They're kind of pathetic

Stone Roses Discussion
jblack
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 11:12 am

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by jblack » Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:22 pm

thewiseman wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:13 pm
In many ways the La's are even more of a frustrating waste than the Roses as they had at least an album of songs ready to go in 1990, probably of better quality than the debut.
And the Roses spent 4 years labouring over the likes of 'Good Times'...


Btw, did you say this with a straight face?
But the Roses were one of the very few traditional four pieces that didn't sound like anyone else before or since
Sure. I think the band in its classic period had a very original sound. Not devoid of influences but definitely unique.

Bobby_Saxophone_2.0
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by Bobby_Saxophone_2.0 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:45 pm

I sometimes the think they deliberately released All For One just to prove a point that they didn’t have anything substantial left in the tank and that recording songs regularly was not going to happen. I have a tendency to always give them the benefit of the doubt....

User avatar
f0olsgold
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by f0olsgold » Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:50 pm

Bobby_Saxophone_2.0 wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:45 pm
I sometimes the think they deliberately released All For One just to prove a point that they didn’t have anything substantial left in the tank and that recording songs regularly was not going to happen. I have a tendency to always give them the benefit of the doubt....
absolute mong.
confusion colours cruel designs

thewiseman
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by thewiseman » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 am

Sure. I think the band in its classic period had a very original sound. Not devoid of influences but definitely unique.
It was only original in the context of the late '80s drum machine / synth / cheesy pop climate. And I guess you could argue that mining the 1960s back then was a 'new' thing to do (if you overlook the whole Paisley Underground thing, Primal Scream and Showaddywaddy pulling the same stunt with the 1950s ten years earlier)

The LA's certainly made no sense in 1990 - Mavers' was the wrong man in the wrong town at the wrong time. The album was a year too late, dance music was huge and so were charismatic front men. No boxes ticked. He'd have done better waiting for Britpop to break. Horses for courses I guess - maybe Lee could never write a Resurrection, but Squire & Brown could never write a Looking Glass...

jblack
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 11:12 am

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by jblack » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:39 am

thewiseman wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 am
Sure. I think the band in its classic period had a very original sound. Not devoid of influences but definitely unique.
It was only original in the context of the late '80s drum machine / synth / cheesy pop climate. And I guess you could argue that mining the 1960s back then was a 'new' thing to do (if you overlook the whole Paisley Underground thing, Primal Scream and Showaddywaddy pulling the same stunt with the 1950s ten years earlier)
I didn't discover them until 1991, by which time plenty of other 60s-ish bands had followed in their wake (I am sure I heard the Charlatans and the Soup Dragons before I ever heard the Roses). But I still found them very much unique. It's not the 60s reference but the liquid playing. Never mind Resurrection, what other band could have done 'Shoot You Down?' There are better songs, but the fluidity and lightness in the playing is incredible. Same for Bye Bye Badman, Adored, Where Angels Play ... basically everything from that period. No other drummer would have come up with the drum part to Waterfall. People talk about the debt Velocity Girl, and I love Primal Scream, but any number of twee Sub Pop bands could have recorded that song. None of them could played Made of Stone. Primal Scream couldn't dream of playing like that, that's for sure. Thankfully someone introduced them to Andrew Weatherall.

The Byrds circa Notorious Byrd Brothers had something similar, but only on the top end, their rhythm section was pretty straight ahead. The early Verve had a great fluidity but were much heavier and more rooted in 70s rock. I honestly can't think of a band that sounds, to me, like the peak Roses. And I'm sure plenty have tried.

Bobby_Saxophone_2.0
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by Bobby_Saxophone_2.0 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:39 am

jblack wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:39 am
thewiseman wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 am
Sure. I think the band in its classic period had a very original sound. Not devoid of influences but definitely unique.
It was only original in the context of the late '80s drum machine / synth / cheesy pop climate. And I guess you could argue that mining the 1960s back then was a 'new' thing to do (if you overlook the whole Paisley Underground thing, Primal Scream and Showaddywaddy pulling the same stunt with the 1950s ten years earlier)
I didn't discover them until 1991, by which time plenty of other 60s-ish bands had followed in their wake (I am sure I heard the Charlatans and the Soup Dragons before I ever heard the Roses). But I still found them very much unique. It's not the 60s reference but the liquid playing. Never mind Resurrection, what other band could have done 'Shoot You Down?' There are better songs, but the fluidity and lightness in the playing is incredible. Same for Bye Bye Badman, Adored, Where Angels Play ... basically everything from that period. No other drummer would have come up with the drum part to Waterfall. People talk about the debt Velocity Girl, and I love Primal Scream, but any number of twee Sub Pop bands could have recorded that song. None of them could played Made of Stone. Primal Scream couldn't dream of playing like that, that's for sure. Thankfully someone introduced them to Andrew Weatherall.

The Byrds circa Notorious Byrd Brothers had something similar, but only on the top end, their rhythm section was pretty straight ahead. The early Verve had a great fluidity but were much heavier and more rooted in 70s rock. I honestly can't think of a band that sounds, to me, like the peak Roses. And I'm sure plenty have tried.
Totally agree with all this and that is why, in my opinion, in my world, they are the best there’s ever been. More innovative bands, more consistent bands, 88-90 Roses is as good as it’s got (cant compare them to Mozart, jazz). I know they get penalised for their peak being short, doesn’t matter (again, my opinion), they are the top.

