Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Who were the most influential...? I say Smiths. What you say?
were certainly better
who was more influential out of hitler and stalin.
they both "captured the hearts" of loads of obsessives, many of whome will have formed shit bands as a result.
my simple nonanswer is tha the smiths were pretty good and the roses were pretty shit
have probably influenced worse bands. If you try and sound like The Smiths it's just a bit ridiculous.
mike joyce's drumming was just as good.
if people had any sense. I love the way half the time the drumming is almost a diifferent genre to the song, as is the bass. Punk drumming, funk bass. Brilliant.
influential and yet underrated ryhthhththtm sections in pop.
his actual style of playing was influential to the way the sound of drumming went afterwards, I think.
but when you only hear that drumming on 'empire', you have to ask some serious moral questions
definitely, obviously and very clearly.
Drumming wise - what the fuck was Mani doing on the snare? He's the bassist ;p
Reni IS a good drummer but Joyce ownz him - Queen is dead tom thumping? End of Death of a disco dance?
Not me. The Smiths are the better band, but The Stone Roses is the most complete album either of them ever made.
go to the complete stone roses?
but The Queen is Dead is better anyway.
it shouldn't matter about who they've influenced.
in terms of consistency, the smiths are better.
but the roses were just pure, unadulterated genius.
you can't pick.
or you shouldn't be able to!
the queen is dead is the better record...just about. and especially when marr was 21 bloody years old when he recorded it. the bastard.
Otherwise thinking about The Jam makes me cry.
I just can't get the fuss around the Smiths albums. To me, they're an absolutely amazing singles band. I knew I am one of very few peolpe with this view, but the albums just seem to full of meandering filler. Sorry.
they're not paced very well and that the last one has some utter gash, but i think the queen is dead (other than maaaaybe never had no one ever) is pure gold throughout, well paced etc
Never Had No One Ever
Not because it's THAT bad, but because it's not as good as the rest and therefore stops it from becoming a shoe-in as the best album ever.
that they are a wonderful singles band, but I disagree about the albums bit. Though they never quite made the 'perfect' album, and often included things which quite frankly bring the whole records down.
Stone Roses were shit so I'm not going to commend them with anything. In any case the Smiths were still probably more influential.
'ask me why and I will spit in your eye'
No seriously, I will.
It takes a serious fucking vaccum to make such an average band so respected, eh?
To me then.
the Smiths !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that without The Smiths the Stone Roses quite possibly wouldn't have existed - certainly not in the way they came to exist
the two bands have a lot in common - both coming from the manchester area, both having commercial success that pushed the boundaries of the mainstream and created or at least solidified their own subcultures and both had charismatic frontmen, a guitar hero and oft-overlooked but highly competent rhythm sections
but that's where the similarities end
The Smiths were introverted in their lyrical and stylistic approach - the Roses were anything but...
I think that, looking at the current UK music scene, The Cure have actually been much more influential than the Smiths and 808 state have been much more influential than The Stone Roses
basically the truth !
on sampled dance music - which was itself influenced from New York and detroit hip-hop and house
but I think 808 state had a bigger influence on electronic/programmed music - but they themselves were obviously influence by New Order (to name but one easy example)
One obvious band but who else?
but seriously, everything is an influence in some form - whether positive or negative
Who have they influenced apart from Bloc Party?
so thats it. Also they had the better musicians in Rene, Mani and Squire, obviously the Smiths had the better vocalist.
It's a snow-brainer.
Squire is basically a bad Marr rip off who "plays the blues" - read as "fucking mediocre".
I wouldn't go so far as saying Mani was Jesus, but he was damn good.
Marr's one of the most melodic and also seriously musically complex guitarists around. He is respected by the likes of Bert Jansch, Jonny Greenwood and Neil Young.
Squire is a standard blues guitarist with one or two nice riffs, a wanna be Hendrix that loves to "jam". He is respected by, er - Noel fucking Gallagher??
Mani - sure one or two nice baselines but hardly clever, hardly a better musician that Andy Rourke.
a guitar magazine in about 1999 and they voted John Squire the best British Guitarist of the last 20 years. I still have the magazine. I don't really care how technically amazing he is, all I know is that some of his guitar work on the debut is beautiful.
era biased, no?
one or two catchy bass riffs is perhaps luck, an entire album's worth is an impressive skill.
So Squire liked to jam? His guitar work on the debut is awesome and is also the best thing (super-indulgent wanking aside) about their second album.
Also, check Turns into Stone and the belting guitar work on that. Elephant Stone anyone? I think so.
Hmm...The Smiths probably influence me to want to slice my own face off more, but its a close thing
I like Ian Brown solo, but the Stone Roses don't do it for me
and I think they're brilliant but I think The Stone Roses is better than any Smiths album.
but I don't