advertisement


Liam Gallagher's brother...

When my partner pointed them out to me on the radio back then, I asked her if they were a Beatles testimonial band. I wasn't taking the piss either.
 
How can anyone be "undecided" about Oasis. You've known exactly what they're gonna sound like for the last 14 years. Dull as **** after the 1st album.
 
What utter shitte. FWIW I am an Oasis fan and yes there music does sound "Beatlesque" but is that such a bad thing? Surely any new band starting today will have influences from the past and their music will sound the same as "the originals". I'm 47 and have a very varied taste in music but I'm not a classical fan at all. My taste is Springsteen, REM, U2, Oasis, Killers to Motown, Marley etc etc. The press made a big deal of the "Brit pop" culture and surely as a new band (Pulp, Oasis) this fuelled record sales which surely can't be a bad thing for making money which is what most of us want to do isn't it?
I listen to music with an open mind and yes I've made that comment about the Beatles/Oasis to many many people but if the song is enjoyable who cares? For me, too many hi-fi afficianado's listen to tracks that show off their equipment and even when it's purile, as long as you can tell where all the instruments are etc etc you listen to it. Now to me that is crap. There are many many fine songs that have been made only to be spoiled by bad recordings but does that mean we don't enjoy them? No I think not. Anyway rant over.
 
The Beatles themselves started out as 'copyists' of Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, early Motown etc. The point is that, within a year or two, they'd developed a 'sound' that was entirely their own. Have Oasis progressed in any meaningful sense since their first album?
 
What Joe said.
Great art stands on its own merits, irrespective of where it came from, because it adds something that is (initially at least) unique.
Not sure that Oasis fits into that category, but hey...
I got their first album as a present and quite liked it, bought the second and that was the last one: never saw the need for any others.
 
If you talk about progression in music how come U2 come under fire so much then? I listened to them when they first appeared on the scene and I've followed them ever since. They have changed an enormous amount but still retained that "U2" sound. The Joshua Tree is an all time classic album and the new one is getting there too.
As for Oasis I always think their second album as their best and I agree they haven't exactly moved a million miles from their original sound but when it's good in the first place why change what isn't broke. Did Marvin Gaye change his style from his first tracks when he released his later stuff? No he didn't his tracks still had that fabulous voice and brilliant lyrics all straight from the heart.
I listen to any music that makes me smile and Oasis and many others have done that and long shall it continue. One mans meat is surely anothers poison.
 
Bought the first two albums on vinyl (worth about £60 each now) then got bored with them big time and have'nt played them for years.

Seen them several times donkey's years ago boring as shit except for a show at The Academy in Manchester which was one of the best gigs that i have ever been to.
 
Musically and creatively they obviously aren't the best band of the last 20 years but it''s all about the 'moment' and for whatever reason their first two albums helped define the whole late 90's 'New Labour' 'Cool Britannia' stuff. Mostly down to media hype of course - they were just the right band with the right sound at the right time. No different to the Spice Girls :0
 
Blurboy said:
If you talk about progression in music how come U2 come under fire so much then? I listened to them when they first appeared on the scene and I've followed them ever since. They have changed an enormous amount but still retained that "U2" sound. The Joshua Tree is an all time classic album and the new one is getting there too.
As for Oasis I always think their second album as their best and I agree they haven't exactly moved a million miles from their original sound but when it's good in the first place why change what isn't broke. Did Marvin Gaye change his style from his first tracks when he released his later stuff? No he didn't his tracks still had that fabulous voice and brilliant lyrics all straight from the heart.
I listen to any music that makes me smile and Oasis and many others have done that and long shall it continue. One mans meat is surely anothers poison.
Click to expand...

I dunno quite who you are arguing against but what you said about Marvin is rubbish. Compare Stubborn Kinda Fellow to What's Goin' On to Sexual Healing; creating (along with co-writers and producers) the next template for soul music as he went along. In about the same time frame as Oasis have existed. Hmmm.
 
If you dislike Oasis so much then why bother to post about them? I think they behave like mongs. They always have done....However, I thought their first two albums were brilliant at the time and continue to stand the test of time.

Sadly there have been and continue to be many brilliant musicians who are not very agreeable characters ranging from Wagner to Brahms to the Gallagher brothers.:eek:
 
That's an utterly pathetic reason for not listening to U2! It's like some homophobic not listening to any gay singers because of what they do, Jesus grow up. Mind you, I don't give a shitte to classical music because of the snobs that listen to it pmsl.
 
Thank Christ the charade is over.

They have been a farce for the past 8 years or more. If ever there was a band that "would let you down and blow it at the last minute" it was them.



Trouble is you know they will 'make up' in about 4 months time.
 
Joe Hutch said:
I quite liked the theme tune they did for The Royle Family, but if you grew uo with the Beatles, Kinks, Who and Small Faces you could hear only too clearly what Oasis were plagiarising.
Click to expand...

that's spot-on too (RF song is the best. still dull tho). Look, all these bands mentioned are so poorly & so obviously plagiarised (The Beatles' I Am The Walrus cover is f**king awful/ just slaps the orig in the face) but, add into the equation 1. terrible 12yr-old-in-bedroom guitar riffs/chord structures and 2. the most godawful plagiarised frontman snarl/swagger/arrogance from The Pistols (but utterly vaccuos & lacking in even a semblence of menace or intelligence whatsover compared to JR)..

THAT is why they are- unnoquivocally- the worst band EVER.

Snow Patrol, Keane, Elbow are pitiful for sure but none have these fu*ckawful attributes Oashite HAD.. Woohoo!! champagne will be popped!
 
I always found it fascinating that Liam had all that menace and swagger...until someone finally had enough, called his bluff and nutted him in the face and that all melted away.
 
I don't like debating about music, as there's few things more subjective than whether a band is any good. Pretty much any argument you base your dislike for one band or artist on could be used against someone you like a lot.

I can be undecided about Oasis because whichever way you look at it definitely maybe pretty much sums up an entire era of British music and they were a massive part of British culture in the 90s. You could say the same things about the spice girls and the beatles, and you could argue whether they were any good as well tbh.
 
Blurboy said:
That's an utterly pathetic reason for not listening to U2! It's like some homophobic not listening to any gay singers because of what they do, Jesus grow up. Mind you, I don't give a shitte to classical music because of the snobs that listen to it pmsl.
Click to expand...

I think its an excellent and most valid reason for not listening to an artist. I have often been guided by blind prejudice in my musical taste.

I seem to recall that U2 had some vague Christian link in their early days. Put me off immediately so I have been spared their wailing or whatever noise they make. Religion is OKish (well sort of) but it should be kept quiet and personal IMO.
 
Best news I've heard in ages, one of the most overrated bands ever IMHO,
and as an amateur musician, they provide no inspiration at all.

And I can't stand U2 either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top