|
|
Post by supernovadragon on Jul 1, 2017 6:14:33 GMT -5
I am stating my opinion and my opinion only. I accept that they had 1 amazing brilliant debut album but after that, they don't have much. They had a semi-decent second album and then nothing. I honestly have never got the excitement of them, especially how upset everyone seemed to be when they said they was splitting up (again!) When they only had 2 new songs which wasn't even THAT good.
I've never understood what people who are that into the Stone Roses get excited about. There isn't much in the way of a catalogue. Sure they might be an amazing band live but, if that's the case, isn't that what bands like U2 and the Rolling Stones are known for? And when was the last time anyone got excited about them?
As I said, my opinion only but, I just wanted to get it off my chest
|
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Jul 1, 2017 6:27:02 GMT -5
Have you heard the compilation album Turns Into Stone?
|
|
|
|
Post by supernovadragon on Jul 1, 2017 6:35:47 GMT -5
Have you heard the compilation album Turns Into Stone? I haven't heard of it no. What is it? What sort of compilation is it? |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Jul 1, 2017 6:56:39 GMT -5
Have you heard the compilation album Turns Into Stone? I haven't heard of it no. What is it? What sort of compilation is it? From Wikipedia: "Turns Into Stone is a compilation album by English rock band The Stone Roses, released in 1992. It consists of early singles and B-sides that did not feature on their self-titled debut album." I think it's a shame that it wasn't a studio album, especially since I think it's much better than Second Coming. Standing Here, Mersey Paradise, and of course the brilliant Fools Gold to name a few! |
|
|
|
Post by My Big Name on Jul 1, 2017 7:16:48 GMT -5
They do have a very good/pretty large back catalogue, you just have to look hard enough. The albums are just the start of the story, Mersey Paradise, Standing Here, One Love, Something Burning, Where Angels Play and Elephant Stone are all fantastic songs that weren't on the first album.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 9:34:08 GMT -5
Stone Roses, Turns Into Stone and half of the Second Coming are great so I understand why they have fans. Also because they split up and became like a cult band (very popular one) so when they got back together of course people became interested.
Yeah, I agree they are maybe a bit overrated. But what I looked at my playlist I counted 34 good songs from them. Some are better than others but the're all enjoyable to listen.
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 1, 2017 10:02:31 GMT -5
For a lot of people of a certain age i.e. folk like me in their early 40's who were say 16-20 when the debut was released, they will always be a special band. I can understand younger folk looking at it and thinking what's so special about this lot?
You had to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 12, 2017 16:13:09 GMT -5
Their b-side collection is amazing though, better than their second album. Now where have we seen a similar pattern before?
|
|
|
|
Post by Norbert Gallhager on Jul 12, 2017 17:01:12 GMT -5
I'd rather have a band release one album that is as great as their debut than a band that realeases 5 albums that are mediocre or let's say "good".
|
|
|
|
Post by OasisDG on Jul 12, 2017 17:06:03 GMT -5
Instantly recognisable voice, mostly great guitar work, bass riffs you know as well as the lyrics themselves and possibly the greatest drummer of the 90s. What's not to love? Look at The La's, one great album then nothing, sometimes less is more (i fucking hate that saying)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 17:37:24 GMT -5
No. The debut is an absolute classic. They should have stopped after it, despite a few nice songs that were released in the 90's. But I don't think it tarnishes their legacy. And The Stone Roses is still undoubtetly the best album from 1989 (The Cure fans coming in 3, 2 ,1,...) with Doolittle coming second. Plus one album is enough. Look at The La's like OasisDG said. One album perfect from start to finish, and bye friends ! (and it's frustrating because Lee and his band could have released a second classic). |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 12, 2017 17:38:38 GMT -5
No. The debut is an absolute classic. They should have stopped after it, despite a few nice songs that were released in the 90's. But I don't think it tarnishes their legacy. And The Stone Roses is still undoubtetly the best album from 1989 (The Cure fans coming in 3, 2 ,1,...) with Doolittle coming second. Plus one album is enough. Look at The La's like OasisDG said. One album perfect from start to finish, and bye friends ! (and it's frustrating because Lee and his band could have released a second classic). I prefer Doolittle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 18:01:24 GMT -5
Take away the cultural significance and they really aren't that great.
