redlandsman87
Oasis Roadie
Because something is happening here, But you don't know what it is...Do you, Mister Jones ?
Posts: 321
|
Post by redlandsman87 on Jan 31, 2011 15:01:12 GMT -5
You mean to say Liam or Gem used a piano in a musical recording? Unacceptable, Lennon and the Beatles played pianos! Off with their heads, the plagiarists!
|
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Jan 31, 2011 15:05:11 GMT -5
You mean to say Liam or Gem used a piano in a musical recording? Unacceptable, Lennon and the Beatles played pianos! Off with their heads, the plagiarists! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by frjdoasis on Jan 31, 2011 15:09:46 GMT -5
Fantastic! BDI are the real deal! Cheers from an Italian madforit
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Sifter on Jan 31, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
You mean to say Liam or Gem used a piano in a musical recording? Unacceptable, Lennon and the Beatles played pianos! Off with their heads, the plagiarists! I think some people are looking fore BE to sound like oasis. Some people just want to hear Liam sing with a great band... And some people want something completely new and different, like this: ;D |
|
|
|
Post by start at the end on Jan 31, 2011 15:38:03 GMT -5
Hats off to these people who take the time to go over John Lennon's entire discography with a fine tooth comb looking for a song that sounds similar to a new Beady eye song. Yawn! Sounds ok though, will need to hear the full song a good few times to make my mind up on it. tool: you hardly have to comb over anything. It's off a well-known LP. And if you think anyone's sweating-over JL albums looking for similarities you're about as fucked as some of these other gourds who seem to have no album in their collection that extends past 1991. Reading these "arguments" that it's perfectly ok for a song to be 80% derivative (after all, ALL pop/rock music is, lol) is about as worthless as listening to some ignorant asshole fumble and cobble together some logic-defying drivel that attempts to legitimize stealing music off the internet. Ok. Nothing's at least "mostly" original in the pop rock world, then. All great rock band's songs sound just like anothers, somewhere- minus tempo and lyrics, and worse, they all have a tendency to thieve from one fucking source over, and over, and over. Got it. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Jan 31, 2011 15:47:58 GMT -5
Well i've listened to that album and it didn't register with me until you mentioned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Monobrow on Jan 31, 2011 15:50:17 GMT -5
It sounds alright although I can pretty much confirm that its not 'Show Me Your love' as some people speculated. Not unless the song takes a massive turn anyway. The only time that speculation will end is if the song ever gets completed and released. Until then we'll see the question being asked on every single piece of music Liam Gallagher ever releases. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Jan 31, 2011 15:53:05 GMT -5
Hats off to these people who take the time to go over John Lennon's entire discography with a fine tooth comb looking for a song that sounds similar to a new Beady eye song. Yawn! Sounds ok though, will need to hear the full song a good few times to make my mind up on it. tool: you hardly have to comb over anything. It's off a well-known LP. And if you think anyone's sweating-over JL albums looking for similarities you're about as fucked as some of these other gourds who seem to have no album in their collection that extends past 1991. Reading these "arguments" that it's perfectly ok for a song to be 80% derivative (after all, ALL pop/rock music is, lol) is about as worthless as listening to some ignorant asshole fumble and cobble together some logic-defying argument that attempts to legitimize stealing music off the internet. Ok. Nothing's at least "mostly"original in the pop rock world, then. All great rock band's songs sound just like anothers, somewhere- minus tempo and lyrics, and worse, they all have a tendency to theive from one fucking source over, and over, and over. Got it. Carry on. Your post was a lot better before you edited it and put all that shit in. The reason you don't probably notice it as much with other bands is because you arn't aware of the artists they were borrowing from. The Beatles and Lennon still loom large and are in many of our record collections so we see it. People don't always see a band like led zeps steals because they don't listen to 40's and 50's music. Where did you get 80% Was this a mathimatical calculation? |
|
|
|
Post by ruchin on Jan 31, 2011 16:22:41 GMT -5
Liam named his son Lennon, what were you guys expecting? Music influenced by Lady Gaga?
