Before the cocaine and the recriminations, The Stone Roses managed just one album. After The Smiths and before Britpop, Britons had to have something to call their own, and so duly bestowed the Mancunians' debut with classic honours. The fact that it's an atrociously-produced racket with some pleasant jangly pop songs butchered by a scally chancer doing a fair approximation of a foghorn seems to have been forgotten.
Why try to find fault with a great record which btw was all their record company would LET them release. Maybe it is a bit "of its time" but it IS a classic and still a cracking listen now. Yes the backwards song is pointless and they left elephant stone off it on first release but i am the ressurection will still sound great in 2108 long after the reviewer is a forgotten stone in the ground.
Billy from Dundee - Spot on, you cannot tire of this album and it was obvious that it was special from the 1st time I played it.
The only flaw this album has is that everthing else by the Stone Roses, Ian Brown, et al has been underwhelming, not to say the stuff that followed was awful but this really set the bar to high.
The reviewer wants gassed
the reviewer is obviously just looking for a response, Stone Roses is an excellent album, anyone who doesn't love the way I wanna be adored starts is a fool, Stone Roses forever.
I have listened to this album almost every week since 1989. It is a masterpiece and to overrate it is an impossibility. Brimming with attitude, the best drummer of a generation, the best guitarist of a generation and sublime tunes. An incredibly uplifting album and a work of genius. A crap singer but that is almost irrelevant and may even be necessary. Your reviewer wouldn't know good music if it bit him on his backside.
Report this comment:
Comments page 1 of 18