Most overrated band ever - The Stone Roses

mikeybrennan

super_furry wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

It was a joke

smilerf

Probably gonna be strung up for these but I could never see the appeal of The Smashing Pumpkins or Nirvana
U2 are overrated too

milli milli

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Yes. The beatles.

People who say The Beatles in these types of threads really don't have a clue about music.
You may dislike their songs (pretty sure you haven't heard all of their work), but you can't deny their influence on modern music. They actually changed the face of modern music.

As well as a prolific body of work, they were pioneers of the concept album, the shift from single to LP as a format (we've since gone the other way nowadays) the music video, first stadium gig, multitracking & other studio experiments, album artwork & influence on fashion.

George Harrison's jingly guitar 'sound' along with he vocal harmonies became known as the Beatles sound and influenced thousands of bands. The term 'Beatlesesque' is still used today.

Also if you trace your music lineage, The Beatles and other bands of the era were the pioneers of prog-rock and art-rock.

At the time in the UK & the US, the norm was for songwriters to write songs for artists & bands. The likes of Tin Pan Alley had guys in suits going to the office everyday to write songs. The Beatles and other artists at the time started to write their own songs and due to their popularity effectively sounded the death knell for this type of writing.

The Beatles also helped popularise yoga in the West.

Your Face

milli milli wrote: »

People who say The Beatles in these types of threads really don't have a clue about music.

Someone doesn't like a certain band so they don't have a clue about music.
Not a great attitude.

milli milli

Your Face wrote: »

Someone doesn't like a certain band so they don't have a clue about music.
Not a great attitude.

The thread isn't about disliked bands - it's about Overated bands.

Your Face

milli milli wrote: »

The thread isn't about disliked bands - it's about Overated bands.

So one likes overrated bands? :rolleyes:

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with the Doors. Just some guy noodling along on a moog and the whole Jim Morrison thing, found most of their stuff kinda boring and not nearly as gripping as fans would have you believe. But may be biased as lived through the whole revival almost 30 years ago when the Oliver Stone film was released and everyone was doing the whole Morrison demi God thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's an awful shame UB 40 became so associated with skangers, because their early stuff like King, 1 in 10, Food for Thought, Rat in Mi Kitchen...they were great. But in the 90s they churned out dross.

So, The Doors are shíte, but UB40 are great?

mikeybrennan

Cienciano wrote: »

So, The Doors are shíte, but UB40 are great?

UB40 were great for 1 album

Deise Vu

Has to be Dire Straits.

The Walk of Life is up there with the Birdy song for ruining every wedding I ever attended.

PGE1970

I think this thread highlights the wonderful spectrum of differing opinions between people's music passions.

I think that context will often affect people's opinions on music. For example, my band, The Smiths, would be quite niche amongst under 25 year olds. Quite understandably as they haven't released a record since 1987! However, I was 14 when "Hand in Glove" came out. You should try to imagine Ireland then for a teenage boy/girl. The internet was over a decade away, a lot of houses didn't even have a phone!

You got your music from MT USA on a Sunday afternoon, the Hotline for chart and pop stuff and Dave Fanning for alternative. Top of the Pops on a Thursday evening also. No streaming, no youtube, no spotify and maybe 2 radio stations worth listening to and one was on longwave so it was crap quality.

I wasn't into pop, new romance or chart music. As much as I appreciated Spandau, Duran Duran, Culture Club etc, it wasn't for me.

But when I heard "Hand in Glove" it hit me immediately. What followed was 3 years of music heaven and, at times, it felt like Morrissey wrote the songs for me and no-one else. Remember, folks, I was a hormonal mournful adolescent!!

My parents couldn't understand the noise coming from my room, that "depressing band" as my mum called them. What is ironic is that this is now what my own daughter calls the Smiths. Morrissey has created a bond between Grandmother and Grandchild!

