The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses

Revol · 03-20-2010, 01:07 PM

Late 80s Manchester. Already a major hub for Alternative music, with local bands such as Joy Division, New Order, The Smiths and Happy Mondays all leaving a mark, and Tony Wilson's romantically idealistic, shamelessly maverick Factory records giving the conventional music industry run by people who didn't have a clue the good old two fingers. A great place to be if you weren't into Wham! or Bananarama like the cool kids were. But one band would change Alternative rock forever.

The Stone Roses, four lads from a council estate, Ian Brown, John Squire, Mani and Reni, produced an album which many bands have tried to replicate, but not one of them have come close to producing the magic of their debut album. Before the Roses and their debut came along, Indie Rock was confined to small venues. Afterwards, you saw the likes of Oasis, Blur, Manic Street Preachers and Radiohead selling out stadiums and arenas.

Within The Stone Roses you had Squire's spine-tingling, jingly jangly guitar picking, giving you the vision of being in a daze on a lazy summer's day. Mani brought the grooves to the band, his bass playing as conclusive proof that you can dance to Rock music after all. Reni's unrestrained drumming, hitting whatever he feels like and miraculously holding it all together, as if Keith Moon had been reincarnated as a floppy hat wearing scally. And, to top it all off, Ian Brown's chillingly raspy vocals, the epitome of cool, never angering, just calmly keeping the pace.

An entire generation had been defined by the eleven tracks on this album (or, thirteen, if you own the American version). The album opens with the explosive, anthemic I Wanna Be Adored, a song you can't help but shout out with memorable lyrics, a great guitar riff and that recognisable bassline which kicks things off. And then, the album is closed with I Am The Ressurrection. The band's eight minute magnum opus starts off a tight and well-restrained pop ditty, and ends with madness in the form of what was apparently an improvised jam section, guitar solos left right and centre, haunting yelps in the background and a rhythm section that would turn any other band green with envy.

In between however, you have a fantasic pick of songs. Waterfall, another one with an instantly recognisable melody, hops along to the beat with lyrics about American Imperialism. Made Of Stone is a dark number which tells of someone fantasising about dying in a car crash with his lover. Bye Bye Badman is an account of the 1968 Paris Riots with an ever changing tempo, Elizabeth My Dear is an anti-Monarchy protest song to the tune of Scarborough Fair, and She Bangs The Drums is possibly one of the greatest love songs of all time, which builds up and builds up to a chorus you won't forget any time soon. All along what can only be described as a journey when listening to this album, the songs are sprinkled with lyrics of religious imagery and guitar licks that hark back to the Psychedelic Pop days of the 1960s. Some theorise that it is actually a concept album, about the life and death of Jesus.

Now, I am always quick to defend the band's follow-up album, Second Coming, released six years later. Sure it's different but it still has some great songs on it. An underrated masterpiece. But I could never compare it to the album that sustained Manchester's place on the map forever. It's an album that just can't be copied, no matter how many bands try. There was nothing like it before, and there's been nothing like it since. The album is youthful, romantic, idealistic. It's confident, maverick, intelligent. It is perfection.

10/10

Unknown Soldier · 03-21-2010, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revol

Late 80s Manchester. Already a major hub for Alternative music, with local bands such as Joy Division, New Order, The Smiths and Happy Mondays all leaving a mark, and Tony Wilson's romantically idealistic, shamelessly maverick Factory records giving the conventional music industry run by people who didn't have a clue the good old two fingers. A great place to be if you weren't into Wham! or Bananarama like the cool kids were. But one band would change Alternative rock forever.

The Stone Roses, four lads from a council estate, Ian Brown, John Squire, Mani and Reni, produced an album which many bands have tried to replicate, but not one of them have come close to producing the magic of their debut album. Before the Roses and their debut came along, Indie Rock was confined to small venues. Afterwards, you saw the likes of Oasis, Blur, Manic Street Preachers and Radiohead selling out stadiums and arenas.

