I don’t know about you, but I’m getting really hacked off with this media obsession with the Stone Roses reunion.  For the last couple of months the level of hysteria about the Heaton Park shows has risen day by day to the point where you couldn’t switch on the radio or TV or pick up print media of any description (broadsheet, tabloid or music press) without hearing about the long-awaited Roses reunion.  Why?

Why have we got a pant-wetting frenzy spreading through even the most cynical hacks about this reunion?  It looks like everyone’s terrified of deviating from the party line.  The NME has been slavering dementedly about it for months in the build-up to the shows and this week, after the event, there’s a front cover, an 8-page poster section and various reader and celebrity reviews.  Just a word to the wise; it’s okay to be critical.  Sometimes you just have to say that the king’s bollock-naked; it’s really okay to think for yourself occasionally.

What was so outstanding about this particular band that it’s heresy to question their greatness?  They released 2 albums in 13 years and only 1 of those was a great album (plus a classic single, “Fools Gold”); it’s hardly prolific is it?  It’s just another nostalgia gig which everyone’s trying to make into something momentous.  If you sneered at the Spice Girls and Take That reunions you should be doing exactly the same with the Stone Roses because the chances are that the motivation’s the same.

You can’t even say that it’s because they were so good live that they built up a fanatical following because there are well-documented live performances (Reading, for example) when they were appalling.  It’s interesting that they refused to let BBC3 show any footage of their headlining T in the Park performance (and that decision was taken a long time before they played).  So what’s that all about then?  Not enough money or they’re afraid of screwing up on a national scale; either way, it’s not looking good.  I suppose 3 nights at Heaton Park gives them the chance of creating a live DVD with passable performances of each song in the set, or is that just too cynical?

And what about life after the Roses? Well, apart from doing a bit of bird, Ian Brown hasn’t done too badly.  I was never a Smiths fan but just look at Johnny Marr’s output after the Smiths split and it makes John Squire’s post-Roses efforts look pretty pathetic.  And the answer to your next question is that I’d rather eat my own toenails than see the Smiths reform.

I’m not saying that the Roses weren’t important, because they were hugely influential and I loved the first album (and “Fools Gold”) but I loved a lot of other stuff from that time as well and I don’t want to see those bands reforming either.  Just be honest about the motivation for all of this; it’s nostalgia.  It’s not really about the music, you just want to get back together with all of your mates and do E and ketamine and pretend that it’s 1990 again; the Roses are just a convenient focal point for a big group hug. Get a life and join the twenty-first century; there are loads of great new bands out there and you should be listening to them rather than trying to recapture a bad drug moment from 1990.


One Response to “Stone Roses reunion”
  1. Steve says:

    Spot on right about the Stone Roses. Didn’t get it then, don’t get it now (apart from ‘Fool’s Gold’ which was genuinely a bit good) and I do not get the fear which seems to stalk the cirterati at the moment in terms of this ‘event’. King and altogether, definitely.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!