|
|
Post by samersarhan on Jan 18, 2008 20:24:42 GMT -5
Zak will be a great drummer for Oasis permanently.
I bet it's surreal for the boys that the son of a Beatle is playing with them in the same band. Awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by seanppp on Jan 19, 2008 1:10:07 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jan 19, 2008 5:22:07 GMT -5
I don't like how he plays the intro of "Bring It On Down" and that long outro of "My Generation".
|
|
|
|
Post by inspiredcarpet on Jan 19, 2008 19:51:22 GMT -5
dono why, but i cant take to Zak, i far prefer Terry. im also not crazy on the fact that Noel asked him to join permanently but he couldnt "commit" at that point - jesus man, if Noel Gallagher asks you to join his band you join!! not to join is disrespectful, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Jan 19, 2008 20:03:51 GMT -5
dono why, but i cant take to Zak, i far prefer Terry. im also not crazy on the fact that Noel asked him to join permanently but he couldnt "commit" at that point - jesus man, if Noel Gallagher asks you to join his band you join!! not to join is disrespectful, imo. I think you're being a little ridiculous. I mean the guy passed up a chance to become The Who's permanent drummer just so he could play with Oasis. And as much as I love Oasis (and yes they're my favorite band like you I'm sure), but The Who are on a different level than Oasis. So I can't get upset when he says the same thing to Noel that he said to Pete Townshend. As far as his drumming goes...although I admit I didn't really like his style at first, it's really started to grow on me. The only song son DBTT that I don't particularly like his drumming on is Lyla...primarily because I just find the whole 4 4 really boring. The drum tracks kicked ass on POTQ, TIOBI, KTDA, ABWR, and LLAB...And I truly believe Alan White wouldn't have come close to Zak on those 5 songs |
|
|
|
Post by inspiredcarpet on Jan 20, 2008 2:26:01 GMT -5
dono why, but i cant take to Zak, i far prefer Terry. im also not crazy on the fact that Noel asked him to join permanently but he couldnt "commit" at that point - jesus man, if Noel Gallagher asks you to join his band you join!! not to join is disrespectful, imo. I think you're being a little ridiculous. I mean the guy passed up a chance to become The Who's permanent drummer just so he could play with Oasis. And as much as I love Oasis (and yes they're my favorite band like you I'm sure), but The Who are on a different level than Oasis. So I can't get upset when he says the same thing to Noel that he said to Pete Townshend. As far as his drumming goes...although I admit I didn't really like his style at first, it's really started to grow on me. The only song son DBTT that I don't particularly like his drumming on is Lyla...primarily because I just find the whole 4 4 really boring. The drum tracks kicked ass on POTQ, TIOBI, KTDA, ABWR, and LLAB...And I truly believe Alan White wouldn't have come close to Zak on those 5 songs hmmm, i wouldnt say that The Who are on a different level to Oasis, at all - they are simply older!! again, if Noel Gallagher asks someone to join, then they should join! if they dont, fair enough, but that should be the opportunity gone, in my mind. it is disrespectful to say to the greatest songwriter and artist of all-time "nah, cant do it just now, maybe later". in terms of musical ability, yeah, hes very good. not sure if hes better than Alan White, but he is very good. Alan White didnt leave due to "technical ability issues", though, did he? so its not purely about that. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Jan 20, 2008 10:10:53 GMT -5
I think you're being a little ridiculous. I mean the guy passed up a chance to become The Who's permanent drummer just so he could play with Oasis. And as much as I love Oasis (and yes they're my favorite band like you I'm sure), but The Who are on a different level than Oasis. So I can't get upset when he says the same thing to Noel that he said to Pete Townshend. As far as his drumming goes...although I admit I didn't really like his style at first, it's really started to grow on me. The only song son DBTT that I don't particularly like his drumming on is Lyla...primarily because I just find the whole 4 4 really boring. The drum tracks kicked ass on POTQ, TIOBI, KTDA, ABWR, and LLAB...And I truly believe Alan White wouldn't have come close to Zak on those 5 songs hmmm, i wouldnt say that The Who are on a different level to Oasis, at all - they are simply older!! again, if Noel Gallagher asks someone to join, then they should join! if they dont, fair enough, but that should be the opportunity gone, in my mind. it is disrespectful to say to the greatest songwriter and artist of all-time "nah, cant do it just now, maybe later". in terms of musical ability, yeah, hes very good. not sure if hes better than Alan White, but he is very good. Alan White didnt leave due to "technical ability issues", though, did he? so its not purely about that. Exactly, they've been around since the 60's. That buys you a lot of credibility in my book. Not to mention they made what's arguable one of the greatest and most original songs of all time in Baba O'Reilly...Oasis doesn't have a song they could put up against that. The Who are known, adored, and are very successful in America...Oasis is not. Like Noel, Pete Townshend is one of the greatest songwriters of all time, but is also one of the greatest musicians to ever live (Noel isn't). Like Liam, Roger Daltry has one of the greatest voices rock & roll has ever heard (except Daltry can still sing things he sang 40 years ago...Liam can't sing what he sang 4 years ago). The Who laid the foundation for what became punk rock and other forms of rock & roll...Oasis