Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Stone Roses (a question for the younger readers)

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Prettyblack
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Prettyblack


    Don't forget the Roses LOOKED amazing - the big baggy jeans etc. When they appeared on Top of the Pops in November 89, that was the start of the 90s right there. No more crappy 80s clothes and hair (at least, until the mid 2000s...).


  • Options
    #33
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Eh, a lot of the Second Coming is flatulent, overblown nonsense from a band desperately trying to be epic.

    I love it. People expecting another one like the first were only fooling themselves.


  • Options
    #34
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Pauvre Con wrote: »
    Yes, all music is formed by what's gone before and isn't made in a vacuum. However I think the Roses created their own sound. Records come along occasionally that are genuinely exciting and innovative - these are the special ones. Personally I never got that from Oasis. Sure, back in the day they released a few good singles but I always thought they were too derivative. Radiohead and Blur were doing far better music at the same time without the mass hysteria...

    So TSR were derivative, but not too derivative? How do you measure this?

    For example:






    No similarities there? Bear in mind that I believe that all music is derivative and it doesn't bother me when bands borrow each others ideas. That's what creativity is all about, be it music, art, science, whatever. So I have no issue with the idea of bands being 'derivative'. I think it's a load of ****ing nonsense invented by music lawyers to protect their pile of money.


  • Options
    #35
    Bobby Baccala
    Registered Users Posts: 7,342 ✭✭✭Bobby Baccala


    I'm only 16, mad into the stone roses since i heard a song of theirs in a film when i was about 10. I wanna be adored and this is the one are two of my favourite tracks of all time. Was absolutely raging i couldnt get a ticket for their concert last week, one of the lads said it was phenomenal.


  • Options
    #36
    Pauvre Con
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Pauvre Con


    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    So TSR were derivative, but not too derivative? How do you measure this?

    No similarities there? Bear in mind that I believe that all music is derivative and it doesn't bother me when bands borrow each others ideas. That's what creativity is all about, be it music, art, science, whatever. So I have no issue with the idea of bands being 'derivative'. I think it's a load of ****ing nonsense invented by music lawyers to protect their pile of money.

    It's impossible to quantify. All artists are inspired by existing work. It's just that some can take those influences and add their own twist, finding their own voice. In turn they inspire future artists and the medium evolves. But popular music's history is littered by those jumping on the sound of the era for commercial gain - so yes, music can and often is extremely contrived. I'm not going to launch a tirade against Oasis and I'm not suggesting they jumped on any particular bandwagon but despite their cocky swagger their music never sounded fresh to my ears; it was simple meat and potatoes rock. Fun but hardly The Bends...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Pauvre Con wrote: »
    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    So TSR were derivative, but not too derivative? How do you measure this?

    No similarities there? Bear in mind that I believe that all music is derivative and it doesn't bother me when bands borrow each others ideas. That's what creativity is all about, be it music, art, science, whatever. So I have no issue with the idea of bands being 'derivative'. I think it's a load of ****ing nonsense invented by music lawyers to protect their pile of money.

    It's impossible to quantify. All artists are inspired by existing work. It's just that some can take those influences and add their own twist, finding their own voice. In turn they inspire future artists and the medium evolves. But popular music's history is littered by those jumping on the sound of the era for commercial gain - so yes, music can and often is extremely contrived. I'm not going to launch a tirade against Oasis and I'm not suggesting they jumped on any particular bandwagon but despite their cocky swagger their music never sounded fresh to my ears; it was simple meat and potatoes rock. Fun but hardly The Bends...

    It was Mani who summed up Oasis well for me 'sometimes, you dont want to have to get out the logarithmic tables when you listen to a song, sometimes you just want to stick it on and for it to have an immediate impact, and that's what they did'


  • Options
    #38
    Pauvre Con
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Pauvre Con


    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    It was Mani who summed up Oasis well for me 'sometimes, you dont want to have to get out the logarithmic tables when you listen to a song, sometimes you just want to stick it on and for it to have an immediate impact, and that's what they did'

    I guess put more simply:

    Oasis release Definitely Maybe in 1994 - Gallagher buys some guitar songbooks of music from the 60s and 70s and they spearhead a disparate collection of bands that gets dubbed "Brit Pop" which the island revels in after a few years of getting its rock n roll arse kicked by the Yanks.

