Originally Posted by Aswad Vogelenzang

I've always had a bit of a problem with The Stone Roses.

If you don't examine their debut very closely it's a good LP but actually as far as critical acclaim for cut n' paste plagiarism goes then it must be close to being the perfect crime.

I'm not going to sit here and argue that The Stone Roses were 'rubbish' because I don't think they were but the facts are that they lifted very heavily from the preceding and generally ignored C86 movement - and presented it in quite an arrogant way as their own. More than a little disingenuous when rather a lot of their work was taken, in some instances note for note, from groups like Primal Scream and Revolving Paint Dream and amped up a bit so it didn't seem quite so wimpy to Joe Public who wanted something a bit less wispy, a bit less weird. So cue John Squire's guitar histrionics as proof of their 'rock' credentials but if you are going sing 'I Am The Resurrection' what about writing your own songs?

Also the whole notion that The Stone Roses had anything to do with the whole Second Summer of Love rave/E scene thing seems like convenient self mythologizing. New Order yes, Happy Mondays yes, Primal Scream (again) certainly, but The Stone Roses? Don't think so. I was 17 in 1989 and rather than being the center focus of the Second Summer of Love, The Stone Roses were more like a security blanket for the rock kids to cling to while something genuinely revolutionary was going on - Acid House. But Acid House wasn't white, heterosexual and guitar orientated, making The Stone Roses the easy option in 1989.

In truth, while 'The Stone Roses' is a good album it really doesn't deserve the critical fawning it seems to have had down the years from the music press. It was neither innovative or really in touch with the zeitgeist as the truly great albums are.