Not Mani People Criticise The Stone Roses (1 Viewer)

[Wobbler]

Why are the Stone Roses adored?

The Manchester band are seemingly immune from criticism. Why? Their songs are bloated and their lead singer has a voice so bad it could strip wallpaper

Comments (229)

The Stone Roses ... their work smelled pungently of bloke

To celebrate its 20th anniversary, The Stone Roses is to be repackaged as a box set. This amazes me, but then the misty-eyed adoration enjoyed by Ian Brown and co has always been baffling. The band's eponymous 1989 debut always seems to make the top 10 best-ever lists. How the hell did that happen?

Perhaps my view is coloured by their live shows, which were like rallies for scallies. To be fair, after they got rid of Cressa (their answer to Bez) they improved. Drummer Reni would play improvised solos that suggested he really loved music, and guitarist John Squire was creditable.

For me, however, their work smelled pungently of bloke. I wrote about my doubts at the time. The hate mail was typically misogynistic, poorly spelled and scribbled ham-fistedly in green crayon, arguing that Ian Brown was a god, and that I was deaf. The Roses were the gang of supposed outsiders that all boys dreamed of joining. It was impossible to criticise them; they didn't have fans, they had disciples. I saw once Ian Brown backstage – he held court with devotees arranged at his feet.

Members of the music press were equally besotted. After one hyperbolic review of their Alexandra Palace "event", a member of Ride wrote an eloquent letter to NME, wondering if he had been at the same gig as the writer. (Unfortunately, he penned this missive on headed notepaper from the record shop he then worked in. They sacked him, so he concentrated on Ride.)

Even in the breeding ground for aggressively marketed mediocrity that was Madchester, the Roses were not universally admired. Tony Wilson once told me his theory that if you gave 1,000 monkeys guitars and Jimi Hendrix songbooks, they'd eventually emerge sounding like the Stone Roses.

If nothing else, the Roses were memorable for Ian Brown's terrible voice, which could strip paint off walls, and, given favourable acoustics, sap a person's spirit until death was a merciful release. Producer John Leckie and engineer Paul Schroeder hid Brown's voice in the mix. Give them medals (and earplugs).

The lyrics were not especially bad, but seemed worse because of the po-faced, pompous insistence by fans and band alike that Brown's mumbled doggerel ("Your big fat lips let go a scream") was eloquent. Or even political. Sorry, you've lost me there as well. See Elizabeth My Dear: "I'll not rest til she's lost her throne!" Well, that didn't work, did it? She's still Queen.

I know I've been swimming against the tide for 20 years, so let's be clear: I Wanna Be Adored, She Bangs the Drums, Waterfall and Don't Stop are all classics.

But (and this is a particularly large one) do we really need 8.12 minutes of I Am the Resurrection? I don't think so. As for Don't Stop; even the most addled, cult-of-Ian-Brown acolyte doesn't need 5.17 minutes of phased guitars and backwards effects. So, the Stone Roses' debut album: fine in the beginning, but it doesn't half drag on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/feb/17/stone-roses-twentieth-anniversary

I used to love the Roses. Absolutely fucking love them. Looking back I don't really see what the mad appeal was. Both albums had some strong moments (the second one far fewer) but their popularity is tough to understand.


Are you all too cool for them?

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Why are the Stone Roses adored?

The Manchester band are seemingly immune from criticism. Why? Their songs are bloated and their lead singer has a voice so bad it could strip wallpaper

What fucker said that?

 

[Wobbler]

Penny Anderson is her name. I edited my post to include the link.

 

[HMD]

i never liked them myself, the person that wrote that article is spot on.

 

[Lili Marlene]

I spent most of the ages 15-20 complaining about them


but that's only cos I liked Blur not Oasis

 

[ann post]

because like oasis people associate them with thier first drunken college euphoria's, thier first few spliffs and so forth, they looked like beer head students and conformed to arty ethics, or in oasis case, drunk asshole ethics. and like peoples first beer, every time you have a beer after, at some level you re-live the first.

 

[Lili Marlene]

If you're only getting into the Stone Roses when you're in college you're a lost cause.

ditto for the Pixies

edit: i'm typing this at home on a friday night

 

[Wobbler]

the person that wrote that article is spot on.

I agree, especially since she acknowledged that they had some great songs

 

[ann post]

true john, but the people who have these emotional ties to the roses actually went to college when the roses first appeared, and the pixies, so if i party with my sis's crew, sooner or later the roses come on. then fast forward to oasis, the bro's gallagher both aped and hyped the roses, so that generation (the oasis/blur kids) spurred into the roses.

 

[shidheat]

whatever about ian brown's inability to sing live or the hype that went with them, that first album still stands up for me. he sang just fine on it. loved it at the time and still love it. i DO think we need 8 minutes of i am the resurrection - it's an amazing tune; i DON'T care about the shitty lyrics - to me, the singing is another sound in the mix. besides, what about don't stop, should those lyrics mean something? they played waterfall backwards and made up words to sound like it. anyway, i don't recall anyone ever lauding the stone roses for their lyrics.

favourable rant over

 

[rettucs]

I used to love them. Realising Iam Brown was such a low-life scumbag prick put me off them. Now I feel ill if I ever hear anything by them, or by him.

I'd still go for Squire's solo stuff, as bad an all as it is - well I like it.

 

[Lili Marlene]

true john, but the people who have these emotional ties to the roses actually went to college when the roses first appeared, and the pixies,

that's a good point.


My favourite Ian Brown moment was when he supported the Manics and threatened to play Little Baby Nothing if people didn't shut up

 

[Wobbler]

I used to love them. Realising Iam Brown was such a low-life scumbag prick put me off them. Now I feel ill if I ever hear anything by them, or by him.

Not liking music because they're pricks is a dangerous road to go down. You might end up being turned off James Brown.

 

[ann post]

or phil spector, or charles manson.

 

[ann post]

or gary glitter

 

[rettucs]

Not liking music because they're pricks is a dangerous road to go down. You might end up being turned off James Brown.

I know. Its just that I spent years defending him to people. Then I saw what hes really like with my own eyes, and heard others telling me likewise.

I should judge them on their merits for sure. I adore John Squire. Meeting him in the TBMC that time is still a huge thing for me. Even seeing Mani with Primal Scream (the first time he played here with them moreso - it got a little boring after, but still good) was a big deal for me. I tried to stay as loyal as I could to Brown, but I lost it when a mate of mine was asked to testify in court against him in San Francisco after he blogged about a gig in which Brown and his merry band kicked the living shite out of a bouncer (probably still up there on youtube somewhere).

I don't dislike music usually, if its played by pricks. Brown (Ian) is a special kind of prick though.

 

[Wobbler]

We're all pricks here

 

[rettucs]

We're all pricks here

fair point

 

[David Kronenbourg]

amateurs! amateurs! great band when your 18. i was too young to be into them when they were massive. i think they wrote some classic pop tunes. second album is a turgid mess though

 

[aoboa]

Stone Roses were the Kaiser Chiefs of their time.