Stone Roses - Any explanation?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    The Stone Roses.   Were they ever on your radar?  Yes, they had a few hits, but that doesn't mean you liked them, not does that qualify them as anything special (or even, any good).   

    I'm posting this because I have heard the Stone Roses criticized pretty deeply, by most critics (and by critics, I don't mean just the people who get paid, I mean, you, the music consumer).  Heard them positively attacked, if not destroyed beyone belief on FNX yesterday.   

    They lasted a bit over 10 years, and in all that time, produced only 2 studio albums.  The first was their breakthrough, what about the second?   Then, they disappeared for over 15 years, and now decide to reunite for a WORLD tour?  

    Is this an example of Britpop that was big in the UK / Europe, but didn't catch fire in the USA?   Any thoughts on this?  Anyone?  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Absolutely.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Definitely

    I think Zilla is a mad Stone Roses fan
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    I have both albums and like them very much along with some of their brit-pop mates. 

    Radiohead has carried a bit of their ghost for quite some time with impressive results.

    "I Am The Resurrection" is a personal fave...especially the extended rave-up at the end.

    Not privy to the FNX criticism, so I don't know what their general beef is....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]Definitely I think Zilla is a mad Stone Roses fan
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    Thanks, Jessey.  I'll wait (and hope) to hear from Zilla.  From some of his comments on some of my other recent threads on UK bands, this is probably true to form.   

    I think there's much to be said for some of the Britpop and looking at it from a less USA-centric viewpoint.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]I have both albums and like them very much along with some of their brit-pop mates.  Radiohead has carried a bit of their ghost for quite some time with impressive results. "I Am The Resurrection" is a personal fave...especially the extended rave-up at the end. Not privy to the FNX criticism, so I don't know what their general beef is....
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I almost got in a car accident listening to them  :D ... well, not that bad, but it was a bit off-putting to hear them bashing the Stone Roses like they were absolutely worthless.   

    The point was that basically the band was talentless to begin with, except for a few hits and how dare they think they can go on a tour after such a long hiatus and expect anyone to care ... really b*tchin remarks.   I thought it was a bit ignorant, even though I am admittedly not well versed in this band.  I thought of the lack of international POV, and that the criticism was out of line.  I would have posted on them yesterday, but I can't post at peak hours right now, due to a work project, but was glad I could post today b/c while I didn't lose sleep over it, I really wanted to run it by the forum.   

    Part of the criticism also related to the fact that there was a surge of truly great Britpop bands that came on the scene at the same time such as Blur, Oasis, Suede, etc.  Compared to those bands, the Stone Roses didn't measure up and coasted / rode the wave of success unjustifably and through good timing. (just paraphrasing what was said by the one DJ -- I don't often listen to them in the morning, mind you).

    Anyhow, I do appreciate the sanity check, and any further comments.   :)

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    As I heard many times back in the day when I was trying to be a star - it is as much to do with timing as it does with talent. Stone Roses may very well have  been a year too early for us here in the colonies (89 was still dominated by pop metal). Add in the fact that after the success of their first album, they were ready to move to a major label but the label they were with said no and a long court battle ensued. Their first album was 1989, their second was 1994. That is not good for exposure.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]As I heard many times back in the day when I was trying to be a star - it is as much to do with timing as it does with talent. Stone Roses may very well have  been a year too early for us here in the colonies (89 was still dominated by pop metal). Add in the fact that after the success of their first album, they were ready to move to a major label but the label they were with said no and a long court battle ensued. Their first album was 1989, their second was 1994. That is not good for exposure.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]
    Yes, I can see this; you've at least made your points with reason.   And yes, I don't know other examples, but taking 5 plus years for a second album and then breaking up not long afterwards, may not appear to be the best resume to some onlookers.  However, there appears to be more to it than that, and certainly not a cause to write them off.   There are many examples of bands that broke up / went on a long hiatus -- and returned / reunited, to a warm, enthuiastic, anxious fan base.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation? : Yes, I can see this; you've at least made your points with reason.   And yes, I don't know other examples, but taking 5 plus years for a second album and then breaking up not long afterwards, may not appear to be the best resume to some onlookers.  However, there appears to be more to it than that, and certainly not a cause to write them off.   There are many examples of bands that broke up / went on a long hiatus -- and returned / reunited, to a warm, enthuiastic, anxious fan base.  
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    Very true,

    Def Leppard went 4 years between Pyromania and Hysteria due to Rick Allen's accident in which he lost his arm, and Steve Clarks addictions, plus producer issues. Yet Hysteria wound up outselling Pyromania.

