|
|
Post by Elan Morin Tedronai on Jun 7, 2005 16:18:18 GMT -5
I know, you'll start to flame on me, but before that listen to my words. I'm posting it here on a separate topic, partly because I know that the majority likes the record and praises it.
For me Oasis released good... album. Yeah, good is it. But yet again I'm very disappointed. It's 44 minutes long. Yeah, yeah I know - the size doesn't matter, but yet again we've waited for three fucking years, and Oasis are giving us something utterly small. Which is shite. Very, very fucking shite.
I may be musing about Whitey's return, he is a great drummer, great influence on my own drumming courses. I was disappointed a bit with his leaving, but was enlightened with Zak joining them and the fact that they have so many tunes in their pocket. "that's spirit, motherfuckers!" I thought that after three long, fucking years they'll give us something big. Something full of great tracks. Something about an hour or so, that I could listen a couple of weeks? And now what? I'm fucking it off, I've listened it 6 times, there is nothing new I don't know about. Great tunes, great producing, good drumming. But too short. And I think that Oasis owed us much more than this half-album for me. They owed us something 50-55 minutes long record. I'm not asking for something ala Be Here Now, or more long ballads like Gaz Panic!, SCYHO or Roll it Over. Just plain rockers. Just a couple of tracks more. Two or three more songs. Is it so much we are asking for? After three years and 11 years, Oasis come up with their shorter record?
The main problem (among others) with SotSoG and tHC were that there were lesser songs and tunes on them. Here the band are fucking it up yet again and even give us less minutes. And I'm fucking pissed off and I won't bother anymore listening to it. I think that we deserved more of this record...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bizzle on Jun 7, 2005 16:38:32 GMT -5
Don't worry bout it mate everyone has a right to free speech so who cares if people start hatin on you. I disagree by the way. Sure it's only 44 mins but DM AND WTSMG were only 5 mins longer. And sometimes the best stuff comes in at a short running time. Thriller is 35 mins but is a classic. Dangerous came 4 years after Bad and was 77 minutes and shit. You get me.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoelandMeMay29 on Jun 7, 2005 17:41:51 GMT -5
Add tracks 6 & 11 to MG and we're about equal.
Some of my favorite albums are between 35-45 minutes.
Smashing Pumpkins double cd 'Mellon Collie" ended it for them.
Too over the top.
Give me Gish or Siamese Dream anyday.
|
|
|
|
Post by zunoasis on Jun 7, 2005 18:22:45 GMT -5
you won't get any flaming from me either. I thought DBTT was a bit of letdown after waiting 3 years as well. And I really don't like the fact that the band has become a sort of revolving door for it's musicians. I don't think it's any coincidence that they started slipping after Bonehead and Guigsy left.
Some people love the album and I respect their opinion 100%. I just hope those same people respect ours!
|
|
|
|
Post by rockandroll on Jun 7, 2005 19:07:23 GMT -5
I like it the way it is to be honest...if you want more songs you'll have some b-sides...albums should be taken as a whole and a work of art...if they had tucked in more songs, the whole thing could've been a drag to listen...
Besides, I much rather quality than quantity, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's are about 35 minutes each...I'm not saying DBTT is as good as those but you get the point...
And it could be worse, ti could be like the new Weezer album...imagine their fans' dissipontment...crappy album and extra short...the whole thing is done in the time it takes to microwave a burrito....oh no, wait...Weezer's new album is longer than DBTT!!...that's hilarious!!...Weezer albums were never longer than 30 minutes!!!....well, their album is utter crap anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by montrealmike on Jun 7, 2005 19:09:27 GMT -5
you won't get any flaming from me either. I thought DBTT was a bit of letdown after waiting 3 years as well. And I really don't like the fact that the band has become a sort of revolving door for it's musicians. I don't think it's any coincidence that they started slipping after Bonehead and Guigsy left. Some people love the album and I respect their opinion 100%. I just hope those same people respect ours! Please say you're not serious about corelating Oasis's demise with the departure of Bonehead and Guigsy. Gem and Andy Bell are 10x better musicians than those lads (God love 'em). Oasis is a band that represented the youth. Now, Noel is close to 40 and Liam has 7 or 8 kids. Oasis have had to change their music because they cannot write 'Stay Young', 'D'yer wanna be a spaceman', 'Married with Children' forever. They have had to change their style and use more of their influences besides the Beatles. |
|
|
|
Post by rtilden on Jun 7, 2005 19:26:15 GMT -5
Every record will be sort of a letdown after two near perfect records to compare them to, altho i think DBTT is greatness. Oasis put the bar so high for themselves to follow up with. We expect perfection because of DM & WTSMG, but can't always get it. The same thing happens with the Stones. You can;t compare new material to near perfect records like Sticky Fingers and Exile. Im sure their new record will be great, but not another Exile on Main Street.
As for the length, I do kinda agree that another 5 or so minutes would be great, but if they felt that those 11 songs had the best flow to them, we'll have to accept that judgement
|
|
|
|
Post by Elan Morin Tedronai on Jun 8, 2005 1:13:19 GMT -5
Yeah, but... you see guys, for me there is no particular theme in that record as well. We all know that Oasis don't generally make conceptual records. Maybe I'm to blame, but yet again I think that those b-sides on Lyla could be easily put here. 50 minutes - 13 songs, I'll be happy about it. But, yet we get this half of record. It sould've more songs. It's too short for my tastes. There is nothing more I can listen to after 6 times listening to it.
