Even in their heyday, they were never brilliant live, to be fair.

There's nothing wrong with music made by more mature musicians, in fact most bands get better with age....Bands like Radiohead and Muse are improving the older they get and there are many examples of many bands improving over the years.

The problem with the Stone Roses is that a very large percentage of the audience will be there to see them perform songs from a certain era....An era in which they were a strong influence, not just music-wise, but style and attitude wise - Now 20 years later, many will be expecting a performance of a similar attitude, but will be confronted with middle aged blokes acting 'young'...It won't be pretty.

I know this is a subjective issue but if you actually believe that in rainbows and HTTT are better albums than Kid A, amnesiac and OK computer, you are barmy. Even more so, if you believe that king of limbs is better than swift kick in the goolies, I think you are byond saving.

The same applies with muse. The res is one of the poorer albums (edit: most disappointing) I've listened to from a reputable band and is no where near the quality of Origin of Sym or absolution. In fact the best thing muse have released recently is HAARP (make of that what you will for you argument)

You are right that some bands have gotten better with age. However there are many who have worsened (eg the ones you mention and the biggest one, Kings of Leon.)

I guess its proof that its all about opinions....I actually think all Radiohead's albums have been very good or better (apart from the distinctly average Pablo Honey).

'In Rainbows' is my favourite of all, probably just edging 'Ok Computer', but overall, they are a fine example of a band who have refused to conform to mainstream, populist nonsense.....Let's face it, they could have repeated their biggest mainstream success 'The Bends' over and over again, and become the 21st century's U2, but instead choose to make records that actually sound different from their previous work.

I agree that not everybody will get all of their work, but I challenge to find anybody who cannot find at least 1 of their albums a decent listen.

Who needs The Roses when you have The Wombats on the Easyjet advert?

In all seriousness, I'm kinda sad that they're back together. They were never my era so I can't relate to them in that sense, but I have a feeling this reunion will take a bit of shine off the band in general. When you hear a Roses song, you know it's a 'classic', I just hope they don't tarnish their past, if that makes sense?

Agree with you on the quality of radioheadks albums. It would be interesting to see people list their fave.

I would probably go

Amnesiac
Kid a
Ok computer
The bends
In rainbows
Hail to the thief
Pablo honey

King of limbs.

I really really don't dislike radiohead however their albums were a lot better in the early days. The only recent one of note is in rainbows. As you say though, it is all opinion

I'd probably go...

In Rainbows
Ok Computer
Amnesiac
The Bends
Kid A
King of Limbs
Hail To The Thief
Pablo Honey

Saying that, there isn't much between the top 7 for me, and, depending on my mood, the list can change from day to day....'Pablo Honey' has not aged well though and sounds like a very average 90's guitar album.

Overall though, they are arguably the most influential British band of the last 20 years??

The Beatles are still the most influential British band of the last 20 years & the Beach Boys the most influential American band.

Kid A
In Rainbows
OK Computer
Amnesiac
The Bends
King Of Limbs
Hail To The Thief
Pablo Honey

Kid A is probably my favourite album of all time.

The Bends
OK Computer

You can keep the rest.

Have either recorded anything fresh in the last 20 years??....



Seriously, I know what you mean, but I was referinmg to any British band that has come along in the last 20 years.

You confirm my point about Radiohead....Whatever your opinions on their overall output, they have at least 1 album which any serious music fan could class as a good record.

They've never stood still has a band, something which many bands, Oasis being the prime example, could learn from.

As an outsider (I've no real time for Indie), I tend to agree with Dita's opinion, above. From what little I've heard of Radiohead, they do 'move on'. The Stone Roses....well, I just don't get it...it's almost like the music industry 'trendies' were praying for a new Beatles/Sones, so they praised the SRs to the skies, without having THAT much in their armoury. Their songs were OK, but to me, it was a bit 'emporers new clothes'.

Oasis, always have been and always will be, a 10th rate Beatles tribute act.

The lost album "Smile" to be released next week.

Recorded in what year??...

1966 & never released until 46 years later. Do you think the Stone Roses or Radiohead will be remembered in 2057?

Seriously, who's to know?......There is no reason why they shouldn't be. Many inferior bands than them are remembered.

I like the Beach Boys, but its obvious that bands like themselves and the Beatles were very fortunate to be around in the era that they were, and that popular music was still in its infancy....Nowadays, its arguable that all the great ideas have been used and that bands are now limited to advancing sound, rather than creating any new genres.

well i'm going & i don't care what people think, i will drink dance and have a good time till my dodgy knee starts to play up!

No music is better than any other, An entirely subjective experience.

Briwn wilson's release of smile is a great album.

Is that the Monty Python version.

Thats very true with the exception of The Black Eyed Peas who are just awful full stop