Within The Stone Roses you had Squire's spine-tingling, jingly jangly guitar picking, giving you the vision of being in a daze on a lazy summer's day. Mani brought the grooves to the band, his bass playing as conclusive proof that you can dance to Rock music after all. Reni's unrestrained drumming, hitting whatever he feels like and miraculously holding it all together, as if Keith Moon had been reincarnated as a floppy hat wearing scally. And, to top it all off, Ian Brown's chillingly raspy vocals, the epitome of cool, never angering, just calmly keeping the pace.

An entire generation had been defined by the eleven tracks on this album (or, thirteen, if you own the American version). The album opens with the explosive, anthemic I Wanna Be Adored, a song you can't help but shout out with memorable lyrics, a great guitar riff and that recognisable bassline which kicks things off. And then, the album is closed with I Am The Ressurrection. The band's eight minute magnum opus starts off a tight and well-restrained pop ditty, and ends with madness in the form of what was apparently an improvised jam section, guitar solos left right and centre, haunting yelps in the background and a rhythm section that would turn any other band green with envy.

In between however, you have a fantasic pick of songs. Waterfall, another one with an instantly recognisable melody, hops along to the beat with lyrics about American Imperialism. Made Of Stone is a dark number which tells of someone fantasising about dying in a car crash with his lover. Bye Bye Badman is an account of the 1968 Paris Riots with an ever changing tempo, Elizabeth My Dear is an anti-Monarchy protest song to the tune of Scarborough Fair, and She Bangs The Drums is possibly one of the greatest love songs of all time, which builds up and builds up to a chorus you won't forget any time soon. All along what can only be described as a journey when listening to this album, the songs are sprinkled with lyrics of religious imagery and guitar licks that hark back to the Psychedelic Pop days of the 1960s. Some theorise that it is actually a concept album, about the life and death of Jesus.

Now, I am always quick to defend the band's follow-up album, Second Coming, released six years later. Sure it's different but it still has some great songs on it. An underrated masterpiece. But I could never compare it to the album that sustained Manchester's place on the map forever. It's an album that just can't be copied, no matter how many bands try. There was nothing like it before, and there's been nothing like it since. The album is youthful, romantic, idealistic. It's confident, maverick, intelligent. It is perfection.

10/10

Strangely enough, I`ve been listening to a lot of stuff over the past couple of days to come out of Manchester in this time period (In fact all the bands that you mentioned etc) and was just listening to the Stone Roses debut yesterday after not having heard it for a couple of years.

You`ve done a great review here and the album does have a certain magic about it, and for me along with the Smiths debut possibly the best album to have come out of Manchester (based on what I`ve heard of course) The Smiths evoke a kind of romantic nostalgia, whereas The Stones`s debut has an almost dreamy magic to it that becomes so apparent as soon as the opening "I Wanna Be Adored" kicks in. Only shame for me is that "Elizabeth My Dear" is so short but the rest of the album is full of great stuff. Only criticism is, that a few of the songs tend to drag in a couple of places and its position as the best ever British album of all time is also highly debatable.....but nobody can question its impact on British music.

Surprisingly I`ve never listened to the follow up album but will in the next few days. Its just a shame, that the much publicized problems that hit the band after this album, along with some bad luck that their flame was stolen by the less talented Oasis.

Revol · 04-01-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Strangely enough, I`ve been listening to a lot of stuff over the past couple of days to come out of Manchester in this time period (In fact all the bands that you mentioned etc) and was just listening to the Stone Roses debut yesterday after not having heard it for a couple of years.

You`ve done a great review here and the album does have a certain magic about it, and for me along with the Smiths debut possibly the best album to have come out of Manchester (based on what I`ve heard of course) The Smiths evoke a kind of romantic nostalgia, whereas The Stones`s debut has an almost dreamy magic to it that becomes so apparent as soon as the opening "I Wanna Be Adored" kicks in. Only shame for me is that "Elizabeth My Dear" is so short but the rest of the album is full of great stuff. Only criticism is, that a few of the songs tend to drag in a couple of places and its position as the best ever British album of all time is also highly debatable.....but nobody can question its impact on British music.

