stone roses - it's a great album but i think it (and the band) got elevated to cult levels by how it was embraced and the culture around it. there's epic tracks on it though having bought it at the time i didn't find it particularly ground breaking. jingly jangly guitars go all the way back to the sixties and the indie scene of the mid eighties was rich in that sort of music, not much of it played in the mainstream. so the bands that were able cross the divide probably got all or most of the attention. it's as much a reflection of what was lacking in the mainstream and how music was disseminated at the time. it's fair to say the band probably had a bit more swagger and confidence about them which must have helped them get on the music press covers. you could apply that to many other bands, beatles, stones, included. as paul implies it probably helped that they came from manchester due to the city's rich musical history, though i can't agree with the massive generalisation in there. whether you rate the album or not it is well loved and has cultural significance
I don't think they were musical geniuses in terms of how they played their instruments (not that it matters) but 88-92 for me had incredible energy and expression and none of it was manipulated by outsiders although (by all accounts) the heavy influence on the club scene in Manchester was house music from New York. You cannot underestimate the contribution of MDMA to the equation. The fashion wasn't exactly unique or exact to any time really. Bands like the Mondays and Roses were free ventures but shyte like Oasis were totally manufactured and actually not very good. I wish I liked Ian Brown's solo stuff but I don't.