    Oasis release Definitely Maybe in 1967 - a groundbreaking debut that instantly reshapes the landscape of popular music. The band immediately become legends and over the coming years are deservedly hailed as one of the greats...


  • Options
    #39
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Pauvre Con wrote: »
    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    It was Mani who summed up Oasis well for me 'sometimes, you dont want to have to get out the logarithmic tables when you listen to a song, sometimes you just want to stick it on and for it to have an immediate impact, and that's what they did'

    I guess put more simply:

    Oasis release Definitely Maybe in 1994 - Gallagher buys some guitar songbooks of music from the 60s and 70s and they spearhead a disparate collection of bands that gets dubbed "Brit Pop" which the island revels in after a few years of getting its rock n roll arse kicked by the Yanks.

    Oasis release Definitely Maybe in 1967 - a groundbreaking debut that instantly reshapes the landscape of popular music. The band immediately become legends and over the coming years are deservedly hailed as one of the greats...

    I don't see what is wrong with borrowing from the greats. For example, Cigarettes & Alcohol clearly is T Rex, but instead of one great song there are now two. So whats the problem?


  • Options
    #40
    Prettyblack
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Prettyblack


    Getting back to the Stone Roses. I think what was exciting about them at the time was that they built up on the appeal of the likes of the Smiths, and other "indie" bands, but they married to a euphoric, E / acid house -like rush, which meant their music wasn't miserable and navel gazing, but inclusive and upbeat.

    They were essentially dance music fans who were in a rock band; which meant that people who were into E and rave music could also be into the Roses - not that any of their music was particularly "rave-y", it was more the feeling and the rhythms.

    And the clothes of course. They didn't dress like the Smiths. They dressed like people who were going to a rave, but they were in a rock band. I miss those days.


  • Options
    #41
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Prettyblack wrote: »
    Getting back to the Stone Roses. I think what was exciting about them at the time was that they built up on the appeal of the likes of the Smiths, and other "indie" bands, but they married to a euphoric, E / acid house -like rush, which meant their music wasn't miserable and navel gazing, but inclusive and upbeat.

    They were essentially dance music fans who were in a rock band; which meant that people who were into E and rave music could also be into the Roses - not that any of their music was particularly "rave-y", it was more the feeling and the rhythms.

    And the clothes of course. They didn't dress like the Smiths. They dressed like people who were going to a rave, but they were in a rock band. I miss those days.

    Yes, their positivity was a big draw for me, and is what turns me off most US rock bands, who just seem so negative to me. I like upbeat music with positive lyrics. It's a great message.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Pauvre Con
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Pauvre Con


    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    I don't see what is wrong with borrowing from the greats. For example, Cigarettes & Alcohol clearly is T Rex, but instead of one great song there are now two. So whats the problem?

    There isn't one. But to me it's why they're merely "good" rather than "great"...


  • Options
    #43
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Pauvre Con wrote: »
    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    I don't see what is wrong with borrowing from the greats. For example, Cigarettes & Alcohol clearly is T Rex, but instead of one great song there are now two. So whats the problem?

    There isn't one. But to me it's why they're merely "good" rather than "great"...

    Well, On Radiohead. I consider Pyramid Song to be a 'great' song, as do many others. But it's clearly borrowing heavily from Charles Mingus. But since most people don't know Mingus but know The Beatles, Radiohead get called geniuses and Oasis rip people off.

    And, TSR 'ripped off' Tim Buckley and Big Star, so IATR is not a great song then? This all seems vague to me. A great song is a great song. All music is ripping something off. That's it.


  • Options
    #44
    Pauvre Con
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Pauvre Con


    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    Well, On Radiohead. I consider Pyramid Song to be a 'great' song, as do many others. But it's clearly borrowing heavily from Charles Mingus. But since most people don't know Mingus but know The Beatles, Radiohead get called geniuses and Oasis rip people off.

    And, TSR 'ripped off' Tim Buckley and Big Star, so IATR is not a great song then? This all seems vague to me. A great song is a great song. All music is ripping something off. That's it.

    But it would be different if Radiohead based their entire repertoire by blatently copying other people's music? And sure, Cigarettes and Alcohol is a fabulous song despite being a recycled riff but a great song doesn't equal a great band in my eyes.