has been sued by a million other musicians for ripping them off. See a difference? Look I really don't wanna have to put down Oasis to prove my point, but you're living in a different world when you say Oasis and The Who are on the same level. I may not love The Who like I love Oasis, but I know how important they were to music and the impact they had for not just a few years like our boys, but for several decades! Like I said, I LOVE Oasis...and believe me I'd rather listen to an Oasis CD rather than a Who CD anyday. However, rock & roll bands are almost remembered in classes of importance and impact...and Oasis is nowhere in sight when you list those bands (see below) 1. obviously the Beatles...and always will be 2. Rolling Stones...the Beatles created one side of the spectrum (pop/psychedelic rock) and the Stones created the other (punk rock, jazz rock, blues rock) 3. Beach Boys...Pet Sounds changed music forever (according to Paul McCartney) and there never would have even been a Sgt Peppers without the Beach Boys. They didn't really add much "rock", but their experimentation changed music forever. 4. The Who...like I said before, they really laid the foundation for punk rock. They were also the first band to have a sequenced rhythm throughout a song (Baby O'Reilly, Won't Get Fooled Again)...which was wayyyyy before its time. 5. Led Zeppelin...another band that was light years ahead of itself. Laid the foundation for hard rock, metal, arena rock, etc... Now pretend you're putting Oasis at #6 and write a little blurb of their importance and what they've done for music...And then tell me they belong with those other bands |
|
|
|
Post by vespa on Jan 20, 2008 12:50:12 GMT -5
lets just point summat out here,oasis were an are relevant and have been massively important in music,they for one brought a whole new fanbase to bands like the who ,stones,beatles and put these bands back in the mainstream limelight.they also made people turn to playing music again,an also changed british culture in the mid 90s.
also this bullshit about them not beig popular in the states,well yeh the records havent sold how they couldve done but as a touring band they always sellout the venues an on there last tour it was there most successful.i think the new record will be a success there aswell as theyve the critics on there side again.
as for songwriting noel will easily be up there with townsend,an he hasnt wrote owt original??wonderwall is original,you tell me where youve ever heard a song like that??live forever?the list is endless.if noel was in there day hed be credited alot more aswell.but i think hes beginning to get that recognition now.as for a musician,well hes respected there aswell,noel is a talented musician but sticks to what he knows on his own songs,
zakk didnt want to fully commit to oasis cos hes a long tie with the who an close to them.
daltreys voice has gone an he struggles regularly nowadays.liam can still sing the songs but in his own way now
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Jan 20, 2008 13:19:52 GMT -5
lets just point summat out here,oasis were an are relevant and have been massively important in music,they for one brought a whole new fanbase to bands like the who ,stones,beatles and put these bands back in the mainstream limelight.they also made people turn to playing music again,an also changed british culture in the mid 90s. also this bullshit about them not beig popular in the states,well yeh the records havent sold how they couldve done but as a touring band they always sellout the venues an on there last tour it was there most successful.i think the new record will be a success there aswell as theyve the critics on there side again. as for songwriting noel will easily be up there with townsend,an he hasnt wrote owt original??wonderwall is original,you tell me where youve ever heard a song like that??live forever?the list is endless.if noel was in there day hed be credited alot more aswell.but i think hes beginning to get that recognition now.as for a musician,well hes respected there aswell,noel is a talented musician but sticks to what he knows on his own songs, zakk didnt want to fully commit to oasis cos hes a long tie with the who an close to them. daltreys voice has gone an he struggles regularly nowadays.liam can still sing the songs but in his own way now #1- Like I said before, I'm not trying to downplay what Oasis have done...but they are NOT on the same level as The Who. I never said Oasis didn't have an impact on their time...but will they have an impact on bands 40 years from now like the Who still do? I doubt it. To be honest with you, I think people are going to remember their attitudes and swagger more than their music (unfortunately) when they are where the Who is now. #2- I live in America and you couldn't be further off as far as their popularity here is concerned. They have a very loyal, small American fan base that will be there whenever they come on tour (such as myself)...HOWEVER I'd say about 80-90% of Americans think Oasis' only song was Wonderwall, and another 5% don't even know who Oasis is. So don't lecture me on their popularity in my country...I'm very well aware, and often frustrated by it. #3- Okay go put up Wonderwall next to Baba O'Reilly, Won't Get Fooled Again, Love Reign Over Me, Behind Blue Eyes, etc...It's not on the same level. Wonderwall was their biggest hit because it appealed to everybody...including people who didn't like the typical Oasis sound. And yes you're right Live Forever is going to be the song Noel is remember most for...One problem with that though, very few Americans even know the song. And you can't tell me it doesn't matter whether or not their music is known in America...That's what determines where they fall on the whole great rock & roll bands chart. The Beatles, Who, Stones, even Floyd were huge in America...Oasis had one song Americans know about. Come on man, I love the band but I feel guilty you're making me knock them just to bring you back to reality. Take off the Liam glasses for a second #4- Noel himself said and I quote "I'm not the greatest musician, but I want to be remembered as a great songwriter"...EVEN HE KNOWS IT! #5- "Liam can still sing the songs, but in his own way now"...Are you serious man? When was the last time Liam sang Slide Away? 2001. When was the last time Liam sang She's Electric? When's the last time Liam sang Up In the Sky? When's the last time he sang Shakermaker? 