Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Seahorses

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Joel Cooney

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 7:40:02 AM2/7/01
to

Tom Hatry <tom_...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Qy6g6.208245$f36.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Tom Hatry wrote in message ...
> >
> >Simon Wright wrote in message <3a803...@news.bizonline.net>...
> >>What is your opinions on them? I think they're pretty good
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> Just thought of something: with the Seahorses, Squire sounded like the
> special guest guitarist in his won band, for what it's worth...
>
>

Yeh he played like a session guitarist... in fact, maybe thats what he
should do from now on. Maybe he could do stuff on Oasis' new record ( if
that ever comes out ,which I doubt severely) ;-)


Ian Lockyer

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 4:43:25 PM2/7/01
to
Well, I don't blame Squire for breaking the group up, it was a whole
combination of factors which lead to the band splitting, not just Squire
being a totally self indulgent, coke-head. It was a shame to see Squire
lose it so badly. Just comparing Second Coming (which I like) and DIY (nuff
said) to the first album, well, there is no comparison. THE STONE ROSES was
their best work.

DIY is a terrible album, to think I wasted Ł11.99 on it! However, the
funniest part is that the local second hand record store wouldn't buy it,
it's reputation obviously precedes it!

Simon Wright <simonw...@thefreeinternet.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:3a808...@news.bizonline.net...
> No, they were good, I think, what it is, Roses fans who don't like them
are
> just pissed off at Squire for breaking the roses up..and that is just
> stupid, they are a good band
>
>
>
> Ian Lockyer <i...@ilockyer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:95pomi$g36$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The Seahorses were quite poor, to say the least. With a guitarist as
> > talented as Squire they had a better than average chance of being great,
> as
> > the Stone Roses had been.
> >
> > Why didn't it happen? Well, probably because Squire hired third rate
> > musicians to work with him, probably so he wouldn't be out-shone, and
live
> > they were very weak. I had the pleasure (?) of seeing them at their
> Exeter
> > show and they just turned up, went through the motions and left. A lot
of
> > people were disappointed in them.
> >
> > Whatever happened to Chris Helme and his so-called solo career? Back
> > outside Woolies is my guess!
> >
> > Simon Wright <simonw...@thefreeinternet.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in
message
> > news:3a805...@news.bizonline.net...

Ian Lockyer

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 4:45:29 PM2/7/01
to
Well, lets face it, even Squire couldn't make OASIS more shite than they
have become. They'd just go for the world coke snorting record.

Joel Cooney <jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Hmbg6.6888$ts2.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

Supertrav777

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 6:52:14 PM2/7/01
to
>What is your opinions on them? I think they're pretty good

No one seems lukewarm on the topic of the Seahorse. I like them. Maybe it's
because I don't mind over-the-top indulgent guitar playing. The one fair
criticism of the album DIY is that it tries to hard to sound like all the other
bands out at the time (the resemblance of the singer to the guy from the
Bluetones is uncanny).
OK, so maybe John Squire sold out to Britpop but so was everyone else in 1996
(look at Suede's transition from Dog Man Star to Coming Up). Thus, your opinion
of the Seahorse probably relative to your opinion of Britpop. If you can dig
Oasis, Kula Shaker, Shed Seven, etc, you will probably like the Seahorse.
Often when a musician goes solo (even if they try to disguise it by hiding
behind a band name) you often hear complaints that the music is too different
from the band he/she just left. But the whole point of going solo is to play
music you couldn't play in your previous band.
-Travis

HAWKE

unread,
Feb 8, 2001, 5:17:34 AM2/8/01
to
I like the Seahorses. I loved alot of Squire's riffs from that period and
Love is the Law is an all time favourite. Saw them at T in the Park a
couple of years back and thought they were great live. Having said that
they were a bit shit when they supported U2 at Murrayfield on the Pop tour,
and its probably Squire's weakestwork.


Joel Cooney

unread,
Feb 8, 2001, 5:54:41 AM2/8/01
to

HAWKE <A.P....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:95trnu$nlj$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...


Yeh I saw them at Murrayfield and they were fucking terrible... the singer
bloke tried to get the crowd singing along to the middle 8 bit of Love is
the Law... just wiznae happenin'....


Joel
GUTTED at last night... Mols, what were you thinking?


stef-lach

unread,
Feb 8, 2001, 9:52:32 PM2/8/01
to
They are a one man band..boring as fuck and very messy tinny sounding live,
John Squire lost everything he had after The Roses split, it wan't his fault
they split, these things happen in bands, but I think he just dried up, and
he resorted to masturabtion on his guitar, and bored us all to sleep

In fact, the second coming tour wasn't much better, nobody wants to listen
to a guitarist wanking away for hours on end, move on, move up and
expand...squire is talented, but he arrived 3 decades too late

Stef


"Simon Wright" <simonw...@thefreeinternet.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:3a805...@news.bizonline.net...

> why do you say that?
>
>
>
> stef-lach <stef...@ntlworld.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:7HXf6.2559$ts2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > assmunchers
> >
> > Stef


> >
> >
> > "Simon Wright" <simonw...@thefreeinternet.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in
> message

> > news:3a803...@news.bizonline.net...

0 new messages