more important than Picasso


I've been thinking about the Roses a lot lately, and why they continue to hold such a huge appeal even 20 years after they last put out a tune. Damien Hirst claimed a few years back that the Roses were 'more important than Picasso'. Don't get me wrong, I think Hirst is prick but I feel there is something to value in that kind of statement.

The music of the Roses' debut album was subversive, beautiful and striking to the point of life-changing. If that ain't the key strings to any great piece of art then my word, I don't know what is, and that's why the Roses should be considered and analysed alongside the likes of Picasso and even Shakespeare. Any art which is able to captivate an audience so profoundly, across such a large period of time deserves to be held in this company, and I'd wager that it's the connotations between the Roses' music and crowds of northern, working class people (as opposed to the public school, aristocratic-types who fawn over theatres and overrated art galleries) which holds them back in this regard.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Miliband the sycophant, yet again

How Do You Sleep - Stone Roses (1994)

History repeats itself; first as tragedy, second as farce