2000? I mean come on...Even the biggest Oasis fan in the world has to admit Liam can't sing half the stuff he used to. Personally I think it's sad when Noel has to sing She's Electric in concert cause Liam's no longer able to...That's not how it should be. Again you make me feel like I'm killing my favorite band just because you live in fantasy land. Oasis is an amazing band and they will live through our generation for a long time...but then what? They haven't left a stamp on music like these other bands you want to compare them to |
|
|
|
Post by inspiredcarpet on Jan 21, 2008 8:19:55 GMT -5
"#1- Like I said before, I'm not trying to downplay what Oasis have done..."
STC,
for someone that doesn't want to downplay what Oasis have done, you sure give it a good go.....
ok, to reply to your points. in many ways, it is easier to "big up" The Who when comparing them to Oasis, as they are older and from the 60s - an era of music which is generally regarded as untouchable and excluded from any (negative) analysis or criticism.
forgetting which era the artists are from, just taking the music on it's own, Noel Gallagher/Oasis has written more classic songs and his songs are, in my opinion, far superior to those of The Who. put DLBIA, Live Forever, Slide Away, The Masterplan, Talk Tonight, Half The World Away, WPTWOTWOMS?, Champagne Supernova, TIOBI, YGTHOAS, RNRS, Supersonic, Cast No Shadow (and many more) up against "the best of The Who" and Noel wins every single time, for me, anyway.
in terms of musical ability, Noel is far more talented than he is given credit for, both by music critics and himself. music critics tend to latch on to a certain image, a headline story, they like to bracket artists and they put Noel & Oasis in the "cheap shot, 60s copy band" bracket. anybody who actually knows anything about music knows that isnt true, but it is the image the (generally relatively thick) music press have given them.
i also think that Noel lacks self-confidence, in his opinion of his own musical ability and of his lyric-writing. hence, yes, you can easily find quotes from him and say "look! look! even Noel says it!!". yes, he has made comments which say that others are more talented, but that doesnt make it true.
that said, does excellent technical ability necessarily make the best music? are the songs with the most clever, intricate, intelligent chord structures and progressions the greatest songs ever? hmm, i would tend to argue that point pretty heavily. do you like/rate "Imagine"? is that particularly difficult to play? is the music relatively basic, yet amazing?
regarding influence on other artists - just how many current bands who are enjoying even a modicum of success cite Oasis/Noel as a major, huge influence?!?! answer? loads - i can list the artists and their quotes, if you want, but i am sure you already know. again, it is easier to argue for The Who's influence on music, because their music is older. we are only starting to see the impact of Noel's work on the music scene now. give it 10 years and it will be even more obvious and prominent.
you mentioned Liam's voice, comparing it with that of Roger Daltrey's. yes, it is probably fair to say that Liam's voice has peaked, and also that he will probably not re-capture his true greatness of earlier years. three points on this:
firstly, hasnt Noel's voice matured and developed greatly? did you hear his semi-acoustic performances? absolutely amazing, GREAT performances, and still "Oasis".
secondly, i saw Roger Daltry sing sing relatively recently and he wasnt as good as he was previously, either.
thirdly, the easy access to live performances, via youtube and downloads etc make it extremely easy to criticise ANY performer. you simply search until you find a "bad" performance (disregarding the many excellent ones as you do), which is what is popular to do with Liam now. his voice is not as "bad" as it is painted to be (listen to Within You Without You - excellent!!), that is another popular use of bracketing which the music press like to promote/push, and which music fans seem to enjoy following. again, that doesnt make it true.
the songs which you quote as examples of The Who's greatness and superiority over Oasis are from 1971 (3 of them) and 1973, if i am not mistaken. havent they written a classic song since 1973? if we can go back 35 years in order to "prove" this point then why cant Liam's greatness be proven from the 1990's?
you also mentioned about Wonderwall being the only song that Noel/Oasis will be rmbered for!! that is complete nonsense!! maybe in US, but most definitely not in Scotland or UK. Live Forever, Dont Look Back In Anger are two which he would be far better known for here.
although i am not a huge fan, i recognise the greatness of The Who. they were/are extremely talented, wrote some all-time classics and had a massive, undeniable influence on the music scene. that, however, does not "prove" them to be better than Noel Gallagher, or Oasis.
|
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Jan 21, 2008 8:44:57 GMT -5
I fucking knew it.