    We'll simply have to agree to disagree. Music evolves and what is fashionable changes - and there's always been plenty of people willing and able to cash in and jump on a particular bandwagon - it would be naive to think otherwise. Some people "borrow" more heavily than others.


  • Options
    #45
    Rock_Reviews
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭Rock_Reviews


    Always thought that the end section of I Wanna be Adored sounds just like Tim Buckley.

    You're right that just because they carry the same riff it does not mean they are the same song. There are only so many notes, so motifs and riffs are bound to be repeated - but its the spin you put and it and where it takes the song that is so important

    http://www.rock-music-recommendations.com


  • Options
    #46
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    Don't get all the hate for the second album I prefer it in some ways to the first, I enjoyed the solos, they elevated the badass attitude in many of the songs, I thought it was quite daring of them to go ahead and do that given the antipathy within the British rock establishment towards 70s inspired rock with the influence of punk. Then again I was and still am a huge fan of Led Zep/Hendrix/Floyd/prog/hard rock, all the bands that have been labelled as unfashionable since the media decided it so since punk happened. Yeah there are a few songs which I'd give a miss but when they played Love Spreads at the gig last week that was the song that got me excited, it has such a cool slide guitar opening. Anyway, I'm outside the age range being 27, but I listened to them when I was a teenager and I never considered them old. They were a welcome alternative to all the dance/chart fodder of the time, Vengaboys/Steps etc.


  • Options
    #47
    Pauvre Con
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Pauvre Con


    Rock_Reviews wrote: »
    Always thought that the end section of I Wanna be Adored sounds just like Tim Buckley.

    You're right that just because they carry the same riff it does not mean they are the same song. There are only so many notes, so motifs and riffs are bound to be repeated - but its the spin you put and it and where it takes the song that is so important

    Agreed - it's the spin that makes it a band's own sound. I guess in a roundabout way I was agreeing Chazz - it's just I wouldn't quite go as far as stating all music is a rip-off - a description I'd give to a shameless carbon copy! It's impossible to avoid influences and create something totally new - it wouldn't be music as we know it if that was the case. But the music of today can sound very different to that which existed in say the 1960s. How did this change occur? It's because the most innovative artists breaking the mold and taking existing music and giving it their own spin. To me this is the realm of the really talented; and if such pioneering becomes commercially popular then right behind it are the majority, the herd who are simply willing to copy the sound of the day.


  • Options
    #48
    flyswatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭flyswatter


    Pauvre Con wrote: »
    Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »
    I don't see what is wrong with borrowing from the greats. For example, Cigarettes & Alcohol clearly is T Rex, but instead of one great song there are now two. So whats the problem?

    There isn't one. But to me it's why they're merely "good" rather than "great"...
    Thing about Noel Gallagher is that he's a bit of a plagiarist and thief, but as a pop melody writer has few equals.


  • Options
    #49
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    flyswatter wrote: »
    Thing about Noel Gallagher is that he's a bit of a plagiarist and thief, but as a pop melody writer has few equals.

    True, it's his melodies that make him what he is.


  • Options
    #50
    Sheriffz
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭Sheriffz


    I'm 18 and absolutely love the Roses. Nothing wrong with old men in music. It's great music! The band is up there with the likes of Joy Division, Rage Against, CCR and The Clash.

    Wish I were back in '89 to see when they released their self-titled album. I see people mentioning Noel Gallagher above, seen him live while at the Chili Pepper concert. I still don't see why his solo project his doing so well. The Vaccines played a better set.


  • Options
    #51
    Prettyblack
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Prettyblack


    Sheriffz wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with old men in music.

    I'm glad you said that! ;-)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ben10afc
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭ben10afc


    second favourite band after the smiths and im 21 by the way


  • Options
    #53
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 56,498 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    One of the most overrated bands from the past 30 years. And not at all a live act. They seem to have a cult following and many who follow them do so because it's "cool" to follow them. I don't get that. Most of their music is stale!


  • Options
    #54
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    walshb wrote: »
    One of the most overrated bands from the past 30 years. And not at all a live act. They seem to have a cult following and many who follow them do so because it's "cool" to follow them. I don't get that. Most of their music is stale!

    Yeah-well-you-know-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.jpg


Advertisement