The Roses to reform?
- Thread starter Larje
- Start date
ouchmonkey
Singe Gainsbourg
Can't agree with any of that!I don't think the Roses were either trad or lumpen. They played beautifully, and wrote some lovely, elegant, joyous songs. Their lyrics, although not the most profound out there (but why should they be?) made a whole lot more sense than most of what Shaun Ryder wrote. To compare them to an act as deeply unoriginal as Oasis doesn't make sense.
I like the Mondays, but Pills, Thrills and Bellyaches just doesn't stand comparison with The Stone Roses on any level.
IMHO of course.
OK. I'll give you more elegant than Oasis but a bit of a listen to The Byrds, Beatles, Lovin' Spoonful, Love, a bit of Hendrix (Resurrection basically) and some other 60's stuff and it's pretty clear they're just as unoriginal as Oasis.
The Mondays on the other hand were like some unmanageable cross between The Fall and Funkadelic. when they first appeared their music sounded insane and liberatingly new. The Roses sounded like yet another 80's indie band in love with the 60's (and there had already been hundreds)
They managed 4 good songs (IMHO) and I've already conceded that's more than a lot of people.
lyrical profundity wasn't what I was really hoping for - Ryder's lyrics were arresting, unique and packed with curious imagery. they were very much his and they sat well with the voice he used. Brown's inability to carry a tune in a bucket rather hamstrung his attempts to sing in a flowing melodic style.
comparing Pills and Thrills to The Stone Roses doesn't make much sense as it was their third album - but the first two 'Squirrel and G man..........' and 'Bummed' are both considerably better than either Pills... or The Stone Roses.
And it's fine for you to disagree with that.
you just wrong is all
...but says "Thanks for calling anyway, mate, really lovely to hear from you. Don't be a stranger, NME. P...please?"
Quite right. It's the usual bollocks which gets trotted out every now and again by someone with a vested interest in trying to wring a bit more money out of the Roses' legacy. It's the 20th anniversary of the debut album don't forget.
OK. I'll give you more elegant than Oasis but a bit of a listen to The Byrds, Beatles, Lovin' Spoonful, Love, a bit of Hendrix (Resurrection basically) and some other 60's stuff and it's pretty clear they're just as unoriginal as Oasis.
The Mondays on the other hand were like some unmanageable cross between The Fall and Funkadelic. when they first appeared their music sounded insane and liberatingly new. The Roses sounded like yet another 80's indie band in love with the 60's (and there had already been hundreds)
They managed 4 good songs (IMHO) and I've already conceded that's more than a lot of people.
lyrical profundity wasn't what I was really hoping for - Ryder's lyrics were arresting, unique and packed with curious imagery. they were very much his and they sat well with the voice he used. Brown's inability to carry a tune in a bucket rather hamstrung his attempts to sing in a flowing melodic style.
comparing Pills and Thrills to The Stone Roses doesn't make much sense as it was their third album - but the first two 'Squirrel and G man..........' and 'Bummed' are both considerably better than either Pills... or The Stone Roses.
And it's fine for you to disagree with that.
you just wrong is all
Yep, I agree with all that.
OK. I'll give you more elegant than Oasis but a bit of a listen to The Byrds, Beatles, Lovin' Spoonful, Love, a bit of Hendrix (Resurrection basically) and some other 60's stuff and it's pretty clear they're just as unoriginal as Oasis.
The Mondays on the other hand were like some unmanageable cross between The Fall and Funkadelic. when they first appeared their music sounded insane and liberatingly new. The Roses sounded like yet another 80's indie band in love with the 60's (and there had already been hundreds)
They managed 4 good songs (IMHO) and I've already conceded that's more than a lot of people.
lyrical profundity wasn't what I was really hoping for - Ryder's lyrics were arresting, unique and packed with curious imagery. they were very much his and they sat well with the voice he used. Brown's inability to carry a tune in a bucket rather hamstrung his attempts to sing in a flowing melodic style.
comparing Pills and Thrills to The Stone Roses doesn't make much sense as it was their third album - but the first two 'Squirrel and G man..........' and 'Bummed' are both considerably better than either Pills... or The Stone Roses.
And it's fine for you to disagree with that.
you just wrong is all
Well, you have your opinion and I'll have mine.
I don't dislike the Mondays, but I never found their music anywhere near as enjoyable as the Roses. Maybe that's because <whispers> I don't like The Fall, whereas I do love the sort of jangling, catchy tunes the Roses wrote (and I'm a big fan of The Smiths and The Housemartins too, both bands in a fairly similar vein). I don't much care if it wasn't spectacularly original, tbh: it seems a bit beside the point.
Meanwhile, much as Shaun Ryders's crack-addled nonsense poetry can be mildly entertaining, it doesn't do nearly as much for me as the words of songs like Waterfall, Song for my Sugar Spun Sister or She Bangs the Drums, to name but three of my favourite Roses songs.
Voley
🐭
He has some genuinely good lyrics in amongst all that. 'Kinky Afro' and 'Stinkin Thinkin' are both really well written.
rikwakefield
Born to be Mild
Does anyone find it funny that Squire has an art show opening and Brown is ready for releasing a new album?
Have we been PR'd?
Have we been PR'd?
savoloysam
Standing on the edge of the Hoover Dam
They should leave it. They were crap live when I saw them anyway.
It could never happen, and tbh even if it could it shouldn't. They'd only ever be a shadow of what they were twenty () years ago.
Touring and rereleasing the first album my brother in law was telling me
