Reports suggest a The Stone Roses reunion could be on year. Hamish MacBain reckons: why not?
The simple fact is The Stone Roses deserve their payday. I’m not saying they should do it or they shouldn’t do it, just that it’s up to them, and no-one should have a problem if they do.
None of them are millionaires, but many of their disciples – a couple of fellow Mancunian heroes in particular spring to mind – are. It’s the same deal as the Pistols: no-one with a brain could begrudge them getting what’s theirs, when they inspired so many.
The issue of “tarnishing the legacy” is nonsense, too. It’s easy to say that if you loved the Roses back in ’89, but why should they continue living as this idyllic (and skint) part of your teenage years while you get that promotion at work?
No-one accuses their fans of selling out because they’re not wandering about doing Es anymore. They’ve got families now, why shouldn’t they look after their own?
Plus, if the whispers are to be believed, they get on fine now. And why shouldn’t they? They’re grown men, all late 40s, who shared something truly special in their early 20s.
John Squire sent Ian Brown a song for his last album. Ian Brown didn’t want to do it, despite describing it as “nice”, but there is no way anyone could now say Ian hasn’t proved himself since the Roses split.
When he started singing Stone Roses songs in his set again, it was at the right time – they complemented rather than dwarfed his wealth of solo material. It felt celebratory, rather than nostalgic.
Which brings us to Mani, the Stone Rose who seems most keen to get this happening. His point is a simple one: if they’re going to do it, they need to do it quick, before anyone goes bald; there are thousands and thousands of kids who adore them, but who never got the chance to see the Roses play; and – let’s be honest – it would be a blast for all of ’em.
So I’m with Mani, for all of these reasons.