i can vaguely recall deciding, or stating that i was determined, no further "anniversary" posts of landmark gigs what i was fortunate enough to be at would done. yet here we are, look you see. well, i have nothing much else of anything to write of. and it is The Stone Roses.
so, yes, eleven (11) years ago on the day today (or the date this was published) i was one of the fortunate to be at Heaton Park to see the impossible made real, The Stone Roses together and performing. considering this blog is littered with posts about that day and night, well, let me not say much more from a looking back perspective.
yet back is the only direction one can look with regards to The Stone Roses. there is no future. when John Squire finally got around to confirming what we had suspected a few years ago - that they had disbanded once more - it had every sense of really being for good this time.
despite Squire stating that they made a vow never to discuss the second split (and being quite adamant that he was certainly not to be the one to break it) one can make assumptions. the official social media channels for The Stone Roses, for instance, took the step a few years ago to distance the band from statements made by Ian Brown, clarifying that his views on anything (everything) didn't quite reflect all in the group. and then there was the return to a solo career by Ian Brown, done with little (if any) press or interviews, leaving one to make what they will of the lyrical content.
why wouldn't i celebrate the 11th anniversary of seeing The Stone Roses, i suppose. after all, with thanks and deference to Nigel Tufnel, there is no more rock and roll a number than eleven (11). further, it remains so that there's 11 tracks on their self titled debut album. unless you have the USA version, which has Fool's Gold stuck on the end, somewhat undermining the symmetry of the intended opening and closing track. still, that bass though
mystery still kind of surrounds the initial, original split. in a way. perhaps it is better to speculate, but yet it was claimed there was a straightforward answer. whilst (or whereas) i have absolutely no means to confirm the veracity, it was reported that when Mani was asked about it he gave the response "four very different people doing four very different types of drugs". i don't think we, the disciples, the believers, the acolytes, wished or wanted to hear something so trivial as that.
an obscenity, a true blight on the state of our world, is that most of the band now reside in that category of wondering "where are they now". sort of. the exploits of Ian Brown shall forever be news, with his most recent tour being a prime example. not one to go quietly into that good night, him. from what i recall John Squire turned up fairly recently, doing a bit of a guest spot with Liam Gallagher at his mega Knebworth gigs last year. which is what he did for Oasis in 1996, the last time The Stone Roses split up.
but the other two? the ones with the really, really cool, loved (cherished) and admired names? i suppose there is little or no surprise that Reni has gone right off the radar (or the charts) for this is precisely what he did when he left in the first instance. this is less the case with Mani. when he moved from The Stone Roses to Primal Scream that was bright light in a dark world, man. so full of life, character and love, our Mani. no idea at all why he has gone all reclusive, but one can hope he returns to public life one day.
perhaps the most interesting thing (or thing of interest) is that the cash cow that is The Stone Roses has also ceased. we had a 10th anniversary edition of The Stone Roses and a 20th one too. yet no further ones. also no further "best of" or "greatest" sets, which is a shame, as Beautiful Thing hasn't appeared on a proper CD, and one has to play the one (1) track CD single to hear All For One in such a way. maybe there's dispute or disagreement between them, or they just simply feel people are not going to buy any more copies of it. quite sure they are wrong in respect of the latter.
one generation under the same groove.
who is and who isn't, who is and who isn't
No comments:
Post a Comment