When people on here were talking about the album coming out in the spring I couldn't help but chuckle.
Still, I don't understand why when they've all but finished recording the album it's going to take about eight months to mix it and put it out.
It really fucks me off that it takes them so long to put stuff out these days.
I'm already having a shit day and this makes it worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by vespa on Jan 21, 2008 8:51:06 GMT -5
too right what you say mate,noel is starting to get the recognition he deserves,the who are a big touring band nothing more ,abit like the stones but not as big,i love the who but not a patch o oasis i dont think,
also remember in the states oasis only official single release was wonderwall after that sony fucked them off for there attitude,i think universal will promote them proper an we will see bigger sales.especially if they come out with a great album again.
i remember dave sardy also sayin how shocked he was after recording with them at just how talented each of the band are,an after what he heard about they were basic players that they all play bits of everything,under estimated they are
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Jan 21, 2008 9:10:37 GMT -5
"#1- Like I said before, I'm not trying to downplay what Oasis have done..."STC, for someone that doesn't want to downplay what Oasis have done, you sure give it a good go.....
That's really not necessary...
ok, to reply to your points. in many ways, it is easier to "big up" The Who when comparing them to Oasis, as they are older and from the 60s - an era of music which is generally regarded as untouchable and excluded from any (negative) analysis or criticism. I think there's some truth to thatforgetting which era the artists are from, just taking the music on it's own, Noel Gallagher/Oasis has written more classic songs and his songs are, in my opinion, far superior to those of The Who. put DLBIA, Live Forever, Slide Away, The Masterplan, Talk Tonight, Half The World Away, WPTWOTWOMS?, Champagne Supernova, TIOBI, YGTHOAS, RNRS, Supersonic, Cast No Shadow (and many more) up against "the best of The Who" and Noel wins every single time, for me, anyway. Exactly, FOR YOU. YOU are not the rest of the world. We are Oasis fans...obviously we feel this way about them, but you need to be able to take a step back and be real for a minute. You're telling me Oasis b-sides are gonna be remembered more than "the best of the Who" Are you crazy man? I wanna have an intelligent debate with you, but I can't if you're gonna spit out crap like thisin terms of musical ability, Noel is far more talented than he is given credit for, both by music critics and himself. music critics tend to latch on to a certain image, a headline story, they like to bracket artists and they put Noel & Oasis in the "cheap shot, 60s copy band" bracket. anybody who actually knows anything about music knows that isnt true, but it is the image the (generally relatively thick) music press have given them. i also think that Noel lacks self-confidence, in his opinion of his own musical ability and of his lyric-writing. hence, yes, you can easily find quotes from him and say "look! look! even Noel says it!!". yes, he has made comments which say that others are more talented, but that doesnt make it true.
So the guy who's been known for being arrogant and cocky his whole career is all of a sudden modest? Sorry I don't buy it...Noel is as real as they come and he's telling it like it is. He really is an amazing songwriter, but he's not the best "musician"...although he is vastly talented, I agree.that said, does excellent technical ability necessarily make the best music? are the songs with the most clever, intricate, intelligent chord structures and progressions the greatest songs ever? hmm, i would tend to argue that point pretty heavily. do you like/rate "Imagine"? is that particularly difficult to play? is the music relatively basic, yet amazing?
Obviously some of the greatest songs have been very simple, especially the Beatles...And I never said otherwise. But that doesn't change the fact there's a lot of stuff Noel can't play. He himself admitted Andy's the best guitarist in the band...
regarding influence on other artists - just how many current bands who are enjoying even a modicum of success cite Oasis/Noel as a major, huge influence?!?! answer? loads - i can list the artists and their quotes, if you want, but i am sure you already know. again, it is easier to argue for The Who's influence on music, because their music is older. we are only starting to see the impact of Noel's work on the music scene now. give it 10 years and it will be even more obvious and prominent.
