Suede

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible in: 2017 (The 2018 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Suede (1993)
Dog Man Star (1994)
Coming Up (1996)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Animal Nitrate (1993)

Suede @ Wikipedia

Suede Videos

Will Suede be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

32 comments so far (post your own)

They're in my hall of fame, and that's all that matters to me.

Posted by Jeff on Sunday, 05.27.07 @ 18:41pm


I actually think that Suede should have a better chance than they do, if we ignore the obvious biases against them. Blended glam and indie together for 90s, and were one of the founding (and best) britpop acts

Posted by liam on Sunday, 12.2.07 @ 14:08pm


Apparently, in America, Suede are called "The London Suede". Maybe it would be an idea to put their name on here as "(The London) Suede".

Posted by liam on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 07:17am


You are right Liam - when I first started hearing them on the radio way back whem, that was how they were announced on FM radio. Good band.

If I remember correctly, when Squeeze was first introduced on America's shores, they were known here as U.K. Squeeze

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 07.13.08 @ 19:49pm


Great group

Posted by Chalkie on Friday, 02.13.09 @ 14:07pm


Great band. But they only had one charting single in the US (Metal Mickey in 1993, hit #7 on the rock charts) which does not help their chances. They basically created the britpop scene (along with Blur and the Stone Roses) and are influences on most of the current UK alternative groups. I vote yes, but if they still have board members like the current ones, it'll probably not happen. It's kind of sad that mainstream success in the US makes or breaks a bands chances.

Posted by lame on Sunday, 05.17.09 @ 14:50pm


I vote yes, but if they still have board members like the current ones, it'll probably not happen. It's kind of sad that mainstream success in the US makes or breaks a bands chances.

Posted by lame on Sunday, 05.17.09 @ 14:50pm
--------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree. It took me a while to come around to Britpop, but over the past year & a half, I'd say, I've really gotten hooked on a lot of this music. i had always known about Blur, Oasis, Elastica, etc., but really knew nothing about the bands like Gene, Menswear, Echobelly, Shed Seven, Sleeper, and the like. It's only recently that I heard Sleeper's "Inbetweener", which I think is a great song, and Shed Seven's "Chasing Rainbows", another one I really like.

Things might change for these acts in a few years though. They may not get in instantly like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and the obvious ones, but maybe a year or two further down the line they might. I hope so.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 05.17.09 @ 17:01pm


As Brett Anderson said on his first single, "I'm a real drownerrrr...", well he's right. Suede sucks and basically drowns in their amazing (lack of) talent. They are basically wannabes of Happy Mondays, who owns them in every category possible. PUT THE MONDAYS IN TAKE THE SUEDES OUT

Posted by Arthur on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 23:20pm


Extremely influential, but their basically unknown in the US except for a few name checks here and there. Here there known as the London Suede, but I don't call em' that. They were named Suede and stay named Suede. And Suede are very talented and are superior to the overrated Happy Mondays, they sound nothing alike. And their first album was one of the best of the 90s. The Mondays won't get in ever, but Suede atleast has a chance, get real dude.

Posted by Phil on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 23:29pm


They won't
1. They're Brits who didn't have a hit in the USA
2. They are a pop/rock band
3. They weren't made for the US market
4. Wenner probably never heard of them
5. They're not mainstream
They should, good little pop group, their first album is a classic, the rest of the catalogue is not as good.

Posted by Chris on Monday, 05.25.09 @ 11:21am


I haven't gone beyond the 90's singles yet (some real classics among them), but they come across as a good band, and they were one of the first Britpop bands, along with Blur. I'm sure they have some influence for that reason, so they probably should get in, but it's a long shot, since they didn't really make any noise in the U.S. (in fact, Oasis was the only Britpop band that did more in the U.S. than having a hit or two and then being forgotten.) Therefore: If Oasis get in, Blur might. If Blur get in, Suede might (just a guess that Blur would need to come first.) If Oasis don't get in, then no other Britpop act will. All of their chances will increase if they hurry up and get The Smiths in.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 02.16.10 @ 16:07pm


Never mind, they were the first Britpop band, Blur were just the ones who defined it as something new. Should they get in? Well, I just answered the perpetuation. Innovation? Blending indie and glam was something that wasn't being done (though glam has more to do with look than sound, Brett looked kind of glammy occasionally.) I don't know about Influence, but since they were at the front of a whole new indie movement I'm sure they have some. I get the feeling that they won't get in, but I'll be very happy if somehow they do. There's no way it'll be 1st ballot; perhaps soon after, when weak classes begin to come along.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 04.27.10 @ 20:56pm


It's a shame, they probably won't get in because of their small output (4 proper albums in their initial run), but they were a great band. Perhaps voters will take into consideration that most of the influential groups from the 70s/80s/90s didn't stay together for too long.

