nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Most overrated band ever - The Stone Roses

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PTH2009

Benjamin Buttons wrote: »

To suggest that Ronnie Drew is the most overrated band ever is pushing it, and like 'Conor74' I was totally unaware that he actually 'checked out' in Croke Park. Link?

it was a typo by me, he died the same day the Dubs played a match there, not in Croke Park itself. Almost sure he did ???

philstar

Most overrated band ever ...it has to be.....Oasis

how they got so popular was beyond me, there was sort of a emperors new clothes about them back in day if you said anything negative about them you'd be sneered at made feel an outcast

and as for Liam what an obnoxious asswipe

Collie D

PTH2009 wrote: »

it was a typo by me, he died the same day the Dubs played a match there, not in Croke Park itself. Almost sure he did ???

He did indeed. QF against Tyrone, pissed rain for whole of the game, went home soaked and having watched my team get a sound hiding - 14 points I think? Mood not made better when I turned on the radio to that news.

Bad day to be a Dub

Spider Web

HurlingRanker wrote: »

So pretty much any band that's ever had a modicum of mainstream success is overrated according to this thread. Thread should be renamed "Bands you don't like that many other people do"

It's always the way with these kinds of threads: "Someone unusual you fancy" - plethora of standard good-looking people; "People you inexplicably can't stand" - reams of people for whom there is a very good explanation.

It's like on Twitter recently there was a #myunpopularopinion thing - cue opinion after opinion that wasn't in the least bit unpopular, just kinda soap boxy

And going by all the retweets and likes they got, they looked pretty popular to me!

ToddyDoody

No.

The Golden Miller

Whatever about Second Coming or the solo stuff, The Stone Roses is the best album I've heard thus far in my life. Perfection from start to finish. I can't see it ever being topped

BillyBobBS

philstar wrote: »

Most overrated band ever ...it has to be.....Oasis

how they got so popular was beyond me, there was sort of a emperors new clothes about them back in day if you said anything negative about them you'd be sneered at made feel an outcast

and as for Liam what an obnoxious asswipe

Hard to disagree with that. Liam Gallagher has to be the most boring plank ever.

harry Bailey esq

HurlingRanker wrote: »

So pretty much any band that's ever had a modicum of mainstream success is overrated according to this thread. Thread should be renamed "Bands you don't like that many other people do"

Couldn't agree more. I like the stone roses, but I wouldn't say that they were underrated. I don't think they were big enough to to be overrated to begin with. Back on track, It feels sometimes like I'm the only person on the planet who can't stand Bob Dylan but I could hardly say he's overrated.

dd972

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Hard to disagree with that. Liam Gallagher has to be the most boring plank ever.

He's an Irish-Mancunian version of a Cliche Dub, the part of Manchester he's from is far from the sort of deprivation found in Salford or Collyhurst, the London media and Oasis played the scallywag card for dumbo's who bought it.

Arghus

I have to say of the two of them I actually prefer Liam. Noel has this reputation of being Mr. Straight Talk, but I think there's a bit of playing to the gallery in it: Liam always seems a bit more honest to me - and that might mean a lot of the time he's honestly stupid, but I find it a bit endearing.

As for the current musical output of the two of them - they both suck, hard!

Futureadvocate

The Rolling Stones.

Andrew Loog Oldham was clever enough to market them as the anti Beatles, forever placing them in the Beatles orbit and consequently attaining a musical pedigree by association, and one that they simply don't deserve.
They are a funky little rock band with plenty of great songs, but that's all.

Radiohead.

Writing a well crafted song is a lot harder than arsing around with electronics.It's a card trick, they are not clever and I wish dumb hipsters would stop congratulating their utter mediocrity.
When their pompous fans can't bring themselves to denounce The King of Limbs you know you've got a firm contender for the most overrated band.

Guns n' Poses

A band for pinheads with a singer who sounds like his arse is being used as a pencil sharpener.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Oasis are up there.