Music today sucks...so if I'm Oasis, I don't even wanna be known as an influence for the garbage out there now. And you're right, it is easier to argue the Who had a greater influence BECAUSE IT"S TRUE. You talk about how untouchable the 60's rock bands are...well there's a reason. They laid the foundation for rock & roll for the past 40 years! So I'll tell ya what...In 25 years, come back to me and let me know the impact Oasis ended up having. Until then, you can't put them in the same legendary class at the Who, Beatles and Stones.you mentioned Liam's voice, comparing it with that of Roger Daltrey's. yes, it is probably fair to say that Liam's voice has peaked, and also that he will probably not re-capture his true greatness of earlier years. three points on this: firstly, hasnt Noel's voice matured and developed greatly? did you hear his semi-acoustic performances? absolutely amazing, GREAT performances, and still "Oasis".
Noel isn't the lead singer! When you start a band, you don't say "hey in 10 years our lead guitarist is gonna have to sing alot of our songs cause our main vocalist will kill his voice." So while I do love Noel's voice, especially on the ballads and acoustic stuff, his voice is not Oasis...Liam's is. You don't refer to Pete Townshend as the voice of the Who...yet does almost the same thing as Noelsecondly, i saw Roger Daltry sing sing relatively recently and he wasnt as good as he was previously, either. thirdly, the easy access to live performances, via youtube and downloads etc make it extremely easy to criticise ANY performer. you simply search until you find a "bad" performance (disregarding the many excellent ones as you do), which is what is popular to do with Liam now. his voice is not as "bad" as it is painted to be (listen to Within You Without You - excellent!!), that is another popular use of bracketing which the music press like to promote/push, and which music fans seem to enjoy following. again, that doesnt make it true. I've listened to Within You Without You a hundred times and no, it's not excellent. To be honest I was disappointed because they could've sounded awesome doing another song (like A Day in the Life). And buddy if I'm you, I don't use that song to prove Liam's voice is not as bad as people make it out to be. the songs which you quote as examples of The Who's greatness and superiority over Oasis are from 1971 (3 of them) and 1973, if i am not mistaken. havent they written a classic song since 1973? if we can go back 35 years in order to "prove" this point then why cant Liam's greatness be proven from the 1990's?
You're missing the point. I'm saying Liam can't even sing songs he sang 5 years ago...What's gonna happen when they're the Who's age? (pretending they're still together) You really think he's gonna be able to sing classics like Champagne Supernova and Live Forever in 20 years? He could hardly do it now! Listen I love Liam, I think he had got one of the top 5 rock voices of all time at his peak...and I know it's blasphomy to you, but he's ruined his voice.you also mentioned about Wonderwall being the only song that Noel/Oasis will be rmbered for!! that is complete nonsense!! maybe in US, but most definitely not in Scotland or UK. Live Forever, Dont Look Back In Anger are two which he would be far better known for here. Yes in the US! That's what you were talking about...Their popularity in America. I'm glad so many Brits know their music, but that's just not how it is here man. So yes, Wonderwall is the only song they will be remembered for here in the US...as much as it fucking sucks, it's just the way it is.although i am not a huge fan, i recognise the greatness of The Who.
No you obviously don't. When you claim Oasis b-sides are better than "the best of the Who", you obviously don't get it. Baba O'Reilly is regularly recognized at a top 5 song of all time and one that revolutioned rock music...and you're trying to tell me Half the World Away, Talk Tonight, Cast No Shadow and YGTHOAS are better? To even compare YGTHOAS and best of the Who is INSANE!! I'm sorry but this is where you lose all credibility dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by inspiredcarpet on Jan 21, 2008 12:33:39 GMT -5
STC, thanks for your detailed response. ill reply later, but it was interesting to see that you missed off The Masterplan from the list of b-sides, when i was apparantly "talking crap". i take it this one DOES rank up there, then? also, most of your points are about popularity, opposed to quality. i was talking about quality - are you arguing that since some of The Who's songs are better known than Oasis', then that makes them better? because that isnt a good argument for me - there are a hell of a lot of well-known songs that are utter drivel, a lot of gash that a lot of people would recognise...... for me, music is about quality, not how many people in the world would be able to sing it. if its about popularity then there is no need for debate whatsoever - simply post the top selling songs of all-time and thats "the greatest songs of all-time", no? for me, no. anyway, ill reply to your points later  |
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Jan 21, 2008 14:29:34 GMT -5
