The Stone Roses and Comebacks

The Guardian is not impressed with the new Stone Roses single, with Michael Hann suggesting that it is typical of disappointing comebacks. I did laugh at the comment that it sounded like Rainbow with Bryan Adams singing lead; whoever said that clearly doesn’t like Rainbow. Or Bryan Adams. On a first listen it reminded me of Beady Eye, only nowhere near as bad. That is probably damning it with faint praise, but you can listen to it yourself.

What I do take issue with is the idea that disappointing comebacks are the default. Michael Hann’s cherry-picked examples do not make it so. What about the thrilling re-emergence of King Crimson last year? Or if you want an indie band, how about Suede, whose career appeared to peter out a decade or so ago, only to return, older and wiser, to make their best music in years?

I suggest, much like the canard of the difficult second album, the disappointing comeback reflects the sorts of bands music journalists like to write about; the artists who sometimes capture the Zeitgeist but don’t necessarily have the staying power needed for a lengthy career. Whether The Stone Roses fall into that category is a matter for debate.

What comebacks have and haven’t impressed you? And what do you think of the Stone Roses single?

This entry was posted in Music Opinion and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Stone Roses and Comebacks

  1. Synthetase says:

    I liked Black Sabbath’s 13. Sure, it wasn’t exactly breaking new ground but it sounds good, has some great riffs and all the other things we love about the Sabbath.

  2. Tim Hall says:

    13 was a great album; definitely a grower. So was “The Devil You Know” by Heaven and Hell.