Stone Roses-New Album

Seedy Arling

Just heard on the radio that the Stone Roses are starting on a new album. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.

Should they just be a greatest hits roadshow or possible tarnish their back catalogue by releasing a potential turd of a new album?

Edit: Their 'back catalogue' not being huge and all, but you get my drift.

Temaz

I'm confident they can give us a great album. Some of Ian Browns solo
work is on par with The Roses, add in the rest of the band and you'll get magic!!

Seedy Arling

Temaz wrote: »

I'm confident they can give us a great album. Some of Ian Browns solo
work is on par with The Roses, add in the rest of the band and you'll get magic!!

Thats true, Brown on his own is deadly beside the fact he cant sing live), Squire will always be a smashing guitarist, Leni is one of the greatest drummers ever (IMO) and Reni can play some funky mofo bass lines.

Actually, what was i talking about in my OP, its gonna be ace!

Oasis678

I would love to see a new album and lots more gigs. Bring it on!

Miguel_Sanchez

Don't worry - it'll be 5 years or so before they get it finished.

Seedy Arling

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Don't worry - it'll be 5 years or so before they get it finished.

I dont know could they still handle that much coke.

I remember they were given five million pounds or a figure like that to make the last album and they vanished off to Wales to 'make' the album.

cometogether

Seedy Arling wrote: »

Thats true, Brown on his own is deadly beside the fact he cant sing live), Squire will always be a smashing guitarist, Leni is one of the greatest drummers ever (IMO) and Reni can play some funky mofo bass lines.

Actually, what was i talking about in my OP, its gonna be ace!

I'd re-check that part if I was you:p This is gonna be a great album I reckon, they don't seem the sort to flog a dead horse or nothing like that. Hope they come our way again for a tour, preferably in the 02!

Temaz

The Stone Roses' biographer John Robb has spoken about the reports that the band are planning a 2013 release for their new studio album and has revealed that the reason drummer Alan 'Reni' Wren actually agreed to rejoin the group was down to the strength of their new material.

http://www.nme.com/news/the-stone-roses/65299

Seedy Arling

cometogether wrote: »

I'd re-check that part if I was you:p This is gonna be a great album I reckon, they don't seem the sort to flog a dead horse or nothing like that. Hope they come our way again for a tour, preferably in the 02!

He he, i dont think i'll be going on mastermind with Stone Roses being my special topic.

ordinary_girl

I'm actually really optimistic that if they made a new album that it'd be great, going on the strength of their recent live shows they definitely have it in them. Seems like they have a lot more to offer, and are probably going to be more focused this time around.

singlesnights

I imagine they'll combine elements of the first 2 albums - the melodic tunes and groove of the debut album, together with the musicianship of the second album.

Less solos and more funk methinks

paulosham

Seedy Arling wrote: »

Just heard on the radio that the Stone Roses are starting on a new album. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.

Should they just be a greatest hits roadshow or possible tarnish their back catalogue by releasing a potential turd of a new album?

Edit: Their 'back catalogue' not being huge and all, but you get my drift.

Didn't they do that already?

Temaz

paulosham wrote: »

Didn't they do that already?

Second Coming is a brilliant album.

loyatemu

Temaz wrote: »

Second Coming is a brilliant album.

the best you can say about it is that it's not as bad as its reputation.

There isn't a single song on it that's as good as anything on the first album (or on "Turns into Stone" for that matter).

shep01

if this is true how can it be bad, brown and squire giving us more of the same, i say thankyou very much my son. : )

cometogether

loyatemu wrote: »

the best you can say about it is that it's not as bad as its reputation.

There isn't a single song on it that's as good as anything on the first album (or on "Turns into Stone" for that matter).

Love Spreads is up there with their best

Chazz Michael Michaels

loyatemu wrote: »

the best you can say about it is that it's not as bad as its reputation.

There isn't a single song on it that's as good as anything on the first album (or on "Turns into Stone" for that matter).

A staggeringly silly statement. If it were up to people like you, they never would have broken up and churned out the same old Byrdsy style music over and over and over and over and over...

SC is an awesome album, great mixture of funk and Zep-rock.

Chazz Michael Michaels

cometogether wrote: »

Love Spreads is up there with their best

Yup, as good as anything they've done. Also great is Tears, Driving South, Breaking into Heaven, Good Times, Ten Storey. Great album. The media said it was bad, therefore some people can't see beyond what the papers tell them to think, but if one listens to it impartially, you can hear a quality piece of work.

cometogether

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Yup, as good as anything they've done. Also great is Tears, Driving South, Breaking into Heaven, Good Times, Ten Storey. Great album. The media said it was bad, therefore some people can't see beyond what the papers tell them to think, but if one listens to it impartially, you can hear a quality piece of work.

Supposedly the media were pissed off that the Roses never gave an interview at all for the time between the last gig in 1990 and the album coming out, and the first interview they did was with the Big Issue.

Chazz Michael Michaels

cometogether wrote: »

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Yup, as good as anything they've done. Also great is Tears, Driving South, Breaking into Heaven, Good Times, Ten Storey. Great album. The media said it was bad, therefore some people can't see beyond what the papers tell them to think, but if one listens to it impartially, you can hear a quality piece of work.

Supposedly the media were pissed off that the Roses never gave an interview at all for the time between the last gig in 1990 and the album coming out, and the first interview they did was with the Big Issue.

That's true.

flasher0030

I was probably in the more unusual position where Second Coming was the album that got me into the Stone Roses. I thought it was fabalous. About 3 fillers, and they were very listenable.

I listened to the album last night again, and I think it was ahead of it's time with some of the multi-layered instrumentals on it.

I then got the self-titled debut, which obviously is a classic. I don't think the SC is better than the debut, but there is something more "listenable" to it over the passing of time. SC doesn't have stand out classics like Adored, Resurrections, Elephant Stone. But Love Spreads makes up for that.

Anyway, 2 incredible albums from the band which I consider are almost on par with each other.

I have heard many critisisms on how could a band gain such credibility with just 2 albums. But I would much rather listen to (approx) 20 excellant songs and not get sick of listening to them, than listening to a large catelogue of a band like AC/DC which have some good songs but a hell of a lot of mediocre tunes.

Chazz Michael Michaels

flasher0030 wrote: »

I was probably in the more unusual position where Second Coming was the album that got me into the Stone Roses. I thought it was fabalous. About 3 fillers, and they were very listenable.

I listened to the album last night again, and I think it was ahead of it's time with some of the multi-layered instrumentals on it.

I then got the self-titled debut, which obviously is a classic. I don't think the SC is better than the debut, but there is something more "listenable" to it over the passing of time. SC doesn't have stand out classics like Adored, Resurrections, Elephant Stone. But Love Spreads makes up for that.

Anyway, 2 incredible albums from the band which I consider are almost on par with each other.

I have heard many critisisms on how could a band gain such credibility with just 2 albums. But I would much rather listen to (approx) 20 excellant songs and not get sick of listening to them, than listening to a large catelogue of a band like AC/DC which have some good songs but a hell of a lot of mediocre tunes.

I read a review of the Dublin concert where he wrote that it felt like a greatest hits collection from a band with several albums, not just two and some b-sides. Their quality of work was so high.

Prettyblack

SC always reminds me of Christmas, cos I got it at Christmas when it came out, so happy memories and I listen to it ever year at that time of the year.

It does have some great stuff - Breaking Into Heaven, Daybreak, Love Spreads, Begging You - if they did stuff like that on their third album that would be great.

There's no reason why it wouldn't be a good album - you've got good songwriters and lyricists in Brown and Squire, Reni on the drums and I'm sure it'd be produced to sound huge.

I can imagine the artwork being similar to the recent gig / website artwork, the big letters, would be very cool!

I'm looking forward to it.

loyatemu

cometogether wrote: »

Love Spreads is up there with their best

when I heard it after 5 years of waiting I thought "FFS this sounds like the Black Crowes". I love Led Zep - I listen to them frequently, I never listen to "Second Coming". Its not terrible, it just mediocre, but obviously that's just, like, my opinion, man.

loyatemu

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

A staggeringly silly statement. If it were up to people like you, they never would have broken up and churned out the same old Byrdsy style music over and over and over and over and over...

SC is an awesome album, great mixture of funk and Zep-rock.

If it were up to people like you they wouldn't have broken up in '96 and their next record would've been the Seahorses album with Brown on vocals...

I'm not saying they should've kept doing the same thing, but second-rate Zep knock-offs was not a good direction to go in.

Cienciano

Seedy Arling wrote: »

....possible tarnish their back catalogue by releasing a potential turd of a new album?

I don't agree with that. If the new album is crap, i'll still enjoy the the old ones just as much.

At first I though "don't do it!!", but now I'm thinking, go for it, what have they got to lose?