You are making a lot of sense and I know the facts mean nothing in a subjective sense but you can't say that primal scream are unsuccessful. They have been producing popular albums in 2 decades (almost 3) 1990-200#.

However, I am baffled by your opinion that the originators did it best. There are hundreds of subgenres that were improved by later artists and are looked upon more favourably in a certain time (eg pulp is a better band than suede- Imany'sO)

Stone Roses have their place. They did what they did cause of Factory Records and Madchester (happy mondays), who did what they did because of drug culture and on and on. Stone roses (especially in the first album) eployed a lot of rave elements. They had their place!

I appreciate the history lesson (and I think you will probably give me another after this) but back to my original point; is this tour just to line the pockets of The Stone Roses. I am sure both Mani and Ian Brown are happy with their current positions and don't need to do this. This probably won't lead to new material.

I won't say it is akin to the fast food rockers reforming but I am struggling to think of another band that would reform after one good album.

(We'll leave the Mani point. It is bcoming a confusion)

Blasphemy!

.....Oh, come on!...They were most memorable for spawning Mark & Lard's much superior Shirehorses!!........The Seahorses were indie-by-numbers and the fact Squire packed it in to go back to painting pictures, suggests even he had lost enthusiasm by then....

I think Oasis were better though if im honest

WTF?

What have Factory Records got to do with The Stone Roses?

The whole Madchester scene came about due to The Stone Roses and The Happy Mondays - there was no Madchester without The Stone Roses (in fact The Stone Roses were pretty much recluses during the whole Madchester time as they had paved the way for the multitude of bands who piggy-backed off them under the Madchester banner).


When you said your music taste was Factory, is this the record label if so then that is absolutely stupid.

Saw Ian Brown when I went to Wembley to watch the Wire in 1990 as a 14 year old, shame i was into Stock Aitken & Waterman then as that would have been a good photo opportunity.

I don't get why everyone seems to slag off their second album. Ok, it was nowhere near as good as their debut, but following up one of the best albums ever takes a bit of doing. If you take 'The Second Coming' on it's own merits it's a very good album. Primal scream would have been proud of it and no mistake

King Monkey, the swag of Warrington is back along with Squire, Mani and Reni.

Heaton Park in June? Aye!

Considering it took 5 years to make it wasn't up to expectations. Brian Wilson could write 4 albums in a year & all of them classics.

It's because it should actually be their third album. Album two should have followed on from Fool's Gold and would have had that funky feel to it. Then would have come Second Coming, which is actually Funk Rock and a natural transition from album two.

What happened is that they got caught up in court, twice, and then when they finally got back into the studio in late 1993 they'd moved on from the acid house funk but their fans didn't know it, because the chain was broken. So when it came out everyone was like "what happened to the funk?". Everyone was expecting 1990 Roses but the band had moved on, no-one was ready for 1995 Roses. It's actually a pretty good album. Daybreak is a great song.

Sounds like a fair analysis. I also think the music market had moved on between 1989 and 1995. The Stone Roses music (and their attitude) from their first album was perfect for its time, there were a lot of bands around like that in the rave/summer of love type era and the Stone Roses were IMO the best of them. That was the back end of Thatcherism and the country (well the north, where most of these bands fans were) was in a rebellious mood with the Poll Tax riots and the whole taking acid and going to raves was a bit of social rebellion. A few years earlier when Maggie was at her peak it was all about being depressed and unemployed and how society was becoming divided so we were more in the mood to listening to The Smiths.

But by the mid 90s it was more Cool Britainnia, Britpop and Tony Blair. I loved the Britpop era but the Stone Roses somehow didn't quite fit in for me and I think they sensed the market had moved on hence why they went down the pan in frustration. I thought the Charlatans fit this era better.

On another point, I remember even during the early 2000s, you could go out to places like 42 St and 5th Ave in Manchester, or the Cockpit in Leeds or the Leadmill in Sheffield, and their 'indie' nights were basically playing all the stuff of the Stone Roses era and some Britpop but there was a definite shift in the mid 2000s where those places rapidly became dominated by the modern day skinny indie boys stuff. The clientele shifted a lot as well from the angry working class males in their 30s and 40s to being 18-20 year old students.

Tony Blair was 1997 not 1995.

Tony Blair was 1994 when he became Labour leader, and he was already jumping on the bandwagon of this cultural movement as it was inevitable that he was going to be the next PM. Remember Noel Gallagher at the Brits, when he got his award and goes "there's four people in this room tryin to make Britain a better place, me, our kid, Bonehead and Tony Blair". Afterwards their manager asked him "what drugs are you on???" and he said "Ecstasy mate". This was still while Blair was in opposition, think it was 96.

i never consider the stone roses to be much to do with "madchester" apart from being from manchester and being around at the same time as the real madchester bands e.g. happy mondays, inspiral carpets

for me the first album is more like suped up folk music rather than having any "rave" elements

Agreed , where Oasis ripped off the Beatles or tried to.
The Stone Roses tried to rip the Byrds off.

Did anyone see their picture in the Metro yesterday? two things sprung to mind, Mani hasnt aged well at all lol and how cool was that black and gold Addidas jacket Ian Brown had on? I can see me tracking one of those down this weekend

they look like they've just come out of Strangeways



compare them to Take That who decided to refresh their image on their comeback as not being a boyband for teenagers but serious sophisticated grown ups wanting to be taken seriously as musicians



The Stone Roses look like a few old past it rockers who fancy playing a couple of gigs for old times sake, get a few bob in and then disappear quicker than they were around last time. I expect the only people that will turn up to their gigs will be ones who look as rough as the band do themselves.

Reni and John Squire look OK. As for Mani, jeez - all that time in Primal Scream has clearly taken its toll

Looks like he hasnt slept since

Looks like he could do with some Primal Therapy

Frank Skinner in a wig on the left.

Don't get what all the fuss is with the Stone Roses, Shaun Ryder wasn't even that good in I'm A Celeb.

Was he any good in Happy Mondays as well?

Shaun Ryder probably thinks he was in the Stone Roses now anyway.

classic comment, I am the proud owner of 4 tickets for this event.