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

Started by revolt, August 06, 2008, 12:08:15

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

japanesebaby

Quote from: revolt on August 08, 2008, 11:20:21
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...

haha my "beloved stone roses". not exactly, i just happen to like one album. and i'm well aware that they are partially responsible for all the crap brit-pop scene. by the way that's the reason i don't like their first album: i genuinely don't like it musically, as i don't like the brit pop that followed.
i suppose you could say i forgive them because they came to their senses and turned away from that and made a great 70'ish 2nd album. that was not only a great slap-in-the-face for all that silly brit-pop scene where everyonewas worshiping the 60's and doing all those poor beatles rip-offs a la oasis.*) they certainly proved to be something else than a brit-pop band, something better. even though it was their demise. but a bit like primal scream who changes color like a chameleon between every album... i kind of like that attitude (even though i don't always like every album primal scream made). anyway, that makes me file the stone roses under experimental rock rather than part of the brit-pop scene. like they never even planed to make any more 60's falvored stuff, their point was to only make one album like that, then move on. but oasis: it's clear that they were never even capable of nothing but that one thing - and even that was highly unoriginal. so there's a big difference between the two, imo.
and yes they unfortunately happened to give that movement some nudge in the beginning but i consider it the same as all those crappy grunge bands that followed nirvana: every good band inspires masses of idiots thinking too highly of themselves and we get a load of rubbish. copycats with illusion of being original. hey i bet even mozart suffered from the same! but i don't blame it on him, as you can't not your brother's keeper at all times... ;)

(by the way of course there are certain other even more obvious connections between primal scream and stone roses too).


Quote from: revolt on August 07, 2008, 14:07:00
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

hey by all means. :) you see i never intended to say they were "better" than led zeppelin. i just meant that i am not bothered by 'second coming' having such blatant links to zeppelin.
it's an album made with good musicians and there's enthusiasm in their playing, imo. in some ways one could say that the style is actually somewhat irrelevant - style and genre always are, actually.
anyway, glad i managed to convince you to give them a 'secong coming'. :-D


ps. what comes to "where and when the prog-rcok bashing started?", you're certainly right about naming punk there. i'd need to get back to that. anyway huh i really think this thread is starting to have so many ingredients that i'm getting behind in everything...


*) talking about oasis: seriously, i've NEVER understood how it's possible that they were/still are being so worshiped in the UK. i mean seriously: nobody can say the beatles was crap even though one didn't really like their music. they did write excellent songs. and that's something that the brits always seem to have been very very proud, almost seating mccartney next to the queen mother. and then comes this bunch of idiotically behaving youngsters, making these ridiculous rip-off tunes and appearing like they were the second coming of the beatles - and the brits hail them as saviours? however much i try to understand it, i just don't get it. because if i would have had to bet, they should have stoned them dead instead! it's an everlasting mystery to me, that they refuse to see through that b***shit facade of this band...
i guess i just don't get the british press... :roll:
Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine