The Stone Roses (a question for the younger readers)

eviltimeban

So having been at the Roses gig last week, and noticing the large number of "younger" people in the audience (15 - 25), I wanted to ask them / you: What do the Stone Roses mean to you?

I'm assuming you weren't around when they were first out; I was 15 in 1990 so the perfect age. So for me looking back, they are still like a "current" band, if you know what I mean.

However that was 22 years ago. Jesus! So by comparison, that would've been like me listening to Led Zeppelin or the Beatles in 1990 (which I did btw). But to me they (the Beatles etc) were always "old men", because they had been around for so long.

So do you look at the Stone Roses as "old men" or what? And if so, what way then do you look at the likes of Led Zeppelin and the Beatles?

(You're so lucky at this time; you've got 40 years of rock n roll to enjoy - back in 1990, it was really more 25!).

Madam_X

Not a younger reader - just three years younger than you OP. Yeah I saw some right wee younglings there. Great to see evidence of the Roses legacy.

rcaz

I'm 21. I wasn't at that gig (but from hearing about it after, I'm raging I missed it...)

I get what you mean about Zeppelin et al seeming like old men. To me, The Stone Roses always seemed like 'the lads' compared to other older bands. I don't get that 'old man' vibe off them at all, and I actually think it's mostly down to their sound. The Stone Roses music is fun, it grooves - I always think of it as dance music.

They don't take themselves too seriously, with outrageous solos or 'epic' ideas or anything, which helps their case too. When you see something like the Moby Dick drum solo, it kind of leaves you with the impression of 'that band think their half hour drum solo is important, so they music be important', that kind of self-imposed importance goes along with a sense of experience, so you get that 'old' buzz off it... IMO anyway

I'm rambling here, hopefully my point comes across... Zeppelin, The Who, Sabbath, Beatles etc. all make me feel like I should shut up and listen to the old men show me how it's done... The Stone Roses make me feel like we should all get up and dance around like mad bastards together.

kunst nugget

rcaz wrote: »

They don't take themselves too seriously, with outrageous solos or 'epic' ideas or anything, which helps their case too.

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

eviltimeban

kunst nugget wrote: »

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

I suppose he's talking about the first album, that's really what their reputation was made on.

I'm still of the opinion that if several songs were stripped from Second Coming (Tears, Straight To The Man, the more "rocky" ones) it would've been a great album. Its a good album now.

Hannibal

The Stone Roses to me were an influental band that were at the head of a movement that produced far superior bands like Oasis and The Verve.

The Roses had one great album but they are and were never particularly good live, but it's this album and their image that made them iconic.

Madam_X

Well they were definitely good live on Thursday night. I thought they performed well too the last time I saw them, 17 years ago (Cork) but their hearts weren't in it as they couldn't stand each other. The other night though they seemed to love it and genuinely get on great - hugs and arms around each other n' all. It was lovely - tearjerking stuff. I saw and heard of grown men crying at that gig.
They certainly have a limited output - and the only elements worth investigating IMO are obviously album one, and any pre 1995 singles not on album one, as well as the B-sides from their "golden" era. But what a strong collection. Better than years and years of "meh" stuff like Oasis after 1996 IMO.

flyswatter

I'm 22. I think I first became aware of them round '04 when I heard Fools Gold on a FIFA soundtrack.

2 years later I got the debut album and we only had that and a Q magazine compilation CD to listen to in Italy on holidays that year so I'll always associate it with driving around to that in the summer.

I'm more of a casual fan than hardcore, but I do think they are great.

I went to the Phoenix Park on Thursday. There was maybe 3 songs I didn't know at the gig like Mersey Paradise. I knew Sally Cinnamon which you mightn't expect a casual fan to know though. I'm only familiar with half the second album. Was disappointed they didn't play Tightrope but I thought the gig was fantastic overall. I think it's clear they aren't in it for the money.

Temaz

Second Coming is a brilliant album.

Prettyblack

This should've been Second Coming:

1. Breaking Into Heaven
2. Ten Storey Love Song
3. Daybreak
4. Your Star Will Shine
5. Begging You
6. How Do You Sleep?
7. Tightrope
8. Love Spreads

Could've left it at that. Or just had two more teeny songs in that vein to make it a 10 song album.

Interesting to hear from the people in their 20s. Its very hard to get across what it felt like the first time the Roses came out - it was nearly bigger than Oasis, even though they didn't sell as many records. People were more passionate about the Roses.

Interestingly, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they don't look old. I'm same age as the OP, and when I was listening to Pink Floyd as a teenager in the early 90s, sure they were all 50 or so, but they looked like my dad. Now, the Roses are approaching 50, but they don't look like old dads cos they are dressing young, with cool hair etc.

I think if they looked like aging dinosaur rockers (which no one from the 90s school of indie rock does), less young people now would be into them now.

rcaz

Prettyblack wrote: »

which no one from the 90s school of indie rock does

That's a good point... Thurston Moore and Jonny Greenwood don't seem to age like conventional humans.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

kunst nugget

Dotsey wrote: »

The Stone Roses to me were an influental band that were at the head of a movement that produced far superior bands like Oasis and The Verve.

The Roses had one great album but they are and were never particularly good live, but it's this album and their image that made them iconic.

I'd actually say the future of indie music that the Stone Roses's debut album seem to allude to, along with the likes of Primal Scream's Screamadelica, got dashed to the rocks by the banality of bands like the Verve.

Pauvre Con

Oasis > Stone Roses = lol. The Stone Roses had a fresh contemporary sound when they emerged in the 80s; Gallagher simply aped riffs and melodies from rock's back catelogue. No comparison between the two bands.

Sinfonia

Pauvre Con wrote: »

Oasis > Stone Roses = lol. The Stone Roses had a fresh contemporary sound when they emerged in the 80s; Gallagher simply aped riffs and melodies from rock's back catelogue. No comparison between the two bands.

To be fair, Second Coming is very Zeppelinesque

Pauvre Con

Sinfonia wrote: »

To be fair, Second Coming is very Zeppelinesque

That's probably why it's largely overlooked. I, like every other Stone Roses fan reserve the right to ignore the 2nd album! That said, Love Spreads is an utterly brilliant song. Perhaps The Second Coming wasn't a bad record but too much time had elapsed between its release and their debut. Everybody had moved on and were enjoying Nirvana and co by that stage!

Table Top Joe

Prettyblack wrote: »

Interestingly, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they don't look old. I'm same age as the OP, and when I was listening to Pink Floyd as a teenager in the early 90s, sure they were all 50 or so, but they looked like my dad. Now, the Roses are approaching 50, but they don't look like old dads cos they are dressing young, with cool hair etc.

I think if they looked like aging dinosaur rockers (which no one from the 90s school of indie rock does), less young people now would be into them now.

Thats something i was thinking of too,when i was 13 and getting into The Roses(94) Pink Floyd were touring too,and they looked f***ing ancient,proper middle aged,balding,beer bellies and all that jazz...and they would have been a couple of years younger than The Roses are now! bands tend to look after themselves far more now i think and The Roses music hasnt dated a day,that helps too


I got into them myself after hearing "Love Spreads" when it was released,loved it,it was dark and mysterious,i hadnt a notion what the hell it was about but i thought it was great,from there i got "The Second Coming" and then the first one......which blew me away then and still does,was obsessed with them for awhile,still remember hearing John left on the BBC in my bedroom and being devasted:o(think teenage girls when Robbie left Take That!)


I was going to go to Feile but i was on holidays at the time,gutted i missed them,especially since until last year it seemed i never would



Anywho,i think its great they have so many new fans who werent even born when they split up let alone for the first album

Table Top Joe

Pauvre Con wrote: »

That's probably why it's largely overlooked. I, like every other Stone Roses fan reserve the right to ignore the 2nd album! That said, Love Spreads is an utterly brilliant song. Perhaps The Second Coming wasn't a bad record but too much time had elapsed between its release and their debut. Everybody had moved on and were enjoying Nirvana and co by that stage!

I heard that album before the debut so maybe thats why im not as harsh as older fans,its nowhere near the first album but theres some great stuff there all the same,id give it 7/10(the first being 11/10)they could definitely done with some editing though,i never liked "Good Times" but i heard a demo of it the other day on Youtube and i thought it was far better,it was obviously a work in progress but it was far more like the first album,more of a groove to it if you know what i mean



1.Breaking Into Heaven
2.Ten Story Love Song
3.Daybreak(great playing on this and i love the way the previous track leads into it)
4.Begging You
5.Ride On(bside)
6.Tightrope
7.Your Star Will Shine
8.Tears
9.Love Spreads



That would have made a much better album imo,never liked "How Do You Sleep",trying to force a big chorus that wasnt there i think,"Straight To The Man" was just dull,"Driving South" wasnt bad but there was enough of that kind of thing on the album

Pauvre Con

It's always been my belief that the sign of good music is when it's picked up on and enjoyed by the following generations. It's great that younger people are listening to the Roses and confirms what us oldies already suspected/knew - namely that they were an important band in rock history. Their legacy may only rest on one album but when it's that good that's all you need!

Table Top Joe

Exactly.....some people like to cling to bands like a toy that no one else can play with! a guy i know was moaning before about how people too young to remember The Smiths were listening to them,this guys favourite Band were The Beatles.....he was born in the early 70s:rolleyes:

retalivity

Driving South is a fantastic song imo

Pauvre Con

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Exactly.....some people like to cling to bands like a toy that no one else can play with! a guy i know was moaning before about how people too young to remember The Smiths were listening to them,this guys favourite Band were The Beatles.....he was born in the early 70s:rolleyes:

Yes, that's utter nonsense. Good music is timeless and should be appreciated by people of all ages. You could argue that fans discovering older bands miss out on context in which the music was sent out into the world but I go back to my point that that is possibly a good thing when it comes to judging the quality of the music. My dad listens to some brilliant old stuff from the 60s and I can thank him for my love of bands like the Beatles, Byrds, Led Zep, Dylan etc - but at the same time he might listen to some shocking psychedelic droning garbage which he likes because he's remembering what it sounded like when it first came out. Following generations are lucky because they can filter out the dross and listen to the good stuff.

