Oasis or The Roses?

[Nightmare Walking]

Have seen people mention a few times now that the Roses sound was original.

Can someone let me know what was original about it?
Considering all the new sounds that were originating around 88 - 90, imo the sound of the Stone Roses was as unoriginal as you could get, compared to what else was being produced.

Very good point, this.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYrhtAchf2U[/video]

And their second album was average

Don't think it's fair to compare the two bands really, Oasis were around much longer and therefore had more cracks at the whip if you get me? Better comparisons would be Arctic Monkeys or Oasis or something.

That is like comparing City with FC United.

 

[Davs 19]

Have seen people mention a few times now that the Roses sound was original.

Can someone let me know what was original about it?
Considering all the new sounds that were originating around 88 - 90, imo the sound of the Stone Roses was as unoriginal as you could get, compared to what else was being produced.

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Have seen people mention a few times now that the Roses sound was original.

Can someone let me know what was original about it?
Considering all the new sounds that were originating around 88 - 90, imo the sound of the Stone Roses was as unoriginal as you could get, compared to what else was being produced.

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

 

[xenon_]

Have seen people mention a few times now that the Roses sound was original.

Can someone let me know what was original about it?
Considering all the new sounds that were originating around 88 - 90, imo the sound of the Stone Roses was as unoriginal as you could get, compared to what else was being produced.

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

Quit ruining people's memories! There's still new things under the sun!

 

[BlueBearBoots]

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

Quit ruining people's memories! There's still new things under the sun!

I like your short posts! To the point!

 

[Davs 19]

Have seen people mention a few times now that the Roses sound was original.

Can someone let me know what was original about it?
Considering all the new sounds that were originating around 88 - 90, imo the sound of the Stone Roses was as unoriginal as you could get, compared to what else was being produced.

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

I loved New Order but If you can't see the Kraftwerk/Moroder similarities, I'm staggered

 

[Nightmare Walking]

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

Quit ruining people's memories! There's still new things under the sun!

I am not trying to ruin peoples memories. The thread is about a comparison between Oasis and the Roses. People seem to put Oasis down because they unashamedly shown their influences. They hold the Roses up as being some radical and totally original band. I was just asking in what way were they original.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

We know. You keep telling us. Your opinion and that's fine but many on here don't share it.

If you don't get what was original about them, you just didn't get the Roses.

Many did though.

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

I loved New Order but If you can't see the Kraftwerk/Moroder similarities, I'm staggered

There are, they are quite startling in some aspects with Your Silent Fact being the prime candidate. But I do not remember Kraftwerk creating timeless pop songs with bass as lead on them.

 

[xenon_]

Quit ruining people's memories! There's still new things under the sun!

I like your short posts! To the point!

I'm rather awesome like that :)

 

[Davs 19]

All I have done is ask why people think they are original as I am seriously interested.

From a musical point of view, I can not see anything original about them. They were/are a 4 piece guitar driven pop band. Yes they played a couple of tunes backwards but that is hardly ground breaking.

Now Fools Gold and Begging You are the Roses most experimental work which they produced. Both of them are fantastic songs, but are they any more original than the stuff New Order were doing from 1982 onwards??

Now image wise, were they truly original? Covering everything in Jackson Pollock style paintings is not really original is it??

You could go on about Ian Browns style as a frontman. Now Ian McCulloch was pulling that too cool for skool attitude long before Ian Brown. What is so original about The Stone Roses compared to the likes of Echo and The Bunnymen?

I appreciate people love the Roses, I am a big fan myself. But they get the credit for apparently creating this whole Madchester scene. Were they actually as important in the grand scheme of things as Rob Gretton, New Order, A Guy Called Gerald, 808 State, The Hacienda, and probably the most important man in the whole Madchester scene Mike Pickering.

The Roses are a fantastic band with maybe 15 top quality records which are timeless. But I have heard nothing or seen anything yet to convince me that they were any kind of originators.

Maybe I did not get the Roses, I have always preferred New Order and The Mondays. I find them 2 bands truly original. But I do appreciate the Roses even if I do not believe all the hype.

I loved New Order but If you can't see the Kraftwerk/Moroder similarities, I'm staggered

There are, they are quite startling in some aspects with Your Silent Fact being the prime candidate. But I do not remember Kraftwerk creating timeless pop songs with bass as lead on them.

...and I don't remember the Byrds or the La's with the overtly drummer influenced sound of the Roses...I guess it's just about opinions. A very personal and subjective thing, music.