Most overrated band ever - The Stone Roses

tdf7187

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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.

He's a great front man. His singing is certainly an acquired taste. I've obviously managed to acquire it.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that he's gotten worse as he's gotten older. I have this CD of very early Roses stuff and his singing is largely woeful. Also in some of the live gigs from the early years he was rubbish.

tdf7187

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), 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

Rewatching this Reni seems to be deliberately trying to rile Ian up regarding their divergent opinions regarding U2. Ian says "that's bobbins" after listening to Reni sing U2's praises for a few minutes, but Reni gets the last word, saying "'One's made me cry". Then a bit later on, in response to a question about how long they expect to ride the reunion train, Reni says "See, that's a phrase we can take from the U2, rattle and hum. It rattles and it hums and then it'll fall to bits."

Strumms

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.

Well, in your opinion...

I’ve seen him a few times and he’s certainly can sing, be it to your taste that’s subjective, charisma, hmmmm, it’s not fûcking Saturday night at the Palladium we are discussing...

Back to the Roses though, would have been interesting if they’d ever managed to bury the hatchet and make another record.... either would have catapulted their star into the next stratosphere or somewhat grounded them...

Bobblehats

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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.

Mowgli laid down some adventurous stuff though, of his own accord don’t know what goes on up in Bono’s head musically but I shudder to think what he might have concocted had he went his own way

tritriagain

Love the stone roses but Ian Browne doesn't compare to Bono. Brown can't sing live and just does his stupid little dance that looks like he s##t his pants. Have great respect for the other 3 as musicians especially Reni who you can tell is a natural musician.

Bobblehats

tritriagain wrote: »

Have great respect for the other 3 as musicians especially Reni who you can tell is a natural musician.

Can tell he was weened on Van Halen can’t you?

Haha no but I don’t know many drummers outside metal that indulge in a double kick drum. He’s a freak…

Duckworth_Luas

And now on to soccer. Liverpool or Man United?

the beer revolu

I remember being blown away when first hearing the first album and really believing it would change music forever. This euphoria pretty quickly dissolved into thinking that they are just a really, good band but also being pretty bemused and puzzled at the music press obsession over them and Ian in particular.
I've always really liked them but never really became a fan as such. I still really love their music when I hear it.

I don't understand calling Ian Brown a great frontman, though - he just couldn't sing to any kind of acceptable standard live at all.
What vocals ended up on recordings is fine, imo. Better than fine in that they are idiosyncratic and fairly in tune. I'd never call him a great singer but I still love the vocals on the recordings - they just work for me.
But live? Fcuk it, he was awful. Really awful. It was like he didn't care or try. I've never seen them live but whenever I see live footage, I get angry on behalf of the rest of the band over his vocal performance and effort. If I was in the band I'd have hated him over it.
Maybe it was really the best he could do and he tried to cover it up with nonchalance but it looked like he was so bought into his godlike status that he really thought it didn't matter whether he sang vaguely in tune or not.

I've always thought that his inability to sing live really held that band back.

Overrated?
No. Brilliant band!

Beechwoodspark

tdf7187 wrote: »

Rewatching this Reni seems to be deliberately trying to rile Ian up regarding their divergent opinions regarding U2. Ian says "that's bobbins" after listening to Reni sing U2's praises for a few minutes, but Reni gets the last word, saying "'One's made me cry". Then a bit later on, in response to a question about how long they expect to ride the reunion train, Reni says "See, that's a phrase we can take from the U2, rattle and hum. It rattles and it hums and then it'll fall to bits."

No love lost between Reni and “king monkey” - they absolutely despise each other ...

Bobblehats

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No love lost between Reni and “king monkey”

Or howler monkey, in the live environment

McGinniesta

The beatles are the most overrated band ever.

The smell of 1960's boy band off them is rancid.

Bobblehats

McGinniesta wrote: »

The beatles are the most overrated band ever.

The smell of 1960's boy band off them is rancid.

If they’d have got their shįt together. Outtake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UZUpqEZgi8

tdf7187

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No love lost between Reni and “king monkey” - they absolutely despise each other ...

I didn't know about that, do you have a source?

Beechwoodspark

tdf7187 wrote: »

I didn't know about that, do you have a source?

Google it. Well known for years.

Arghus

McGinniesta wrote: »

The beatles are the most overrated band ever.

The smell of 1960's boy band off them is rancid.

Ah heyor...

Asdfgh2020

Arghus wrote: »

Ah heyor...

A Clockwork orange..?

McGinniesta

McGinniesta wrote: »

The beatles are the most overrated band ever.

The smell of 1960's boy band off them is rancid.

