Why is this band so underrated by Yea Forums?

He is the definition of JUST. He was never a talented vocalist but at least his voice used to have some character. Seeing him attempt to sing on the Roses reunion tour was just embarrassing.

>2019
>just discovering Yea Forums is a braindead circlejerk of nerd fedoras jerking off to the same 5 artists/albums in attempt to be trendy on some mongolian basket weaving internet forum instead of anything of actual worth or enjoyability, but rather just something to inflate their egos

Attached: Malcolm from Malcolm in the Middle.jpg (480x551, 25K)

That's what happens when you disband.

Not enough output. They only made two albums, which were both very good, but they spent too much time bickering with each other and doing cocaine instead of making music.

LET ME PUT YOU IN THE PICTURE

Shut up yank

Nobody give Garage Flower any credit

THA DOLPHINS WER MONKEHS
DAT DIN LIKE THA LAND

Attached: 51RVbpic8BL[1].jpg (500x500, 48K)

not even lying my dad is mates with ian brown and one of his son's is named after me because he liked my name
i know it seems unlikely

>Emilio

Spic.

If the Manic Street Preachers are the best Britain's got then they're getting mogged to Oblivion by Ireland.

Attached: Big Kevs britpop conspiracy.png (614x530, 348K)

>he thinks Yea Forums doesn't know about the Stone Roses
Lurk moar faggot

>Stone Roses
>Underrated
I love them but they aren't underrated

its nice to be nice to people

They’re not underrated here in the slightest. I’m sure most people would place them above the bands you listed, except joy division

*and the smiths

Yeah it sucks that their discography is so painfully short. I like to count Turns Into Stone as a third album for that reason

The Stones Roses have 1 good song, there's nothing to talk about.

which is what?

I wanna be stoned

They would absolutely be everything you're saying if they made more than one perfect album, but they followed up their first with a mediocre bro album so tough shit

Most people on Yea Forums love them, you aren't special.

Second Coming was shit

They're underrated amongst Americans.

He looks like an actual monkey

Not in the UK but on here people barely mention them.

Find it hard to believe that he's only ever smoked weed and doesn't even drink alcohol. He looks like he's on the smack.

First album was 10/10
Second Coming was 4/10
Sally Cinnamon was an amazing single

Radiohead is still the greatest British band without a doubt.

But great to see some love for the Manics

all correct but genuinely confused about OP claiming the Manics are the best ever british band, is it because I'm not british? I mean I like them but I don't get the enthusiasm I see online

Manics are gr8 m8

I don't thing it's fair calling the Manics british, I mean they technically are but they have a really strong Welsh identity.

Anyway check out their first 5 albums in order, they're absolutely fantastic. Really underrated songwriters.

To be fair the Welsh have more of a right to call themselves British than anyone else.

Attached: king arthur.jpg (220x386, 44K)

Too 80's feeling... And ian brown's other work has been pretty meh too... But they definitely deserve the most credit for the 90's groundswell of british music on the world stage.

Fear and keep what ya got are good though.. in a way.... sorta...

>90's groundswell of british music on the world stage.
But 90s British rock completely flopped on the world stage.

The Prodigy made 10x more of an impact worldwide than their rock countrymen did and The Spice Girls stomped all of them in terms of being the poster children for 90s British music.

from like 1991 to 1997 is was almost all Grunge and british rock... Oasis, Blur, The Verve, and to a lesser extent Pulp, Suede...

>this is what Bongoloids actually believe

Few Americans even knew who Damon Albarn was until he founded The Gorillaz and you're having a laugh if you think anyone but the biggest anglophile hipsters were listening to Suede.

One of my favorite bands ever! Not sure if I'd say they're better than The Smiths, though. Also their S/T is Yea Forumscore.

So the argument is that the music is good if it can get exposure outside their home country?
What about literally every non-English country, whose best musicians almost never get world recognition, let alone influence?

all I know is Azealia Banks went on a twitter tirade against them a few years ago

Why?

ABBA?
Serge Gainsbourg?
Kraftwerk?
Scooter?
Shakira?
Enrique Iglesias?
Julio Iglesias?
King Diamond?
Ravi Shankar?
Sabaton?
Dimmu Borgir?
NEU?
Burzum?
Darkthrone?
Faust?
Rammstein?

All of these guys are famous as fuck among a wide variety of audiences even outside their home countries and that's barely any of the successful non-Anglo artists.

>Better than 5 shit bands
kek my band is too m8

because shes a nigger

Attached: apu.jpg (842x825, 39K)

She has untreated schizophrenia and takes it out on random musicians on Twitter.

think SR started sound checking at a festival during her set

That is rude.

lmao who cares its azealia banks probably did the crowd a fucking favour

212 is 10x better than anything SR have ever made.

Nobody knows what the fuck 212 is pal. Take your wog music some place else good man.

youtube.com/watch?v=i3Jv9fNPjgk
>170,549,716 views

Attached: pepe dabbing.png (554x400, 65K)

>only 170 million
as i said nobody knows what this shit is.

youtube.com/watch?v=4D2qcbu26gs
>Most popular SR song
>28,464,395 views

Okay, I overshot that second claim, but the question still stands - why do you measure quality by international success?

life existed before youtube kiddo

I feel as though their Sophomore album was placed at a terrible time when the world was under the grip of the Britpop craze. Which is ironic because I think their debut heavily influenced 90's Britpop. The band was crippled with fear and uncertainty because of how acclaimed their debut was and a wildly different music scene had all worked against them. I've only listened to Second coming once, but it doesn't stand out like their debut at all. Shame too, cause their debut is really good.

I don't. It's just that the argument was completely about international popularity and not at all about quality. From the start

> But they definitely deserve the most credit for the 90's groundswell of british music on the world stage.
>But 90s British rock completely flopped on the world stage.
In terms of quality lots of Britpop bands from the time are really good (personally I love Suede and Blur) and that's without even getting into music from the time that didn't even really make it to the mainstream in the UK like Slowdive and Massive Attack who weren't getting attention until much later.

I'm just saying Britpop simply did not have the mainstream global momentum that grunge did, it's only Brits that think of Britpop and grunge as co-dominating the charts in the 90s because that was only the case in the UK. Outside of Britain and maybe Ireland it was simply a non-presence besides a couple of hits by Oasis.

Go watch the footy, you angoloid boomer.

In that case, you're right.

Attached: okay.jpg (1180x728, 281K)

you're 100% right, the media and listeners gave and continue to give attention to these bands based on international success. that's why even on Yea Forums we only hear about Oasis as they were the most succesful outside the UK. it's just unfortunate that the media even coined the stupid fucking term in the first place for a bunch of otherwise cool but unrelated bands. at the end of the day most of the bigger britpop bands have nothing to do with each other.

it totally shafted the good bands that came out of that time period

and I should correct myself, Yea Forums doesn't JUST talk about Oasis, but they are still probably the most mentioned even if they aren't terribly well respected here. and that's a fucking shame.

Give The Holy Bible a listen. One of the greatest albums of all time.