Posted by Chalkie on Saturday, 05.1.10 @ 10:03am


They get my vote though.

Posted by Chalkie on Saturday, 05.1.10 @ 10:03am


I like Suede and all, but when you don't make an impact on the US charts, you aren't going to get recognized by the rock and roll hall of fame commitee. It's not going to happen, but it should, basically invented Britpop along with Blur.

Posted by Dean on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 14:05pm


Who the hell is Suede? Imma american and i dunno em so they don't get in becuz nobody knows who theze cats are

Posted by VIVA LA ROCK on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 18:22pm


Precisely

Posted by Chalkie on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 21:01pm


With all due respect, "I've never heard of them" is not a valid defense. They were one of the first (if not the first) Britpop bands. No they never did anything in the US, but they were huge in the UK. They probably won't get in, but there's certainly room to argue for them. I will be quite happy if they and Blur and The Stone Roses are all inducted (after The Smiths, of course.) They were also the first band to fuse traditional British indie music with glam. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x685whtrwmM

Start with that, from their first album. Then listen to "Animal Nitrate" (their first big hit) and "The Drowners", they're off to the side of the screen. Listen to whatever you like after that, but in my opinion it's a real treat to get to know them. If they don't get in, it will be for the same reason they didn't do jack in the US, and the same reason that Blur, Slade and The Smiths weren't as big Stateside as they deserved to be: Too British for the average American to understand. Also bad timing, but that's irrelevant in this case. The Smiths still have a good shot at getting in, but if they don't Blur, Suede and The Stone Roses won't.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 21:07pm


And Nominating Committee, if you're reading this: Just as success should not make or break whether a band gets in, neither should longevity. The Jimi Hendrix Experience was around for 3 or 4 years, The Smiths for 4, Joy Division for 4, The Doors for 6, Cream for 2.5-3... I could do more, but I think you get the idea. Not to mention that Rolling Stone's favorites, Nirvana, were only in the public eye while together for 2.5 years (though they were together for 9, I know.)

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 21:22pm


Checked them out on youtube, and I must say these guys aren't as well known as they should be. They had some good songs. Overall, I think that they're a very good band, and should be atleast considred for the hall of fame. Not before Oasis, however.

Posted by VIVA LA ROCK on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 23:39pm


YES! Another convert. I'm not a huge fan myself, but they made some good songs indeed. Good on you for trying. Yes, if Oasis had the influence that I hear they had then they should absolutely be inducted as well (well, they should be inducted anyway because they're Oasis.) These guys might make it in eventually, but it will be tough, and it definitely won't be on the first try. Too much competition in 2017. Oasis will make itt in first as they were the only Britpop band to really do anything in the US. Blur should also be inducted as they defined Britpop, and were the most diverse of the three. I hope all three bands can live to see themselves inducted. None of them should get in before The Smiths and The Stone Roses though.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 05.5.10 @ 21:58pm


First album: Brilliant. Every track is strong. Innovative blends of traditional indie, pop and glam. They wear the obvious influences (T. Rex, Bowie and The Smiths) on their sleeves whilst transcending them into something new entirely.

Dog Man Star: Difficult for your normal pop music fan. It takes a few listens to sink in, and filler begins to crop up, but when it's good it's REALLY good. Three and a half to four stars at least. Darker glam. Fortunately the songs were finished before Bernard quit.

Coming Up: With Bernard out and Richard Oakes in (and a keyboardist,) they ditched the glam leanings and unapolagetically embraced pop music. This was a major gamble, as they risked alienating their audience. But despite more mixed reviews, the gamble paid off: Not only did it score them a few more Top 10 singles and become their biggest album in the UK ever, but it was full of great tunes. The darkness was still there in parts, but it was very optimistic in parts, especially in comparison to the gloom of DMS.

Head Music: Ugh. What the hell happened here? Well, Brett's crack addiction was becoming so strong that he came up with the idea of doing an electronic album. With the exception of one or two good songs, this was just a mess (it's unsurprising when your creative source is a crackhead and you've never expressed any interest in electronica.) Kudos for trying something else; jeers for an appalling effort, and it quite rightly received mostly negative reviews.

