They are the Resurrection

OK, so the Stone Roses have reformed, despite the vicious, vehement ways in which they phrased their previous refusals to do so. I've already posted my objections to this kind of cabaret act, but there's another good reason for the Roses not to do so: have you ever heard Ian Brown sing live?

Here's what they sound like on record:



And here's what they sounded like live: you'll want to rip off your ears. This is why Alexis Petridis said this of Ian Brown's voice:

The line that Ian Brown cannot sing has been repeated so often that it feels very tired, but the degree to which he cannot sing still has the capacity to shake you awake. Here, his voice is a muffled, gloomy honk, like a despondent goose wearing a balaclava.

Which is why we should be left with the memories and the albums.

This week's Friday conundrum

Worst (or most misleading) book title, band name, album or other creative effort? What's the most disappointing experience of your life? The event or thing that seemed to promise everything, only to let you down? ('Birth' is not allowed).

Stone Roses' Second Coming gets some points for presumption, and loses several million for being rubbish. The Beatles is a pun beneath even me… I'll think of more later.

They Were The Resurrection And The Life

20 years since the Stone Roses' first album, before their second, Oasis and lad-rock killed proper indie. To celebrate, here's their appearance in Wolverhampton: at the Magistrate's Court, for trashing their label's office in revenge for being completely ripped off.

Stick to the first, transcendent album if you don't know their stuff. It transformed the UK music scene after a terrible few years. The 2nd, The Second Coming, is mostly poor, and the bootlegs aren't worth getting because Ian Brown can't sing (and, it turns out, write music on his own). Despite being overplayed at every indie disco ever, that first album still sends a rush of blood to the head.