[Picnic1]

Some people say that The Stone Roses blew it by splitting up after only 2 albums.

But they'd been together for 13 years when they split. It's just that it took them 6 years to release their first album and then 5 more to release their second.
At that rate, we'd have had their third album in about 2000 by which time loads of water would have passed under the bridge in the indie music industry, the end of the heyday of the 90s Britpop era and the rise of Radiohead and their bland copiers. It's hard to know what would have been an apt musical style for The Stone Roses to go for then other than some kind of back to basics / White Stripes type thing.

Apart from what is on their 2 albums other very decent songs appeared on The Complete Stone Roses:

So Young, Tell me, Sally Cinnamon, Here it comes , All across the sands , Full Fathom Five (Elephant Stone backwards). The Hardest Thing in the world, Going Down, Mersey Paradise, Where angels play, What the world is waiting for, Somthing burning, One Love. Both Elephant Stone Fool's Gold weren't originally on the debut but were put on some later editions.

So there's essentially another album's worth of songs there. That's not including most of the songs that are on Garage Flower, an early collection of songs that they weren't happy with.

So if they'd released all that you could say that they made 4 albums worth of stuff.

After their debut, Ian Brown wanted to go more in the direction of Fool's Gold. John Squire wanted to go more in the direction of classic rock. The guitarist mainly 'won' because he wrote a lot more of the songs.

Although drugs and lack of communication are part of the story, after the Second Coming, with some great songs like Breaking in to heaven and some dark and indulgent, yet introspective, rock as the album got in to its second half the only apt thing for such an iconic band must have seemed to disappear in to the shadows in their own mystery and let hungry newcomers like Oasis have the lager swilling spotlight of Britpop's mid to late 90s.

[resentment.]

(Original post by Picnic1)
Some people say that The Stone Roses blew it by splitting up after only 2 albums.

But they'd been together for 13 years when they split. It's just that it took them 6 years to release their first album and then 5 more to release their second.
At that rate, we'd have had their third album in about 2000 by which time loads of water would have passed under the bridge in the indie music industry, the end of the heyday of the 90s Britpop era and the rise of Radiohead and their bland copiers. It's hard to know what would have been an apt musical style for The Stone Roses to go for then other than some kind of back to basics / White Stripes type thing.

Apart from what is on their 2 albums other very decent songs appeared on The Complete Stone Roses:

So Young, Tell me, Sally Cinnamon, Here it comes , All across the sands , Full Fathom Five (Elephant Stone backwards). The Hardest Thing in the world, Going Down, Mersey Paradise, Where angels play, What the world is waiting for, Somthing burning, One Love. Both Elephant Stone Fool's Gold weren't originally on the debut but were put on some later editions.

So there's essentially another album's worth of songs there. That's not including most of the songs that are on Garage Flower, an early collection of songs that they weren't happy with.

So if they'd released all that you could say that they made 4 albums worth of stuff.

After their debut, Ian Brown wanted to go more in the direction of Fool's Gold. John Squire wanted to go more in the direction of classic rock. The guitarist mainly 'won' because he wrote a lot more of the songs.

Although drugs and lack of communication are part of the story, after the Second Coming, with some great songs like Breaking in to heaven and some dark and indulgent, yet introspective, rock as the album got in to its second half the only apt thing for such an iconic band must have seemed to disappear in to the shadows in their own mystery and let hungry newcomers like Oasis have the lager swilling spotlight of Britpop's mid to late 90s.

Reppin' the biggest fan I know, Im furious that the Roses let such unbelievable talent go to waste yet on reflection it's rather romantic if you think about it; the idea that someone has the potential to become the best in their field and dominate the world but giving it up because it's all to easy or it just doesn't interest them so much.

I could give you another anecdote to further explain what I mean if you like but if you take a step back, look that the Roses only released one 'real' album (the self titled debut album) and then look at how much of the world they conquered it makes my jaw drop, does this not make them the greatest band ever?

yeah yeah the sheep will always say nah nah mate beatles, they were the best, yeah but look at the number of albums, plus they didnt have much competition back then. The Stone Roses with a single set of songs ripped **** up and had an empire to embarrass the romans!

The Stone Roses; p4p best music warrior the world has ever seen?!

those that will neg this post probably haven't heard any of the Roses b-sides, and if they have, listen to the 'lost tapes' by Oasis, just listen to the Ian Brown influence that lead to them taking over the world.

[Picnic1]

Let's not forget though that, whilst the rest of the the band more or less lived up to what is on their albums (although some great production will have played its part, especially on Second Coming), Ian Brown's voice live was not the cherubic thing of beauty that the albums suggested. Autotuned or many takes in the studio? Surely the tours in 1995 listening to his dulcet tones took its toll.

[MagicNMedicine]

I thought it was right that they split up when they did, they had lost their sparkle and played some crap live shows towards the end, Ian Brown made some good music on his own, and now they are back so we will see if they can hit the heights again.

At least they left us with 2 legendary albums and some great B sides.