Reformation of the Smiths or Stone Roses question

[jebus]

Interesting question arose yesterday while talking to Wangball and one of those non-Foot posters about what would generate the most excitement at the ticket office, the Smiths reforming, or the reunion of the Stone Roses. Leave aside personal preference if you can and think about who would be a bigger draw. Any other bands that could reform that would generate a lot of hype as well?

Personally I think the Stone Roses would as there has always been a feeling of unfinished buisness between the band and their fans. The Smiths have a large hardcore following, but I don't think they would still have the same mass appeal as a band that spawned Oasis, Kasabian, the Charlatans and other huge mainstream bands

[gustavo]

I'd agree about the Roses probably having the more interest really but would prefer to see the Smiths reform

[anto1208]

The stone roses are way more mainstream so i reckon they would generate the most hype.

[KevB76]

I'd agree about the Roses probably having the more interest really but would prefer to see the Smiths reform

Likewise

[Lionel Ritchie]

Personally I think the Stone Roses would as there has always been a feeling of unfinished buisness between the band and their fans. The Smiths have a large hardcore following, but I don't think they would still have the same mass appeal as a band that spawned Oasis, Kasabian, the Charlatans and other huge mainstream bands

Hmmm ...plenty I'd have issue with there. First off the rump of the "fans/fanbase" of both bands are in their mid to late thirties now and are no longer in the "key dem" when it comes to a record company asking who is going to buy a comeback record. ...though that demographic will be more likely to fork out over the odds prices for all seated concerts in the round with the worlds biggest ballpond outside for the kids. So I don't think there's much to seperate them there.

I'm not massively familar with Kasabian (actually I frequently confuse them with Razorlight and suspect they're actually one band with two names picking up a second cheque) but I would seriously contest whether or not The Stone Roses "spawned" or otherwise influenced the likes of Oasis (I'm just not making the connection sonically there at all) or The Charlatans -who, while sounding more like the Roses than Oasis do, were contemporaries of the Stone Roses and sounded as much like any number of fellow traveller, hammond organ renting, androgenous white boy floppy gits in need of a slap that were on the go as the 80's turned into the 90's.

Also I don't recall reading about any massive irreconcilable differences that had errupted in the Stone Roses camp. Merely disilusionment and probably lots of substance abuse.

The Smiths on the other hand was a bitter, tawdry, nasty split and the only thing that has brought Morrissey and Marr back together for any length of time since was the need to have their respective legal councels join forces to fend off litagation and subsequent royalty claims from Rourke and Joyce.

To that end I would contend The Smiths re-union would draw more interest and intrigue convertable into green.

Do I think it'll happen ...frankly I think there's a better chance of getting Kurt fixed up and back into Nirvana.

[Sheridan]

For the history between the band members and the worldwide appeal it would be The Smiths by a mile IMO.

[jebus]

Stone Roses helped the Charaltans out quite a lot with the exposure they gave to Northern bands of their ilk, and I think the majority of the bands of that day shaped their sound around Stone Roses' debut album, certainly their record labels would have been pushing them in that direction.

As for Oasis - Stone Roses comparisons, well aside from the obvious Ian Brown swagger that Liam ripped off there isn't much in fairness, bar the whole Northern thing I guess. I remember a lot of Oasis fans in 1994 cited Stone Roses as the band that really got them into music though, so Oasis can thank them for that at least

[Billsthoughts]

LR-

Think the roses seem massively popular amongst people who had never heard of them first time round. how else would you explain Ian Browns popularity?

Think Ian Brown is not on speaking terms with John Squire anyways.

Oasis I always thought sounded a lot like slade.

Think bands reforming is a bit pointless. If they had any creative impetus in them they would still be together.

[Macy]

Stone Roses helped the Charaltans out quite a lot with the exposure they gave to Northern bands of their ilk, and I think the majority of the bands of that day shaped their sound around Stone Roses' debut album, certainly their record labels would have been pushing them in that direction.

I think it's fair to say the Charlatans developed their sound from there, unlike some of the others who fell by the wayside along the way.

Not sure I'd really like to see either reform, although the Mondays did pull it off in their 99 tour (downhill from there though). I think the Roses would be the bigger draw, especially if Reni returned as well so it was the classic Roses line up. More recent and still name checked by current bands, whereas the Smiths are more there as an albeit brilliant band. Can't really see either happening, as the two lead singers are too successful in their own right. I think it was Ian Brown who said when asked about it do you reckon Squire would be so keen if he'd had as many solo hit records as him?

[Macy]

Think the roses seem massively popular amongst people who had never heard of them first time round. how else would you explain Ian Browns popularity?

I think some of Brown's solo work stands up under it's own right, but Indie is now main stream whereas it wasn't when they were at their hieght. I mean Spike Island is still kinda the indie/ mainstream cross over moment, but that'd be a run of the mill size gig for a lot of the current lot of average "Indie" bands. It was before my time, but I don't think the Smiths played any gigs to the size of what would constitute an arena tour, compared to how popular they are now?

