Stone Roses reunion rumors surface again

hutch wrote:

Brian_Wallace wrote:

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

Brian_Wallace wrote:

hutch wrote:

Brian_Wallace wrote:

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?

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.

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..

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.

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 ;)

bearman wrote:
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.

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.

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.

bearman wrote:
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.

Brian_Wallace wrote:

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).

Marr is GOD!

I have always considered the Stone Roses as a great band who self destructed too soon. These days though, their album stays in my Jeep because they seem to have morphed into just a drive-to band for me.

Plus…Ian Brown wore the COOLEST T-shirt ever…Did you hear me? EVER!
;D

For Brian:




Jaguar

Brian_Wallace wrote:

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

Brian

I'm sorry but since lots of "popular" music is auto-tuned crapola i.e. Patrick Stump "Soul Punk"  or as chosen by the taste makers of "Grey's Anatomy" it's little wonder why there are listeners still actively listening to records from their past.

I'm 23 years old. I listen to stuff from the 60s, the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today. Stuff that was made well before my time, and stuff last year. I listen to multiple genres.

I care less about when it was made as opposed to what kind of music it is. If I've never heard it before, its new to me. Simple as that.


(seems simple, right?)

betao wrote:
I'm 23 years old. I listen to stuff from the 60s, the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today. Stuff that was made well before my time, and stuff last year. I listen to multiple genres.

I care less about when it was made as opposed to what kind of music it is. If I've never heard it before, its new to me. Simple as that.


(seems simple, right?)

you've got it all wrong.  if others have ruined the music because of their interpretations of it, you're not allowed to enjoy it.  it's not about the inherent value of the music, it's what others think of you for listening to it.  pink floyd and the beatles have never produced a single, solitary piece of musical output that you are allowed to enjoy - just ask brian!

(seems moronic, right?)

kosmo wrote:
I'm sorry but since lots of "popular" music is auto-tuned crapola i.e. Patrick Stump "Soul Punk"  or as chosen by the taste makers of "Grey's Anatomy" it's little wonder why there are listeners still actively listening to records from their past.

Never apologize for having enough refined taste and being discriminating enough to be able to discern the difference between 'art' and 'artificial'.

Jaguar wrote:
Never apologize for having enough refined taste and being discriminating enough to be able to discern the difference between 'art' and 'artificial'.

or "truth" and "lizard people"

:o

^ Fuck You!!!

And, yes, I DO mean it, asshole.

:'(

HoyaSaxa03 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
Never apologize for having enough refined taste and being discriminating enough to be able to discern the difference between 'art' and 'artificial'.

or "truth" and "lizard people"

:o

I don't know about actual 'lizards' but there's plenty of reptiles on this board alone…