    They are one of only five rock bands with two original studio albums selling over 10 million copies in the U.S (Diamond Status) and they did this with back to back albums which are stated above.

    As I said, a lot of it has to do with timing.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lefig. Show lefig's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    I like them. Not my favorite but I do like some of their songs and have both albums.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    I don't like FNX's DJs at all.  Can't remember the last time I listened to them, actually.

    Blur is another one of those bands that just missed it in the US, and Song 2 was the only one to really make it here, and now it's a sporting arena staple.  They are one of my more-liked-than-others bands (hesitant to say favorite) and they have the only "best of" cd that I would absolutely recommend to a first-time listener.

    Relatedly, Gorillaz is an AWESOME side project that has really garnered some rave reviews over the past decade. They are a collaboration between Damon Albarn and comic book artist Jamie Hewlett, and have virtual band members who inhabit their music videos and live shows (often with the band playing behind a screen).

    First cd (self-titled) was a bit more dub/trippy, some serious grooves.  Second cd (Demon Days) was more of a concept album with a more traditional approach in terms of instrumentation and arrangement.  Third cd (Plastic Beach) is the lesser of the three IMO, but maybe I haven't given it enough time.

    Clint Eastwood is off their first album, and has some of the best lyrics for a guest rap verse ever, IMNSHO.

    Didn't mean to hijack the topic, but DEFINITELY worth checking out.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    At the time ( about 1989 or so) there was a movement from England known as "the Manchester Sound."

    Originally the Smiths were "the" band from Manchester, but we are talking a few years after the Smiths had dissolved.

    Leading the charge was the Stone Roses who were supposed to be the next big thing and they had some followers in the Charlatans , the Inspiral Carpets ( great band...if you like Stone Roses, you'll love them), Electronic and the Happy Mondays.

    Now. I'm not sure if all the bands that embraced the Manchester sound actually were from Manchester, but ( as with the Seattle sound, or more commonly 'Grunge', you didn't have to be from Seattle in order to be 'seattle sound') it was indicative of a certain keyboard heavy sound that was somewhat retro to the late sixties but distinctively different.

    I think that the Grunge sound , became so big that alot of people forgot about the Manchester sound and bands in that style sort of fell by the wayside. Guitar bands made a big comeback in the 90's and many bands that were supposed to be "the next big thing" fell off the map. Among them Jesus Jones , who despite a very big hit (Right Here , Right Now) , never seemed to climb into the mainstream and become big stars like R.E.M. , one of the few darlings of Alternative radio that actually made it to mainstream ...maybe the real beauty of the Alternative bands is that they remained "unfamous" , it kind of gave them this legendary status and gave many of us the feeling that these bands were "ours" and not for the masses. I always felt like I was "ahead of the curve", so to speak , because I was "tuned in" to bands that were really , really cool, and that most people had never heard about. Dinosaur Jr.,The Darling Buds, The Call, The Hoodoo Gurus ,Toad the Wet Sprocket , were some bands that I absolutley loved and people would be ...like ...."Who the heck are they?"

    The bands XTC, the Church and Midnight Oil all enjoyed a minimal amount of notice, but never became really mainstream rock. Sadly ( or not) they retain a bit of "cult status" among us fans, but I wonder if they ever made enough money to keep themselves afloat for very long. Surely these bands were not the moneymakers that U2 and R.E.M. became, but I always thought they deserved to be better known.