And having music influenced by the Beatles is a very, very good thing in my mind
|
|
|
|
Post by songbirdsally on Jan 31, 2011 16:37:37 GMT -5
I've got no problem with some influences if they are as descent as The Beatles and stuff  Oasis are the reason I got into the Beatles (with I Am The Walrus). And I still thank them for that.  |
|
|
|
Post by wonderplan on Jan 31, 2011 16:50:34 GMT -5
it's funny how no one ever seems to cite where the fab four "borrowed" much of their music but god forbid when someone is influenced by them. personally i'm enjoying the ride that is Beady Eye thus far & this is exactly the kind of music i was expecting. if any of you were honestly expecting these guys to put out anything but you need to have your head checked.
|
|
|
|
Post by songbirdsally on Jan 31, 2011 17:06:30 GMT -5
it's funny how no one ever seems to cite where the fab four "borrowed" much of their music but god forbid when someone is influenced by them. personally i'm enjoying the ride that is Beady Eye thus far & this is exactly the kind of music i was expecting. if any of you were honestly expecting these guys to put out anything but you need to have your head checked. Yeah that's so true! Everyone seems to forget they actually stole & borrowed a lot from other artists. Even more then Oasis I think. For exemple from Chuck Berry! They even had to do covers from him to make up for that (that's why they covered Roll Over Beethoven & other stuff!) |
|
|
|
Post by panhead on Jan 31, 2011 17:35:38 GMT -5
Nice one! My favourite of the b-sides yet going by this taster.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver909 on Jan 31, 2011 17:57:25 GMT -5
i want to enjoy the album , so its best not to come on here untill the release , some of you are just way to critical and dismissive
|
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Jan 31, 2011 18:22:59 GMT -5
How do people not get the difference between taking influence and just taking stuff? Personally, the Lennon bites don't bother me, but no one said to not be influenced by The Beatles or John Lennon. Just don't take Imagine, switch up the arrangement a bit, write new lyrics, and call it a new song.
That's what they're saying. How so many in this thread don't get that I'll never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by theultimatewannabe on Jan 31, 2011 21:42:57 GMT -5
This is the first time I'm not digging a new BDI song. We've already heard this type of tune before and I really hope there's a good chorus in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkoasis on Jan 31, 2011 21:53:58 GMT -5
It sounds alright although I can pretty much confirm that its not 'Show Me Your love' as some people speculated. Not unless the song takes a massive turn anyway. The only time that speculation will end is if the song ever gets completed and released. Until then we'll see the question being asked on every single piece of music Liam Gallagher ever releases. LoL. My thoughts exactly Mono. When we start to hear about Noel's album, the "If there's a God" speculation will surely begin. |
|
keazu
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 165
|
Post by keazu on Jan 31, 2011 22:33:58 GMT -5
Think it sounds like shit, honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jan 31, 2011 23:05:30 GMT -5
Wow! A lot about BDI stealing from Lennon. lol When I listened to the BDI song for the first time, Remember did pop into my head. I some what mind that its a bit of a rip, but I think some people need to stop assuming that its because its the Beatles, that people got pissed of say at the Roller rip or this song.
I seem to remember people getting just as pissed off when they thought BTL was taken from Jerry Lee Lewis, so that really doesnt matter. (well it might matter, but not as much as people think. To think that everyone who is pissed at them for ripping off, is only pissed because its the Beatles.)
Its getting as bad as when people say, "I dont like this song from BDI", and then some one spouts back "its because you were expecting an Oasis sound."
For me personally it depends on the quality of the song. If this song was better than Remember, I personally wouldnt give a shit if it were ripped off, if the Roller was even close to being IK, then I wouldnt give a shit. But when a song isnt as good as the song that it was ripped off from, then of course people are gonna get pissed that it was ripped off.
I want great quality. When I get great quality, then I tend to overlook things, such as ripping off. Thats just me. This is just my personal opinion when it comes to myself. I like the Roller, but I probably wouldnt care about it sounding like IK as much as I do, if it were a better song than presently constituted.