[The Optimist]

If you look at the two lead singers "Morrissey" and "Ian Brown".I would think that Morrissey would have the biggest fanbase.So for me i think that the smiths reforming would have the biggest draw.

[centre mid]

Imagine a double headlining reunion tour with the joy division playing support

[jebus]

Imagine a double headlining reunion tour with the joy division playing support

Who's gonna break the news about Curtis lads?

[centre mid]

A reunion of the Divison is as likely as a Smiths reunion

[TonyD]

To that end I would contend The Smiths re-union would draw more interest and intrigue convertable into green.

Do I think it'll happen ...frankly I think there's a better chance of getting Kurt fixed up and back into Nirvana.

I agree on both points Lionel. A Smiths re-union would be massive (A far more important creative force than the Roses in my opinion.) But the Fallout between Morrissey/Marr and Rourke/Joyce was way too bitter for any prospect of a re-union. It'd probably be a bad idea anyway, given Morrisseys very dissapointing work (don't agree with the "return to form" spin of his last couple of albums - anything I heard from them sounded pretty poor) and also given the fact that Marr has done even less of any worth since the Smiths split.

[endabob1]

Technically Marr & Morrisey wree the Smiths so Joyce & Rourke wouldn't be required on the journey.
I think there is a feeling of unfinished business with the Roses, the Smiths did it all and I would worry about them tarnishing the reputation if they came back.

[superfrank]

Both bands before my time, and not even my type, but going on who has more influence on the tastes of my generation, I think The Smiths would be a bigger draw.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Technically Marr & Morrisey wree the Smiths so Joyce & Rourke wouldn't be required on the journey.
I think there is a feeling of unfinished business with the Roses, the Smiths did it all and I would worry about them tarnishing the reputation if they came back.

By the same logic then "technically" John Squire is the Stone Roses.

While a re-union of Morrissey and Marr would be welcome and interesting I don't think they could market it as 'The Smiths' unless they'd at least a quorum of the classic line-up. Any stand in for Andy Rourke for example would still be playing Rourkes basslines note for note as they are integral to many Smiths songs.

Also, The Smiths could hardly be said to have "done it all". They did exactly two mainland European tours and two more in the US. They never got a chance to truly break out in either territory.

[Wolfie]

..........I would seriously contest whether or not The Stone Roses "spawned" or otherwise influenced the likes of Oasis (I'm just not making the connection sonically there at all)

Also I don't recall reading about any massive irreconcilable differences that had errupted in the Stone Roses camp. Merely disilusionment and probably lots of substance abuse.

Noel and Liam Gallagher have stated countless times the massive influence the Roses had in inspiring them to form a band. Noel Gallagher has stated in interviews that he was encouraged to write music as a direct result of the Roses. Manchester lads in a band not being afraid to be successful and getting somewhere was a revelation to Gallagher.

He summed it up by saying he adopted the view "If they can do it - I can do it".

While musically they have a different sound - the Roses attitude was aped wholesale.

Interestingly enough (or not) - The early track "Cloudburst" by Oasis is a rip off of [/I]"Standing Here" by the Roses - Same chords, same lyrical melody .

No irreconcilable differences in the Roses camp? Ian Brown and John Squire haven't spoken in over 13 years as a direct result of John Squire leaving the band. Brown holds Squire personally responsible for the break up of the band.

Substance abuse certainly contributed heavily to the Roses extended periods of apathy and lack of focus but the complete breakdown in the friendship between Brown and Squire finished the Roses.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Noel and Liam Gallagher have stated countless times the massive influence the Roses had in inspiring them to form a band. Noel Gallagher has stated in interviews that he was encouraged to write music as a direct result of the Roses. .

Noel Gallagher is at least the same age as the Roses boys and was probably writing songs as long as them. I suspect, possibly while being admirably gracious and complimentary, he was overegging the pudding somewhat regarding how huge an impact they had on him.

While musically they have a different sound - the Roses attitude was aped wholesale.

Attitude? you'd swear they were the first band ever to have a mad for it cheeky monkey attitude. They don't just have a different sound ...there are likely more points of cross-comparability between an Oasis record and a Status Quo record than between an Oasis record and a Stone Roses one.

Interestingly enough (or not) - The early track "Cloudburst" by Oasis is a rip off of [/I]"Standing Here" by the Roses - Same chords, same lyrical melody .

Oasis Rip Off Song

..there's tomorrows headline already.

No irreconcilable differences in the Roses camp? Ian Brown and John Squire haven't spoken in over 13 years as a direct result of John Squire leaving the band. Brown holds Squire personally responsible for the break up of the band.

Substance abuse certainly contributed heavily to the Roses extended periods of apathy and lack of focus but the complete breakdown in the friendship between Brown and Squire finished the Roses.

Given. I probably shouldn't have played down the ill-feeling between Brown and Squire. Though I will say it appears to just mirror the situation with the Smiths whereby Morrissey doesn't rule out working with Marr again but Marr isn't having a barre of it.