Most overrated band ever - The Stone Roses

Church on Tuesday

Deleted User wrote: »

No there wasn't.
Nirvana
Then...
Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains.
Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, L7, Hole


None were better, most got more than half the recognition

Absolutely much better bands (IMO) than Nirvana and I love Nirvana. Much more talented players overall and I'd add Stone Temple Pilots to that list too. Vastly underrated band.

the beer revolu

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

After the triple whammy of Murmur, Reckoning & Fables, I think REM dropped the ball a little on Life's Rich Pageant and Document. They did get back on course with Green and kept the quality going until Up which I'd rank as their fourth best album (after Fables, Automatic, Murmur).

Dead Letter Office is a still a fun listen. Disappointing, the recent reissue campaign of the Warners era has favoured demos and live sets over B-sides.

Funny, Document is probably my favourite REM album. Always found Green too twee and had way to much mandolin on it!

NewbridgeIR

tdf7187 wrote: »

I liked the Stone Roses but I also quite liked Mark E Smith's attack on Madchester.



- Idiot Joy Showland
.

That was hilarious. It was, of course, possible to love both. Although The Fall's Telephone Thing from early 1990 kinda blends in with the wider Madchester sound of the era and was certainly played in indie discos at the time.
Suede were targets in 1993 on Glam Racket.

Strumms

WhymeWhynot wrote: »

I've heard people gushing over Laura Marling and she has been heavily lauded by the music press but to me it's dull, boring I'm a sensitive woman in a wolly jumper with an acoustic guitar music. I find Lisa Hannigan overrated for much the same reason.

Yep, Lisa Hannigan core fanbase are the same sort of people who listen to and laud the likes of Mundy, Declan O’ Rourke, Damien Rice... the early ‘00’s folk lot from Whelans..

I’ve seen her about supporting other artists Richard Hawley and somebody else and no, while I’ve tried to appreciate her talents, it’s all very earnest yet not too melodic or at all interesting...

Earthhorse

She is quite beautiful and has a lovely voice but I don’t find myself moved when she sings which is surely the point.

Weepsie

the beer revolu wrote: »

Funny, Document is probably my favourite REM album. Always found Green too twee and had way to much mandolin on it!

New Adventures in HiFi is woefully underappreciated and is their last great album.

Don't think they had a bad one between their first and that. Some less good than others, but none bad and all interesting in their own right.

Up was okay, and after that it was hit and miss.


Stone roses, they're overrated by some, under by others.they arrived at a perfect time and ammased a supremely loyal following that has stayed wih them and the scene in the 90s ensured they gained new fans

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Absolutely much better bands (IMO) than Nirvana and I love Nirvana. Much more talented players overall and I'd add Stone Temple Pilots to that list too. Vastly underrated band.

STP and in particular, Weiland, just tried too hard. Always came across as tagging along, nothing they did was groundbreaking.

They may be more talented players in the bands above, but metrics like that don't work when judging bands.

Nirvana were the ones that broke through. They were the style icons, they had "the grunge sound". Would grunge have made it with Vedder, Cornell or Staley in Cobain's place? I doubt it.

Strumms

Earthhorse wrote: »

She is quite beautiful and has a lovely voice but I don’t find myself moved when she sings which is surely the point.

She hasn’t got the songs, songs move people ... strip away the ethereal quirkiness and the cardigans...it’s really....hmmmmm

Earthhorse

[Deleted User] wrote: »

STP and in particular, Weiland, just tried too hard. Always came across as tagging along, nothing they did was groundbreaking.

They may be more talented players in the bands above, but metrics like that don't work when judging bands.

Purple is a great album and really highlights the unique voice STP had. Perhaps not groundbreaking but a fantastic power pop album that sounds really refreshing when stood against its gloomier grunge contemporaries. Not that I think they are “better” than Nirvana but I think your post is a good example of the dismissiveness their talent was often met with this side of the Atlantic.

blueser

the beer revolu wrote: »

You may not like The Smiths but that's just being stupid, now.

It really isn't. Listen dispassionately to their stuff. He's dreadful.

