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

manurock

I am with seth here - a friend I am very fond of gave me this album as a present so I had all the tickets for liking or loving it but it was a big deception for me.

Yann

Gender: Male
Location: France

Graeme2 wrote:

Yann wrote:

This a strange album, a bit overrated in my opinion. I think what people like is the psychedelia and the production which is very arid to my ears, but nonetheless and perhaps for that reason, fresh. Overall it's an indie sound because of the vocals but the instrumentation is cleverly recorded, with contrast, style and focus, not compressed and loud like today's music, but I would stay too static: the rhythm section tries to be funky but the production, along with the singer, muffle this funkiness and sticks to what would become indie 90's psychedelia (the album is not 80's in the spirit at all).
And Made of Stone is one of those perfect songs

The band were never thrilled in the way the production was lacking a bit in low end. As far as the "tries" to be funky, I find that a bit funny. Certainly the production plays that aspect down somewhat but the rhythm is still funky as hell in the places it needs to be.

you're right, they don't just try: by using that word, i was influence by the end result : )
And yes I forgot that the band was not so happy with the production. But I'm still wondering if this production plays a role in the album huge recognition: there's a certain elegance in it. But perhaps they would have sold more copies with a more shiny production, especially in the US.

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

I've tried, and I've listened to these comments, but I still think it's one of the most overrated albums in history. Sad

Plus I absolutely despise that artwork. Mad

CharlieBarley

Gender: Male
Age: 48
Location: Mount Olympus

sethmadsen wrote:

I respect your taste - tell me more.

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.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

StreetSpirit wrote:

seth,

there are no words,
to describe the way you feeeeel

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

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...

theblueboy

Yeah I think I get why this one's divisive. I'm not a huge fan but totally get Stover and Graeme's comments. If your into the psychedelia, bravado and sense of excitement in this album, then it's probably worthy of classic status. It doesn't seem to appeal to a lot of people who weren't there at the time though. And yeah, like those people, I'm left a bit cold by the vocals, production and overall songwriting.

Graeme2

Gender: Male
Location: The Upside Down

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

HazeyTwilight
boyfriend in your wet dreams

Gender: Male
Age: 26
Location: Elmo Knows Where You Live

how can anyone hate that cover it's one of the most subtle poignant political statements that has ever graced the medium of album art

oh and the music is alright too, i guess
(no but seriously, this album is awesome)
_________________

Antonio-Pedro
Subspace Highway Traveler

Gender: Male
Age: 24
Location: Rain forest Kingdom

I mean I could sell my soul, but The dollar with the dolar valour right now it's just not worth it
_________________
Top 100 Hits you must hear before the u... of beauty