I just went and checked em out on wiki your right they are still active but none of the original personel remain. It's funny I was flicking through an old mag this morning and re-read their story before loging on here to discover this thread, as I find the whole story so amusing ( especially the sweater myth) I posted it. Should have done my homework though.
In my defense I will say murdering fellow bandmates is in my opinion not nice.

Lol. :p:

well dead kennedys is a good one because there's still tons of tension everywhere and nobody knows what to believe and there were lawsuits and ughhh all that.

i've read about mayhem before, pretty hilarious in a really morbid, terrible sort of way

marc rilye' leaving the fall was rather unpleadint

I said Stone Roses only because I felt it was the saddest, career-wise. They released one phenomenal album, everyone had such high expectations, and then due to a bunch of legal BS it was a long while before their next one came out. By then, no one cared. Then they broke up. There could have been so much more.

I'm sure there are nastier band break ups out there....but I'm always left to wonder what they may have done if circumstances had been different.

They were always massively hindered by the limitiations of their lead singer. Fact is, and i say this as a fan of their debut album, without studio effect's Ian Brown's vocals would have been shown up

Most people's vocals would be shown up if it wasn't for studio effects. A lot of singer's voices are shite live and good in the studio. What's your point?

I agree with The Stone Roses though. Not the nastiest, could be a subject of another thread. The saddest, people around Manchester were saying the best thing since The Beatles etc.

Overhyped yeah but there was excitement there and they could've gone on to be absolutely brilliant. Very sad indeed. :(

Dunno, I personally think the Roses would have been brought down with the rest of Madchester in the same way as Oasis were with Britpop by virtue of being so synonymous with it.

The Roses WERE brought down in the same way as Oasis really. Except it wasn't their third album that did it, it was their second. But I dunno, they were tipped for greatness. As much as I love(d) Oasis I think everyone knew they were the biggest thing around at that moment. I think with The Roses people felt they could've gone on to bigger and better things. But then again, if Oasis did actually split up in like 97. People would've said the same about them so meh. We'll never know.