Stone Roses reunion rumors surface again

[Jaguar]

What I'm finding amazing is how much Brian degrades any sort of mainstream appearance by a band as being a mark of worthlessness while also using some sort of mainstream success of a band's reunion as an indicator of its value.

Can't have it both ways, Brian. Just chill out and enjoy the music for how it makes you feel and don't worry about whether or not the mainstream has caught on to them or not. If you want to groove out to train wreck Courtney or little boys Fall Out Boy, all while perving over photos of Scarlet, than so be it. But please stop insisting that any given band isn't any good just because they have a few years on them. There are plenty of great recordings, films and books that were created while you were still shitting your diapers. Lots were created even before any of us were even born. Most of us appreciate art for what it is; not shit all over it because it pre-dates our last birthday.

[Mobius]

Just to clarify, Brian is the one who looks at music through the glasses of 'nostalgia'.  I'm talking about what I thought at a time in relation to actual experience.  Everyone else is to.  Its not nostalgia.  Its appreciation.  If you have a good time at your high school reunion catching up, it doesn't mean you are still living inthe past or want to actually be in high school. 

[Brian_Wallace]

You're missing the point.  They had one overrated album and a disaster that took longer than the Smiths entire career.  But put it in the oven, bake for fifteen years and ALL IS WELL!  They were AWESOME!  Popular (rock) music is supposed to be an active, vital thing.  Not something that you look at it in a museum.  Pavement, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Roses, etc.  There are bands out there NOW who are just as fresh as they WERE.  And yet it's too SCARY to take a chance on new bands!  Let's just listen to the same music from 15, 20, 40 years ago because it's been VETTED.  It's SAFE.  I honestly don't care if people criticize my love for Lady Gaga, etc. because it's NOW.  It's CURRENT.  It's 2011.  The kids understand.  When your kids (?) ask you what you listened to in 2011 you'll say "The Stone Roses" and they'll be confused.  My reaction is similar to Jay Cutler's six words at the end of the first quarter on Sunday.  Apparently, I am the only one who is disgusted by this pathetic embrace of nostalgia.  Hey, listen to "I Am The Resurrection" all you want and harken back to a day when life was less scary and you still had potential.  I'll be over here living my life.

Brian

[hutch]

You're missing the point.  They had one overrated album and a disaster that took longer than the Smiths entire career.  But put it in the oven, bake for fifteen years and ALL IS WELL!  They were AWESOME!  Popular (rock) music is supposed to be an active, vital thing.  Not something that you look at it in a museum.  Pavement, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Roses, etc.  There are bands out there NOW who are just as fresh as they WERE.  And yet it's too SCARY to take a chance on new bands!  Let's just listen to the same music from 15, 20, 40 years ago because it's been VETTED.  It's SAFE.  I honestly don't care if people criticize my love for Lady Gaga, etc. because it's NOW.  It's CURRENT.  It's 2011.  The kids understand.  When your kids (?) ask you what you listened to in 2011 you'll say "The Stone Roses" and they'll be confused.  My reaction is similar to Jay Cutler's six words at the end of the first quarter on Sunday.  Apparently, I am the only one who is disgusted by this pathetic embrace of nostalgia.  Hey, listen to "I Am The Resurrection" all you want and harken back to a day when life was less scary and you still had potential.  I'll be over here living my life.

Brian

yawn..

dude, you're getting really annoying.. cluttering every thread.. if you're not into something live and let live...


don't oversimplify things man: people can live their lives in the now and still listen to an old record.. i mean wtf?

seriously dude, tone it down or you are on your way out of this forum.

[Jaguar]

The Stone Roses were awesome. Then and now, in hindsight. It's a pleasure to pull that disc out for a spin every now and then because of its awesomeness even though MOST OF US HAVE moved onto other music.

You're definitely barking on the wrong board if you truly believe that we only listen to music from our early 'good old days' collections. We may not all like the same bands but we all do like keeping up with what's new and coming around.