So the Smiths and The Stone Roses and other bands of my teens and early 20s will always have a more personal meaning to me. I can appreciate other artists and appreciate what they mean to other people. People who dismiss The Beatles as being underrated themselves underrate the effect that they had on popular culture in the 1960s. Their music, in part, led to a more widespread cultural and societal revolution. You simply would not have today's music without the Beatles and Elvis Presley imo who opened the door to the Byrds, The Monkees, The Rolling Stones, which led to Glam Rock, Punk, Indie etc etc. There would be no Joy Division, Sex Pistols, Pink Floyd, no New Order etc.

I may not personally appreciate some of the Beatles work as much as a die-hard but I certainly appreciate what they brought to the development of music. So I'll give my thums up to the Beatles even if i don't listen to them perhaps as often as I should (shuffles away to dust off my True Faith 12")!!

MadYaker

I think The Stone Roses are good but very over rated, much like Oasis. One good album in almost 30 years and they are lauded like The Beatles or Zeppelin. They couldn't get it together enough to release a third album, instead we got one absolutely awful single and another that was just barely ok, and then went on a stadium tour charging £100 a ticket with no new music to play. The first album was excellent but one good album doesn't make a great band, especially when you take into account some of the absolute drivel that was subsequently released.

DivingDuck

milli milli wrote: »

People who say The Beatles in these types of threads really don't have a clue about music.
You may dislike their songs (pretty sure you haven't heard all of their work), but you can't deny their influence on modern music. They actually changed the face of modern music.

The more successful a band is, the more room there is for them to be overrated if you don't like them. You can't call a band overrated, no matter how crap they are, if they go nowhere. But if a band has the level of success and influence The Beatles did, and you don't rate them, to you they are the definition over overrated because they were so highly appreciated by so many people (but not by you).

PGE1970

MadYaker wrote: »

I think The Stone Roses are good but very over rated, much like Oasis. One good album in almost 30 years and they are lauded like The Beatles or Zeppelin. They couldn't get it together enough to release a third album, instead we got one absolutely awful single and another that was just barely ok, and then went on a stadium tour charging £100 a ticket with no new music to play. The first album was excellent but one good album doesn't make a great band, especially when you take into account some of the absolute drivel that was subsequently released.

I'll be honest, I went to the Phoenix Park and wanted to hear nothing but the first two albums. I think that the debut album is a work of magic and, imo, the best debut album ever released.

They are now what I am; a middle aged man. They can't be back in 1988 but they did a great job of trying to take us there. Sod the new stuff!!

JupiterKid

Whilst I wasn't a big fan of them at the time, The Stone Roses were a lot better than what passes as a rock band these days. But then, I'm an old fogey pining for the 90s.:o

I always wondered why it took 5 years for them to release a 2nd album. At the time I just presumed they were too drugged out to bother their arses to getting around to making it!:D Fools Gold and Love Spreads are cracking tunes.

Cienciano

Cienciano wrote: »

So, The Doors are shíte, but UB40 are great?

I think the Doors are overrated and UB40 had some great singles early on.

If Oliver Stone makes a film about UB40 and people are analysing Ali Campbell's lyrics and/or some penis related incident in 50 years, I think that would be overrating them too...

smilerf

JupiterKid wrote: »

Whilst I wasn't a big fan of them at the time, The Stone Roses were a lot better than what passes as a rock band these days. But then, I'm an old fogey pining for the 90s.:o

I always wondered why it took 5 years for them to release a 2nd album. At the time I just presumed they were too drugged out to bother their arses to getting around to making it!:D Fools Gold and Love Spreads are cracking tunes.

I agree chart rock bands are ****e. Two rock bands I like I came across on YouTube.
Goodbye June and Band of Skulls

mzungu

JupiterKid wrote: »

Whilst I wasn't a big fan of them at the time, The Stone Roses were a lot better than what passes as a rock band these days. But then, I'm an old fogey pining for the 90s.:o

I always wondered why it took 5 years for them to release a 2nd album. At the time I just presumed they were too drugged out to bother their arses to getting around to making it!:D Fools Gold and Love Spreads are cracking tunes.