STC, thanks for your detailed response. ill reply later, but it was interesting to see that you missed off The Masterplan from the list of b-sides, when i was apparantly "talking crap". i take it this one DOES rank up there, then? also, most of your points are about popularity, opposed to quality. i was talking about quality - are you arguing that since some of The Who's songs are better known than Oasis', then that makes them better? because that isnt a good argument for me - there are a hell of a lot of well-known songs that are utter drivel, a lot of gash that a lot of people would recognise...... for me, music is about quality, not how many people in the world would be able to sing it. if its about popularity then there is no need for debate whatsoever - simply post the top selling songs of all-time and thats "the greatest songs of all-time", no? for me, no. anyway, ill reply to your points later You're right I left The Masterplan out on purpose, because I do think it's maybe they're best ever song. It's not your normal b-side if you know what i mean... And the only time I really brought up popularity was in reference to how unknown they are in America. Believe me I'll take quality over popularity ANY DAY...but it is a factor when you reach a certain level. Do I think Fall Out Boy is better than Oasis because they get about 10000000000 times more airplay here? Obviously not...To be honest I almost made my self laugh saying FOB and Oasis in the same sentence. So when I mention how the Who are responsible what's recognized as a top song of all time, it's not based on popularity. It's like saying the only reason Stairway to Heaven is considered to be maybe the best song of all time is because so many people like it...Well it's a great song, obviously alot of people like it. Fact is there are a handful of songs that are almost always at the top of the greatest rock songs of all time chart. Q104 does it here in NY every year and it's always the same songs in the top 5. Hey Jude Stairway to Heaven Layla Baba O'Reilly Bohemian Rhapsody Free Bird FIVE of those bands are English...so it's not like it's just an American vs. Brit thing. Those songs are always regarded as the greatest of all time (almost EVERYWHERE)...because of QUALITY, not popularity like you were talking about. The popularity thing comes in when I'm talking about why Americans only know Wonderwall and not amazing song like Champagne Supernova, Live Forever, The Masterplan, etc...I'd say most know Wonderwall, some know DLBIA, and that's about it. I pray Universal really pushes our boys in the US as far as promotion and everything is concerned. However I just don't think they could ever make it here. Oasis is about being real, telling it exactly how it is, being politcally incorrect, and of course the endless cursing...which is why we love them! Problem being that stuff doesn't fly in the American music industry. Here you gotta pay the money and play the game...which is a travesty and embarassment. They would never be allowed on TV because Liam can't go half a song or interview without changing the words or cursing, plus they tend to say those politcally incorrect things that the corporate suits frown on. Believe me man I fucking hate the way things are here and how corrupt and phoney the music industry has become...And unfortunately I can't see Oasis having much success here again because of that. Not to mention the youth in the country is obsessed with garbage rap and "urban pop" that's taken over top 40 radio. Everywhere I turn, I hear drum machines, stolen samples from great classic rock songs, and zero talent. As sad as it is, there's no way the Beatles woud have ever made it here today |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 24, 2008 21:39:42 GMT -5
Zak is the drummer
Get the fuck out with your essays
No Zak is not Whitey (or White. I'm not that close to him to know if he likes to be called Whitey) But he plays some good pounding drums
What you all should be worrying about is how bad Liam is live. Not how the fucking drummer doesn't play a few songs differently than what you like
|
|
|
|
Post by sneekylyric078 on Feb 2, 2008 18:44:11 GMT -5
Not sure if this is set in stone, but didn't they pay off Bonehead to officially leave the band as well as the licensing company that the band set up ? That would leave room for Zak to join the band as a full fledged member not only as a performer, but also as a memeber of the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elan Morin Tedronai on Feb 3, 2008 5:54:36 GMT -5
White is better drummer than Zak. No discussions, no arguing about that.
The drummer is as important as any other member of the band. I am having a songwriting knack as well as drumming too.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacoste on Feb 3, 2008 8:50:46 GMT -5
White is better drummer than Zak. No discussions, no arguing about that. Totally disagree. Zak Starkey is one of the best drummers in the world, and totally improved Oasis as a live band in the 2005/2006 tour. Alan White is a good drummer, not great. Saw the Who last summer at Wembley and Zak was absolutely immense. No previous Oasis drummer is in the same league as him. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey on Feb 3, 2008 10:21:06 GMT -5
White is better drummer than Zak. No discussions, no arguing about that. Totally disagree. Zak Starkey is one of the best drummers in the world, and totally improved Oasis as a live band in the 2005/2006 tour. Alan White is a good drummer, not great. Saw the Who last summer at Wembley and Zak was absolutely immense. No previous Oasis drummer is in the same league as him. Aboslutely correct! Technically, Zak shits on Alan, but their styles are different. Its fine for some people to say that they prefer Whitey's style to Zak's, but to say that he's a superior drummer is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by henrod89 on Feb 13, 2008 20:43:19 GMT -5
"#1- Like I said before, I'm not trying to downplay what Oasis have done..."STC, for someone that doesn't want to downplay what Oasis have done, you sure give it a good go.....
