Legacy of the 90's a.k.a. Life after Nirvana's 'Nevermind'?

[revolt]

**edit: this is a topic that originated here -> http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,5324.new.html

Actually, I ain't gonna say that it was a good thing that Buckley died, but if there is one 90's "indie" artist that I absolutely cannot stand, that's him...

aaah i'm shocked. :eek: (perhap i can't discuss with you anymore? )
ok nevermind, just joking. i don't mind what people like or don't like. i know what i like  and i know why i like it and that's enough for me.

anyway for me jeff's one of the only few good things that happened in the 90s - let's face it, if one decade had to be wiped out of the face of music history then it wouldn't be hard to choose 90s. for me jeff saves the day - or at least a good half of it.
his guitar work and song-writing is generally well-aknowledged but i'd add that he also had one of the exceptionally flexible voices out there, ever. 'last goodbye' just gets me every single time.
one of the artists i am really regretting i never got a chance to see live. :(

recommended watching: http://www.amazon.com/Jeff-Buckley-Live-Chicago/dp/0738900672



@DroidAKov: you're welcome.
about tour dates in general, i'm not sure if this is complete but at least i've found it helpful a few times.

http://www.jeffbuckley.com/rfuller/buckley/tourography/index.html

The problem with his voice is that it was TOO FLEXIBLE. He did things with it that he shouldn't...  His father also had more or less the same range but somehow he managed to sound better, IMO. But the problem for me is not just the voice. Overall his music has too many 70's pre-punk influences for my taste. It sounds dated, not timeless.

I absolutely do not agree that the 90's are the worst decade. In fact I would say it's the best one, together with the 80's. It was full of groundbreaking ideas and also, if you search well, full of great songs. The only major problem with the 90's is that it was the decade when 80's artists declined. But then, the 80's were also the decade when 60's and 70's artists declined. You can't judge the quality of 80's music by the albums that Bob Dylan or The Rolling Stones ( ) issued then...

Yeah, I know, different tastes and all that, but maybe - just maybe - you haven't listened to the "RIGHT" 90's stuff?

[japanesebaby]

Yeah, I know, different tastes and all that, but maybe - just maybe - you haven't listened to the "RIGHT" 90's stuff?

hmm. and what would you say is the "right" 90s stuff?
i definitely know only a fraction of all the music out there (because there's a LOT of it, let's face it) so i don't want to sound cocky, but i've listened to quite a lot of music, trying to create perspective on things in the large scale. and when i compare the individual outputs of the different decades i do have to say that 90s were the decade when i did lose my interest in listening to a lot of music, and simply because so much the music i heard was simply not interesting/should i say even rather bad. so i do consider 90s as a serious "mass decline" period (you know a bit like those mass extinctions in the cambrian period and when the meteor killed all the dinosaurs hehehe).

The only major problem with the 90's is that it was the decade when 80's artists declined. But then, the 80's were also the decade when 60's and 70's artists declined. You can't judge the quality of 80's music by the albums that Bob Dylan or The Rolling Stones ( ) issued then...

sure, every decade sees a decline of something that was and an introduction of somethin new. the "quality" of the decade as a whole depends on the quality of the new introduced things.
and even though a lot of 70s bands declined in the 80s, the 80s had so much great stuff of it's own to offer in return that i think it's pointless to sit down and cry for the declined 70s bands. then again, what did the 90s offer in return for the declined 80s bands? seriously, not that much at all. surely there were some good things (like jeff b. here) but not nearly enough to compensate it.
(and so that you wouldn't say "well that's because the 80s were SO great. there were too many great things to compensate so that only makes 90s look worse than it really is: i'm actually a really big of the 70s prog rock/early hard rock/experimental bands like kraftwerk etc. but i can still say 80s were even greater in certain respect - because the 80s introduced such great things of its own.)


ps. just curious, since you like the 90s what would you personally rate as the worst period/decade then?

[revolt]

ps. just curious, since you like the 90s what would you personally rate as the worst period/decade then?

The 2000's! That's truly when the lack of new ideas became a major problem...


About the 90's, I don't want to sound presumptuous or anything, but among the many things that are admirable on that decade, many came from Finland...  These are mainly in the folk/world side of things, but many of them also have a "rock relevance", since they use different types of rock elements / influences in their sound...

Surely you've heard of Hedningarna? They are Swedish, right, but their singers have always been Finnish (and each of these singers also have had other projects that are more than recommendable, even if some of them are purely "folk"...). Also Kimmo Pohjonen and his many projects (including one with King Crimson)? Gjallarhorn? Maria Kalaniemi? Troka? And many more, although probably many have to be considered purely "folk"...

From Finland you also have that ultra-minimal electronic stuff like Vladislav Delay and Pan Sonic, both original in their own field...

More generally speaking, I have already posted a message here mentioning the 90's rock or rock-related stuff that I think is worth of praise... Here: http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,5268.20.html

But if you actually decide to give the electronic/dance music field a chance, there's a whole wide world of great things from the 90's. I don't even want to get started here...

[japanesebaby]

i'm in a bit of a hurry here so i need to get back to some things later. but i'll just say i'm surprised that someone here mentions maria kalaniemi or gjallarhorn.
i'm surprised. you must be hiding somewhere in the region here yourself...

anyway, i'll get back into all that. my point now is that i think the perspective widens up a lot (and actually too much!) if we do take all the world music/folk music stuff into consideration here. so all this time i've been mainly writing from the point of view of rock/pop - and not just mainstream pop/rock but indie/alternative/whatever-it's-called too. anyway. i don't like categorizing things either but i find it necessary, if we want to try to discuss something and be able to do some comparisons. if the perspective is too borad then any detailed discussion is pretty impossible. 
so if we try to stay in the realm of pop/rock genres, was there really that much inspriration in the 90s? certainly the rise of the electronic music changed things a lot and that's where a lot of interesting stuff lies. but to me that's another discussion. we started with jeff b. and he's got nothing to do with the electronic music etc. so unless we remain in the chosen field then of course none of my points can be valid(!).

But if you actually decide to give the electronic/dance music field a chance, there's a whole wide world of great things from the 90's. I don't even want to get started here...

well, it wasn't me who said there that good music died after nirvana's nevermind.
(although IF we again stay in the realm of rock/pop genres, it's starting to sound like it's true...).

because for instance i could certainly say 90s were great just because of all the avantgarde classical music that was composed/created then - the list of great classical stuff would be simply endless! but imo that's another conversation. even if there were heaps of great classical/world music stuff it doesn't take away the fact that pop/rock scene went through a mass degeneration. perhaps one could say that at first rock/pop genre was unable to respond to the rise of the electronic music - it took at least half of the 90s for it to recover a bit, to find ways to integrate the new technology in a meaningful and interesting fashion - or, to find something else, something on its own as a response.
and in that sense i would consider the post-2000 period more innovative than the 90s.


by the way i'm a big fan of electronic music too so i do give it a chance. mostly i'm either into the early krafwerk-ish stuff, and neubauten has surely always been great.  other than that i'm mostly to more industrial-like sounds, EBM/dark wave (or what the hell does one want to call it all), but also ambient sounds etc.
anyway, to me all that's really another different conversation again, just like with all the classical music mentioned above. there's simply too much music in the world for us to try and talk about it all at the same time, in the same topic. IF we take into consideration everything that's out there, all kinds of music that was written in the 90s, then i certainly cannot argue there were a lot of good stuff. but again, the perspective is so wide that then actually ANY single decade can be called great in its own. i really doubt it that there has been a decade that truly was somehow "worse" than others, when absolutely no good music was created at all. :!:
perhaps you can say that post-2000 doesn't seem to good as the earlier ones, but i'd say there're certainly thingsthere we perhaps just haven't discovered yet - there's a LOT of music out there...
and also because we're simply too close to judge it yet! we're still living this decade and it's difficult (if not even impossible) to create a proper perspective of things just yet. a bit like in "the man lives so close to the flame that he gets blinded by its light"", or how does it go.
so, i'd still allow the post-2000 period a bit more time before annoucing the verdict.
so let's talk about that in 10-15 years and see what we think then...

anyway, in a way it is perhaps plausible to say that good rock music died after nirvana's 'nevermind' (just like almost all skill to good rock&pop producing/mastering seemed to have died too since then - hey what a surprise :S).
that was perhaps what that person meant, in that other thread.

[revolt]

i'm in a bit of a hurry here so i need to get back to some things later. but i'll just say i'm surprised that someone here mentions maria kalaniemi or gjallarhorn.
i'm surprised. you must be hiding somewhere in the region here yourself...

anyway, i'll get back into all that. my point now is that i think the perspective widens up a lot (and actually too much!) if we do take all the world music/folk music stuff into consideration here. so all this time i've been mainly writing from the point of view of rock/pop - and not just mainstream pop/rock but indie/alternative/whatever-it's-called too. anyway. i don't like categorizing things either but i find it necessary, if we want to try to discuss something and be able to do some comparisons. if the perspective is too borad then any detailed discussion is pretty impossible. 
so if we try to stay in the realm of pop/rock genres, was there really that much inspriration in the 90s? certainly the rise of the electronic music changed things a lot and that's where a lot of interesting stuff lies. but to me that's another discussion. we started with jeff b. and he's got nothing to do with the electronic music etc. so unless we remain in the chosen field then of course none of my points can be valid(!).

But if you actually decide to give the electronic/dance music field a chance, there's a whole wide world of great things from the 90's. I don't even want to get started here...

well, it wasn't me who said there that good music died after nirvana's nevermind.
(although IF we again stay in the realm of rock/pop genres, it's starting to sound like it's true...).

because for instance i could certainly say 90s were great just because of all the avantgarde classical music that was composed/created then - the list of great classical stuff would be simply endless! but imo that's another conversation. even if there were heaps of great classical/world music stuff it doesn't take away the fact that pop/rock scene went through a mass degeneration. perhaps one could say that at first rock/pop genre was unable to respond to the rise of the electronic music - it took at least half of the 90s for it to recover a bit, to find ways to integrate the new technology in a meaningful and interesting fashion - or, to find something else, something on its own as a response.
and in that sense i would consider the post-2000 period more innovative than the 90s.


by the way i'm a big fan of electronic music too so i do give it a chance. mostly i'm either into the early krafwerk-ish stuff, and neubauten has surely always been great.  other than that i'm mostly to more industrial-like sounds, EBM/dark wave (or what the hell does one want to call it all), but also ambient sounds etc.
anyway, to me all that's really another different conversation again, just like with all the classical music mentioned above. there's simply too much music in the world for us to try and talk about it all at the same time, in the same topic. IF we take into consideration everything that's out there, all kinds of music that was written in the 90s, then i certainly cannot argue there were a lot of good stuff. but again, the perspective is so wide that then actually ANY single decade can be called great in its own. i really doubt it that there has been a decade that truly was somehow "worse" than others, when absolutely no good music was created at all. :!:
perhaps you can say that post-2000 doesn't seem to good as the earlier ones, but i'd say there're certainly thingsthere we perhaps just haven't discovered yet - there's a LOT of music out there...
and also because we're simply too close to judge it yet! we're still living this decade and it's difficult (if not even impossible) to create a proper perspective of things just yet. a bit like in "the man lives so close to the flame that he gets blinded by its light"", or how does it go.
so, i'd still allow the post-2000 period a bit more time before annoucing the verdict.
so let's talk about that in 10-15 years and see what we think then...

anyway, in a way it is perhaps plausible to say that good rock music died after nirvana's 'nevermind' (just like almost all skill to good rock&pop producing/mastering seemed to have died too since then - hey what a surprise :S).
that was perhaps what that person meant, in that other thread.

Well, for someone who is in a bit of hurry you certainly write a lot... 

Alright, I agree that talking about folk/world or electronica might be stretching it a bit... Although you can't completely rule out electronics, because probably most innovations in "popular" music after the 80's are in a way or another related to electronics.
So, let's not narrow the discussion too much either, or else we will find ourselves saying that good EIGHTIES rock music died after "Nevermind"... 

So... is post-rock acceptable? It sounds rock enough to me! From Slint to GYBE, going through Tortoise, Trans Am, Do Make Say Think, Ui and probably some more I'm forgetting now, there are quite a few very good things from the 90's here. Yeah, NOT ALL records by these bands are good, but each of them has at least one album highlight in their catalogue.

Is the more song-oriented side of metal acceptable? Then you've got Neurosis, My Dying Bride and Opeth, for example.

Are bands/artists that have a fundamental electronic side to them but work within the framework of real songs, that used vocals and real lyrics, and also sometimes other rock elements as guitars and bass, acceptable?  Then you've got Bjork, Massive Attack, Portishead, Tricky, Lamb, Laika, Laub, Primal Scream and 4Hero ('Two Pages')... possibly even Underworld? Or is that going too far?

Are dance music bands that use real guitars, bass and percussion, not to mention real strings (and they are even fans of that old rock & roll staple: the electric guitar solo) acceptable? Then you've got Faze Action, for instance.

Are more or less "old" rock legends acceptable? Then there are great 90's albums by Tom Waits, Lou Reed, Present, Neubauten, Nick Cave, Throwing Muses, Kristin Hersh, Pixies, Young Gods, Sonic Youth and even Red Hot Chilli Peppers (if only for "Blood Sugar Sex Magic")...

And finally, you have the truly NINETIES rock bands that, well, DO ROCK: Ride, PJ Harvey, Morphine, Smashing Pumkins, Rollins Band, Tindersticks, Mazzy Star, Red House Painters (these latter 3 rock rather slowly  )... and even also Faith No More, Nirvana, early Pearl Jam and Soundgarden.


And I have a feeling I must be forgetting further important stuff...

[revolt]

Hi there! Maybe a topic split would be a good idea?

I just remembered a few more 90's goodies (actually, I checked a list, I must confess):

Bark Psychosis
Fugazi
Lisa Germano
Low
Mogwai
Soul Coughing
Swans
Talk Talk
Unwound

[japanesebaby]

Well, for someone who is in a bit of hurry you certainly write a lot... 

yes i sometimes do write a lot and i'm aware that i'm disliked because of it. but that's me i guess. i don't write in order to entertain and please, i write the way that's natural to me. (anyway. the truth is, i was in a hurry when i started to write that post, only to soon find that i wasn't in a rea hurry after all and ending up writing 98% more than i had planned. then forgot to remove the "in a hurry" remark form the beginning.
but enough of that - i'll just end up writing too much, again.)


about what's "acceptable":
well, now you make it sound like i'm making some kind of rules here, what to discuss and what not. that was not my point. i just tried to point out that the perspective must be narrowed a bit, even if it was somewhat artificial. otherwise we're actually not exactly sure what we're all talking about. how it's supposed to be done, that's another question and surely a tricky one. 
i didn't mean to "dictate" what's acceptable and what's not. it depends on what we wish to discuss. i can only try to explain what I meant when i said 90s were disappointing, and so:

And finally, you have the truly NINETIES rock bands that, well, DO ROCK: Ride, PJ Harvey, Morphine, Smashing Pumkins, Rollins Band, Tindersticks, Mazzy Star, Red House Painters (these latter 3 rock rather slowly  )... and even also Faith No More, Nirvana, early Pearl Jam and Soundgarden.

i suppose this gets closest to what i meant: i meant ROCK bands/artists that truly did emergy in the 90s (=that means leaving out those "old" legends you mentioned, for instance). if one looks at the list of really notable bands of the 90s from this point of view then the list is indeed rather short, don't you think?
certainly a lot shorter than in the 70s or 80s. the 90s just weren't a really fruitful in this respect.
and at least to me, the verdict post-2000 situation will still remain undecided. perhaps it ends up being even worse, i don't know. i just don't want to judge it just yet.



"good (rock) music died after nirvana".

i do think it's at least partially true, for instance if you think of it this way: nirvana itself was exceptional for sure, but apart from a few well-known exceptions pretty much everything that followed it/came out of the grunge scenewasn't supposed to live long. and for a good while grunge (and the early death of it) was the only real "(rock) movement" of the 90s. what else was there, really? the US alternative rock scene, with smashing pumpkins as its brightest figure. perhaps. but what other bands remain from all that, really?
and please nobody even mention "but there was the mighty brit-pop scene, right?". because what was that? seriously, it had no real original effect, at least outside the UK. it's actually funny that in the mainland europe people used to laugh at the whole thing, even already back then and still today - and yet every single time the mighty Q magazine still puts up one of their "the greatest albums EVER!" polls, at least two or three oasis albums is bound to be in top five/ten, backed up by some verve, pulp, whatever etc. - truly funny. anyway.)
to me the 90s rock scene were very fragmented, all the important part of it really based on a few individual bands like smashing pumpkins and radiohead etc. like said, grunge was the last "movement" - or, better to say that it tried to be one but pretty much failed. the rest of the 90s kind of lacks all coherence and was somehow pretty disorganized time in general, what comes to the rock scene.
so perhaps one can actually say that good rock music died there...(?). it doesn't mean all good music was wiped out, though.

[japanesebaby]

Hi there! Maybe a topic split would be a good idea?

perhaps. we just have to make sure that Janko doesn't catch us doing it...
you see he's told me to never do it[=splitting a topic] again!

Mogwai

i might be tempted to consider them more like a post-2000 phenomenon. which is actually a good example of something: i think one of the reasons why the post-2000 period does look a lot more brighter to me than the 90s is because in the last years of the 90s, some interesting stuff indeed starts to emerge. so it makes the future look brighter than the mid-90s ever were. whether it's instrumental post-rock á la mogwai or alternative bands like muse etc. - there's a lot of stuff, and not just big names.
perhaps it indeed should be fair to give the poor 90s their fair share of these groups and credit the decade at least for giving birth to these groups. but if i have to place them on the map that's artificially divided into ten-year blocks called 'decades', then i somehow consider them as post-2000 phenomenons.

[revolt]

i suppose this gets closest to what i meant: i meant ROCK bands/artists that truly did emergy in the 90s (=that means leaving out those "old" legends you mentioned, for instance). if one looks at the list of really notable bands of the 90s from this point of view then the list is indeed rather short, don't you think?
certainly a lot shorter than in the 70s or 80s. the 90s just weren't a really fruitful in this respect.

I have to agree with you there. But, see, if we suddenly start agreeing like this then the discussion will be over, and that will be NO FUN at all, because I'm really enjoying this... 

Anyway, I won't say anything more before you split the topic. You can tell Janko that you did it on my special request, I'm sure he will not hold it up against you. 

[japanesebaby]

ok, the topic has been split.
the only drawback might be that as we're in 'something else' now the new posts won't get updated on the "recent posts" list. but i guess we can live with that.
 

I have to agree with you there. But, see, if we suddenly start agreeing like this then the discussion will be over, and that will be NO FUN at all, because I'm really enjoying this... 

have to agree about that, about where the fun in these things really is.
so fortunately you are not too keen on jeff buckley.

[revolt]

ok, the topic has been split.
the only drawback might be that as we're in 'something else' now the new posts won't get updated on the "recent posts" list. but i guess we can live with that.
 

I have to agree with you there. But, see, if we suddenly start agreeing like this then the discussion will be over, and that will be NO FUN at all, because I'm really enjoying this... 

have to agree about that, about where the fun in these things really is.
so fortunately you are not too keen on jeff buckley.

Well, I'm glad we agree ON THIS.

Actually, there are so many interesting points of discussion hinted at in those previous posts that we probably have potential material for several different threads here... 

OK, let me just start by adding / clarifying a few things about my love-for-the-90's... When I say that the 90's are, together with the 80's, my favourite musical decade, I'm really thinking of "popular music" as a whole.
That is, I'm including not only pop and rock but also folk/world, electronic and dance music and the like.
What I AM NOT INCLUDING is just classical music and jazz (which I also like a lot, but usually consider them on a - shall we say - "different level").
Also, I am really not that much familiar with post-70's developments in those areas. I think the only living "classical" composers whose work I am familiar with are Magnus Lindberg and Kalevi Aho, who, coincidence or not, happen to be Finnish (maybe you were not expecting to hear about these 2 here also...  ).

So, basically, I agree that the number of good/great rock bands that are specifically from the 90's is somewhat less than those from any other previous decade. Rock music was clearly at a crisis then and things like that Brit-Pop hype didn't help it overcoming that crisis in any way (by the way, even though Brit-pop annoys me as a whole, I think bands like Blur have a few good songs on their catalogue... it's just their basic attitude towards music that I find specially annoying).

Also, shame on me, I forgot to mention one very special rock band from the 90's that could very well be the best from that decade (well, this is a bit debatable, but I'm running the risk of a small exageration here to make things more exciting...  ). I'm talking about Red Snapper, who record for an electronic label (the mythical Warp) but are in fact, essentialy, an instrumental rock band (they invited some vocalists for their 2nd proper album but that's another story). All their albums are worthwhile, but 1996's 'Prince Blimey', in particular, is a masterpiece.

[japanesebaby]

Actually, there are so many interesting points of discussion hinted at in those previous posts that we probably have potential material for several different threads here... 

there surely are strtaing to be ingredients here for a few more bowls of soup than just one. i need to get back on everything else but quickly about the case of stone roses 6 'second coming' (as mentioned here:
http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg54617.html#msg54617).

surely 'second coming' is a very retro-ish album, and very consciously so. a homage-like thing perhaps. now everyone is familiar how very popular and fashionable all things retro became a bit later than that - up to the point that it's more like a curse today.
(well one might say that strangely, lenny kravitz was "allowed" to do his own retro-ish re-hashes in the 90s but if you weren't lenny you certainly got reprimanded for it. not to mention you had to choose fashionable targets for your re-hashes: led zeppelin in mid 90's certainly wasn't the most fashionable choice... 
so perhaps the "crime" of 'second coming' was to go for a retro-ish take too early (in the first half of the 90's) and also to choose to do it in a style of a 70's prog rock/hard rock band. i'd say that in 1994 that was a pretty bold combination. because sadly, there was certainly NOTHING less fashionable in the 90s than progressive rock that had it's roots in the 70s (by the way this "progrock bashing attitude" is one of the reasons i disliked the the (rock) atmosphere of the 90s so much. and thank god that has changed since!!!)

so, of course 'second coming' was (and still is, strangely) bashed beyond all imagination by pretty much everyone - if not for other reasons then at least to show everyone that you were "cool and fashionable" yourself. especially considering it appeared right in the middle of the utterly stupid britpop scene. so i really tip my hat to the stone roses, for doing that anyway.
and it's a good album.

[revolt]

Actually, there are so many interesting points of discussion hinted at in those previous posts that we probably have potential material for several different threads here... 

there surely are strtaing to be ingredients here for a few more bowls of soup than just one. i need to get back on everything else but quickly about the case of stone roses 6 'second coming' (as mentioned here:
http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg54617.html#msg54617).

surely 'second coming' is a very retro-ish album, and very consciously so. a homage-like thing perhaps. now everyone is familiar how very popular and fashionable all things retro became a bit later than that - up to the point that it's more like a curse today.
(well one might say that strangely, lenny kravitz was "allowed" to do his own retro-ish re-hashes in the 90s but if you weren't lenny you certainly got reprimanded for it. not to mention you had to choose fashionable targets for your re-hashes: led zeppelin in mid 90's certainly wasn't the most fashionable choice... 
so perhaps the "crime" of 'second coming' was to go for a retro-ish take too early (in the first half of the 90's) and also to choose to do it in a style of a 70's prog rock/hard rock band. i'd say that in 1994 that was a pretty bold combination. because sadly, there was certainly NOTHING less fashionable in the 90s than progressive rock that had it's roots in the 70s (by the way this "progrock bashing attitude" is one of the reasons i disliked the the (rock) atmosphere of the 90s so much. and thank god that has changed since!!!)

so, of course 'second coming' was (and still is, strangely) bashed beyond all imagination by pretty much everyone - if not for other reasons then at least to show everyone that you were "cool and fashionable" yourself. especially considering it appeared right in the middle of the utterly stupid britpop scene. so i really tip my hat to the stone roses, for doing that anyway.
and it's a good album.

Clever tactics, I'll give you that. You mentioned Lenny Kravitz so that I would somewhat reconsider my opinion on "Second Coming"... And you know what? It worked! I suddenly feel like I love that second Stone Roses album, after all... 

About prog-rock bashing: that was actually something that started long before. PUNK ROCK started it! And it actually never ended, I think, it went on through the 80's (even though a band like Marillion was fairly successful) and 90's, although possibly nowadays there is more of a sort of acceptance towards all kinds of music, because, well, it's all pretty fragmented, there are no real "scenes" or "movements".

Anyway, there was a particular prog-rock subscene that managed to survive both artistically and on a critical-acceptance level, even if at a less visible/mainstream level. I'm talking about all that Rock In Opposition movement. Now, I'm not very familiar with many bands of this scene, but I know quite a few albums from Univers Zero and from Present, which are, for the most part, frankly good. Do you know about them? Present in particular are influenced by Robert Fripp's guitar work with King Crimson, although overall their sound is fairly different...

[revolt]

Actually, there are so many interesting points of discussion hinted at in those previous posts that we probably have potential material for several different threads here... 

there surely are strtaing to be ingredients here for a few more bowls of soup than just one. i need to get back on everything else but quickly about the case of stone roses 6 'second coming' (as mentioned here:
http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg54617.html#msg54617).

surely 'second coming' is a very retro-ish album, and very consciously so. a homage-like thing perhaps. now everyone is familiar how very popular and fashionable all things retro became a bit later than that - up to the point that it's more like a curse today.
(well one might say that strangely, lenny kravitz was "allowed" to do his own retro-ish re-hashes in the 90s but if you weren't lenny you certainly got reprimanded for it. not to mention you had to choose fashionable targets for your re-hashes: led zeppelin in mid 90's certainly wasn't the most fashionable choice... 
so perhaps the "crime" of 'second coming' was to go for a retro-ish take too early (in the first half of the 90's) and also to choose to do it in a style of a 70's prog rock/hard rock band. i'd say that in 1994 that was a pretty bold combination. because sadly, there was certainly NOTHING less fashionable in the 90s than progressive rock that had it's roots in the 70s (by the way this "progrock bashing attitude" is one of the reasons i disliked the the (rock) atmosphere of the 90s so much. and thank god that has changed since!!!)

so, of course 'second coming' was (and still is, strangely) bashed beyond all imagination by pretty much everyone - if not for other reasons then at least to show everyone that you were "cool and fashionable" yourself. especially considering it appeared right in the middle of the utterly stupid britpop scene. so i really tip my hat to the stone roses, for doing that anyway.
and it's a good album.

Well, you're doing all within your possibilities to defend the Stone Roses. Hope you forgive me for suggesting this as really better alternative: 

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=79alLViD4GY

[revolt]

I remembered a curious thing... You seem to dislike the whole Brit-Pop scene but do you realise that your beloved Stone Roses were actually the ones who started it? 
At the time of their first album there were quite a lot of forward looking scenes or mini-scenes in rock music (industrial rock, "shoegaze" (what a ridiculous name that is...) and sonic rock, etc). The Stone Roses stood out because they were really pop and really backward-looking. It seemed that they were in love with the 60s, which seemed ridiculous to all of us post-punk / "avantgarde" rock lovers out there. If I remember well, at that time maybe only The LA's and the Wonderstuff had such an obvious 60's-worship thing about them.

When Oasis appeared on the scene, the first thing that came to mind was: these guys are copying Stone Roses! The copyists are copying the copyists! It seemed completely depressing to me...