It was primarily down to hassles with their record company. Although, I'm sure the rock lifestyle did play a part too!

kunst nugget

mzungu wrote: »

It was primarily down to hassles with their record company. Although, I'm sure the rock lifestyle did play a part too!

I read a book about them recently by John Robb - it's a terrible read so I wouldn't bother - and while record company hassles played a part and there was a bit of partying, I think that once they took their foot off the pedal after releasing One Love, an inertia swept over the band and then when they did try to get back into the recording studio, the weight of expectation seem to cripple them so that session after session was aborted. Also, before the release of the first album, they were piss poor and lived in each other's back pockets with nothing else to do but write tunes and rehearse. Once they got a bit of money, they were all living in different towns and cities with nothing really binding them together anymore. The second album ended up being cobbled together from various sessions after Geffen imposed a deadline on them. I don't care what anyone says, that second album is a massive pile of poo.

AndyBoBandy

kunst nugget wrote: »

Also, before the release of the first album, they were piss poor and lived in each other's back pockets with nothing else to do but write tunes and rehearse. Once they got a bit of money, they were all living in different towns and cities with nothing really binding them together anymore. The second album ended up being cobbled together from various sessions after Geffen imposed a deadline on them. I don't care what anyone says, that second album is a massive pile of poo.

Same thing pretty much with Oasis wasn't it?, Noel had wrote a load of tunes, they went to Glasgow and performed for a label exec (which was probably only the 3rd or 4th time they'd actually played together, got signed, recorded their album and a few weeks later were on a world tour and were all worth millions!

kunst nugget

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Same thing pretty much with Oasis wasn't it?, Noel had wrote a load of tunes, they went to Glasgow and performed for a label exec (which was probably only the 3rd or 4th time they'd actually played together, got signed, recorded their album and a few weeks later were on a world tour and were all worth millions!

Not really, the Stone Roses spent the best part of 6-7 years in obscurity before they got anywhere with the first album and they never made anywhere near the money Oasis did.

AndyBoBandy

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Same thing pretty much with Oasis wasn't it?, Noel had wrote a load of tunes, they went to Glasgow and performed for a label exec (which was probably only the 3rd or 4th time they'd actually played together, got signed, recorded their album and a few weeks later were on a world tour and were all worth millions!

Think Oasis had been around a while before they were spotted by Alan McGee of Creation Records.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Think Oasis had been around a while before they were spotted by Alan McGee of Creation Records.

Original incarnation was The Rain. Noel wasn't there at that time.

He joined in late 91 around the time the name got changed after a gig at the "Swindon Oasis."

They signed up to a deal in 93 and first album followed in 94.

whippet

john.han wrote: »

I do think Blur, 13 and Think Tank were decent albums but could never understood the hype around them before that (or the hype when the they reformed and toured... ) I always find it unusual when bands come back after a hiatus and people have re-imagined them in the meantime as a much bigger act then they ever were originally, nostalgia plays a big part.

i'd disagree ... I was firmly on the Oasis side of the fence 20 years ago and thought Blur to be elevator music.

Over the years Blur sort of grew on me but not to the extent that I would go out to listen to them.

then last year I went to see them in Madison Square Garden and they put on a whopper of a show ... turned 20 years of dissing them on it's head


As for the Roses ... obviously not everyone's cup of tea .. but I spent my college years listening to them and their peers .... nothing will live up to those times and the music that we listened to then will always be special ..

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Not really, the Stone Roses spent the best part of 6-7 years in obscurity before they got anywhere with the first album and they never made anywhere near the money Oasis did.

The Stone Roses were far more alternative than Oasis. The Stone Roses were for the kids with tie dye teeshirts and flares at a time when everyone loved U2. 5 years later, Oasis were very much the mainstream, much more conscious of chart success.

SEPT 23 1989

How could the Roses have followed that masterpiece anyway?

Second Coming is a great record but it was a shock to the system

Don't really listen to them anymore as you really need to be on the right chemically induced frequency to hear those songs properly

team_actimel

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

LCD Soundsystem.

Middle aged fat bloke in check shirt shouting.