|
|
|
|
Post by The-Ghost-Dancer on Jul 13, 2017 12:30:52 GMT -5
i prefer ian brown as a solo artist and i fuckin really really hope they have split up again and for good this time he can get back to doing what he does best,knockin out solo albums roughly every 2 years and each one sounding different to the last one if you ask me thats where the roses failed this time round john squire lost his mojo for writing songs with ian brown,,or brownie had ideas for songs that the others didnt like had A4O and BT been on solo albums i dont think people would of complained as much or maybe they would who knows all i know for me is thank fuck its over they flogged that horse to death
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 13, 2017 19:32:37 GMT -5
They were a special band at the time, great debut and great b-sides from that late 80's period, but sadly for legal reasons with their record company they could not release anything until 1994, so the ship has sailed for them, 1994 was already another era, also their second album ended up being an alien, people weren't too keen on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jul 14, 2017 0:54:16 GMT -5
I'm one of the strange people who actually prefers some of the Second Coming to their earlier stuff,
I'm not really into 'indie' for lack of a better word. I like music with some balls to it, louder the better (I love metal) that's why songs like Beggin You and Love Spreads appeal more to me than Waterfall etc,
Same with Oasis, give me Columbia and Bring It On Down over DLBIA or SCYHO any day
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jul 14, 2017 3:05:57 GMT -5
I mean, ok, it's your opinion but lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 7:24:55 GMT -5
No. The debut is an absolute classic. They should have stopped after it, despite a few nice songs that were released in the 90's. But I don't think it tarnishes their legacy. And The Stone Roses is still undoubtetly the best album from 1989 (The Cure fans coming in 3, 2 ,1,...) with Doolittle coming second. Plus one album is enough. Look at The La's like OasisDG said. One album perfect from start to finish, and bye friends ! (and it's frustrating because Lee and his band could have released a second classic). I prefer Doolittle. You mean this isn't the best album of that year... maybe I got my Lennons mixed.  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 14, 2017 15:15:14 GMT -5
A very good band, but nowhere close to a great one.
|
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 14, 2017 15:40:07 GMT -5
In the UK, yes. The rest of the world, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by GlastoEls on Jul 15, 2017 16:50:37 GMT -5
They're hard to pin down aren't they?
Their first album is a certain classic up against anything... and then that's it. Turns Into Stone is great, in the way The Masterplan is great, but Second Coming is not even close to Be Here Now.
Live, they came back in 2012 as a stadium band - far bigger than when they split in 1995 - but again mostly playing that first album again.
And they've been doing it ever since!
No sign of a third album beyond those couple of mediocre singles they chucked out...
|
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Jul 20, 2017 20:35:17 GMT -5
When i seen them at the Etihad last year it was good and i enjoyed the experience of seeing a band that's first album will always be one of those albums that i'll always go back to again and again.
This year i seen them at Wembley and Hampden Park and NEVER have i been so actually disgusted with a band as i was at those two gigs.
People were trying to pretend they were enjoying it but this was a bunch of blokes who were rinsing their fans for everything they could get and it sounded atrocious. I think peple get too caught up on "ruining legacies" by reforming because i always think the original albums and performances will always be there but those 2 gigs have left me with such bad memories that it's hard not to feel like i've become slightly let down by the band.
Having said that i am sure in a few years i will play I wanna be adored again and all will be forgiven.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 20, 2017 21:10:30 GMT -5
When i seen them at the Etihad last year it was good and i enjoyed the experience of seeing a band that's first album will always be one of those albums that i'll always go back to again and again. This year i seen them at Wembley and Hampden Park and NEVER have i been so actually disgusted with a band as i was at those two gigs. People were trying to pretend they were enjoying it but this was a bunch of blokes who were rinsing their fans for everything they could get and it sounded atrocious. I think peple get too caught up on "ruining legacies" by reforming because i always think the original albums and performances will always be there but those 2 gigs have left me with such bad memories that it's hard not to feel like i've become slightly let down by the band. Having said that i am sure in a few years i will play I wanna be adored again and all will be forgiven.  |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 20, 2017 21:58:33 GMT -5
It is for songs like Fools Gold that I think they were a special band, it sounded unlike anything before of since, very original, too bad that after this they went for a Led Zeppelin wannabes.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 26, 2018 17:43:48 GMT -5
It is for songs like Fools Gold that I think they were a special band, it sounded unlike anything before of since, very original, too bad that after this they went for a Led Zeppelin wannabes. I agree with this, everything afterwards was derivative and unoriginal, and you have to put it largely down to Squire. Second Coming blows as did The Seahorses who sucked majorly. Ian Brown has done some decent stuff after The Stone Roses but Squire did absolutely nothing of any worth. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5