The Inspiral Carpets

In my opinion of course
clm2071 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 12:18
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,761
Age I was 17 at the time , I didn't about stuff like that , they were my indie band barely knew who The Smiths were and i hated punk music , I hardly listened to 'old' music when I was a teenager.

Although I did actually get into the Smiths but not till 1991

Yes there was plenty others like Primitives, wonder stuff, wedding present etc etcbut none if those were producing life changing music just pop jangly ditties that were great but hardly as life affirming as The Stone Roses. Only other band that arguably had the same effect in the indie scene was The Pixies but even still in 1989 I had only heard two of their songs , I am not using my greater knowledge of that era I have know I am basing it on 17 year old me.


And anyway how can I be wrong about how a band felt to me and many others , it was our experience, our time.
fair comment m8y...

your last line though highlights what ive been banging on about regarding modern times... no era defining act that the young generation can relate to in the same way you did to the roses and other did to their groups before and after.

Oh and I said pop was mostly SAW I didnt say the charts only had SAW in them, gawd so picky anyway I liked lots of music in the charts and I was a rock fan mostly but The Stone Roses were something else above all of that. They literally changed my life.
i know you didnt say the charts only had SAW in them, my point is though that % wise there was a lot less SAW charting then one imagines, because i reckon their material was sooooo sameish it appeared to been more dominant then in reality it was.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 12:53
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,450
Awful band., with a completely tone deaf singer.
That's close to the truth.
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 13:45
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 728
fair comment m8y...

your last line though highlights what ive been banging on about regarding modern times... no era defining act that the young generation can relate to in the same way you did to the roses and other did to their groups before and after.



i know you didnt say the charts only had SAW in them, my point is though that % wise there was a lot less SAW charting then one imagines, because i reckon their material was sooooo sameish it appeared to been more dominant then in reality it was.
Yes there is no era defining band in 2016 but it's totally different for teenagers now and as I said before we have to ask them, they know what culture is moving them.. I know you don't like them but The 1975 are that band for thousands I have witnessed the adoration live snd on Twitter or for others it could be Kanye West or others Bring Me The Horizon, it's just very fragmented now.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2016, 14:14
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 815
Yes there is no era defining band in 2016 but it's totally different for teenagers now and as I said before we have to ask them, they know what culture is moving them.. I know you don't like them but The 1975 are that band for thousands I have witnessed the adoration live snd on Twitter or for others it could be Kanye West or others Bring Me The Horizon, it's just very fragmented now.
I think it's just a case that music isn't so important to this generation, there are more things for teenagers to be doing than in my generation (and previous ones). Social media is the biggy, Kids are no longer alone in their bedrooms, it doesn't breed such a need for someone/something to speak out to them from their speakers.
Rocketpop is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:42.