Yet, again my main hope is that after they are closing their page of Oasis Mark II with this record, that their next records of Oasis Mark III will be bigger, crisper and better than this albums.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Jun 8, 2005 1:40:14 GMT -5
You don't want an album going for too long
|
|
|
|
Post by Elan Morin Tedronai on Jun 8, 2005 2:58:16 GMT -5
that's what I really want in fact. I love R.E.M.'s "New Adventures In Hi-Fi" and "Up", which sprawl over an hour, but are great records nevertheless. great, sprawling, ambitious. with lot of great songs in them. really great records. and you see ma'am I don't rant for "Be Here Now 2", I rant for a couple of songs more on this particular record. that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockandroll on Jun 8, 2005 3:04:07 GMT -5
Ok, we all get your point...but what's done is done...just try to enjoy it  |
|
|
|
Post by zunoasis on Jun 8, 2005 17:40:07 GMT -5
you won't get any flaming from me either. I thought DBTT was a bit of letdown after waiting 3 years as well. And I really don't like the fact that the band has become a sort of revolving door for it's musicians. I don't think it's any coincidence that they started slipping after Bonehead and Guigsy left. Some people love the album and I respect their opinion 100%. I just hope those same people respect ours! Please say you're not serious about corelating Oasis's demise with the departure of Bonehead and Guigsy. Gem and Andy Bell are 10x better musicians than those lads (God love 'em). Oasis is a band that represented the youth. Now, Noel is close to 40 and Liam has 7 or 8 kids. Oasis have had to change their music because they cannot write 'Stay Young', 'D'yer wanna be a spaceman', 'Married with Children' forever. They have had to change their style and use more of their influences besides the Beatles. In a way, yes. For me personally, the first 3 albums are my favorites, with the last two at the bottom of the list. And if you look at it from a commercial and critical standpoint, the same can be said. Obviously those two guys didn't write the songs, but when I think of the Oasis I was introduced to in 95 and followed at the height of it all, it'll always include Bonehead and Guigs. To me it's not so much a matter of who the better musicians were, rather who embodied the "Oasis spirit" |
|
|
|
Post by Guess God Thinks I'm Cain on Jun 8, 2005 21:39:50 GMT -5
you won't get any flaming from me either. I thought DBTT was a bit of letdown after waiting 3 years as well. And I really don't like the fact that the band has become a sort of revolving door for it's musicians. I don't think it's any coincidence that they started slipping after Bonehead and Guigsy left. Some people love the album and I respect their opinion 100%. I just hope those same people respect ours! Please say you're not serious about corelating Oasis's demise with the departure of Bonehead and Guigsy. Gem and Andy Bell are 10x better musicians than those lads (God love 'em). Oasis is a band that represented the youth. Now, Noel is close to 40 and Liam has 7 or 8 kids. Oasis have had to change their music because they cannot write 'Stay Young', 'D'yer wanna be a spaceman', 'Married with Children' forever. They have had to change their style and use more of their influences besides the Beatles. Yup. Well said. We are all in the middle of the 'reinvention' of Oasis. |
|
|
|
Post by rdwngthirty on Jun 8, 2005 22:03:24 GMT -5
noel said he was going to make it longer, but he didnt want the sony fucks to get their hands on too many songs
|
|
|
|
Post by Cidaror on Jun 9, 2005 12:57:26 GMT -5
You're an idiot.
|
|
dollylovesg
Madferrit Fan
Because people believe that they're going to get away for the summer...
Posts: 78
|
Post by dollylovesg on Jun 9, 2005 16:11:15 GMT -5
I think its quite perfect as it is too, but I'm greedy and I do see the point of asking for more! They did say they had tons of tunes and I think they could have afforded a double album perhaps - or whatever happened to releasing a single/EP that wasn't on an album? The Beatles used to do that, to give people value for their money. Someone said that Revolover and Sgt Peppers weren't very long either, which is fair comment, but The Beatles did bring out an album more or less every year. And I can also see the point of not wanting Sony to own too much, but thats the nature of the beast at the moment unfortunatly. Contract's up soon, though, eh? Lets have another album in 2006! (Please)
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint on Jun 9, 2005 16:41:42 GMT -5
I think Pass me down the WIne should have been included in it, and maybe Eyeball Tickler
|
|
|
|
Post by astonvillascotty on Jun 10, 2005 0:07:31 GMT -5
dbbt is the most solid album since be here now.
sotsog was ok... but i still cannot believe how heathen chemistry got good reviews. apart from scyho and songbird - it is the most aweful sounding album i have ever heard!
dbbt has a strong theme lying through it and no band has produced a sound that resembles anything like it in previous years (the la's come to mind).
the reason they didnt put too many songs on there was because they didnt want to give sony all the credit. and thats a fact. i think a double album is on its way within the next album or two.
in regards to the shortness of the album, it is a tiny bit short... but i still think the album is complete. (although iam really curious to hear stop the clocks - which noel said was his best song he had written in years)
the only song on the album which is flawed is mucky fingers - i just dont get it and find it is out of place.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5