A New Morning: I don't know why I can't get into this one, I just can't. It might be because Brett's voice was shot, it might be because I don't feel like their heart was into it... who knows? There were some wonderful tracks, but for the most part this was not interesting. Fortunately after they split they stuck out the phenomenal B-Sides collection Sci-Fi Lullabies, with hardly a bad track on it.

With three great albums (four if you count the B-Sides,) one bad album and one alright album they certainly have enough material (and they could do a new album or two, who knows?) They seem to have met the criteria laid out by the Hall, by influencing quite a few new bands, kickstarting Britpop, sounding like no one else while trying different things and according to some critics inventing a new style (Neo-Glam.) Should they get in? Yes, and some people seem to be open to the idea. Will they? No. I doubt any Britpop gets recognized beyond Oasis.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 11.1.10 @ 17:20pm


I agree with Sam, Oasis is the only good British-Rock group around.

Posted by Brittany on Wednesday, 11.10.10 @ 09:33am


"I agree with Sam, Oasis is the only good British-Rock group around."

Posted by Brittany on Wednesday, 11.10.10 @ 09:33am
----------------------------------------------------

Jesus, do you even listen to music Brittany? I certainly hope your comment was sarcasm.

Posted by Chalkie on Wednesday, 11.10.10 @ 22:26pm


"I agree with Sam, Oasis is the only good British-Rock group around."

That's not what I said at all. What I said was Oasis will probably be inducted, and I made the observation that they were the only Britpop group to really get noticed in the US. The former is opinion (though "Some Might Say", if you'll excuse the pun, that it's a fact), the latter is fact. I also said that Oasis, Blur and Suede should all be inducted for different reasons (oh and maybe Pulp as well.) Even if Oasis hadn't split I still wouldn't have said they're the only good British group around, though that's a subjective question.

I think the temporary Suede reunion has been extended into a tour; hopefully some new music will come out of it, as despite the slump they ended in I think they can still deliver. A pity the single that came out of the Blur reunion was dire.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 11.14.10 @ 06:56am


That said, I'm going to have to vote "no". Not because they don't deserve it, since they absolutely do, but because there's no chance they'll be inducted.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 11.14.10 @ 06:57am


The Verve were better.

Posted by Chalkie on Saturday, 11.27.10 @ 09:29am


..but still an awesome group nonetheless.

Posted by Chalkie on Saturday, 11.27.10 @ 13:28pm


They certainly deserve it. Sadly, I doubt they'll ever get it, as obscure as they are in the US. Their first 3 albums are classics. They were to the 90s what the Smiths were to the 80s. And if you take into account their wealth of incredible b-sides, they had enough for another brilliant Butler-era album, and another brilliant Coming Up-era album. That would've made 5 rather than 3. Bad move on the band's part sidelining some of their truly best work to b-side status. And their often under-appreciated final albums also suffered from poor tracklisting, whereas the b-sides from those albums were often stronger than some of the stuff they put on album.

I genuinely think Suede was the best British band of the 90s, just like how Nirvana were head and shoulders above the rest of grunge. But, their lack of US success I fear will keep them out of the hall forever. Sad.

But they are absolute legends to me.

Posted by erin on Tuesday, 05.15.12 @ 23:07pm


Such great band but doesn't have that big impact internationally. Oasis having had bigger impact with one album will have a difficulty getting in let alone a band whose mostly remembered by one or two song from outside europe. Oasis in first before even thinking about suede.

Posted by seracerveza on Friday, 07.4.14 @ 16:30pm


So, for the record. Whoever said 'they didn't chart well'

that's not what RNRHOF is about

It's about accomplishments, artists who changed rock music. Artists who created something memorable;

Suede paved britpop. That is a major change in the 90s, a rennaissance of the real British rock sound.

As far as I remember, a true genius of his own and a real innovator, Frank Zappa also never had that big charting hits now did he. And he was inducted in 1995 (:

Keep hopes up

Posted by AimeeStardust on Saturday, 01.7.17 @ 20:17pm


So, for the record. Whoever said 'they didn't chart well'

that's not what RNRHOF is about

It's about accomplishments, artists who changed rock music. Artists who created something memorable;

Suede paved britpop. That is a major change in the 90s, a rennaissance of the real British rock sound.

As far as I remember, a true genius of his own and a real innovator, Frank Zappa also never had that big charting hits now did he. And he was inducted in 1995 (:

Keep hopes up

Posted by AimeeStardust on Saturday, 01.7.17 @ 20:18pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.