It baffles me that many people seem to consider the Stone Roses’ self-titled debut one of the greatest albums of all time. I didn’t know the album when it came out, but some friends I met about a decade later (almost a decade younger than me) were really into it, and when they played me the album, a few tracks were familiar. I liked the album pretty well, without entirely seeing what they saw in it. Listening to it more thoroughly now, I still don’t get what the fuss is all about.
At first listen, the songs seem a little early-Byrds-y, with rather passionless multi-tracked vocals and a few jangly guitar bits thrown in. As with the Byrds, there are some psychedelic sounds layered into the mix as well—a hazy, muddled swirling effect that is a bit muted for my tastes but that nevertheless occasionally induces a trance-like effect, plus some cool backwards and phasing sound manipulations in places. The arrangements are quite skillfully done, in fact. And the vocal melodies are quite nice, although I still wish they were sung with a few extra doses of charisma. There’s plenty of good stuff to be found.
Elsewhere, the band seems to have a bit more life to them—later singles like “Fools Gold” and “One Love” groove with a tasty guitar squawk and funky basslines and drumming. The vocals work better with the music, too. I get the impression that the Stone Roses might have been a blistering live act whose sound was softened and made palatable by studio drones for their debut.
Their music apparently influenced a great many people and started a UK / Madchester / baggy musical revolution (of which I remain largely ignorant, being a typical Yank). On Stone Roses, I don’t quite believe the hype. But if those terrific later singles are a better indication of what they were like live, I can completely see it.
Here’s just about all the Stone Roses the casual fan would ever need.
Cover Art:
- Stone Roses (front cover and UK back cover): Source, Discogs.com, Fair use.
Recent Comments