I like them, they're decent background music, but the reverence they got from many was absurd - it's a little telling that it's died down relatively quick in the decade since they split up. Blur were always the better band and Damon Albarn, utter twat though he apparently is, was always far more talented than either of the Gallaghers. Supergrass might've been my favourite of those britpop bands though, one of the more underrated of the last 20-30 years.

Billy86

PGE1970 wrote: »

The Eagles make my ears bleed!

liam7831

I quite like Motorhead

purplepanda

Stone Roses, did have great tunes, music & songs around the time of their first LP, most of the 2nd LP sucks, just a Led Zeppelin copy. :mad:

However although many say Ian Brown is a great front man, the fella can't sing which defeats the whole point, his solo material has a few decent songs but his voice still hasn't improved, evidenced over the last few years on their comeback tours.

30 years plus as a singer & he still sounds ****e,why doesn't he get some signing lessons he can afford it! Yet his fans, including some of my friends try to say it doesn't matter because all the crowd sings along anyway at the reunion gigs. You're paying to see them & you do the singing because the singer is bad?

Even Bobby Gillespie, Primal Scream & Shaun Ryder, Happy Mondays, neither of whom are great singers sing better than Ian Brown & have backing singers to beef up the vocals. Plus they actually have improved over the years.

Hector Bellend

LirW wrote: »

I'm gonna take on that suicide move and call it:

The Beatles.

I couldn't agree more

The Golden Miller

Futureadvocate wrote: »

The Rolling Stones.

Andrew Loog Oldham was clever enough to market them as the anti Beatles, forever placing them in the Beatles orbit and consequently attaining a musical pedigree by association, and one that they simply don't deserve.
They are a funky little rock band with plenty of great songs, but that's all.

The Stones are a great band. I can accept the Beatles were more influential, but for me the body of work the Stones put out from the mid 60's to the mid 70's sounds better than what the Beatles produced, with Beggars Banquet being quite sublime. Their greatness has nothing to do with clever marketing or pedigree by association, it has to do with the fact their songs were brilliant.

The Golden Miller

Watching the Oasis documentary, some Stone Roses songs at the start. Just reminded how brilliant that first album is. As good as Oasis, the Beatles, the Stones were, no band has ever had an album as perfect as the Stone Roses.

Even the b-sides, Elephant Stone, Sally Cinnamon, Mersey Paradise etc, are amazing. They'd be the best songs on any other album. Dunno what the OP was listening to, because the album Stone Roses is a masterpiece, the pinnacle of contemporary music, will never be surpassed in perfection and brilliance imo.

Porklife

Couldn't agree more. The Stone Roses were a seminal band. Absolutely fantastic musicians. Ian Brown wasn't the greatest singer in the world but he oozed style and charisma.
The Second Coming is a masterpiece and they inspired a whoie new genre of music.
People dressed like them and it sparked a whole movement. Anybody who doesn't appreciate their music must be deaf!

Yurt2

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

They completely changed the musical landscape of the early 00s when they released Is This It. That's the moment rock music came back to the fore instead of dance music.

The Strokes were a hype-job and a marketing gimmick from a label. The kind of band when you go to college and you're supposed to like music because music is cool apparently, so you say you like the Strokes - because you need to tell a girl who wears fishnet tights in your law tutorial something interesting, you suspect she's into music and it's a good opening punt.

The Golden Miller

Yurt! wrote: »

The Strokes were a hype-job and a marketing gimmick from a label. The kind of band when you go to college and you're supposed to like music because music is cool apparently, so you say you like the Strokes - because you need to tell a girl who wears fishnet tights in your law tutorial something interesting, you suspect she's into music and it's a good opening punt.

The Strokes? Poor man's US version of the Libertines imo!

The Golden Miller

Porklife wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. The Stone Roses were a seminal band. Absolutely fantastic musicians. Ian Brown wasn't the greatest singer in the world but he oozed style and charisma.
The Second Coming is a masterpiece and they inspired a whoie new genre of music.
People dressed like them and it sparked a whole movement. Anybody who doesn't appreciate their music must be deaf!

Not sure the Stone Roses were even that good in general tbh, they just had that moment in time where it all came together, they reached that zenith without even knowing. They couldn't even get close to repeating it themselves.

But when they had it there was a magic there, that I can't quite put my finger on. I'm a big Who, Blur, Stones, Kinks, Oasis, Pink Floyd etc fan, but something about the Stone Roses first album surpassed anything before or since imo, just magic. Never get tired of the album, not one weak moment, and the b-sides just add to the albums brilliance, not drag it down. Not one weak song over that period, don't think any band can say they never had a weak song, even at their best. That album is the pinnacle of contemporary music imo, and stands alone at the top by a distance

Porklife

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Not sure the Stone Roses were even that good in general tbh, they just had that moment in time where it all came together, they reached that zenith without even knowing. They couldn't even get close to repeating it themselves.

But when they had it there was a magic there, that I can't quite put my finger on. I'm a big Who, Blur, Stones, Kinks, Oasis, Pink Floyd etc fan, but something about the Stone Roses first album surpassed anything before or since imo, just magic. Never get tired of the album, not one weak moment, and the b-sides just add to the albums brilliance, not drag it down. Not one weak song over that period, don't think any band can say they never had a weak song, even at their best. That album is the pinnacle of contemporary music imo, and stands alone at the top by a distance

You're preaching to the choir Golden, I never tire of that album either. I can think of two other bands who hit the same musical heights for me and they are Radiohead and Blur.
Genuis. Radiohead have hit every note it's possible to hit and have created and thrown some new ones into the mix while they're at it.
Unbelievable talent.
When i was a teenager I first heard Parklife (hence the username), and it made me sit up and pay attention. They had such a huge impact on my life. Damon Albarn can do no wrong in my eyes from his Blur days to the Gorrilaz to his solo work. Unreal.

PTH2009

Saw The Stone Roses a few years back, it was a great show more or so for the atmosphere then Ian Brown's live vocals which are terrible but the rest of the lads were great

They say the studio makes some people sound great and this can be very much said for Ian Brown

BPKS

PTH2009 wrote: »

Saw The Stone Roses a few years back, it was a great show more or so for the atmosphere then Ian Brown's live vocals which are terrible but the rest of the lads were great

They say the studio makes some people sound great and this can be very much said for Ian Brown

If you want to go to a concert to listen to a great singer go to Michael Buble.

If you want to go to a concert to watch a ballsy, mouthy, don't-give-afcuk-i'll-fight-you character then go to see Ian Brown. A throwback to the good old days.

I was lucky enough the catch the (woeful) end of them at Feile 95 and went on the nastalgia tours with them in 4 different countries when they came back.

I've spent my night watching Glasto from 1999. Compare the bands then - wear whatever they had in the van, yellow crooked teeth, no massive background visuals - to what there is now. Middle class, University educated, perfect skin, perfect teeth, bland, colour by numbers bands, PRd to the nth degree who have the ear of the youth now.

Give me Brown's flat crowing voice any day of the week.

riclad

It seems to be a trend most new UK bands or singers are middle class, there does not seem to be new bands from a working class background,
I don't know why this is.
I think guns and roses had at least 5 really good songs
And they sold millions of albums.
I don't think they are over rated.

divillybit

Erik Shin wrote: »

James were arguably the most hyped and overrated band of the last 30 years

"If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor"

James were an excellent band

Tomaldo

LirW wrote: »

I'm gonna take on that suicide move and call it:

The Beatles.

Nah, having Macca and Lennon in the same band is akin to having Messi and Maradona on the same team. I can understand every word they sing unlike U2 and I'm from the same town as Bono.

joeguevara

Was going to try and say something funny about stone roses but Ian Brown banned the puns!