It was OK, but they have a lead singer who can't sing and who is a Rag.So, not a fan then . . . ?
They are/were like The Las. Or Lauryn Hill. They had one really good album in them.
Unfortunately the lead singer of my favo(u)rite band in the history of the universe also can't sing too well and is also a rag, but a casual one (apparently), whereas the former lead singer and manager of their predecessor band were blues -- especially the manager.It was OK, but they have a lead singer who can't sing and who is a Rag.
And it always infuriates me when the praise given to any band is so far out of proportion with what they actually achieved. I mean, I don't like David Bowie, but in that case I accept that I am in the minority and that he clearly had a stellar career.
[Monty Python Mode]What have The Stone Roses ever done for us?[\Monty Python Mode]
I like both bands very much and both were in my 15. I think they are quite different though, musically, atmopherically, so so different. Why even compare them?Yeah, the reason is because they are better than The Doors.
It was OK, but they have a lead singer who can't sing and who is a Rag.
And it always infuriates me when the praise given to any band is so far out of proportion with what they actually achieved. I mean, I don't like David Bowie, but in that case I accept that I am in the minority and that he clearly had a stellar career.
[Monty Python Mode]What have The Stone Roses ever done for us?[\Monty Python Mode]
I was in the right place, at the right time to enjoy the Manchester music scene in 1989-90. Unfortunately, I didn't like the music.The stone roses are worthy of the term great rock n roll swindle.
Made some decent stuff but kept people hanging on by teasing constantly, and then a big fuck off pay day tour decades later.
Still when Stock Aitken and waterman were strangling the music scene and charts with their dirge, cocky cunts swaggering about with cool guitar riffs, and drumming of the highest standard were the ideal tonic.
We shouldn't really, you're right. It was just an exercise in shithousery. :)I like both bands very much and both were in my 15. I think they are quite different though, musically, atmopherically, so so different. Why even compare them?
So to me, any band that can put out a string of a half a dozen records I really like is going to make my list, even if what they did after their streak was broken, especially as that is basically the story with every band ever, save the few who imploded after a couple of great ones. Just Chronic Town to Document is good enough for me for REM, though I liked Out of Time a lot too ("Texarkana" might be my favo(u)rite REM song, period).REM would have been in my top 15 if they were any good after Document.
Same with Radiohead.
The Bends brilliant but downhill after that.Ok was good but nothing else after.
I think its incredible Nick Cave made the list. Haven't heard his stuff for a very, very long time -- I mean, like back to The Birthday Party days! To me this is the biggest surprise on the list so far -- I'd no idea how popular he is/was. I have heard PJ Harvey (or at least a couple of her more acclaimed records) and she's not for me though I see why she's respected.Nick Cave along with PJ Harvey are 2 artists who I've been meaning to check out for years. Radiohead were on my list and hoping James will do well later on.