That's really not necessary...
ok, to reply to your points. in many ways, it is easier to "big up" The Who when comparing them to Oasis, as they are older and from the 60s - an era of music which is generally regarded as untouchable and excluded from any (negative) analysis or criticism. I think there's some truth to thatforgetting which era the artists are from, just taking the music on it's own, Noel Gallagher/Oasis has written more classic songs and his songs are, in my opinion, far superior to those of The Who. put DLBIA, Live Forever, Slide Away, The Masterplan, Talk Tonight, Half The World Away, WPTWOTWOMS?, Champagne Supernova, TIOBI, YGTHOAS, RNRS, Supersonic, Cast No Shadow (and many more) up against "the best of The Who" and Noel wins every single time, for me, anyway. Exactly, FOR YOU. YOU are not the rest of the world. We are Oasis fans...obviously we feel this way about them, but you need to be able to take a step back and be real for a minute. You're telling me Oasis b-sides are gonna be remembered more than "the best of the Who" Are you crazy man? I wanna have an intelligent debate with you, but I can't if you're gonna spit out crap like thisin terms of musical ability, Noel is far more talented than he is given credit for, both by music critics and himself. music critics tend to latch on to a certain image, a headline story, they like to bracket artists and they put Noel & Oasis in the "cheap shot, 60s copy band" bracket. anybody who actually knows anything about music knows that isnt true, but it is the image the (generally relatively thick) music press have given them. i also think that Noel lacks self-confidence, in his opinion of his own musical ability and of his lyric-writing. hence, yes, you can easily find quotes from him and say "look! look! even Noel says it!!". yes, he has made comments which say that others are more talented, but that doesnt make it true.
So the guy who's been known for being arrogant and cocky his whole career is all of a sudden modest? Sorry I don't buy it...Noel is as real as they come and he's telling it like it is. He really is an amazing songwriter, but he's not the best "musician"...although he is vastly talented, I agree.that said, does excellent technical ability necessarily make the best music? are the songs with the most clever, intricate, intelligent chord structures and progressions the greatest songs ever? hmm, i would tend to argue that point pretty heavily. do you like/rate "Imagine"? is that particularly difficult to play? is the music relatively basic, yet amazing?
Obviously some of the greatest songs have been very simple, especially the Beatles...And I never said otherwise. But that doesn't change the fact there's a lot of stuff Noel can't play. He himself admitted Andy's the best guitarist in the band...
regarding influence on other artists - just how many current bands who are enjoying even a modicum of success cite Oasis/Noel as a major, huge influence?!?! answer? loads - i can list the artists and their quotes, if you want, but i am sure you already know. again, it is easier to argue for The Who's influence on music, because their music is older. we are only starting to see the impact of Noel's work on the music scene now. give it 10 years and it will be even more obvious and prominent.
Music today sucks...so if I'm Oasis, I don't even wanna be known as an influence for the garbage out there now. And you're right, it is easier to argue the Who had a greater influence BECAUSE IT"S TRUE. You talk about how untouchable the 60's rock bands are...well there's a reason. They laid the foundation for rock & roll for the past 40 years! So I'll tell ya what...In 25 years, come back to me and let me know the impact Oasis ended up having. Until then, you can't put them in the same legendary class at the Who, Beatles and Stones.you mentioned Liam's voice, comparing it with that of Roger Daltrey's. yes, it is probably fair to say that Liam's voice has peaked, and also that he will probably not re-capture his true greatness of earlier years. three points on this: firstly, hasnt Noel's voice matured and developed greatly? did you hear his semi-acoustic performances? absolutely amazing, GREAT performances, and still "Oasis".
Noel isn't the lead singer! When you start a band, you don't say "hey in 10 years our lead guitarist is gonna have to sing alot of our songs cause our main vocalist will kill his voice." So while I do love Noel's voice, especially on the ballads and acoustic stuff, his voice is not Oasis...Liam's is. You don't refer to Pete Townshend as the voice of the Who...yet does almost the same thing as Noelsecondly, i saw Roger Daltry sing sing relatively recently and he wasnt as good as he was previously, either. thirdly, the easy access to live performances, via youtube and downloads etc make it extremely easy to criticise ANY performer. you simply search until you find a "bad" performance (disregarding the many excellent ones as you do), which is what is popular to do with Liam now. his voice is not as "bad" as it is painted to be (listen to Within You Without You - excellent!!), that is another popular use of bracketing which the music press like to promote/push, and which music fans seem to enjoy following. again, that doesnt make it true. I've listened to Within You Without You a hundred times and no, it's not excellent. To be honest I was disappointed because they could've sounded awesome doing another song (like A Day in the Life). And buddy if I'm you, I don't use that song to prove Liam's voice is not as bad as people make it out to be. the songs which you quote as examples of The Who's greatness and superiority over Oasis are from 1971 (3 of them) and 1973, if i am not mistaken. havent they written a classic song since 1973? if we can go back 35 years in order to "prove" this point then why cant Liam's greatness be proven from the 1990's?