Big Nasty

I'm the same age as the OP so was listening to the 'Roses when they first came out but don't really understand the question. I'm in to lots of music that was 'before my time' as in the bands heyday was when I was a tot or even before I was born. How did I get in to any of that music? Well I don't really know TBH I guess one just follows on from the next in a particular genre and friend recommendations help too. Just because anything isn't 'current' is no good reason not to discover and enjoy it.

Sinfonia

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I'm the same age as the OP so was listening to the 'Roses when they first came out but don't really understand the question.

I think he's wondering how younger people view them having potentially heard countless bands that followed them, as compared to how he views them having been there when they began.
In the same way - for example - my parents and their peers went apeshit when Elvis, The Beatles, Hendrix et al first became known, whereas (although I love them), I can't feel that kind of hysteria, mostly due to the fact that I had heard so many other artists inspired by them already, and I also got to know them by myself, in my own time.

smokedeels

RCAZ was spot on with his post. There's no BS about them so they have aged well and attracted new fans.

Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and at times the Beatles exhibited Spinal Tap traits that younger people are more suspicious of these days. Rock music in general has spent the past few decades rebelling against that brand of self-importance.

I see lads, like me, who are in their twenties at Wire or The Ex gigs and those bands are older than the Roses, but again, because those groups seem grounded and genuine they still attract new audiences.

kunst nugget

smokedeels wrote: »

Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and at times the Beatles exhibited Spinal Tap traits that younger people are more suspicious of these days.

The way the Stone Roses split and the acrimony and slagging after was very Spinal Tap imo.

eviltimeban

The 80s had a lot to do with it. All the survivors of the 60s and 70s grew mullets and wore shoulder pad suits to "fit in" with the 80s look... and that continued through to the 90s... so when Nirvana etc came along it made them look really old.

Whereas today we didn't have an "80s" if you know what I mean, so the Roses and Oasis and so on didn't cut their hair or try to fit in, they stayed the way they looked. Some older artists still look cool now; Roger Daltrey, and Paul Weller too. Some bands, like Sonic Youth, never changed their image!

Nowadays bands like the Floyd would've kept their long hair and beards and just done out as old, cool looking men. But then again Floyd were never image based, so I guess that argument doesn't matter. My wife reckons David Gilmour is still a really good looking man, so there you go!

Great comments from everyone, good discussion I think!

Agree with the comment on the "Good Times" demo - I've heard that too and its a pretty slinky groove.

I wonder what would've happened if Second Coming had come out in, say, 1992 instead of 1994 - it might have been in the face of grunge but it would've been close enough to the original times (and UK bands were still aping that "indie dance" sound) to maybe be more relevant. By 1994, as someone said, we had grunge and also Britpop flying, so the Roses were probably a bit redundant at that point. Even if they had made an album that sounded like the first one. Parts of it do - Your Star Will Shine, Ten Storey to an extent, Begging You is like Fool's Gold on E - pity they didn't play that at the gig!

eviltimeban

kunst nugget wrote: »

The way the Stone Roses split and the acrimony and slagging after was very Spinal Tap imo.

All the classic break up stories are Spinal Tap - that's why Spinal Tap was so spot on, and continues to resonate even now. I'm in a band and we have our Spinal Tap moments! :-)

flyswatter

Pauvre Con wrote: »

Oasis > Stone Roses = lol. The Stone Roses had a fresh contemporary sound when they emerged in the 80s; Gallagher simply aped riffs and melodies from rock's back catelogue. No comparison between the two bands.

Eh, The Stone Roses had their fair share of influences too. It's misguided to merely call it contemporary and dismiss Oasis for ripping off old bands. Obviously Zep on their second record.

On their first the likes of The Byrds and Funkadelic. There was also a fair few jangly rock bands round that time.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I bought the first album in December 2005, I was 17 at the time. I distinctly remember sitting up in my room listening to it through headphones on my CD player. It was an amazing experience hearing that album in full for the first time. I hadn't felt that way before or haven't since, usually bands and albums 'grow on me' over time but my love for the roses was instant. That sound is infectious, its hard for any music lover not to fall in love with it, you never tire of it, it never becomes old or passe.

I got into them through Oasis really, I was familiar with the name and had previously heard fools gold, but that was the extent of my knowledge at the time.

I never looked on them as been oldies or a 'dad's band.' I too have come to associate them with my teens, even though they were over 9 years broken up by the time I discovered them.

Pauvre Con

flyswatter wrote: »

Eh, The Stone Roses had their fair share of influences too. It's misguided to merely call it contemporary and dismiss Oasis for ripping off old bands. Obviously Zep on their second record.

On their first the likes of The Byrds and Funkadelic. There was also a fair few jangly rock bands round that time.

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...

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...).

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.

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.

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.

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...

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'

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...

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?

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.

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.

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"...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prettyblack

Sheriffz wrote: »

Nothing wrong with old men in music.

I'm glad you said that! ;-)