Church on Tuesday

Deleted User wrote: »

STP and in particular, Weiland, just tried too hard. Always came across as tagging along, nothing they did was groundbreaking.

They may be more talented players in the bands above, but metrics like that don't work when judging bands.

Nirvana were the ones that broke through. They were the style icons, they had "the grunge sound". Would grunge have made it with Vedder, Cornell or Staley in Cobain's place? I doubt it.

Probably one of the biggest myths in music. STP always got written off as a PJ clone when nothing could be further from the truth. You could say Core was slightly generic but Purple was when the band really came into their own, If you can't find something to enjoy from that era I don't know what to say and Scott Weiland was easily one of the most talented frontmen and performers to ever grace a stage.


I agree that being good players doesn't necessarily equate to being a good or rather iconic band which Nirvana are but The Pixies were doing the quiet/loud dynamic before Nirvana; Nirvana took that template and popularized it and made it their own. They didn't necessarily invent the "grunge sound" rather built upon it with insane catchy hooks and took it to the masses with Nevermind. Detractors of Nirvana in turn will always use the Pixies thing against them and basically write them off as copycats.... like as above.

Honestly if anything, Vedder, Cornell and Staley (and Weiland) amongst others made grunge. Cobain was talented no doubt but it's a bit of a stretch to say it was all the work of one individual when there were multiple players at play for the success of that particular movement.

Strumms

blueser wrote: »

It really isn't. Listen dispassionately to their stuff. He's dreadful.

The Smiths were a great band, you can listen dispassionately, upside down or with your socks on your fingers, great band.

Bobblehats

Smiths drummer Joyce had an Irish dad as well didn’t he?! Full flush, they were all bloody Irish

golfball37

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

After the triple whammy of Murmur, Reckoning & Fables, I think REM dropped the ball a little on Life's Rich Pageant and Document. They did get back on course with Green and kept the quality going until Up which I'd rank as their fourth best album (after Fables, Automatic, Murmur).

Dead Letter Office is a still a fun listen. Disappointing, the recent reissue campaign of the Warners era has favoured demos and live sets over B-sides.

Funny , I’m a massive REM fan and would always consider Life’s Rich Pageant got them back on track after Fables. Murmur is still my favourite followed by AftP

Nirvana are definitely overrated. Singer/songwriters who die young often are overrated because of their tragic death.

blueser

Strumms wrote: »

The Smiths were a great band, you can listen dispassionately, upside down or with your socks on your fingers, great band.

A band can't be classed as great when their lead singer can't sing. There is the argument that a fella can get away with being a somewhat less than good sing, if he has charisma. I get that. But Morrissey hasn't got that, either.

golfball37

blueser wrote: »

A band can't be classed as great when their lead singer can't sing. There is the argument that a fella can get away with being a somewhat less than good sing, if he has charisma. I get that. But Morrissey hasn't got that, either.

Morrisey had the perfect voice and charisma for his own haunting lyrics. If you don’t like him fair enough but to say the Smiths weren’t a good band is a statement I can’t take seriously

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nirvana are definitely overrated. Singer/songwriters who die young often are overrated because of their tragic death.

Because they weren't successful before he died????

MTV unplugged is a masterpiece

dirtyden

Deleted User wrote: »

Nirvana are definitely overrated. Singer/songwriters who die young often are overrated because of their tragic death.

They are not over rated. They were a generation defining band. Kurt Cobain was a genius. His rendition of all apologies on the mtv unplugged was one of the most beautiful performances ever put on tape.

machiavellianme

Syphonax wrote: »

I can name a song from every other band listed here and could properly do so for most 'known' bands but serioulsy cant think of one for Stone Roses.


And btw

AC/ fooking /DC

most overrated band ever pure tripe

Surely you've heard that one hit of theirs?
You know the one?
"I want to be a door"

machiavellianme

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Probably one of the biggest myths in music. STP always got written off as a PJ clone when nothing could be further from the truth. You could say Core was slightly generic but Purple was when the band really came into their own, If you can't find something to enjoy from that era I don't know what to say and Scott Weiland was easily one of the most talented frontmen and performers to ever grace a stage.