[Brian_Wallace]

You're missing the point.  They had one overrated album and a disaster that took longer than the Smiths entire career.  But put it in the oven, bake for fifteen years and ALL IS WELL!  They were AWESOME!  Popular (rock) music is supposed to be an active, vital thing.  Not something that you look at it in a museum.  Pavement, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Roses, etc.  There are bands out there NOW who are just as fresh as they WERE.  And yet it's too SCARY to take a chance on new bands!  Let's just listen to the same music from 15, 20, 40 years ago because it's been VETTED.  It's SAFE.  I honestly don't care if people criticize my love for Lady Gaga, etc. because it's NOW.  It's CURRENT.  It's 2011.  The kids understand.  When your kids (?) ask you what you listened to in 2011 you'll say "The Stone Roses" and they'll be confused.  My reaction is similar to Jay Cutler's six words at the end of the first quarter on Sunday.  Apparently, I am the only one who is disgusted by this pathetic embrace of nostalgia.  Hey, listen to "I Am The Resurrection" all you want and harken back to a day when life was less scary and you still had potential.  I'll be over here living my life.

Brian

yawn..

dude, you're getting really annoying.. cluttering every thread.. if you're not into something live and let live...


don't oversimplify things man: people can live their lives in the now and still listen to an old record.. i mean wtf?

seriously dude, tone it down or you are on your way out of this forum.

You're exactly right.  I'm sorry for bleating on for pages and pages about Hispanic shows in the DC Metro area and how much of a patriot Michael Moore is.

Brian

[hutch]

You're missing the point.  They had one overrated album and a disaster that took longer than the Smiths entire career.  But put it in the oven, bake for fifteen years and ALL IS WELL!  They were AWESOME!  Popular (rock) music is supposed to be an active, vital thing.  Not something that you look at it in a museum.  Pavement, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Roses, etc.  There are bands out there NOW who are just as fresh as they WERE.  And yet it's too SCARY to take a chance on new bands!  Let's just listen to the same music from 15, 20, 40 years ago because it's been VETTED.  It's SAFE.  I honestly don't care if people criticize my love for Lady Gaga, etc. because it's NOW.  It's CURRENT.  It's 2011.  The kids understand.  When your kids (?) ask you what you listened to in 2011 you'll say "The Stone Roses" and they'll be confused.  My reaction is similar to Jay Cutler's six words at the end of the first quarter on Sunday.  Apparently, I am the only one who is disgusted by this pathetic embrace of nostalgia.  Hey, listen to "I Am The Resurrection" all you want and harken back to a day when life was less scary and you still had potential.  I'll be over here living my life.

Brian

yawn..

dude, you're getting really annoying.. cluttering every thread.. if you're not into something live and let live...


don't oversimplify things man: people can live their lives in the now and still listen to an old record.. i mean wtf?

seriously dude, tone it down or you are on your way out of this forum.

You're exactly right.  I'm sorry for bleating on for pages and pages about Hispanic shows in the DC Metro area and how much of a patriot Michael Moore is.

Brian

Dude, every music thread has you coming in and saying how the music sucks?

WHats up with that?

Every thread seems to be.. someone posts some music news.. a few people get excited and you come in and start trashing everyone.. WTF?

[bearman🐻]

Funny. I think that Brian LOVES the attention he's getting. He loves that people are listening to what he has to say. But unlike Steve Albini, who stirs the pot and has intelligent and witty things to say even if you don't agree, Brian just wants to make everyone feel like shit. So I repeat what I've said before. Just ignore. The easiest way to deal with drama is to remove yourself from the equation. You can't change people. They can only change themselves if they want to. And if they want to be miserable and unhappy instigators, then that's exactly who they will be. But I agree to the cluttering up of the board. Very annoying.

I saw the Stone Roses twice. One night they were incredible. Then the other time they sucked. But realistically they were never really a major touring band and by the time I saw them they were REALLY into the white powder(s). So with that in mind, I still say I'll give them another chance. Expectations are high. If they don't bring it, their tour will tank and that'll be it.

Oh, and FYI, most "current" stuff that the "kids" are into (and the kids are NOT alright, they're idiots) just fucking sucks because they haven't done their homework, haven't learned to play their instruments, and don't have a clue who came before them. Just sayin'. And trust me, I'm trying REALLY hard to find the stuff that I can dig.

[hutch]

I had not remembered that when I saw them in 95 reni was not in band.. i wonder if i even knew that at the time as it was pre-internet..

[Jaguar]

Brian, for what it's worth, I do get what you are saying about the nostalgia thing, though I see it a bit differently. To me, it's not so much about the music itself, as you seem to believe, but instead, about the various types of individuals.