Surprisingly I`ve never listened to the follow up album but will in the next few days. Its just a shame, that the much publicized problems that hit the band after this album, along with some bad luck that their flame was stolen by the less talented Oasis.

You've described The Smiths and Roses better than I could. The whole aesthetic of The Smiths was based on pre-Thatcherism working class culture and pop icons from the 40s and 50s. Whereas the Roses had a very "dreamy", as you put it, feel about them. It's hard to describe but whenever I listen to the music of the Roses I can feel the chills down my spine and sometimes even the tears in my eyes!

Oasis are (well, were) a great band. Some classics in their back catalogue but they owe a hell of a lot to the Roses. They've come out with some stuff that has stood the test of time but the Roses...well, I can't really describe what they've done!

rogerrayenz · 04-08-2010, 03:58 AM

Well, what can I say about this album that hasn't already been said?
The first time I heard this album; within the first twenty seconds of the first track, I knew this was going to be something special, and I wasn't wrong. Every track on this album is pop perfection; why can't music be like this anyomore?

If it wasn't for this album, there wouldn't have been oasis, ocean colour scene, the stereophonics, and just about every indie guitar band of the 90s!!!

Has any album been so significant and influential? I doubt it,

Unknown Soldier · 04-21-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revol

You've described The Smiths and Roses better than I could. The whole aesthetic of The Smiths was based on pre-Thatcherism working class culture and pop icons from the 40s and 50s. Whereas the Roses had a very "dreamy", as you put it, feel about them. It's hard to describe but whenever I listen to the music of the Roses I can feel the chills down my spine and sometimes even the tears in my eyes!

Oasis are (well, were) a great band. Some classics in their back catalogue but they owe a hell of a lot to the Roses. They've come out with some stuff that has stood the test of time but the Roses...well, I can't really describe what they've done!

I`ve actually gotten around to finally listening to "second coming" and its certainly far more hard rock orientated than I was expecting with some riffy styling guitar in an almost Led Zeppelin style sound, problem is that Ian Brown`s voice is just not suited to doing this type of music.

I`ve always disliked Oasis immensely and the only album that I enjoy and think is a great piece of work, is probably their highest regarded "(Whats the Story) Morning Glory" but that`s because it has a whole load of great songs that are worthy to fit on a classic Beatles album, I suppose this is the highest praise that somebody could give the band anyway, its plagiarism to a level of perfection

glimpse of magic · 04-21-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I`ve always disliked Oasis immensely and the only album that I enjoy and think is a great piece of work, is probably their highest regarded "(Whats the Story) Morning Glory" but that`s because it has a whole load of great songs that are worthy to fit on a classic Beatles album, I suppose this is the highest praise that somebody could give the band anyway, its plagiarism to a level of perfection

So many band tried to sound like the beatles , but only oasis succeeded l

About the stone roses : this album is pure magic ! Definitely one of my favorite albums ever.

Aswad Vogelenzang · 04-23-2010, 11:01 AM

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.

Flyingpig437 · 06-29-2011, 02:08 PM

Inspired and sublime.

Badlittlekitten · 06-30-2011, 05:51 AM

Quote:

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.

Have to say I agree with most of this. After all it's just a retro rock album and certainly not the most significant and infuential album ever made, like somebody laughably suggested in this thread.

BUT it's a great retro rock album imo. The layers of guitar licks are sumptous, and apart from the Artic Monkeys, their hasn't been a Brit guitar band since with anywhere near the groove of the Roses rhythm section.

Howard the Duck · 07-02-2011, 05:12 AM

Quote:

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.