Yeah everyone rips off and chord progressions get used over and over again and are driven into the ground. But in the end, its what you do with what you rip off. BDI has released some okay songs, some good songs, but imo they havent released anything of tremendous quality. Which is probably why I care a bit more about who they're taking from. At the end of the day, you make a 9-9.5/10 (imo, BDI has not made a 9/10 song, that reserved for really really really good songs) song, no one really gives a shit, but if you make a 7-8/10 song, then questions about ripping off usually rise up.
|
|
|
|
Post by start at the end on Feb 1, 2011 10:45:55 GMT -5
tool: you hardly have to comb over anything. It's off a well-known LP. And if you think anyone's sweating-over JL albums looking for similarities you're about as fucked as some of these other gourds who seem to have no album in their collection that extends past 1991. Reading these "arguments" that it's perfectly ok for a song to be 80% derivative (after all, ALL pop/rock music is, lol) is about as worthless as listening to some ignorant asshole fumble and cobble together some logic-defying argument that attempts to legitimize stealing music off the internet. Ok. Nothing's at least "mostly"original in the pop rock world, then. All great rock band's songs sound just like anothers, somewhere- minus tempo and lyrics, and worse, they all have a tendency to theive from one fucking source over, and over, and over. Got it. Carry on. Your post was a lot better before you edited it and put all that shit in. The reason you don't probably notice it as much with other bands is because you arn't aware of the artists they were borrowing from. The Beatles and Lennon still loom large and are in many of our record collections so we see it. People don't always see a band like led zeps steals because they don't listen to 40's and 50's music. Where did you get 80% Was this a mathimatical calculation? Yeah, that's it...I'm not aware of the artists any other artists borrow from. christ. and it's "mathematical", btw. |
|
|
|
Post by start at the end on Feb 1, 2011 10:50:59 GMT -5
How do people not get the difference between taking influence and just taking stuff? Personally, the Lennon bites don't bother me, but no one said to not be influenced by The Beatles or John Lennon. Just don't take Imagine, switch up the arrangement a bit, write new lyrics, and call it a new song. That's what they're saying. How so many in this thread don't get that I'll never know. good luck, my friend. With this lot of dunder-headed apologists (thankfully a manageable number) it's (making a distinction between "influenced" and "infiltrated") akin to pushing a cement-truck up a hill while wearing banana-skin feet. they'll fall all over themselves reasoning it all away. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Feb 1, 2011 14:34:35 GMT -5
Once again, you have to ask yourselves: do you want new, exciting, experimental music that has little commercial success and is forgettable musically, or do you want a band with good songs which resemble Beatles tunes but are good, catchy and commercially successfull?
If anybody thinks BDI is too derivative, I can't understand why he listens to Oasis.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 1, 2011 14:37:51 GMT -5
Once again, you have to ask yourselves: do you want new, exciting, experimental music that has little commercial success and is forgettable musically, or do you want a band with good songs which resemble Beatles tunes but are good, catchy and commercially successfull? If anybody thinks BDI is too derivative, I can't understand why he listens to Oasis. I think the Velvet Underground and the Stooges have proven that you dont need commercial success in order to be remembered musically. You can be experimental, not be successful, and still be remembered musically. I mean in the end, Jimi Hendrix was only a 1 hit wonder.  |
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Feb 1, 2011 14:39:59 GMT -5
^ You're still missing the point. It's not influence that people are taking issue with. It's what they perceive (not me) as nicking parts of songs to the point where it's impossible to separate the two. It can be annoying if a song never gets its own life because it just makes you want to listen to a different song that pops in your head.
Disclaimer: I will listen to any artist that writes good songs, regardless of how influenced they are by ANY band. The Beatles will never be topped, so if you want to be influenced by them, go right ahead.
To sum up:
1. There's a difference between taking influence and taking parts of songs from other bands.
2. I don't think Beady Eye has crossed that line too much.
3. Others do.
4. No one's saying that Beady Eye needs to reinvent the wheel. If they write in the style of some band (let's say The Beatles, for simplicity's sake) no one here will complain, as long as it doesn't remind of ONE PARTICULAR SONG.
Clear?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Feb 1, 2011 14:41:58 GMT -5
Once again, you have to ask yourselves: do you want new, exciting, experimental music that has little commercial success and is forgettable musically, or do you want a band with good songs which resemble Beatles tunes but are good, catchy and commercially successfull? If anybody thinks BDI is too derivative, I can't understand why he listens to Oasis. I think the Velvet Underground and the Stooges have proven that you dont need commercial success in order to be remembered musically. You can be experimental, not be successful, and still be remembered musically. I mean in the end, Jimi Hendrix was only a 1 hit wonder. To add onto that, Big Star was a great example of a band who was catchy, was not commercially successful, and DID find an audience generations later. I really think most people on this forum see things in the blackest of blacks and the whitest of whites. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5