Should The Stone Roses Reform? The Arguments For And Against

Most people seem to be taking the Stone Roses reunion rumours, which surfaced in ‘The Mirror’ this morning, at face value – even though the evidence for it seems somewhat shaky.

Assuming it does happen – and, let’s be honest, whether it happens this year or next year or next decade, it’s pretty much inevitable – is it a good idea? The debate has split the office (arguments for and against after the jump) – but what do you think?


Luke Lewis
Two reasons. First, a half-decent reunion tour would at least partially erase the appalling memory of Reading ’96. OK, two members had left by that point. But even so, for a lot of late 20-somethings like me, that one agonising vision – thousands of punters streaming away from the main stage, pain and disappointment and pity etched deeply into their features – is what comes back to us when we think of the Roses now. It’s an unfortunate legacy.

And second, quite simply, those early songs. No matter how gracelessly they’re delivered, who wouldn’t want another chance to bellow along to ‘Made Of Stone’ and ‘Shoot You Down’, or lose themselves in the cascading, kaleidoscopic guitar-brilliance of ‘Waterfall’?

In February 1989, when The Stone Roses completed work on their debut album, Ian Brown listened back to the whole thing. Years later he reminisced: “I remember saying, ‘What is better than this?’ and I couldn’t think of anything.” So dazzlingly perfect is that record, you know exactly what he means. Luke Lewis


Alan Woodhouse
I saw The Stone Roses at the height of their fame, at Glasgow Green in June 1990, just after Spike Island. The event was great, but the band’s performance was rubbish. Even as a wildly enthusiastic, 18 year-old fanatic who hadn’t been to many gigs and thus had little to measure them up against, I knew I wasn’t witnessing magic.

Of course, I loved the first album, but after leaving the venue that night I began to realise just how good a job John Leckie had done in making it sound so good. Fast forward 19 years – would they be any better? I can’t see it. In fact, with the addition of some of the wretched ‘Second Coming’ material and the onset of middle age spreads, I can’t see it being anything more than a toe-curling embarrassment – Reading ’96 repeated over and over. I know I’m not the only one who is saying don’t do it…. Alan Woodhouse