Acid House is a pile of crap

love the Stone Roses

haven't heard enough C86 to comment

03-20-2010, 01:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
Revol Clean Shirt Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Yorkshire - Home of the white rose, Emmerdale and the higest teen pregnancy rate. Posts: 68	The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses Late 80s Manchester. Already a major hub for Alternative music, with local bands such as Joy Division, New Order, The Smiths and Happy Mondays all leaving a mark, and Tony Wilson's romantically idealistic, shamelessly maverick Factory records giving the conventional music industry run by people who didn't have a clue the good old two fingers. A great place to be if you weren't into Wham! or Bananarama like the cool kids were. But one band would change Alternative rock forever. The Stone Roses, four lads from a council estate, Ian Brown, John Squire, Mani and Reni, produced an album which many bands have tried to replicate, but not one of them have come close to producing the magic of their debut album. Before the Roses and their debut came along, Indie Rock was confined to small venues. Afterwards, you saw the likes of Oasis, Blur, Manic Street Preachers and Radiohead selling out stadiums and arenas. Within The Stone Roses you had Squire's spine-tingling, jingly jangly guitar picking, giving you the vision of being in a daze on a lazy summer's day. Mani brought the grooves to the band, his bass playing as conclusive proof that you can dance to Rock music after all. Reni's unrestrained drumming, hitting whatever he feels like and miraculously holding it all together, as if Keith Moon had been reincarnated as a floppy hat wearing scally. And, to top it all off, Ian Brown's chillingly raspy vocals, the epitome of cool, never angering, just calmly keeping the pace. An entire generation had been defined by the eleven tracks on this album (or, thirteen, if you own the American version). The album opens with the explosive, anthemic I Wanna Be Adored, a song you can't help but shout out with memorable lyrics, a great guitar riff and that recognisable bassline which kicks things off. And then, the album is closed with I Am The Ressurrection. The band's eight minute magnum opus starts off a tight and well-restrained pop ditty, and ends with madness in the form of what was apparently an improvised jam section, guitar solos left right and centre, haunting yelps in the background and a rhythm section that would turn any other band green with envy. In between however, you have a fantasic pick of songs. Waterfall, another one with an instantly recognisable melody, hops along to the beat with lyrics about American Imperialism. Made Of Stone is a dark number which tells of someone fantasising about dying in a car crash with his lover. Bye Bye Badman is an account of the 1968 Paris Riots with an ever changing tempo, Elizabeth My Dear is an anti-Monarchy protest song to the tune of Scarborough Fair, and She Bangs The Drums is possibly one of the greatest love songs of all time, which builds up and builds up to a chorus you won't forget any time soon. All along what can only be described as a journey when listening to this album, the songs are sprinkled with lyrics of religious imagery and guitar licks that hark back to the Psychedelic Pop days of the 1960s. Some theorise that it is actually a concept album, about the life and death of Jesus. Now, I am always quick to defend the band's follow-up album, Second Coming, released six years later. Sure it's different but it still has some great songs on it. An underrated masterpiece. But I could never compare it to the album that sustained Manchester's place on the map forever. It's an album that just can't be copied, no matter how many bands try. There was nothing like it before, and there's been nothing like it since. The album is youthful, romantic, idealistic. It's confident, maverick, intelligent. It is perfection. 10/10 __________________ *Belligerent ghouls run Manchester schools, spineless swines, cemented minds...*

04-08-2010, 03:58 AM	#4 (permalink)
rogerrayenz Groupie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 5	Well, what can I say about this album that hasn't already been said? The first time I heard this album; within the first twenty seconds of the first track, I knew this was going to be something special, and I wasn't wrong. Every track on this album is pop perfection; why can't music be like this anyomore? If it wasn't for this album, there wouldn't have been oasis, ocean colour scene, the stereophonics, and just about every indie guitar band of the 90s!!! Has any album been so significant and influential? I doubt it, __________________ m3 ds real

06-29-2011, 02:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
Flyingpig437 Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 534	Inspired and sublime. __________________ Proper music for proper people!!!

04-23-2010, 11:01 AM	#7 (permalink)
Aswad Vogelenzang Groupie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 32	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.