john squire solo: classique ou dud

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i think it's soulful enough, though vocally terrible
'time changes everything' was a little overlooked perhaps

― Charlie Howard (the sphinx), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 10:53 (nineteen years ago)

shite, shite, total and utter shite. worse than marr solo. and that really is saying something.

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 10:55 (nineteen years ago)

If I live to be a million years old my life will be too short to listen to John Squire solo.

― No Suntan, No Credibility (noodle vague), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 10:59 (nineteen years ago)

hahah. full of love so far

― Charlie Howard (the sphinx), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:01 (nineteen years ago)

Wretched.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:06 (nineteen years ago)

Truly, truly dud. The awful lyrics to that "Love is the law" song still haunt me to this day.

― Neil Stewart (Neil Stewart), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

He should stick to painting, tho he's shite at that too

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:17 (nineteen years ago)

I completely disagree. "Time Changes Everything" is a very, very good album. Admittedly, his voice is something that takes some getting used to (as everyone seems to notice, but I've come to enjoy it). The main thing you have to realize is that it DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THE STONE ROSES. Maybe that's what's throwing everyone. But regardless, there are a number of excellent songs on that record, and I listen to it somewhat often. Suggestions: "Time Changes Everything," "Welcome to the Valley," "I Miss You"

I didn't really like "Marshall's House" though.

― richard wood johnson (rwj), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

that's what i sincerely dig about this place. the versatility and range of opinion.

― Charlie Howard (the sphinx), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:06 (nineteen years ago)

"Time Changes Everything": £1 in fopp.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:09 (nineteen years ago)

The main thing you have to realize is that it DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THE STONE ROSES

Which many of us would consider to be a good thing

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

Wasn't "Love is the law" one of the tracks that Ian Brown completely refused to do for the Stone Roses? The chorus and tune are alright, but jesus! Those verses.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:10 (nineteen years ago)

Which many of us would consider to be a good thing

I have heard that people in England dismissively lump the Stone Roses in with the "baggy pants" scene, the way Americans might lump anything we hear on modern rock radio into the "nu-metal" scene. Luckily for me, I don't really have any cultural baggage concerning (most) British bands, including the Stone Roses. They're one of my favorite bands of all time, as it turns out. But I can see how if I were over there during the late 80s or early 90s, I might have difficulty listening to them. It's one of those weird things where the associations can ruin something otherwise great.

― richard wood johnson (rwj), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

BAGGY PANTS?

― electric sound of jim [and why not] (electricsound), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

As big a roses fan as i am, seahorses were shit(apart from love is the law) and Squire solo, despite not being as an annoying singer as the seahorses guy, still sucks im afraid.
I really don't want the roses to reform. Hopefully as Ian Brown is doing well he won't go for it. But sadly money talks.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy (Kerr), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 23:53 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.