    Well, I've strayed off topic a bit. Yes , the Stone Roses were a short lived, but terrific group. We can only guess why they didn't become a bigtime hit. Hopefully, some of my rambling has a few clues as to what happened. Maybe they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation? : I almost got in a car accident listening to them  :D .. . well, not that bad, but it was a bit off-putting to hear them bashing the Stone Roses like they were absolutely worthless.    The point was that basically the band was talentless to begin with, except for a few hits and how dare they think they can go on a tour after such a long hiatus and expect anyone to care ... really b*tchin remarks.   I thought it was a bit ignorant, even though I am admittedly not well versed in this band.  I thought of the lack of international POV, and that the criticism was out of line.  I would have posted on them yesterday, but I can't post at peak hours right now, due to a work project, but was glad I could post today b/c while I didn't lose sleep over it, I really wanted to run it by the forum.    Part of the criticism also related to the fact that there was a surge of truly great Britpop bands that came on the scene at the same time such as Blur, Oasis, Suede, etc.  Compared to those bands, the Stone Roses didn't measure up and coasted / rode the wave of success unjustifably and through good timing. (just paraphrasing what was said by the one DJ -- I don't often listen to them in the morning, mind you). Anyhow, I do appreciate the sanity check, and any further comments.   :)
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    Well, everyone is welcome to their opinions, but...

    ...it seems theirs is based on erroneous logic as to why they deserve to be judged by what came after as opposed to what was around at the time. As zilla notes, they came out of the same scene as The Smiths, et al.   Basically, I see them as fusing a classic rock sensibility to madchester-style guitar pop.

    Now, they DID have a bit of an attitude, so that's a fair criticism, but it's different from saying they're "talentless".  (Oasis may have been a&&holes, but they were certainly talented.)

    Either way, the DJs came off sounding like they don't know what the &*^% they're talking about (us-bias? maybe.)

    The simple fact is that Stone Roses first LP was huge in the UK, and their live shows were the stuff of legend.  It think it was one summer at knebworth where they brought the house down.

    I seem to recall hearing Jarvis Cocker of Pulp (another good britpop act) saying that the Roses broke the scene open and that they one of the few bands who played rock you could still dance to.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from leafswin27. Show leafswin27's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    to chime in on what Zilla said.. i loved the Hoodo Gurus. They still tour now and then. one of the tightest bands ever.They had some amazing albums. Mars Needs Guitars was brilliant. Cover to cover.. not a huge stone roses guy
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]to chime in on what Zilla said.. i loved the Hoodo Gurus. They still tour now and then. one of the tightest bands ever.They had some amazing albums. Mars Needs Guitars was brilliant. Cover to cover.. not a huge stone roses guy
    Posted by leafswin27[/QUOTE]

    I loved this band , Hoodoo Gurus. I still pull out the CD's and play them once in a while. Probably as much as any band from that era.

    The whole Alternative scene in the period from 1987 to about 1995 was loaded with unique and interesting bands. It kind of reminded my of the late 70's and the explosion of Punk/New Wave/ska bands.

    There was a blur of so many really good,new bands you could hardly keep track of them all. The Replacements, Concrete Blonde. Throwing Muses, Love and Rockets, New Order, the Pixies, Bob Mould and many , many more. Some veteran bands like B-52's, Kraftwerk,The Cure, Depeche Mode,Siouxsie and the Banshees and Devo continued to make some of their best music through this time period.

    Sometimes I think maybe The Stone Roses got lost in this shuffle of so many wonderful new sounds, and great releases by groups that were still plugging along.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Which all get backs to my point - Stones Roses first album was excellent and well received, garnering good sales in the UK. But second album 5 years later really can stall a career especially when trying to jump the pond from the UK to America.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Awesome discussion, great reading.  I'll be back soon, as I have some comments.  It was worth hearing the Stone Roses criticized (one DJ was the azz, the other one made very valid and decent points) to have had this discussion.  :)

    BTW, since Zilla mentioned Electronic, they were recommended to me in one of my previous threads (New Order, PSB, Joy Division)  by Polar and Matty (I listened to a bunch of songs on youtube and the one Polar left as a sample was gorgeous), and a purchase is on the horizon.  Totally my cup of (green) tea.  Nice connection to see that band mentioned here again.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]...maybe the real beauty of the Alternative bands is that they remained "unfamous" , it kind of gave them this legendary status and gave many of us the feeling that these bands were "ours" and not for the masses. I always felt like I was "ahead of the curve", so to speak , because I was "tuned in" to bands that were really , really cool, and that most people had never heard about. Dinosaur Jr.,The Darling Buds, The Call, The Hoodoo Gurus ,Toad the Wet Sprocket , were some bands that I absolutley loved and people would be ...like ...."Who the heck are they?" 

