why do people hype the stone roses so much?
they weren't innovative or interesting, they just make boring predictable music that sounded like lots of other bands from the same period
can someone explain the hype please
it's the same as with the happy mondays, people from manchester just circlejerked all of their own bands so much that everyone else started listening to them as a meme
>he doesn't know the cultural impact the Stones did
>coincidentally captcha related
>>60624501
they were influential in manchester
>interesting
subjective
>innovative
not all music needs to be innovative
>>60624501
They were one of the first Madchester bands what are you talking about?
it's just one of the best albums ever, if you don't get it I can't really explain.
>>60624542
>one of the first manchester bands
so what? why does that make them so great?
THE ONLY ONE I KNOOOW
sounded pretty damn fresh to me when I was getting into brit pop as a teenager in the early 90's, so I don't know why they wouldn't be worth the hype.
What are some other albums released in the 80's do you think that make their debut sound boring and predictable?
HAS COME TO TAKE ME AWAY
>>60624501
>boring predictable music that sounded like lots of other bands from the same period
..examples?
DOWN DOWN
YOU BRING ME DOWN
>>60624564
they just sounds like a less good, wannabe version of bands like pulp and new order
>>60624553
>they weren't innovative or interesting, they just make boring predictable music that sounded like lots of other bands from the same period
>>60624620
>Stone Roses Self Titled less good than anything released by New Order
triggered
>>60624501
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2qcbu26gs
how can you not love this song? what's wrong with you?
>>60624620
>they sound like pulp
>pulp's britpop albums were released 5 years after this album
>therefore they're wannabees
the fuck are you talking about
>I wanna be a door
what did he mean by this?
>>60624683
He's a overrated faggot
>>60624688
your a idiot
>>60624661
>implying that stone roses dont sound anything like early pulp
>>60624620
They don't sound anything like Pulp or New Order.
>>60624704
i am implying that because they fucking don't
which early pulp track sounds like anytihng from this?
>>60624700
>your a idiot
>a idiot
>a
>>60624501
house beats + 60s guitar rock
At the time it was pretty innovative. Fools Gold is a classic.
>>60624727
pulp and new order don't sound much like each other either for that matter.
>>60624620
eh, if all the Pulp that exists is It and Freaks, I don't think the Stone Roses sound much like Pulp at all - sure Pulp's later albums are more similar, but Pulp before '89 is for me much less good or interesting than the first Stone Roses album and certainly not very similar in sound
Similarly I don't see how Stone Roses is very much like the post-punk and synth-pop of 80's New Order at all.
I can certainly say that at that time it felt very different to those bands and other 80's greats like the Smiths.
Like, I could never imagine any of those bands recording a jam like I am the Resurrection.
>>60624518
Happy Mondays were geniuses
Shaun Ryder was a modern day Yeats
>>60624742
nice catch but I was replying to this statement:
>He's a overrated faggot
see if you spot anything similar, prof
The Happy Mondays are worse then them, desu.
If you like psychedelic music suitable for trekking in rainforests try Second Coming. It's not as bad as people make it out to be..unless you hate songs that go past the 8 min mark.
Also can someone explain how the fuck the Stone Roses sound like Pulp? That description is totally inaccurate lmao
>>60624785
low quality bait
>pulp sounds nothing like stone roses
you lot have clearly never heard they suffocate at night...
>>60624807
Tony Wilson said it first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmyOIbeDTbk
>>60624843
>one of the owners of a band's record label says something good about them
>it must be true
>>60624501
i will never understand why people are bothered by bands they dont like getting "hype" or being considered classics
if you dont like it dont listen to it, why question its critical acclaim if you know you dont like the album
>>60624872
Tony Wilson probably genuinely believed it tho
>>60624893
This.
Also OP don't know about the various cultural impact Stone Roses did. Such as >>60624533 and if you don't get it, leave your house for once.
>tfw you're seeing The Stone Roses on the 8th of July
>>60624787
citing someone else's ignorance doesn't justify your own.
It's the seinfeld isn't funny effect, they sound exactly like other bands of the era because all the other bands of the era copied them. Their first album is god tier imo
>>60624893
>why would you express an opinion that differs from mine?
it's not like OP is writing a 300 page dissertation on something he feels indifferent towards.
i mean for fuck's sake it's such an incredibly silly thing to say. ''why question its critical acclaim if you don't like it.'' pffft. you may as well say, ''why give critical acclaim if you know you like the album.''
if you're passionate about an art form, you're going to discuss and analyze these things.
>>60625158
exactly
its not even like OP said "this is awful and everyone who disagrees is wrong" he just asked someone to explain the positive characteristics of a band he has clearly missed out on
>>60625331
People did and he was being a defensive baby
>>60625331
He was being a stubborn cunt. People said how they were original and he just said "no but new order tho" he's a fucking idiot that wouldnt accept the context of the album
Past that you can't really explain why something is good, if they don't connect with the music they just don't connect
>>60625158
but what does he expect we'll say to him? he has obviusly made up his mind:
>they weren't innovative or interesting, they just make boring predictable music that sounded like lots of other bands from the same period
if he actually wrote a 300 page dissertation he would seem more upon for discussion and people might take him a bit more seriously
but either way, yeah, i expressed myself wrong, of course you can question accliam but it should at least be in a manner where you are willing to discuss the case
>>60625331
i dont think what he said was much better than your example, but whatever
>>60624518
Trouble with that statement is the fact that Happy Monday's were fucking great.
>yer twistin' mah melon, man