Controversial

Strumms

The Beatles get played and marketed to death, have been for decades,... as a band they probably appeal to people of every generation.... probably been played so much that for most adults the subtlety and mystery of them to a point is kind of gone.... I’ve always liked them but it’s probably 7/8 years since I played a Beatles song on a CD or Spotify.....maybe not overrated, maybe just overplayed.

From their generation The Stones always interested me more, not a month goes by where they don’t get played...

Stone Roses, had they made a third and fourth album there’d be worthy of adulation if they’d been really good.

Dickie10

the beatles followed close by U2.

Yurt2

Dickie10 wrote: »

the beatles followed close by U2.

U2 are incredibly naff and their music has aged terribly. Very much a band 'of their time' but they refuse to go away gracefully.

The Beatles - although everywhere - are timeless. I defy you to say you've never whistled or sang one of their songs to yourself when you're in a certain mood.

Green Day? Don't mind them but meh.

Linkin Park? they do nothing for me.

EricPraline

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Dreadful hot take. Nevermind was released in 1991 and received many accolades at the time, well before Kurt Cobain's death in 1994.

Tork

Nirvana were in the right place at the right time but I think they're over-rated. They have some great songs but they also recorded an awful lot of tuneless, screaming rubbish.

Arghus

Tork wrote: »

Nirvana were in the right place at the right time but I think they're over-rated. They have some great songs but they also recorded an awful lot of tuneless, screaming rubbish.

That right place at the right time thing is true enough in a lot of respects.

I still love Nivana all the same. I don't have a problem with their noisy more abrasive stuff - though that's a matter of personal taste - I think In Utero is particularly fantastic because it's got the ugly noise and the pop sensibilities beside each other.

I wouldn't regard much in their back catalogue as tuneless screaming rubbish either. Even when they were noisy and abrasive they still managed to be hooky and weirdly memorable. Cobain had an ear for making something wrong sound right and doing a lot with a little. Territorial pissings is a great example of this in my book. Very noisy, pretty straightforward, but hooky as hell and even the screaming aspects are strangely catchy.

A lot of bands that I used to listen to back when I was a teenager I simply can't listen to anymore, but Nirvana still sound timeless to me and as time as gone on I appreciate more now how good a songwriter Cobain really was.

But it's all down to personal taste, I'll always prefer the sound of Kurt screaming his head off - to something like, I dunno, Morrissey or Ian Brown.

trashcan

McGinniesta wrote: »

The beatles are the most overrated band ever.

The smell of 1960's boy band off them is rancid.

Oh stop it. Go and stand in a corner somewhere.

tdf7187

EricPraline wrote: »

Dreadful hot take. Nevermind was released in 1991 and received many accolades at the time, well before Kurt Cobain's death in 1994.

Chacun a son goute. Personally I thought Alice in Chains were much more interesting than Nirvana.

Tilden Katz

Dunno if this thread has long since moved well passed the topic of The Stone Roses and dunno if the consensus is that they’re overpraised. All I can say is I really like their music, I like really their lyrics and that’s all that matters to me really. If others find them overrated, so be it.

Madeoface

Ian brown is not a singer in terms of Robert plant or Bongos vocal range but he doesn't have to be. The chemistry the rose's had was something else in that doomed silvertone era. That debut album was astoundingly original. Brownie was vital to the sound.

People who don't get Brownie don't get vocalists like Mark E Smith or John lydon either.

I remember back in 1989 some clown of a boss telling me mud and Slade were better bands and will age better than the rose's.... I'm still laughing at that one.

I'm with others on Nirvana. Hasn't aged well bar the obvious.

Ash.J.Williams

Madeoface wrote: »

Ian brown is not a singer in terms of Robert plant or Bongos vocal range but he doesn't have to be. The chemistry the rose's had was something else in that doomed silvertone era. That debut album was astoundingly original. Brownie was vital to the sound.

People who don't get Brownie don't get vocalists like Mark E Smith or John lydon either.

I remember back in 1989 some clown of a boss telling me mud and Slade were better bands and will age better than the rose's.... I'm still laughing at that one.

I'm with others on Nirvana. Hasn't aged well bar the obvious.

there's no doubt about John Lydon! he's a highly under rated musician/singer. Pil are outstanding, but back to the issue at hand, Brownie is the perfect singer for the stone roses that's the end of that argument!!

the beer revolu

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

there's no doubt about John Lydon! he's a highly under rated musician/singer. Pil are outstanding, but back to the issue at hand, Brownie is the perfect singer for the stone roses that's the end of that argument!!

On record, perhaps.

But live?