    Yes , the Stone Roses were a short lived, but terrific group. We can only guess why they didn't become a bigtime hit. Hopefully, some of my rambling has a few clues as to what happened. Maybe they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]
    RE: Alternative.  Thanks for saying the above.  I think, too often, the designation / moniker "alternative" rock is dismissed because of the way music is now influenced, produced and marketed, but that should not take away or deny bands that were the true pioneers of the genre from being recognized as alternative, as they truly were.   There were recording studios, recording engineers and record labels that refused to record those bands, so they went to the labels and studios that welcomed them and became known as the pioneers of putting that music on the map (locally, one of those was the original Fort Apache).   Not to stray too far off topic (ha), but at times, I feel this genre needs to be defended and the original bands that made it, should be credited for it.  

    What I'm hearing is in part, that it was a crowded field of great music when the Stone Roses came on the scene originally, but despite their timing and inability to make it as big as some of the other bands of that era, that's absolutely no reason to discredit them or their music.  Don't know if they had "attitude" that didn't help (in the USA), but that's beside the point.  

    RE: Stone Roses.  I think we should all buy their new album in 2012.  :D  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kayti. Show Kayti's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    I seem to recall there was a contractual issue, hence the hiatus.

    If you've heard Ian Brown's solo work, you know he was not the one who made the band magical (for those of us who feel that way). However, his voice is perfect for the music. One of the other members was attributed by many critics to be the star song writer of the group. But, the chemistry from the sum of the band's parts also deserves some credit. Sometimes solo forays don't measure up to the output of an ensemble.

    I have not listed to FNX since the early 90s. Remember when they used to play an almost college-radio format (mid-late 80s)? I switched to WZBC a long time ago, comlemented by WHRB and WMBR. Now I just listed to internet radio.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from leafswin27. Show leafswin27's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Zilla I was into almost all of those bands you mentioned.. so many more as you say.. Always loved local faves Scruffy The Cat. Saw them so many times at teh Rat..Chameleons UK were another band that was not appreciated like they should have been. Ditto Hunters and Collecters
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]Zilla I was into almost all of those bands you mentioned.. so many more as you say.. Always loved local faves Scruffy The Cat. Saw them so many times at teh Rat..Chameleons UK were another band that was not appreciated like they should have been. Ditto Hunters and Collecters
    Posted by leafswin27[/QUOTE]

    I was listening to one of my Hunters and Collectors CDs a few weeks back. I had almost forgot how much I liked them. I have hundreds and hundreds of CDs from that era, just as I have literally thousands of CDs from the so-called 'Classic Rock era.'  I honestly do not know how I found the time to listen to so much music back in 1989-92, I certainly do not get enough time these days to do this.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Their self-titled is one of the staples on my iPod. I've been known to beat the hell out of my steering wheel during "I Am The Resurrection." Very good stuff.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    In Response to Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?:
    [QUOTE]Their self-titled is one of the staples on my iPod. I've been known to beat the hell out of my steering wheel during "I Am The Resurrection." Very good stuff.
    Posted by LloydDobler[/QUOTE]
    Awesome, thanks.    

    Could not be happier with the response here re: the Stone Roses.  It was worth hearing that "mixed review"  (including the trashing) and very gratifying to have the record set straight by the forum.  I'll try to post any news updates I may see along the way.   
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Stone Roses - Any explanation?

    Thanks again for all the comments -- thanks to and due to the comments, and with some decent luck, I got hold of a Stone Roses album.  

    Found the self-titled album, pre-owned, in my travels, and snatched it right up.  I knew a few of the well-recognized songs, and the rest are gems as well.  
    I absolutely love it.   Overall sound is great, too.

    An amazing album.  :)
     

Share