I agree that being good players doesn't necessarily equate to being a good or rather iconic band which Nirvana are but The Pixies were doing the quiet/loud dynamic before Nirvana; Nirvana took that template and popularized it and made it their own. They didn't necessarily invent the "grunge sound" rather built upon it with insane catchy hooks and took it to the masses with Nevermind. Detractors of Nirvana in turn will always use the Pixies thing against them and basically write them off as copycats.... like as above.

Honestly if anything, Vedder, Cornell and Staley (and Weiland) amongst others made grunge. Cobain was talented no doubt but it's a bit of a stretch to say it was all the work of one individual when there were multiple players at play for the success of that particular movement.

The Pixies just aped Dinosaur Jr who themselves cogged Husker Du...

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Because they weren't successful before he died????

MTV unplugged is a masterpiece

Today I learned that success and rating are the same thing.

Interesting.

dirtyden

dirtyden wrote: »

They are not over rated. They were a generation defining band. Kurt Cobain was a genius. His rendition of all apologies on the mtv unplugged was one of the most beautiful performances ever put on tape.

Well, I think they're overrated ****e.

Strumms

Bobblehats wrote: »

Smiths drummer Joyce had an Irish dad as well didn’t he?! Full flush, they were all bloody Irish

True,

And...

Johnny Marr was actually born John Maher...

“The original spelling of my name was Maher. In school I was always called Ma-her and May-her, going to the doctors or whatever. So I just thought I’d make it easier for everybody when I was 14 or something. And also the drummer from the Buzzcocks is called Maher, so I didn’t want to be confused with him. I was probably quite confident that I was going to make it in the music industry!”

https://www.nme.com/news/music/johnny-marr-73-1260850

WhymeWhynot

Strumms wrote: »

Yep, Lisa Hannigan core fanbase are the same sort of people who listen to and laud the likes of Mundy, Declan O’ Rourke, Damien Rice... the early ‘00’s folk lot from Whelans..

I’ve seen her about supporting other artists Richard Hawley and somebody else and no, while I’ve tried to appreciate her talents, it’s all very earnest yet not too melodic or at all interesting...

Ah yeah the type of people who wear glasses but actually don't need glasses.

WhymeWhynot

Earthhorse wrote: »

She is quite beautiful

Ah jesus I can't tolerate the type in woolly jumpers/cardigans who are oh so sensitive.

RossGeller

At this point I think every band has been mentioned here, including the likes of The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin who many regard as the greatest bands of all time.

Bobblehats

blueser wrote: »

A band can't be classed as great when their lead singer can't sing. There is the argument that a fella can get away with being a somewhat less than good sing, if he has charisma. I get that. But Morrissey hasn't got that, either.

Vocal point is too obvious; got to have that schwing thing lest we unleash every claptrapper and hairbrush diva unto the world. For we know that music is music….

tdf7187

Incidentally as someone who is both a Roses and U2 fan, I found the comments in the pre-reformation press conference quite interesting. There is it seems a divergence of opinion regarding U2 in the Roses, Ian hates them (and always has), Reni was very complimentary of U2 and Larry Mullen's influence on him specifically, and Mani was somewhat well-disposed to U2. John stayed silent on the question of U2, but John is the silent type.

The whole press conference was great, though. It gave me hope about the gigs, and indeed they were excellent in the Phoenix Park.

(@6:37)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV31kNGELUQ&ab_channel=ThisAccount

Beechwoodspark

tdf7187 wrote: »

Incidentally as someone who is both a Roses and U2 fan, I found the comments in the pre-reformation press conference quite interesting. There is it seems a divergence of opinion regarding U2 in the Roses, Ian hates them (and always has), Mani was very complimentary of U2 and Larry Mullen's influence on him specifically, and Mani was somewhat well-disposed to U2. John stayed silent on the question of U2, but John is the silent type.

The whole press conference was great, though. It gave me hope about the gigs, and indeed they were excellent in the Phoenix Park.

Brown isn’t fit to tie the shoe laces of Bono when it comes to singing

Brown is an awful, woeful singer. Especially when he got older.

Obviously the clear “weak link” in the band when you consider the musicianship of the rest of them.