Anti-Climacus

A (SORT OF) DEFENSE OF THE STONE ROSES: norm has a post on, among other things, the Stone Roses:

"Exactly! Any album poll, it's always up there. It's top, or in the top 5, or the top 10. I wouldn't have it in my top 50. It's OK is all you can say for it."

Having just bought the album, and being something of a long-time fan of "Fools Gold/What the World is Waiting For" and "Where Angels Play," I'm tempted to dispute this somewhat. It's very true that the whole of the album feels like less than the sum of its parts, and I've not quite been able to figure out why, since I think all the songs fall somewhere between merely good ("Waterfall") and the truly excellent ("Made of Stone"). John Squire is, of course, generally amazing, though it does occur to me that he plays a large number of songs in the key of D. And certainly, if you contextualize the Stone Roses (against Madchester narrowly or music from Manchester in the approximate period of 24 Hour Party People), they're even better--Ian Brown can at least kind of carry a tune, something Shaun Ryder can't really claim; the only two bands from Manchester that I can think of as being clearly better than the Roses are the Smiths and pre-1996 Oasis*. Which is to say, I can sort of understand being ambivalent about the Roses, though they might (just barely) crack my top 50... hmm... there's a Christmas break project for me...

*And Joy Division, obviously, but I consider myself lucky in that their music has never really spoken to me (though I do love me some "Disorder")