*runs and hides*

+ 1 on LCD Soundsystem.

I've listening to many of their songs, willing myself to understand their appeal. Nope.

Chester Copperpot

Arghus wrote: »

To be honest, I think The Stone Roses are as good an answer as I can think of to this hoary old question. But there's also Neutral Milk Hotel -

I don't hate them. How could I - I want to Be Adored, I Am The Resurrection, Waterfall - those are some bona fide indisputable classics; cracking tunes from a really great band. But, I'm sorry, they are simply not one of the greatest bands of all time - which was something that was and still is said frequently enough, especially around the time of their reformation. I had a friend that used to swear blind they were better than The Beatles. Jesus Christ - I know music is all about subjective taste and all that malarkey, but that's as close to an objective falsehood as you're ever likely to hear. They didn't leave a truly great legacy as far as I'm concerned: one classic album and another that honestly very, very few talk about today. I'm not saying that they are a bad band, but just they have no business being up in there in conversations about "the greatest", amongst the truly legendary bands of the sixties, seventies and onwards. They are overrated.

Neutral Milk Hotel released In The Aeroplane Over The Sea back in 1998 and it took 10 years for that album's reputation to balloon to a point of ludicrousness. I will concede that The Stone Roses - while being overrated - at least were good: NMH, on the other hand, are terrible. Jeff Magnum's excruciatingly loud, out of tune and corny bellowing makes me wish I was deaf whenever I have the misfortune to hear it. Christ, an absolute stinker of a band.

When it comes to more "modern" bands I'd have to put The National up there. They are widely beloved, but they do absolutely nothing for me. I find them boring, morose and slow.

But to get onto the real pressing issue of The Thread: favourite metal album. It's a tough choice between ...And Justice For All or Reign In Blood. I love how cold ...AJFA feels. It's, by far, Metallica's most genuinely angry album. But it's a cold, simmering anger. And when you mix that with their most ambitious musicianship ever, you get something terrifying, but also awe inspiring: love that album. I'd probably have to vote for RIB over it though, just. Evil never sounded like so much fun. And that opening screech that turns into a roar that Tom Araya does right at the beginning of Angel of Death get's me going each and every time.

The national is a good shout. Is probably a foretaste of what music will be like in the future when a set of guidelines are entered and then it is all written by computer programme for a defined market. Not bad but kind of soulless. The documentary on the band gave an insight into how truly boring the members of the band are. Just seem to be going through the notions of writing music and performing like it is a mundane job. The result is music that you can easily listen to but just as easily forget

PGE1970

kunst nugget wrote: »

I read a book about them recently by John Robb - it's a terrible read so I wouldn't bother - and while record company hassles played a part and there was a bit of partying, I think that once they took their foot off the pedal after releasing One Love, an inertia swept over the band and then when they did try to get back into the recording studio, the weight of expectation seem to cripple them so that session after session was aborted. Also, before the release of the first album, they were piss poor and lived in each other's back pockets with nothing else to do but write tunes and rehearse. Once they got a bit of money, they were all living in different towns and cities with nothing really binding them together anymore. The second album ended up being cobbled together from various sessions after Geffen imposed a deadline on them. I don't care what anyone says, that second album is a massive pile of poo.

Very good documentary, Blood on the turntable, covering this subject.

If you are a Roses fan, you will not take too well to their manager at that time!

Well worth a watch.

andekwarhola

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

The Second Coming album is underrated if anything - an absolute beast of an album

It's proof of the syndrome that predetermined criticial perception really can bury an album.

I listened to it the other day for the first time in years and while not nearly good as the first album, I was almost surprised to realize that it's a pretty decent album.

Llyod Cole was another good example that was contemporaneous with the first Roses album. His first album was critically lauded but critics to a person almost pre-decided to bury the second one. Any time I've heard that second album down the years, it's almost a surprise that its as good as the first one.

As for overated bands, I have never been able to fathom the critical popularity of Bob Dylan, Clash, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Killers, and Coldplay.

Nailz

Radiohead and Muse.