Quote worthing wire="worthing wire"I'd argue that The Stone Roses only recorded about 10 or 12 great songs. That they only managed two albums adds to their allure, in my view. Oasis have produced at least as many great songs - though that they have been spread over a much longer (in terms of albums) career would seem to dilute their status somewhat. Noel Gallagher didn't help himself either by chucking away a fair few good tracks as 'B-sides', while filling some of his albums with rubbish.'"
The problem is with bands like Oasis and the Stone Roses, is that because they are so musically limited, their lifespans will always be very short before they begin to sound stale and uninteresting.
Oasis got 2 albums in before most people realised they were a 1 trick pony, the Stone Roses even less (though they craftily went missing for a few years in order to further a dying career).
The Beatles, because they were musically gifted, were able to prolong their careers, and produce music that often broke new ground and gained them new admirers....Similarly, in recent times Radiohead have managed to do the same thing.
Yes, many folk are put off by their miserablist reputation, but 7 albums in, with all being different to their predecessor, I would challenge anybody that they can't deny they haven't produced at least 1 great album, whether it be the traditional rock of 'The Bends' or the more recent, more experimental stuff like 'In Rainbows'....
