| AudioREVIEW's Forum Archives - Rave Recordings |
|
|   Smiths more 'important' than Beatles, Stones: NME rools! | J
Apr 16, 2002 8:49 AM | | Someone posted a link to this article on Rocky Road. All I have to say is, uh, hmmm...I guess the Smiths were better than Great Plains after all.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020416/en_nm/britain_music_dc_2&e=2&ncid=762 |
| obviously. | Rae
Apr 16, 2002 8:57 AM | | Maybe it's because I wasn't old enough to get it at the time, but what's the big deal with the Stone Roses? Why are they always in the top ten of these British lists but virtually nonexistent on equivalent lists from the U.S.?
~Rae |
| you had to be there I think | Masonjar
Apr 16, 2002 9:10 AM | | there hasn't been as much hype around a band (Trail of the Dead anyone? ;) ) in recent memory as there was around the Stone Roses.. and they lived up to it, at least for a while..
All I can say is, the feeling of being in a packed dance club, everyone grooving to "Fools Gold" did make you think that the Stone Roses were creating the ultimate music..
That first self-titled album of theirs is damn fine, as is the singles collection.. it's just too bad the band (like so many other UK acts at the time) just couldn't keep it together.. Even though at the time I was very much into the Manchester scene (the 'sound' was mostly James Brown funk rhythms merged with 60's pop sensibilities), I think the Roses are pretty much the only band from that scene (save maybe the Charlatans) whoose music still sounds as fresh today as it did in 1989..
-jar |
| bah | Stone
Apr 16, 2002 9:10 AM | | The Stone Roses rool.
Maybe you did have to be there, but their sound when their debut came out was unlike anything coming out at the time and really inspired a whole new movement in music. That movement was much more pronounced in England than in the U.S., and IMO is why you see them show up on UK lists, but not here in the states.
You don't like their debut? It's an all time fave of mine.
Stone |
| re: Smiths more 'important' than Beatles, Stones: NME rools! | WStan
Apr 16, 2002 9:03 AM | | Any poll that places the Stone Roses at number three and Oasis at number six on the "all time importance" list obviously must reflect the collective opinions of people who know far more about music than I do. |
| Correction | WStan
Apr 16, 2002 9:06 AM | | That should read: "who know far more about listening to music and filling out polls, while under the influence of recreational pharmaceuticals, than I do." |
| Uh huh...sure...whatever | 3-LockBox
Apr 16, 2002 1:43 PM | | Its always hip to pick apart or tear down the established, successful, or renowned artists of any field, years after they're gone. For better effect, one should be dressed in black from head to toe (how advante garde!)
Beatles are no longer the influence everyone said they were 10/20 years ago? Maybe its the overexposure, what with all the re-re-releases in the last 5 or 6 years.
Certainly Steinbeck and Hemingway will be seen as the hacks that they were, and that Picaso guy is overrated too.
Who knows what bands will gain the coveted, 'Most Influencial' crown 20 years from now. History is fickle.
NME is selling used trees. |
| Hey, where's Bobby Sherman? | BradH
Apr 16, 2002 2:32 PM | | Once again, NME has come up with the earth-shaking paradigm of the week.
The Stone Roses were a big influence on the entire Britpop scene. But how can they not be considered a "modern day" band like Oasis. Especially in a poll that supposedly looks at 50 years.
I like this: "Bands were assessed on the number of front covers, letters and features they generated as well as end-of-year polls." Uh huh, front covers & features. By NME. |
| Smiths, Beatles & Stone Roses. | Les
Apr 17, 2002 2:52 AM | | There will always be arguments around this, some of this opinion is simply to stir up more opinion & sell papers.
Irrespective of the musical merits of the Beatles or the Smiths the fact is -
The Beatles sold more records, received more radio/tv airplay therefore more people were aware of their existence ergo on a worldwide scale this makes them more notable in music history.
As I said this is not an artistic merit opinion, simply a statistically based appraisal. There will never be any scientific or factual appraisal which will mean anything on such an emotive issue.
Now the Stone Roses - the fact they were more appreciated in the UK is the USA's loss IMO. Their debut album I thought was brilliant but amongst my all time favourite albums is 'Second Coming' - a roller coaster of a rock album, complete with driving drums, proper guitar solos, a lead singer with a funny Manchester accent and it ROCKS. It is a classic album, not a 'brit rock' classic album - just a classic album.
Cheers
Les
NP The Stone Roses 'Second Coming' ! |
| Slight clarification | J
Apr 18, 2002 3:42 AM | | I didn't catch that the poll was supposed to involve which acts had the most influence on NME, whatever that means. I still think it's ridiculous, but I think that Yahoo's piece was a trifle misleading. These paragraphs spell it out just a bit more:
"The list takes into account: Appearances on front covers. Volume and significance of features. Dominance of end of year writers polls. The response from our readers in the weekly letters page. The presence of their name and influence in the paper (e.g. the number of acts referred to as the new them, the endless questioning of other artists for their opinions of them, the terrible pun headlines on their name or song titles...). And the speed with which they took over.
"It was felt that The Smiths and then a solo Morrissey's all-encompassing spread through the 80s and early 90s allowed them to reign."
http://www.nme.com/news/101427.htm |
| Oh, well that actually makes sense now. (nt) | Darius
Apr 18, 2002 6:22 AM | | |
| |
|
|
