Stone Roses or Smiths Reunion - YOUR PICK?

[DJ Pickle]

It's never gonna happen, but if it were your choice, who would you rather see reform and play live and why? The Stone Roses or THE SMITHS?

 

[gooner]

I am the resserection; I have forgiven jesus. both guitarists are missing

Queen is dead/the smiths v stone roses/the stone roses

Stone Roses come above all smiths albums.I thought as I went to 6th form. But then, I listened again. And the rest is ... writing drunken crap.

 

[freeyourself]

> It's never gonna happen, but if it were your choice, who would you rather
> see reform and play live and why? The Stone Roses or THE SMITHS?

I'd like to see Ken Bigley re-form.

Did you go on an Ian Brown fan-site & ask the same question?

The answer is somewhat predictable don't you think.

 

[caroline]

oh god, how rhetorical. from a realistic point of few, the stone roses. but if we're going by wildest dreams....that should be obvious.

 

[Munich 1958.]

Re: I am the resserection; I have forgiven jesus. both guitarists are missing

> Queen is dead/the smiths v stone roses/the stone roses

> Stone Roses come above all smiths albums.I thought as I went to 6th form.
> But then, I listened again. And the rest is ... writing drunken crap.
Obviously too young!

 

[Rain Man]

---"oh god, how rhetorical. from a realistic point of few, the stone roses.
but if we're going by wildest dreams....that should be obvious." ~ Caroline

Just wondering Caroline, what is “a realistic point of few”??? You got me there *bemused* Or do I need a "wild dream" to understand???

BTW. Why not use the whole phrase: “oh god, what an over-elaborate and bombastic rhetoric.” Instead of just “oh god, how rhetorical”. It’s far more pretentious or should I say: “ostentatious?”

 

[The past is a filthy place, .especiially mine?]

> ---"oh god, how rhetorical. from a realistic point of few, the stone
> roses.
> but if we're going by wildest dreams....that should be obvious." ~
> Caroline

> Just wondering Caroline, what is “a realistic point of few”??? You got me
> there *bemused* Or do I need a "wild dream" to understand???

> BTW. Why not use the whole phrase: “oh god, what an over-elaborate and
> bombastic rhetoric.” Instead of just “oh god, how rhetorical”. It’s far
> more pretentious or should I say: “ostentatious?”

Oh Rain Man so you do condescend to visit this lowly site then.

D.S Corner of the Yard.
We normally meet elsewhere, is this a clandestine vist?
If so, the cover is blown.

 

[Rain Man]

No way.. I come here with open arms (unable to sleep and half pissed)

To crush the futile attempts of the pretending intellectuals…

BTW. The guestbook has become very comical again… go read some of the posts… no wait I will get the numbers for you.

What's so dirty about your past then????

 

[Republican Party Reptile]

I just want Alain Whyte to re-unite with Morrissey's band, is that asking too much?

 

[The past is a filthy place, .especiially mine?]

Re: I just want Alain Whyte to re-unite with Morrissey's band, is that asking too much?

No, not really.
I think he's a fine man who should be back in the fold.
Why? Whatsoever?
He played his part very well at the MEN on his birthday.
What happened after that then?

 

[karl]

the smiths becuase im dont know who stone roses are...

> It's never gonna happen, but if it were your choice, who would you rather
> see reform and play live and why? The Stone Roses or THE SMITHS?

 

[Richey]

Well the Stone Roses essentially DID reform then stumbled on embarrassingly with pub standard musicians. The Smiths did have unfinished business but at the same time they have a massive reputation intact that would be risked if they reformed.

If it was for just one live gig (and I was guaranteed a ticket!) Then obviously the Smiths (the Roses were fairly hit or miss live anyway and Ian Brown can't sing) but it it was to make more albums then would rather The Smiths kept their legacy as it is.

 

[Jamie]

> It's never gonna happen, but if it were your choice, who would you rather
> see reform and play live and why? The Stone Roses or THE SMITHS?

I'd much rather we saw Morrissey & Marr as a team, that would leave the Smiths lehacy untarnished, and also make way for new ideas not done before by these two. It could work

 

[Mr.Improper PIMP of the fuggin nation...and proud]

DUH........lets see here brianiac.........The smiths maybe???? yes!!!! The stone shitsticks??? no. They f***in suck more cock than your mom does(and thats ALOT).

 

[thursday-pathetic]

Morrissey and Marr only ...!

Since the Smiths ain't happening, I pick... Hall and Oates. Oh, wait, they never broke up. They're just lame now.

I don't need to see the Smiths. Morrissey and Johnny Marr would be enough for me -- who wants to see that ass Joyce and poor old Rourke anyways? Not I. Mozzer and Marr would be BETTER than all four!

 

[caroline]

if you're on a morrissey forum, don't you think the majority of answers would point to the latter?

it's more likely that the stone roses would get back together, that's just the reality of it. so if they get back together good on me, because i love them.

but if it were up to me? the smiths, in a heartbeat.

 

[caroline]

pretending intellectuals? oh sweetie, what ever bolsters your sense of self worth...

 

[caroline]

oh come on, the stone roses are good. they just aren't as good as the smiths, nor will they ever be.

 

[Rain Man]

 

[Rain Man]

---"pretending intellectuals? oh sweetie, what ever bolsters your sense of self worth... " ~ Caroline (sadoline)

Hey Caroline... I bet you look like Jeremy Beadle... gammy hand too... am I right???