|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 27, 2018 15:59:24 GMT -5
Great first album. Their b-side collection is incredible and on the same level as Oasis’ back catalogue. Their second album is spotty but underrated.
I think their whole reunion has been overrated and very very flawed. But then again, I also didn’t grow up with the Roses so I’m not in the same demographic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 16:16:34 GMT -5
Yeah that guitar riff is ripped off from the Beatles but this song is a fuckin masterpiece. They had some really strong b-sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jun 28, 2018 3:13:37 GMT -5
Their reunion was a terrible joke. I was happy to seeing them twice in 2012 and 2013, but they have let all their fans down and made a parody of themselves by only playing huge stadium gigs and releasing 2 singles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas Panic on Jun 28, 2018 3:43:23 GMT -5
Their reunion was a terrible joke. I was happy to seeing them twice in 2012 and 2013, but they have let all their fans down and made a parody of themselves by only playing huge stadium gigs and releasing 2 singles. 100% agree. I saw them in the summer of 2012 and 2013, both gigs I enjoyed but then I quickly got bored of them. Then FOUR years after the reunion they eventually released All For One which did nothing at all to excite me and actually made me want a new album less It's hard to argue that they haven't tarnished their legacy. I used to listen to them all the time, but now I very rarely do. |
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jun 28, 2018 7:27:00 GMT -5
A bit off topic, but my friend met Ian Brown at Man United game in Old Trafford several times. His wife didn't know that Ian had his own seat a few row behind her until when they saw him during the match. My friend told me that he was really nice. I got on the Roses best album signed by Ian and greeting from him.  I would love him to make a solo album again. Saw him solo twice and would love to see him again. |
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Jun 28, 2018 7:46:28 GMT -5
Agree with what's been said above. The Roses were like a cult band for so long, one legendary album then fell apart spectacularly. They were never a mainstream stadium band. When they came back the buzz was huge and pushed them into that bracket, with promises of new material to come. Sadly the new album never came and so the comeback turned into a shallow cash-in over a number of years. The songs are still great but as a band they lost a lot of their mystique for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 8:51:33 GMT -5
On here: Yes.
In general: No.
|
|
|
|
Post by crisppacket on Jun 28, 2018 9:44:18 GMT -5
I they’re rated exactly right, neither under nor over. I was gutted when I missed out on tix for their last tour, especially after seeing how mad it looked at the etihad  When I am the resurrection came on before Liam went on stage it went insane, seeing the real deal would be even more mental for me even if they all sounded shite |
|
|
|
Post by morning_rain on Jun 29, 2018 2:44:56 GMT -5
I don't think they are.
Want controversial?: The La's are overrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jun 29, 2018 4:23:59 GMT -5
I don't think they are. Want controversial?: The La's are overrated. I would go even further and call them average. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 4:31:04 GMT -5
You're crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernovadragon on Jun 29, 2018 4:43:59 GMT -5
I don't think they are. Want controversial?: The La's are overrated. When I got with my current partner, she brought with her the La's album. I've tried to listen to that album so many times but I've never gotten into it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 5:00:55 GMT -5
That's for you, the philistines:
2 songs that never appeared on any album. Listen to it, and maybe you'll see the light and throw your "As You Were", "Who Built The Moon" or last Arctic Monkeys CDs out the window. Fuckin' hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 29, 2018 7:10:22 GMT -5
They are in the British indie scene, not anywhere else. First album is just gorgeous, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 8:02:43 GMT -5
They are in the British indie scene, not anywhere else. First album is just gorgeous, though. In an other forum I go to (french forum), we did lists to rank our favourite british albums ever, and The Stone Roses finished 1st, above OK Computer and The Queen Is Dead. Except for that, I never ever heard someone talk about The Stone Roses in real life. Never. To know them, you have to be interested in indie/rock (even more when you're not british( so I don't think they can be "overrated". Now, I adore this album but even trying to be objective, you can't deny its influence on british indie music is colossal. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jun 29, 2018 14:34:22 GMT -5
That's for you, the philistines: 2 songs that never appeared on any album. Listen to it, and maybe you'll see the light and throw your "As You Were", "Who Built The Moon" or last Arctic Monkeys CDs out the window. Fuckin' hell. I don't know, It's like listening your demos or others forum members demos. A bit better. I think that really great songwriters when they write songs, they also have great ideas about how to record those songs. For me, writing with your guitar at home is just 10% of work. It's like your songs, they are good but now its's all about how you are going to record them. You can be succesful musician or nobody. There is reason why some great musicians spend so many time in studio, why they have great producers, care about every note on record. Oasis kind of got away with shit production, shit bass player etc. just because songs were so good. I mean GOAT level good. And if Noel's songwriting was 30% worse, final product wouldn't be also 30% worse, it would be like 70% worse if you know what I'm trying to say. They would be just average band that no one cares about. La's first and only album is good but nothing mind blowing in my opinion. It is like, ok you are talented, let's where you are gonna next. But there is nothing after that. Only mystery. What if...It's like if Oasis broke up after Morning Glory people would rate them much higher. But realistically, they offered us just one type of songs and songwriting, just like La's and they had much more to prove. On the other hand, for someone that is enough, I understand that. To me also. I would rather listen DM and MG 20 times than 20 albums of some band which is critically acclaimed and has various styles in their discography but their music means nothing to me. At the end of the way, it's all about what you feel when you listen to some music and I just don't feel anything special when I listen to La's. And they are not someone like Beatles that even if you don't feel their music with your heart, you will understand with your brain why were they so great. |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jun 29, 2018 17:47:11 GMT -5
I don't think they are. Want controversial?: The La's are overrated. Oh pfiew. Thought I was the only one on this forum thinking that. Beyond a couple of obvious good ones (There she goes, Timeless melody and maybe a couple of others) I don't get the appeal. I've tried, many times, but I just don't hear it. Always thought I was missing something. Almost the same goes for the Stone Roses. They have some great songs (I wanna be adored, Fools Gold, I am the resurrection being examples), but otherwise it's not that great and there's not much else. I do listen to those songs regularly though. It always sounds like both bands are put on some sort of pedestal in the UK and I'm sure they've inspired some other bands, but I'm also sure that if you ask 10 random people on the street in my country, 9 of them won't know either of them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jun 29, 2018 17:55:03 GMT -5
Any band who's success is based on 1 album is by default overrated in my opinion. Both The Stone Roses and The La's fall into this category. And I strongly disagree with oasisserbia . Writing at home with your guitar (or whatever) is the bulk of work. You don't listen to songs because of their production. The production is the icing on the cake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 19:02:03 GMT -5
That's for you, the philistines: 2 songs that never appeared on any album. Listen to it, and maybe you'll see the light and throw your "As You Were", "Who Built The Moon" or last Arctic Monkeys CDs out the window. Fuckin' hell. I don't know, It's like listening your demos or others forum members demos. A bit better. I think that really great songwriters when they write songs, they also have great ideas about how to record those songs. For me, writing with your guitar at home is just 10% of work. It's like your songs, they are good but now its's all about how you are going to record them. You can be succesful musician or nobody. There is reason why some great musicians spend so many time in studio, why they have great producers, care about every note on record. Oasis kind of got away with shit production, shit bass player etc. just because songs were so good. I mean GOAT level good. And if Noel's songwriting was 30% worse, final product wouldn't be also 30% worse, it would be like 70% worse if you know what I'm trying to say. They would be just average band that no one cares about. La's first and only album is good but nothing mind blowing in my opinion. It is like, ok you are talented, let's where you are gonna next. But there is nothing after that. Only mystery. What if...It's like if Oasis broke up after Morning Glory people would rate them much higher. But realistically, they offered us just one type of songs and songwriting, just like La's and they had much more to prove. On the other hand, for someone that is enough, I understand that. To me also. I would rather listen DM and MG 20 times than 20 albums of some band which is critically acclaimed and has various styles in their discography but their music means nothing to me. At the end of the way, it's all about what you feel when you listen to some music and I just don't feel anything special when I listen to La's. And they are not someone like Beatles that even if you don't feel their music with your heart, you will understand with your brain why were they so great. I can understand where you and Mean Mrs. Mustard are coming from. The La's music is very "stripped back". They're pretty much for me the perfect example of "Less is More" in music: just the songs at their rawest with incisive vocals and guitars. For some people, it might feel like it's lacking something. However, their songs don't sound unfinished to me. I would say pretty much all of them flow naturally. Mavers really had a knock for writing refined melodies: There She Goes, Timeless Melody, Lookin' Glass, Feelin', Way Out, I Can't Sleep, Doledrum, etc. All of those are perfectly accomplished pop songs, with a remarkable musicality. As for the "what if...", they're not the only one. Pop music is overflown with amazing bands/artists that released only one (or a few) album(s) and then disappeared . As would say a canadian guy "it's better to burn out than to fade away". There are various bands trajectories, probably as much as there are bands on earth. Some say it all in one record, some need a few albums to reach their peak, some only realease 3 brilliant albums and vanish in obscurity ("Big Star" says hello), etc. To finish, I would say that without The La's, there would be no Noel Gallagher as we know him. Mavers influence on Noel songwriting (since the 90's) is really important... |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jun 29, 2018 19:48:03 GMT -5
Any band who's success is based on 1 album is by default overrated in my opinion. Both The Stone Roses and The La's fall into this category. And I strongly disagree with oasisserbia . Writing at home with your guitar (or whatever) is the bulk of work. You don't listen to songs because of their production. The production is the icing on the cake. All I am saying that really great and best artists have everything. Sometimes song is just so good that you can record it in 100 different ways and it will always sound mega. So yeah, sometimes its just you and your guitar and job is done. But there are also songs that maybe doesn't sound good on acoustic guitar but strong artistic idea and studio work make them brilliant. Like Yesterday and Tomorrow Never Knows for example. Some might say that all early Oasis songs sound the same but even Noel had at least two types of songs. Noel's voice and guitar are enough for Half The World Away but Columbia is shit little song without that production on all noises, band's energy etc. And with La's is always the same. Guy sitting at home, playing G-D-C and singing on top of that. And yes he was fucking brilliant in doing that. But its like if Oasis only released songs like Talk Tonight, Half the World Away...I would still probably be fan of Oasis but not 30% of how big fan I am now. |
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jun 30, 2018 6:38:45 GMT -5
They're trash, but I haven't bothered to listen to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Jun 30, 2018 8:38:11 GMT -5
I haven't bothered to listen to them. Fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 1, 2018 16:05:44 GMT -5
Any band who's success is based on 1 album is by default overrated in my opinion. Both The Stone Roses and The La's fall into this category. And I strongly disagree with oasisserbia . Writing at home with your guitar (or whatever) is the bulk of work. You don't listen to songs because of their production. The production is the icing on the cake. All I am saying that really great and best artists have everything. Sometimes song is just so good that you can record it in 100 different ways and it will always sound mega. So yeah, sometimes its just you and your guitar and job is done. But there are also songs that maybe doesn't sound good on acoustic guitar but strong artistic idea and studio work make them brilliant. Like Yesterday and Tomorrow Never Knows for example. Some might say that all early Oasis songs sound the same but even Noel had at least two types of songs. Noel's voice and guitar are enough for Half The World Away but Columbia is shit little song without that production on all noises, band's energy etc. And with La's is always the same. Guy sitting at home, playing G-D-C and singing on top of that. And yes he was fucking brilliant in doing that. But its like if Oasis only released songs like Talk Tonight, Half the World Away...I would still probably be fan of Oasis but not 30% of how big fan I am now. I'm not sure your definition of 'production' is the same as mine. From what I gather yours seems to be 'If it isn't an acoustic guitar... it's a production choice'. |
|
|
|
Post by AppleScruff on Jul 14, 2018 1:34:27 GMT -5
Yeah that guitar riff is ripped off from the Beatles but this song is a fuckin masterpiece. They had some really strong b-sides. I’ve never made this connection and probably being a bit slow here but what Beatles song does this lift? |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jul 14, 2018 3:43:48 GMT -5
Yeah that guitar riff is ripped off from the Beatles but this song is a fuckin masterpiece. They had some really strong b-sides. I’ve never made this connection and probably being a bit slow here but what Beatles song does this lift? I´m sure that you hear it but you think that it is not that similar so you pretend that you didn´t hear it and then you ask question like this. People did same thing with She Bangs/Holy Mountain. And when I look at your avatar then I´m 101% sure that you know what is Day Tripper talking about. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5