Ed Waterfall
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by Ed Waterfall » Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:00 pm

thomas wrote:
Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:17 pm
jblack wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:01 am
Ed Waterfall wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:48 am
I've just started listening to the La's again after 27 years. They make the Roses look like amateurs when it comes to unfulfilled potential! They had material as good as the Roses in 1990, in fact listening to it back I can't believe there were two bands that were that good down either ends of the East Lancs road at the same time. That's another conversation though.
I like the La's songs but they never really had the alchemy of the Roses' golden era. They basically had a (slightly) updated 50s/60s sound. No disrespect, I like their album. But the Roses were one of the very few traditional four pieces that didn't sound like anyone else before or since. I don't really think you can compare the bands in terms of import or, for that matter, potential. If the Roses had made two more albums with their classic 89 sound, even if the songs weren't as perfect as the first record, I think they would be considered as important as The Smiths/Clash/Who/Kinks bracket of British bands. I think even a prolific La's would have been a big step below that. They just weren't original or unique enough.
The La's album, although mindblowing, is not a fair representation of their work or what they were about. And frankly, getting the same fella who produced the stone roses to work with a quintessentially grass roots group was a blunder. The La's are the gold standard. The roses didn't come close to their integrity, not that it's any kind of contest. Mavers didn't even want the album released. He is such a perfectionist that he slags off everything he has ever (studio) recorded. The bootlegs and radio sessions from 90/91 are incredible. I think there was always frustration on their part too at the fact that the manchester groups got most of the attention from the press. I don't want to sound like having a go at the roses though, still up there.
Yeah, I didn't know the story about them hating the album at the time, I just remember hearing the album in 91 and really liking it. As you say, There's some belting bootlegs on youtube of other recording sessions, I'd never heard them until the last couple of weeks, and they're stunning.

I was comparing them in terms of bands that should have been much bigger than they were more than anything. I think if you're going to say the La's had an updated 50's / 60's sound, you can't not say the Roses did too, albeit in a different, and in both cases unique way. I'd disagree they weren't unique enough as well, but it's all subjective at the end of the day.

Anyway, this is a Roses forum so I don't want to go on about them any further. But for anyone like me who hadn't listened to them for years, or hasn't heard a lot of them ever, check some of the stuff on youtube out. They're branches of the same tree for me and they've got loads of soul.

the cotton clouds
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:12 am

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by the cotton clouds » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:16 am

jblack wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:39 am
thewiseman wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 am
Sure. I think the band in its classic period had a very original sound. Not devoid of influences but definitely unique.
It was only original in the context of the late '80s drum machine / synth / cheesy pop climate. And I guess you could argue that mining the 1960s back then was a 'new' thing to do (if you overlook the whole Paisley Underground thing, Primal Scream and Showaddywaddy pulling the same stunt with the 1950s ten years earlier)
I didn't discover them until 1991, by which time plenty of other 60s-ish bands had followed in their wake (I am sure I heard the Charlatans and the Soup Dragons before I ever heard the Roses). But I still found them very much unique. It's not the 60s reference but the liquid playing. Never mind Resurrection, what other band could have done 'Shoot You Down?' There are better songs, but the fluidity and lightness in the playing is incredible. Same for Bye Bye Badman, Adored, Where Angels Play ... basically everything from that period. No other drummer would have come up with the drum part to Waterfall. People talk about the debt Velocity Girl, and I love Primal Scream, but any number of twee Sub Pop bands could have recorded that song. None of them could played Made of Stone. Primal Scream couldn't dream of playing like that, that's for sure. Thankfully someone introduced them to Andrew Weatherall.

The Byrds circa Notorious Byrd Brothers had something similar, but only on the top end, their rhythm section was pretty straight ahead. The early Verve had a great fluidity but were much heavier and more rooted in 70s rock. I honestly can't think of a band that sounds, to me, like the peak Roses. And I'm sure plenty have tried.
Wholeheartedly agree with this post. Spot on.

rangers
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by rangers » Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:55 pm

I always thought it was a personal preference for myself. Something just resonates. But by going by some posts I'm not the only one.
As for waterfall. It's probably the one song in the world I've never got sick of hearing. On the odd ocassion I come home from night out and have a cheeky wee spliff I still stick it on with the headphones. And I'm away listening to those drums.
waterfall took the riff formula from day tripper and I feel fine and intertwined it through the song. It's what the Beatles could have been like if they had a really good drummer. I think I'm joking. But yeah I don't they realise how creative they were with songs like standing here.
Before the second coming came out and we had just heard the debut and the b-sides the expectation
Was really high. I genuinely thought they could released something up there with the likes of the Beatles.
However Time changes everything

rangers
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: They're kind of pathetic

Post by rangers » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:00 pm

I know I probably sound like a broken record and I don't mean to sound negative but primal scream relied to much on producers and collaborations to be put in the same bracket as the roses. Great band though. The same could said about the Mondays for the same reasons.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests