Hey Mr. Rollins, "Kill Uncle". You have got to be joking? Did you pick the worst Morrissey album on purpose to compare Queen is Dead with? Ohhh, wait I forgot about Southpaw Grammer.

If you want a Morrissey album that is up to caliber with the Smiths albums give "Viva Hate" or "Vauxhall" a listen.

BEST WISHES for the New Year to everyone that visits this site and beyond.

"VIVA MORRISSEY, VIVA DETROIT LIONS!"

And by the way, Kill Uncle is a brilliant album. I donīt understand why so many people hate it. Give it another shot. And remember that there is a place in hell for me and my friends...

ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MOZ FANS!

Morrissey's career is crying out for the promotional clout of a decent label and a full world tour: he needs an injection of Marr's Italian Guitar Disco-Pap like a hole in the head!

Luciano

Now a note to all of the Kill Uncle haters...

Musically, Morrissey's first two solo albums were the best. Has anyone noticed that every album after Kill Uncle (yes, even the almighty 'Vauxhall') has a muffled, dense sound that The Smiths works along with pre-Ronson Moz solo work did not? Morrissey's lyrics have rarely failed us. Southpaw may be the only exeption. But ever since Morrissey's band has focused on heavy chords & distortion instead of clear melody (something that Marr, Nevin & Street understood), the music has been weak & uninteresting. Does anyone agree?

Next time, they'd better ask us to rank the 'critics' who voted. And the Queen's not dead yet, either.

The Gallaghers, McCartney, Marr, Bowie and Morrissey on the same list!

Viva YOUR ARSENAL

i mean...smiths, radiohead, bowie are ok..but oasis and primal scream???

bye

i mean...smiths, radiohead, bowie are ok..but oasis and primal scream???

bye

Musn't grumble though, this is a *fantastic* result which I hope gets publicised and makes a new generation go out and buy the often criminally overlooked Smiths while inferior old bands like Stone Roses get the attention. Queen is dead is miles better than them. But if ever there were albums that deserved to be higher, then something like Automatic for the people, Nevermind and Revolver which are quintessentially perfect records.

it's peel and eat Morrissey!

boo hoo...only half of his catalogue is in the top 100 albums of all time. Moz, you slacker, what happened?

ciao julie

I think you'd better realize how important and significant they were (that sparkling debut album especially). In terms of influencing new music, the Roses would probably top even the mighty Smiths at their strongest. And that debut album is really, track for track, one of the greatest debut albums of all time. Maybe you just had to be there, but those boys were a phenomenon; a beautiful phenomenon.

All the buzz about Beck's fusion of genres, well the Roses were doing that in 1989. And the 90's genre-clastic music, well, you can thank the Roses and their popular image for that as well. A LOT of bands, from Hurricane #1 to the Chemical Brothers, admit to being influenced by the Stone Roses. Not bad for a little four piece guitar band out of Manchester.

They were a very good (and important*!*) band, although Morrissey seemed very unimpressed with them. :-(

Why does everyone hate Nir-Var-na? I think they were excellent...the band that made all those glam rockers pay for their horrible music, by wiping out their music with grunge. Irony. It was a great moment in music history.

I also consider Southpaw Grammar to be one of Morrissey's most ingenius works. The only thing lacking from Morrissey's post-Stephen Street works is the innocent boyishness...maybe even a lack of feminine perspective. It seems to me that Mozzer is getting more in touch with his Masculine side...but that's just my perspective.

Happy New Year...don't make a mess of yourselves.

CILI, I agree that the Stone Roses are a good band, but who cares who influenced the Chemical Brothers.The Stone Roses were a Smiths influenced band also!

Futhermore, Kill Uncle is o.k. There is no better Morrissey album overall, than Viva Hate.

Nirvana, please die!

Ian felt that the Smiths were too soft, and he wanted something harder. At the time, the Roses were listening to bands more like the Clash, and he was annoyed that everyone thought the Smiths were "the best thing since sliced bread." Although, once the Roses became successful, Ian would be found from time to time at Johnny (Marr's) house parties in Manchester.

I mentioned the Chem Bros because I wanted to show how far across the musical spectrum the Roses' music spanned. I think that's very important/relevant, considering that they were just a four-piece guitar band [Cressa doesn't count!].

Before anyone starts feeling upset, I know that this site is for Morrissey and not the Stone Roses. I'll be quiet about them now.

Albert Einstein sadly wrote that this century has not produced the great creative genius of centuries past, that people are more content to be complacent in their everyday routine and submit to the norm.

I think Einstein would have enjoyed Morrissey. Thank you, I love you, Good bye...

Sure there was the danceable Fools Gold - again, the wah wah guitar was nothing new, just rehasing 70s funk records. Ian Brown also couldn't sing or write for toffee and John Squire is always cited as the best guitarist but his rock-out guitar wanking was tedious in the extreme, particularly in the excruciating and highly overrated I am the resurrection. Plus he was heavily influenced by Marr - see Bye Bye Badman for the evidence. Little wonder that the homophobic Ian Brown thought they were too soft. The Smiths were just so much more daring and stylish.

I'm not saying that the Roses weren't good and that album is certainly a classic, but it's not as good as everyone says. Maybe cos it defined an era and brought indie to the mainstream - which the Smiths almost managed to do, but it also ultimately lead to Britpop and, in particular, Oasis.. not a good thing surely. Happy Mondays were far more innovative.

This isn't to say that the Smiths were (musically) revolutionary, cos they weren't either and were also based on Byrdsian-jangle pop. But they were far less blatant at copying than the plagiarising Roses. And with the lyrics and attitude they were revolutionary. It offends me that the Roses, and that album are more feted than the Queen is dead and other more interesting albums and bands. So here's to this poll for sorting things a little! :o)

Without writing a complete Roses apologia, what they managed to do was not so much create a brand new type of music, but rather, they successfully galvanized then crystallized an attitude of a generation. Subsequently, life immitated the art which immitated life, and we had the seeds for the 1990's.

As far as Screamadelica is concerned [by the way, "Come Together" is still one of my most beloved tracks], the Roses simply made the music more accessible because they were essentially a rock and roll guitar band - and they sounded like one, whereas the Scream lost that kernel in their sound with Screamadelica. Also, taking nothing away from Bobby Gillespie, he could never be the leader/frontman that Ian Brown was (and I feel, still is). It was Ian that made you believe that there was something special about the Roses; special in almost mystical proportions. They, like the Smiths, gave you something to believe in.

The Stone Roses were more than just music, they were a movement in popular culture. Now, if that's not significant, then I must be mad.

And I do wish people would stop comparing the Roses with the Byrds, or early John with Johnny Marr. Ian sang in hushed vocals, and yes, "Bye Bye Badman" was jangly, but a song intro (Made of Stone) does not make the Roses the Byrds, and one guitar track (Bye Bye Badman) does not merit calling John "heavily influenced" by Johnny Marr. I've had conversations with Johnny, and he wasn't even a big fan of Johnny Marr's in the Smiths' heyday. This is not speculation anymore. Johnny Squire was not influenced by Johnny Marr.

I think it's wrong to tear apart art, music, or whatever, for it's individual elements, then call the aggregate a "rip-off" (or anything to that effect) of the sources of inspiration. The Roses, as a whole, were very different because they were so many things at the same time. But most of all, they wrote very good music, because without that, who would care? They were so young, and so beautiful, and so talented.

I do have to admit though, without Reni, the Roses would probably have never been as special. When he left, they fell apart didn't they? :-( Stupid Reni. Bad! Bad Reni!