You're missing the point. I'm saying Liam can't even sing songs he sang 5 years ago...What's gonna happen when they're the Who's age? (pretending they're still together) You really think he's gonna be able to sing classics like Champagne Supernova and Live Forever in 20 years? He could hardly do it now! Listen I love Liam, I think he had got one of the top 5 rock voices of all time at his peak...and I know it's blasphomy to you, but he's ruined his voice.you also mentioned about Wonderwall being the only song that Noel/Oasis will be rmbered for!! that is complete nonsense!! maybe in US, but most definitely not in Scotland or UK. Live Forever, Dont Look Back In Anger are two which he would be far better known for here. Yes in the US! That's what you were talking about...Their popularity in America. I'm glad so many Brits know their music, but that's just not how it is here man. So yes, Wonderwall is the only song they will be remembered for here in the US...as much as it fucking sucks, it's just the way it is.although i am not a huge fan, i recognise the greatness of The Who.
No you obviously don't. When you claim Oasis b-sides are better than "the best of the Who", you obviously don't get it. Baba O'Reilly is regularly recognized at a top 5 song of all time and one that revolutioned rock music...and you're trying to tell me Half the World Away, Talk Tonight, Cast No Shadow and YGTHOAS are better? To even compare YGTHOAS and best of the Who is INSANE!! I'm sorry but this is wher
Look I appreciate how you feel, as I too feel very similar in most ways about Oasis...but you have to draw a line when you have to stop being an Oasis fan and look at it objectively I just wanted to say that I totally agree with you STC. I think inspiredcarpet is going a little overboard. Oasis are great. But they just aren't above those other bands. I doubt you and other members will agree when I say my next statement, but, I usually compare Oasis to Nirvana. Obviously not in their musical styles. But in the sense of what they did for their generation. I do think Oasis are a much better band. Honestly, I don't like Nirvana. Musically, I think Nirvana are a bit overrated. But there is no doubt that both of them had a huge impact on music at that point. Is Oasis still relevant ? Sure. But nowhere near like they were in the 90s. And Zak isn't being disrespectful at all. It would be 'disrespectful' to tell a great songwriter/band that you are committed when inside, you aren't. That's just my deuce cents . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Francis Xavier Cross on Feb 13, 2008 21:09:10 GMT -5
You all need to hug it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dearprudence on Feb 13, 2008 22:28:17 GMT -5
I think you're being a little ridiculous. I mean the guy passed up a chance to become The Who's permanent drummer just so he could play with Oasis. And as much as I love Oasis (and yes they're my favorite band like you I'm sure), but The Who are on a different level than Oasis. So I can't get upset when he says the same thing to Noel that he said to Pete Townshend. As far as his drumming goes...although I admit I didn't really like his style at first, it's really started to grow on me. The only song son DBTT that I don't particularly like his drumming on is Lyla...primarily because I just find the whole 4 4 really boring. The drum tracks kicked ass on POTQ, TIOBI, KTDA, ABWR, and LLAB...And I truly believe Alan White wouldn't have come close to Zak on those 5 songs hmmm, i wouldnt say that The Who are on a different level to Oasis, at all - they are simply older!! again, if Noel Gallagher asks someone to join, then they should join! if they dont, fair enough, but that should be the opportunity gone, in my mind. it is disrespectful to say to the greatest songwriter and artist of all-time "nah, cant do it just now, maybe later". in terms of musical ability, yeah, hes very good. not sure if hes better than Alan White, but he is very good. Alan White didnt leave due to "technical ability issues", though, did he? so its not purely about that. not if you are the son of Ringo Starr, im sure Zak can pee Noel's front door and still get asked to play  |
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Feb 13, 2008 23:38:32 GMT -5
You can't compare Zak to Alan. Their styles are too different. I'm a drummer and both are just so different. Alan is much more bouncer and jazzy. Zak is just straight up rock n roll. Alan's style always seemed fine to me. Supersonic's intro was amazing. His intro to Roll With It is brilliant. They both do a fine cover of My Generation but Zak has the upper hand on that one. They are also close on the outro to Rock N Roll Star. In Songs like wonderwall i think alan's got Zak, its just so smooth and groovy and layered with ghost notes. Zak is better on rockers. Both are great drummers and you can't deny that. Probably top ten in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by sneekylyric078 on Feb 14, 2008 1:53:31 GMT -5
If Zak can easily fit in the same boots that Keith moon used to fill, he was his first teacher after all, then I think that Zak would be welcome in any band.
|
|
Are you crazy man? I wanna have an intelligent debate with you, but I can't if you're gonna spit out crap like this
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5