Album of the day (#2861): The Stone Roses by The Stone Roses

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash



Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts
United States

  • #21
  • Posted: 10/16/2018 18:18
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Yann wrote:
And Made of Stone is one of those perfect songs


Made Of Stone is amazing and clearly the best thing here imo. As a whole, the album is very good, but not even close to the 29th best album ever.
_________________
Add me on RYM
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
CA Dreamin



Gender: Male
Location: LA
United States

  • #22
  • Posted: 10/16/2018 18:35
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Usually these AotD threads are just fans jerking off to whatever the album is. I'm glad that in recent weeks, these threads have been used to throw dirt on certain albums, and stimulate discussion. But why does it have to be against albums I adore, haha? I want my favorite albums to be adored.
_________________
on such a winter's day
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
CharlieBarley



Gender: Male
Age: 48
Location: Mount Olympus
United Kingdom

  • #23
  • Posted: 10/16/2018 22:35
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
sethmadsen wrote:
Stover75 wrote:
I had never heard anything psychedelic before like the Roses when I first heard them in '89. No that's a lie cos I had The Beatles Blue album and I'd heard The Doors' single Light My Fire. But I had never heard music as original as the Stone Roses before. It was all the players of the band being excellent: vocals were well-sung, spaced-out/trippy with often child-like simplicity, guitar was out of this world and quite original to my 14-year old ears. Bass was excellent and kept good pace and drums were spot-on. Also it was really trippy and psychedelic but also funky as hell. Yet to almost contradict this there was also a gritty, down-to-earth quality about the music and the band. I loved the anarchic Pollock artwork. It just sparked off something creative and rebellious in me. At the time they spoke to me like no other band.

If the Beatles and the Rolling Stones awoke my passion for classic rock music when I was 12, it was the Stone Roses who really spoke to me at 14 and encouraged me to find out more about music. Soon after I was into Hendrix, The Doors. The Kinks. The Who, Sex Pistols, Clash, Siouxsie, Damned, Buzzcocks, Iggy, Ramones, Bauhaus, Joy Division, Sabbath, Led Zep, U2, Depeche Mode, The Cure and The Smiths. And Floyd and T. Rex and Bowie a bit later. It all happened quickly between the ages of 14-19. There were loads of other artists I liked and loads I am still discovering.

But bottom line is, Seth, if you don't like a band it's unlikely you are going to change your mind. But that is my take on what turned me onto The Stone Roses debut LP.


Yeah for sure. And it's not that I don't like em, they just seem a bit lackluster is all. Like super high rated, yet all those other artist you mention seem to be so much more with it, for me at least.

But I think you are spot on, it's solid music that perhaps is a gateway to other more solid stuff? Seriously asking. Like do you think it's on par with Depeche Mode or The Cure or if we are talking more psychedelic (Pink Floyd or Beatles) or even the white boy funkiness of U2... I'm seriously asking if those are all on the same page as the Stone Roses or do you think it's maybe more a gateway to greater things?

If on the same page, then it might make more sense I'm needing more time with them, but if you feel they are a gateway, then I can 100% back that up and perhaps that's my problem is I already was into a lot of those artists and so they didn't really gateway for me. (Honestly hadn't heard of them until I joined this site in 2011).

Also if it captures a time for you that's great. You can tease me for really liking U2 for about 20% of that reason. I've heard the same argument for Oasis, especially from those in the UK. Oasis was big in the states too (I still hear Wonderwall on repeat on the radio stations. It's like there's a whole radio station dedicated to just playing that song on repeat).

I suppose the more I think about it, they fit quite nicely in a UK alt rock fashion along with The Smiths a bit. I suppose I'd rather listen to R.E.M. and U2. But all things being equal (but they are not), I suppose it's possible all those bands are just the same thing rehashed in different ways. Trying to see it from another point of view...


As a band and as one standout album I think the Roses are on a par with other 80's and 90's bands. However for me it was just that debut album and the first two or three years of singles and B-sides that were genius. After that they lost their mojo. I think Second Coming has one or two alright tracks but it pales in comparison to their first album. I wouldn't even have it in my top 1000 albums. I have only heard it a handful of times.

But if we are talking quality their debut album is perfect for me and on a par if not better than their contemporaries. However they did not have the output of bands like The Cure, The Smiths, Depeche Mode, U2 or even Oasis, who had at least 2 classic albums, if not 4 very good ones overall. So quantity-wise they don't stack up, but in terms of sheer quality, for a few short years they were magnificent and untouchable.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
CharlieBarley



Gender: Male
Age: 48
Location: Mount Olympus
United Kingdom

  • #24
  • Posted: 10/16/2018 22:47
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Graeme2 wrote:
For all the people who like this album but don't "get" it quite in the same way as someone like Stover or myself, the point is you never will. There are people who I'm sure do love it who are young but unless you were a teenager and British in 89/90, or even better from the northern working classes, then it will never mean the same. There are plenty of books and videos etc documenting that whole scene that are worth seeking out for anyone who wants to get a feel for what was going on.
I discovered the Pistols just after Madchester era but they can't mean the same to me as they do to the 2 million that saw them in Manchester in '76 Wink


I agree to an extent. I think anyone can get into a band from another era but it makes it a bit special if you were there just when they became huge and it was YOUR thing then. But I love the Beatles, Floyd, Bowie and others but I acknowledge that it must have been more special to have been young and alive just when they blew up. The Beatles are a good example because it wasn't just Britain who loved them, America took them to heart then the rest of the world.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Sandinistar




Location: NYC
United States

  • #25
  • Posted: 10/17/2018 02:20
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I mean, I wasn't alive, much less anywhere near Manchester, in 1989 and I still think this album is terrific. It's not particularly innovative, but it's a bunch of very good songs, and that makes a great album.
_________________
It's easier to say "I love you," than "Yours, sincerely," I suppose
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #26
  • Posted: 10/17/2018 02:34
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Stover75 wrote:
sethmadsen wrote:
Stover75 wrote:
I had never heard anything psychedelic before like the Roses when I first heard them in '89. No that's a lie cos I had The Beatles Blue album and I'd heard The Doors' single Light My Fire. But I had never heard music as original as the Stone Roses before. It was all the players of the band being excellent: vocals were well-sung, spaced-out/trippy with often child-like simplicity, guitar was out of this world and quite original to my 14-year old ears. Bass was excellent and kept good pace and drums were spot-on. Also it was really trippy and psychedelic but also funky as hell. Yet to almost contradict this there was also a gritty, down-to-earth quality about the music and the band. I loved the anarchic Pollock artwork. It just sparked off something creative and rebellious in me. At the time they spoke to me like no other band.

If the Beatles and the Rolling Stones awoke my passion for classic rock music when I was 12, it was the Stone Roses who really spoke to me at 14 and encouraged me to find out more about music. Soon after I was into Hendrix, The Doors. The Kinks. The Who, Sex Pistols, Clash, Siouxsie, Damned, Buzzcocks, Iggy, Ramones, Bauhaus, Joy Division, Sabbath, Led Zep, U2, Depeche Mode, The Cure and The Smiths. And Floyd and T. Rex and Bowie a bit later. It all happened quickly between the ages of 14-19. There were loads of other artists I liked and loads I am still discovering.

But bottom line is, Seth, if you don't like a band it's unlikely you are going to change your mind. But that is my take on what turned me onto The Stone Roses debut LP.


Yeah for sure. And it's not that I don't like em, they just seem a bit lackluster is all. Like super high rated, yet all those other artist you mention seem to be so much more with it, for me at least.

But I think you are spot on, it's solid music that perhaps is a gateway to other more solid stuff? Seriously asking. Like do you think it's on par with Depeche Mode or The Cure or if we are talking more psychedelic (Pink Floyd or Beatles) or even the white boy funkiness of U2... I'm seriously asking if those are all on the same page as the Stone Roses or do you think it's maybe more a gateway to greater things?

If on the same page, then it might make more sense I'm needing more time with them, but if you feel they are a gateway, then I can 100% back that up and perhaps that's my problem is I already was into a lot of those artists and so they didn't really gateway for me. (Honestly hadn't heard of them until I joined this site in 2011).

Also if it captures a time for you that's great. You can tease me for really liking U2 for about 20% of that reason. I've heard the same argument for Oasis, especially from those in the UK. Oasis was big in the states too (I still hear Wonderwall on repeat on the radio stations. It's like there's a whole radio station dedicated to just playing that song on repeat).

I suppose the more I think about it, they fit quite nicely in a UK alt rock fashion along with The Smiths a bit. I suppose I'd rather listen to R.E.M. and U2. But all things being equal (but they are not), I suppose it's possible all those bands are just the same thing rehashed in different ways. Trying to see it from another point of view...


As a band and as one standout album I think the Roses are on a par with other 80's and 90's bands. However for me it was just that debut album and the first two or three years of singles and B-sides that were genius. After that they lost their mojo. I think Second Coming has one or two alright tracks but it pales in comparison to their first album. I wouldn't even have it in my top 1000 albums. I have only heard it a handful of times.

But if we are talking quality their debut album is perfect for me and on a par if not better than their contemporaries. However they did not have the output of bands like The Cure, The Smiths, Depeche Mode, U2 or even Oasis, who had at least 2 classic albums, if not 4 very good ones overall. So quantity-wise they don't stack up, but in terms of sheer quality, for a few short years they were magnificent and untouchable.


Thanks mate - perhaps I'll give it a few more spins. I've listened to it maybe only 5 times, but nothing really cried come back for more. I do have I Am The Resurrection on a playlist, and totally will listen to it then and enjoy it... rarely skipping.

And maybe as Graeme2 pointed out, I may be incapable of appreciating it because I wasn't there. Sometimes stuff is like that, and that's ok. Something really good usually can overcome things like that, but other times it's like an inside joke and really isn't funny unless "you were there".


Back to the album itself, I like She Bangs the Drums and Waterfall - gave those a rating of 90 (which for me is near perfect... almost always go from 90 to a 100).
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Sticky: 2024 Album Listening Club MrIrrelevant Music
Album of the day (#1704): The Stone R... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#4037): The Stone R... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#487): The Stone Ro... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#932): The Stone Ro... albummaster Music

 
Back to Top