The Stone Roses
The Stone Roses


3.0
good

Review

by Senor_Whippy USER (22 Reviews)
August 2nd, 2005 | 83 replies


Release Date: 1989 | Tracklist


The Stones Roses are regarded as one of the greatest bands of the last 20 years and even though they only made 2 albums they have been a massive influence on today's British rock scene.I was given this album by my Uncle as a birthday present last year but just throw it to the back of the cupboard and forgot about it.But what with the lastest rumours of a reunion going to happen,I put the album on to see what all the fuss is about.I'am very impressed.

The Stones Roses are brillant at what they play.The best of course is John Squire.Who if you ask me is as talented as Brian May and had a unqiue Guitar sound.Then there Mani on Bass.Now a member of Primal Scream.Mani played some brillant bass lines which kinda reminded me of New Order bassist Hooky.Reni played Drums like Hendrix played Guitar and Monkey man Ian Brown provide the voice to one of the finest British rock bands ever.

This 1989 debut has been re-released so many times than even my Uncle (The Stone Roses #1 fan) can't count them all up.But when i first put in my cd player little over 3 weeks ago i was blown away.Everything on it sounds so perfect and in the right place.It's one of best debuts i've ever heard.It's right up there with The Strokes and Oasis.The first three track are incredible.Opener 'I Wanna Be Adored' is slower burning classic with great vocals.Then comes the more uplifting 'She Bangs The Drums' which is probaly their most straight forward pop but is still great and dancey with some fantasic guitar parts from Squire.'Waterfall' is the last totally great track cause from there on in some tracks are a bit weak.There still good but just a little bit off the target.Last track 'I'am The Resurrection' is a great finsh to the album.The Drums pound all the way through barely stopping for a break and the guitar riff leading into the chrous is brillant.

If i had been 16 when it was first released i would have probaly loved it and adored The Roses and Oasis like there 30+ year old fans do know.But listening to it you find some great moments and then there some tracks that sound outdated and flat.All in all it's a half classic,half ok debut which is a bit overated.But there still a lot of great stuff on here.

Download:
I Wanna Be Adored
She Bangs The Drum
Waterfall

If You Like This,Try This:
Oasis-
Definitely Maybe (8/10)

Primal Scream-
Screamadelica (6/10)

Radiohead-
The Bends (9/10)

Other CD's by this arist:
Second Coming-1995 (6/10)
Very Best Of The Stone Roses-2001 (8/10)



Recent reviews by this author
The Rapture EchoesArctic Monkeys Who The Fuck Are Arctic Monkeys?
Yeah Yeah Yeahs Show Your BonesThe Strokes Is This It
Kings of Leon Youth and Young ManhoodThe Prodigy Their Law:The Single 1990-2005
user ratings (597)
Chart.
4.2
excellent
other reviews of this album
Ben Thornburgh CONTRIBUTOR (5)
For Tomorrow: A Guide to Contemporary British Music, 1988-2013 (Part 1)...

Hudson Echo (5)
...

SLA92 (4.5)
A defining madchester album that still sounds fresh and surprising....

scarydylan (5)
...


Comments:Add a Comment 
Iai
Emeritus
August 2nd 2005


3553 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

Where's Fool's Gold on your tracklisting?

Med57
Moderator
August 2nd 2005


1001 Comments


Please include an album cover with your reviews in future. Personally I despise The Stone Roses, mainly due to Ian Brown, and this album is no exception. Not a bad review, but maybe a bit more detail on what the band actually sounds like next time would be useful.

Scott Herren
August 2nd 2005


192 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

I rate this a 5 based on the first 4 songs alone.

morrissey
Moderator
August 2nd 2005


1688 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

Ehhhhhhhhh I don't really get the Stone Roses. Trust me, I've tried listening to them over and over but it just doesn't work. It's quite odd though, considering I like so many bands that are similar to them and others that they influenced. Hmm.

1.5/5 biased opinion

Senor_Whippy
August 3rd 2005


367 Comments


No fools gold was just a single release sorry.If there are any big Stone Roses fans on here who think i could add anything to the review just post a comment.

P.S Med57 where do i get decent Jpeg from.

Med57
Moderator
August 3rd 2005


1001 Comments


http://www.allmusic.com

That's where I get my information from, basically. I also saw that Fool's Gold is on the album there, so presumably it was added on later versions or something like that.

Iai
Emeritus
August 3rd 2005


3553 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

I checked on Amazon, and the original British release didn't have it. But subsequent British re-releases do, and the worldwide versions always have.

Knoxvillelives
September 18th 2005


342 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Fool's Gold was released a couple of years later and I have never seen any version of the album with it on
Different period of the band
Great great album but I can see why someone wouldn't like it.

ocelot-05
October 1st 2005


807 Comments


I think the Stone Roses are great. SenorWhippy you are a let's say unique reviewer. Don't let Milkman get you down. Just do your thing and it's cool.

Morvit
October 28th 2005


71 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

O.o average album rating is 2? I think Stone Roses are awesome, can't find one weak track in the entire album

morrissey
Moderator
October 29th 2005


1688 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

It's called the vocal track.

morrissey
Moderator
October 29th 2005


1688 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

Oh to be the producer on that album.

morrissey
Moderator
October 29th 2005


1688 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

An Irishman could have done better though.

Like Bono.

Tsuruka
October 29th 2005


55 Comments


The Stone Roses totally copied Kasabian.

morrissey
Moderator
October 29th 2005


1688 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

And the Coldplays nicked their sound didn't they?

Musical history is coming together itr

morrissey
Moderator
October 29th 2005


1688 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

If I could sticky this I would.

Zorg
June 1st 2006


65 Comments


I am horribly shocked this does not have higher. This album is epic. Almost everything new you're hearing today is influenced by The Stone Roses. Not a bad song on this CD.

CharmlessMan
June 1st 2006


169 Comments


I'm not too sure about where Fool's Gold sits here, whether it's on this album or not, but it is a classic. Mani is one of the greatest bass players I've heard, his basslines have that sort of liquid feel about them, similar to Paul McCartney's. The whole song is just top-notch, everything from Squire's wah-wah guitar, Brown's voice and Reni's dance-style drumming. I like the Stone Roses a lot, but they cop a fair bit of flak, I think old Browney gets up a lot of people's noses, but he's a true rock-star.

moosepirate
June 1st 2006


12 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Ian Brown was a terrible singer ( live, at least) for this band to become so huge. I guess its something of a cultural zeitgeist for you Brits. Importance or supposed influence aside, I think album has a number of great songsThis Message Edited On 06.01.06

Zorg
June 1st 2006


65 Comments


Ian Brown was not a terrible singer...what show did you see? Are you sure it was The Stone Roses?

Also Squire's guitar is simply magic.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2014 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy