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

Dempo1

All Brit pop bands that ever existed, just awful S****

Oasis
Pulp
Blur

etc etc etc

razorblunt

I’ve been chipping away at the Top 500 albums of all time according to Rolling Stone magazine and I have to say while I obviously missing their effect when albums were released “at the time” I’ve been very unimpressed by The Rolling Stones in particular. Their albums outside the classic songs are pretty poor.

Coldplay after their first 2 or 3 albums went to muck too, I blame Gwyneth Paltrow!

Dempo1

Just to add and I fear offending anyone with good taste and I apologise sincerely in advance for even daring discribe my second choice as an actual Musical band so will redact as best I can....

B*****E, hint, the odious Louis Walsh

Hangdogroad

PGE1970 wrote: »

I'm 47 so was around for all of those bands.

I also love all of them and would disagree, somewhat, that Suede and Primal Scream were undervalued. Perhaps a little by Kylie & SAW music fans but not by those into indie. Screamadelica is on my go to list of albums.

The Carpets were a little more niche. They came before Suede & Primal Scream and were around at the same time as the Roses. Noel Gallagher was a roadie for them. I loved the Carpets and I'm going to see Tom Hingley play in October.

My opinion is that the Roses defintely had a huge effect on music at that time. It was all Jason, Kylie etc in 1988/1989 until the Roses, Happy Mondays, The Farm, The Soup Dragons etc brought the manchester sound alive. The Roses were always a little different, a bit more melodic and you can hear the influence of The Byrds, the Beach Boys etc in their melodies. In John Squire, they also had a guitarist who is right up there. With the Madchester scene, it was about the beat and the, cough, recreational elements of the music.

Throw in the renaissance of New Order at that time and the advent of rave music etc, it was a good time for music.

Same age here, I remember seeing them on TOTP doing Fools Gold, it was seismic in the year Jive Bunny And The Mastermixers topped the charts three times. Saw them live at Feile 95 and by then they were just going through the motions.

joeguevara

Art, music, fashion etc is completely subjective and can’t really be rated. A band per se can’t be over rated. If a large group of fans rate them highly do you think that they are wrong?

[Deleted User]

Most of the bands listed here are not overrated.

People mentioning Oasis mostly say it because they don't like the Gallagher brothers. Same with Bono and U2.

People mentioning Green Day say it because of the their punky, eyeliner wearing image.

People mentioning Coldplay because their music has gone south the last few years, yet their first 4 albums were excellent.

SEPT 23 1989

It’s a dance record

Brown is the MC not a singer

I would love to properly hear that album again like I did 20 years ago as it was meant to be listened to

Those days are gone

[Deleted User]

Arctic Monkeys. Especially that first album.

The J Stands for Jay

RossGeller wrote: »

Most of the bands listed here are not overrated.

People mentioning Oasis mostly say it because they don't like the Gallagher brothers. Same with Bono and U2.

People mentioning Green Day say it because of the their punky, eyeliner wearing image.

People mentioning Coldplay because their music has gone south the last few years, yet their first 4 albums were excellent.

It Is possible to dislike oasis without hating the Gallaghers.

Green Day get mentioned because they never lived up to the promise of their first two albums.

For Coldplay, you'd be pushing it to say their first two albums were excellent. Output since then has been mediocre at best.

[Deleted User]

It would have to be Winter's Reign. Obviously they had talent, but the lead singer knocked over me pint in the Rathfarnham Inn one night when he was dancing on a table and never replaced it.

irishguitarlad

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

I love that album but I'd have Nirvana's Nevermind as surpassing it.

Hotblack Desiato

Porklife wrote: »

Ian Brown wasn't the greatest singer in the world but he oozed style and charisma.

Ian Brown is possibly the greatest bellend in human history.

Hotblack Desiato

riclad wrote: »

It seems to be a trend most new UK bands or singers are middle class

middle class my hole, C***play etc are from fcuking "public schools" like Eton

Hotblack Desiato

joeguevara wrote: »

If a large group of fans rate them highly do you think that they are wrong?

Of course :pac:

[Deleted User]

I was a big fan of them for a while, but even so... can't escape the feeling that R.E.M. were waaaay bigger than they should have been given their limited musical range.

Icaras

razorblunt wrote: »

I’ve been chipping away at the Top 500 albums of all time according to Rolling Stone magazine and I have to say while I obviously missing their effect when albums were released “at the time” I’ve been very unimpressed by The Rolling Stones in particular. Their albums outside the classic songs are pretty poor.

Coldplay after their first 2 or 3 albums went to muck too, I blame Gwyneth Paltrow!

If you're unimpressed with sticky fingers and exile on main st then the stones just aren't for you.

Agree with the Coldplay comment.

retalivity

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.

Is this it? is a near perfect half hour of music. They were never able to get near it again.
Also, Pulp were as good as if not better then Blur/Oasis.
My overrated pick - Bruce Springsteen. Warbly bollocks who sounds like he's constantly taking a dump

Strumms

retalivity wrote: »

Is this it? is a near perfect half hour of music. They were never able to get near it again.
Also, Pulp were as good as if not better then Blur/Oasis.
My overrated pick - Bruce Springsteen. Warbly bollocks who sounds like he's constantly taking a dump

I tried to get into the strokes but Is This It aside they were average, looked a bit dodge live too....

Next week Is This It is 20 years old, fûck, that makes me feel old.

Pulp were an incredible live band... but their recorded output was really good, they just got saddled with the whole Britpop thing.... Another band who had a gun to their heads touring absolutely endlessly....at the expense of their record output...

dasdog

I don't know of a band over the last thirty or so years who caught the zeitgeist better. Maybe it's because they borrowed so much from the 1960's. Tapped in to the rave generation perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60qyfdcAOGE

Thelonious Monk

Stone Roses weren't bad but I agree totally overrated. Are Oasis even rated these days? Basic music for drunk premier league fans.

[Deleted User]

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Stone Roses weren't bad but I agree totally overrated. Are Oasis even rated these days? Basic music for drunk premier league fans.

Oasis are certainly still popular, if Spotify is a reasonable metric.

Not sure how to measure rating.

Beechwoodspark

Icaras wrote: »

If you're unimpressed with sticky fingers and exile on main st then the stones just aren't for you.

Agree with the Coldplay comment.

Yep. That run of albums from beggars banquet to goats head soup is pretty darn good

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Oasis are certainly still popular, if Spotify is a reasonable metric.

Not sure how to measure rating.

Liam must have one of the worst singing voices ever recorded

[Deleted User]

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Liam must have one of the worst singing voices ever recorded

Worse than that fella from The Thrills?

:pac:

Thelonious Monk

RossGeller wrote: »

How is it basic?

Have you ever listened to Champagne Supernova, The Masterplan, Live forever? These are some of the greatest songs ever written. Again people will put down Oasis simply because they don't like the Gallagher brothers or Liams voice.

I loved them at the time I suppose it was part of the zeitgeist. One of those bands that I just couldn't listen to now, but then musical taste is personal.

Beechwoodspark

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.

Strokes were a complete hype job

I remember it clearly back in 2000

All the music mags hyping them up to crazy levels about how they were going to be the “saviours of rock” and all this ...

Then when you read their back story - sons of model agency moguls and Wall Street financiers who met at an ultra elite Swiss finishing school...

I mean ffs.

They had a few half decent songs which where heavily heavily “influenced” by punk and new wave

All image no substance.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Worse than that fella from The Thrills?

:pac:

Thanks for reminding me The Thrills happened urgh

cj maxx

Dempo1 wrote: »

All Brit pop bands that ever existed, just awful S****

Oasis
Pulp
Blur

etc etc etc

BS. Britpop was brilliant at the time , and some songs have aged really well. Others not so much.

Bobblehats

Whatever they were up to around the turn of the millenium I was all over. 3 for the price of one; very dysfunctional unit can’t argue with that…

Beechwoodspark

cj maxx wrote: »

BS. Britpop was brilliant at the time , and some songs have aged really well. Others not so much.

The sea horses....