If anyone's heard the stories, tomorrow will be the it is officially announced.

I believe the man who was behind the scenes sorting it out was one Simon Moran.

He's like the new Jimmy Saville.

Got told a few weeks ago by someone quite close to the man himself that SJM Promotions are behind 2 (possibly 3 depending on ticket demand) reformation gigs next summer to be announced this Tuesday afternoon. They will both be in Manchester (Heaton park alledgedly).

I'll put it this way; I was happier when I heard steps were reforming. (That is more about the quality of stone roses than my feelings towards steps; who I really dislike)

The bright side? It may pay for us to buy a new lee briers!

you really do spout some dross.

I for one will be first in line. Can't believe they have 'kissed and made up' tbh.

One good album , the rest rubbish. www.nme.com/news/the-stone-roses/59813

One good album , the rest rubbish. www.nme.com/news/the-stone-roses/59813

A few years ago I used to always hope for a Stone Roses reunion but not especially excited over this.

Are they actually going to do what Take That did and make new stuff? Or are they just going to put on a couple of gigs and play their old classics then disappear? I'm sure that would be good and people would go for it but I wonder whether the past should just be left as the past....Ian Brown plays old Roses songs when he does gigs anyway so I don't see what would be massively different.

I wonder if the crowd for these gigs will be full of 40 something year old males or whether the new indie kid students with their skintight jeans will embrace them...

I think it will be a mix of both original fans (secretly wishing they wasn't doing it) and present day indie kids, believing they are going to see a genius band and coming away thinking 'is that it?'

Probably the most over-rated band of their generation, they were not a bad band, but the fact they faded so dramatically and the awfulness of John Squire's later work shows they were of their time and will probably not have aged well.

touchy eh? You a die hard fan, Moz?

They weren't great and this reunion is not only unnecassary; it is almost comical. Why are they doing it, I wonder? There can't have been a swell of demand for it. No one shed a tear when they split up and they weren't that popular. Ian Brown is more successful now than when he was in the roses and Manny is a better musician in a better band.

Fools Gold was popular but was, ultimately, mmmeehh. That's about it.

I much prefer Primal scream. Sorry, they are a better band. Stone Roses are a marginally more talented Oasis (and the less said about them, the better)

awesome news, i just hope they get their orginal attitude and edge back now they've reformed, i was never a fan of Ian Brown on his own because those are the things he lost in my opinion and went soft

Made of stone = argueably one of the best songs EVER made

Jeez, where to start here?



Wrong.



It's Mani. And who is he a better musician than? Himself??



No they're not.

Out of interest, how old were you in 1990?

They split at the right time, after releasing a very under-whelming follow up to their debut album....It was apparent to many that they had peaked with their early stuff and if they had continued it would have got embarrassing, taking into account how bloody awful the Seahorses were.

Yes, it was a shame that they split, but at least it left them a decent legacy, rather than fading, which was the likely outcome if they stayed together.

I certainly didn't dislike them, as I said before, their early stuff was very decent, but it just baffles me that a band with such a small canon of work can be considered so highly....Yes, by all means praise the ONE good album, but the ropey second record suggests they were only average in the grand scheme of rock and roll history.

The problem I have with music fans in general is that music is just subjective, no band is 'better' than any other its just different peoples tastes. I don't know how you can judge how a band is better than another, if its overall popularity then I bet Westlife sold more than Stone Roses did, does this mean they are better?

As you can guess from my username the Stone Roses are my favourite band but I do find some of the chippiness of some Stone Roses fans odd. For some reason the Stone Roses are seen as a 'cool' band to like, when I tell people I like Stone Roses or the Smiths I seem to get more respect for my musical tastes than if I say I like Coldplay or Big Country.

I do agree with Dita's Slot Meter about them splitting at the right time without overdoing their discography. They could easily have been a band like Oasis with a loyal following of hard cores dutifully swallowing up a decade of crap after their early quality stuff. I think going on his own Ian Brown has done really well and been able to go off in a new direction, his stuff is a bit hit and miss but largely good IMO.

I don't agree with this idea that they had one good album and a weaker follow up, the mainstream may not have liked it as much, but I didn't think there was much difference, I think all the Stone Roses tracks are good. But again this just reflects my tastes.

So would Oasis have been deemed 'better' or 'worse' if they'd split up after two albums?

Yeah there crap.. only one of the most influential bands ever in UK music..

You talk utter rollocks my friend, out of interest what kind of music are you into?.. ill have a guess that your a heavy rocker... that or a steps fan..

I will be going! Class the Roses are.
Spike Island was a great gig.
Im sure they wont be as good this time round - but be great to go back in time and have an old fashioned head wreck time

- roll back the years...

I thought they had split?......Wasn't they just Noel and Liam with session musicians after 'Morning Glory?....

Aye. Johnny Depp on 'Be Here Now', for one

I'm getting a lot of heat for something very trivial here.

I never said they were crap I like mani (sorry worhing') and I like alan 'reni'. I said they wweren't great cause they had... How many albums? 2 and only one was earth shattering. They were a good band who split at the righ time. This reunion is baffling to me. Is just to line the pockets? I suspect so. This fear it won't be take thatesque with new albums and a new lease of life.

Oh and you don't really care what music I like. I am a big fan of factory, which I suspect you like.

First things first, sorry for offending you. I really don't understand how I did it but... Sorry.


I was very young in 1990. Why do you ask?

was it like the sixties? "you had to be there, man"

I'm a bit indifferent with the roses, couple of tracks i like but most are a bit tedious, i prefer heavier stuff though, it's more indicative of my own tastes rather than their talent, i like a band called Filter and my favourite album is The Amalgamut, i doubt it would ever get any critical acclaim but i'd listen to it a thousand times over before i would listen to stone roses just because i like what i like.

Not at all.... I didn't really like them... I was too busy listening to megadeath and pantera... However to say they have no quality is stupid... They had a cult following and were obviously talented.... If youre into that sort of music anyway.

oh fair dos. I definatly didn't word it right.

I wanted to stress I don't like steps and I also don't like stone roses.

They have a few good tracks-ish.

Anyway

You haven't offended me, petal, don't worry.

Your point about Mani makes little sense. He is the same musician he was when he was in the Roses. I disagree that he is producing better music, but that's opinions for you. He is still playing the bass guitar. I struggle to understand that he is somehow playing it better these days.

As far as whether Primal Scream are better or not, again, that's opinions - trying to justify them with 'concrete facts' doesn't really work, as it's all subjective. Primal Scream were a god-awful (in my opinion), hugely unsuccessful (incontestable) indie band in the late 80's. Their breakthrough hit, 'Loaded', came on the back of the fact that the Roses and the Mondays had kicked the door down in terms of making the 'baggy' genre a fairly mainstream chart phenomenon. And 'Loaded' was after all the result of Andrew Wetherall remixing one of their ordinary album tracks. I'm not saying Primal Scream are copyists, as they have, rather surprisingly in my view, endured, despite Bobby Gillespie's unappealing penchant for Nazi imagery, but they would be unlikely to still be around had the Roses not effectively made their initial 1990 success possible.

This is the gist of my point about how old you are. It has nothing to do with the 60s, just that if you had been older in the late 80s/early 90s you would have a better appreciation of how it all panned out. As someone mentioned above, it's not all about record sales and stuff, influence is a massive part of a band's legacy.