|
|
Post by webm@ster on Jun 27, 2011 8:26:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by manualex on Jun 27, 2011 8:32:36 GMT -5
So, with that formula Liam was more important to Oasis than he is to BDI?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bring It On Dan on Jun 27, 2011 9:46:27 GMT -5
How did you have Liam being better live than Noel, not having that.
|
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Jun 27, 2011 9:56:39 GMT -5
How did you have Liam being better live than Noel, not having that. That's our writer's opinion, he would love your feedback . Leave him a comment below the article if you have a second, cheers |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jun 27, 2011 10:48:56 GMT -5
I thought the article was great. Satisfies the nerd in me for sure.
I'm gonna through those numbers out next time a Noel v. Liam argument breaks out. "Come on guys! We all know it's been mathematically proven than Noel was twice as much of a loss than Liam."
|
|
|
|
Post by joeyfrancis on Jun 27, 2011 13:55:00 GMT -5
As both a huge Oasis fan and huge baseball/sabrmetrics nerd, I thought this article was awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by mezmerised on Jun 27, 2011 15:19:46 GMT -5
I'm gonna through those numbers out next time a Noel v. Liam argument breaks out. "Come on guys! We all know it's been mathematically proven than Noel was twice as much of a loss than Liam." ;D But seriously, hasn't that always been the case, that - on paper at least - it looks like Noel was so much more important than anyone else in Oasis, including Liam? I think this is what all those 'Noel Gallagher IS Oasis!!!' people on Youtube etc are on about anyway but I can't really see it like that. The thing is that songwriting gets such a huge amount of points (as it should) and Noel gets practically all those points in Oasis (also well-deserved) that it's impossible for Liam to compete with that. But what Liam brought to the band cannot really be measured that well. Noel has once said that Liam doesn't have a specific role in the studio but that when he's there he is kind of like a spirit ;D either making you feel that you're doing the greatest album ever or something completely shit, depending on what mood he is in. It sounds a bit crazy but I can totally see some truth in that. And obviously that is an influence on the music that can't really be counted. Plus stage presence isn't included enough here and in the beginning Noel didn't have any and Liam always had in in spades. Today Noel looks really good on stage as well but it took him a while to get there. My points would go something like this: Noel 40, Liam 40, rest of the band 20 (Bonehead gets 10 out of those 20 alone and Gem gets a bit more than the others out of the final 10). But I haven't yet worked out a pseudo-scientific system to justify it ;D And Noel should get extra points for being the band spokesman all these years and always giving brilliant + funny interviews! |
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jun 27, 2011 16:19:37 GMT -5
Great idea for an article. I love stats and numbers so this would be right up my alley if I enjoyed the writer's style. Took too long to get to the point and there seemed to be some unnecessary fluff or something. I couldn't finish the whole thing. It wasn't that it's too long - I read a lot of Bill Simmons' stuff on ESPN and his columns are always long - just something about the style I'm not a fan of.
Pretty much agree with the outcome though. Liam might deserve a little more credit, but the songs carry more weight in this case I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jun 27, 2011 18:20:58 GMT -5
I think some of the imbalance would have been adjusted by giving Liam more credit in the intangibles though. Because that is what you are talking about. Most of Noel's contributions were pretty tangible and already accounted for by the other categories. (songwriting, attitude, contribution to sound) Liams is the one with that indefinable quality that makes him intriguing. I think he should have gotten the lions hare o those 15 points.
This is evaluating a persons replaceability though. If you took away everything that Noel contributed and replaced it with some random average bloke how much different would Oasis have been? Unrecognizable really. If you took out everything that Liam contributed it would look a bit dfferent but not as different as a Noel-less Oasis surely. It'd be missing something. And honestly...if you replaced any of the others with an average alternate it really wouldn't have been substantially different. Although I agree Bonehead should have gotten some of that attitude an intangibles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 27, 2011 18:55:50 GMT -5
I skimmed it, and by skim I really do mean skim. I'll give it a proper read tomorrow. I'm still of the opinion that it's wrong to try and divide the credit and worth of each member. Oasis were special because of the sum of their parts made the final product work. Of course Oasis is/was/will always be Noel and Liam, but to discredit all the other members and give them less value because they weren't the figurehead or song writer is nonsense to me. As I said in a previous thread a few months back, a soccer analogy works well here. Noel and Liam may bang in the goals so they get recognized. But Gem, Andy, Bonehead, and Guigsy supply the assists. And McCarroll, Whitey, Zak, Sharrock come in with the all important interception, goal line clearance, and sliding tackle. Noel and Liam, in this analogy, get all the credit for seemingly producing the final product and delivering the victory. But that victory would not be possible without the assists from the guitar and bass players, or the defensive play by the drummers. To say the non-Gallagher members deserve less credit than the stars is a simplification. Of course Noel and Liam were integral, but Oasis wouldn't have been successful without the other talent running through the team. Ian Wright and Bergkamp can score 30 goals between them to clinch the league, but without Patrick Vieira's interceptions, Marc Overmars' assists, Tony Adams' sliding tackles, and David Seaman's fantastic saves, I doubt very much Arsenal would have won the league in 1998. Credit the team, and not just individual members. Rant over.  |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jun 27, 2011 19:30:52 GMT -5
That is being incredibly naive NL4E.
This is assigning credit of success so much as figuring out the relative difficultly of replacing the input of each person. How much more valuable each person than the average musician off the street. The fact is that a basic musician could replace any of the others much more easily than a Gallagher. They do deserve more credit to a certain extent. They only have to score 5 point/100 to be more than a man off the street. Guigs probably shouldn't even get that much. All the rest probably should
It's exemplified by the fact that all of them were replaced or were replacements in the first place. In Alan Whites case both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jun 27, 2011 20:21:05 GMT -5
Agree with your statement on intangibles, gd.
NL4E, I don't even know what to say to your post. That's just ludicrous. The Gallaghers are very dynamic people, which skyrockets their worth when you're talking about marketing and exposure...things that get you noticed. Bonehead might've been able to play more instruments than others, hence being a better musician, but that doesn't translate to worth when you're talking about a world-famous band.
Liam and Noel both demand attention. Liam sings like no one else. Noel crafts songs and hooks like the best songwriters. Qualities that translate to great songs and big money. Bonehead can play the piano, guitar etc but he can't write songs or hold an audience's attention. Andy is a great guitar player but I'd rather watch a dog take a piss.
You can't really compare a band to a soccer team or basketball team in this case because you could literally replace the other members of the band with average to good musicians and as long as Noel and Liam are there, its still Oasis and it'll be just as good. The proof is in the band's history considering the number of musicians that have come and gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Jun 27, 2011 23:32:09 GMT -5
I have to say, I am VERY infrequently in agreement with Live4evr..... but he's got a point. I've always maintained that Oasis is what it is because of everyone involved. I will add something, though. I think that in the earlier days the band dynamic was more valuable for different reasons than in the later stages. At the start, it was the other members who influenced the attitude and style of the band (remember, Oasis was a band during the 1990s, not Liam, Noel, and co.). After the split, the supports were integral to the songwriting process in a remarkable way.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5