dafunk2
Striker
Without the Stone Roses there might not even have been an Oasis (now there's a thought)
Roses every time for me.
This
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Without the Stone Roses there might not even have been an Oasis (now there's a thought)
Roses every time for me.
Liams singing in the mid 90s is better than anything Noel could ever do.
Roses, by a f***ing mile.
he's right you know, when was the last time you actually listened to it?
Im completely baffled by how high some people put the Roses.
1 album ffs and a really bad lead singer.
They basically did nowt compared to the proper great bands.
Ian Brown vs Liam Gallagher as a live singer?
Oasis piss all over the Roses as a live act (got bootlegs galore from both, and seen Oasis and Browny live many a time).
Roses were a studio band, who did one great record and then nowt.
If you blinked youd have missed them!
If anyone says Oasis they should be locked in a room and made to listen to 'Roll With It' on repeat.
Liam Gallagher has at best an average voice.
Musically The Stone Roses piss all over Oasis.
Liam Gallagher has at best an average voice.
No he isn't. It's far more pedestrian and forgettable than the Oasis album released the same year, which is why everyone was talking about the latter despite both bands appealing to the same group of people.
Probably something to do with the revisionist history in the British media. Oasis weren't a great band either though, they both had one trick and didn't have the talent to progress into something else, Oasis just lived off it longer.
Ian Brown ain't exactly Pavarotti.
and lyrically (is that a word?)
The Roses had a fantastic trick and I love them more for keeping it brief.
If Lennon and McCartney had been shot in 1970,the Stones and Bowie in 1978, Morrisey in 1990 the world would have been saved a few terrible albums
Amongst the cool kids, it's cool to dislike Oasis, and cool to think the Stone Roses' debut album is one of the most groundbreaking, bestest most influential albums of all time (it isn't, but it's still good).
Gan stick Highway 61 on for fuck sake and gain some perspective.
I'm not a hater of Oasis and have seen them live a couple of times, once in Hull which was a quality experience. In terms of importance, originality etc the Roses just piss all over them. You could call Oasis a covers band and not be too far off the mark. They're derivative and as unoriginal as they come. Not to say I don't enjoy them on one level, but their importance is completely overexaggerated. The Roses took their influences (much the same as Oasis') and did something different with it. That's the major difference for me. And no, I didn't see the Roses live.
Liam Gallagher has at best an average voice.
Musically The Stone Roses piss all over Oasis.