I tend to place those types into two categories:

1) Those who tend to only want to hear what was popular back when they were in high school or when they were out clubbing. Once they moved on, the music pretty much stopped for them. They are the ones that stop in here on an odd occasion looking for a password or maybe a show date for a rare night out to see a band. Totally irrelevant in this forum and not worth the rant.

2) Essentially the same sort but for some reason have their hands involved in booking shows, music programming or any other sort of power or control with what gets offered to the public. Usually not a part of this board but worth a beef or two. Exactly the very same sort that I see at work who book shows and don't seem to have a clue that there are more than maybe three genres out there. Also, only book shows for old people (my age and older); which means music from their heydays; or kiddie music (for kids even younger than you), which means Disney crap. Sometimes I sound like you when I privately lament that they book or play something from this millenium that isn't Country or Disney!

The point is, recognize the difference between those who just happen to like older music mixed in with their newer selections as opposed to those truly stuck in the past.

[nkotb]

Look, obviously Brian wants to stir things up here.  Personally, I think it's better than listening to people go on and on about the same bands and same opinions, even if I don't agree, but I get it can be tedious.

But your statement below sounds exactly like every parent has said to every kid since the dawn of time.  Homework shouldn't be a prerequisite to music being good.  And from someone that loves the Germs, you should know that technical prowess doesn't equal quality tunes

Oh, and FYI, most "current" stuff that the "kids" are into (and the kids are NOT alright, they're idiots) just fucking sucks because they haven't done their homework, haven't learned to play their instruments, and don't have a clue who came before them. Just sayin'. And trust me, I'm trying REALLY hard to find the stuff that I can dig.

[bearman🐻]

Good points, and my old parent tone isn't lost on me. I threw in the Who reference precisely because I was aware of the irony. But I've always gravitated towards music of a certain era. Even in the 90's when I was digging on Jawbreaker, I was getting hooked even harder on the Buzzcocks. In the 80's when I was discovering the Sugarcubes, I was also discovering the Ramones and enjoying them even more. I know I'm behind the curve, but I just got the first Runaways record and that STILL sounds more immediate than most things my friends tell me I should listen to. I think my ear is drawn to a certain production that is more stripped. A lot of newer records are produced in a manner that (to me) makes it sound instantly dated. Kind of like when I heard disco as a kid. I hated disco. "Heart of Glass", as good a tune as it is, sounded dated to me from the get-go. And that's why I can't listen to it even now. God, when a buddy played me MIA I wanted to take a gun to the speakers.

[bearman🐻]

And in fairness to nkotb, sometimes the "kids" develop a new way of playing (i.e. The Ramones) that sounds like hogwash, but in reality they're technically FAR more proficient than people will give them credit for. So I get it. But I'm still not hearing that these days. Maybe I need some suggestions. I'm open to them.

[sweetcell]

Funny. I think that Brian LOVES the attention he's getting. He loves that people are listening to what he has to say. But unlike Steve Albini, who stirs the pot and has intelligent and witty things to say even if you don't agree, Brian just wants to make everyone feel like shit. So I repeat what I've said before. Just ignore. The easiest way to deal with drama is to remove yourself from the equation. You can't change people. They can only change themselves if they want to. And if they want to be miserable and unhappy instigators, then that's exactly who they will be. But I agree to the cluttering up of the board. Very annoying.

[Mobius]

Popular (rock) music is supposed to be an active, vital thing.  Not something that you look at it in a museum. 

Brian

Absolutely, but one's relationship to popular (rock) music probably should evolve just like one's relationship to 18 year old girls probably should evolve (Wooderson and some member of the forum excluded).  I consider it a positive that my grandparents stuck with Sinatra and didn't move on to the Beatles and Pink Floyd.  And that my dad wasn't borrowing my Replacements tapes.  Likewise, if you have kids they will probably consider it a positive if daddy managed to avoid an awkward Little Monster phase in his 30's (though appreciating what's happening is always good). 

Also, a Smiths fan might appreciate the Johnny Marr-ness of John Squire's playing throughout The Stone Roses and leave it at that (if Marr were playing while scoring goals in the Cup final on a Harley Electroglide dressed as Spiderman).