|
Post by drteter on Dec 21, 2011 11:00:33 GMT -5
Honestly, I'd see Noel's solo work even if he didn't play Oasis songs. It's still worth the price of admission to hear him sing his new stuff + b-sides.
When I was choosing whether or not to see him in NYC, I was thinking about wanting to hear his new stuff live for the first time. Aside from WW, Supersonic, & DLBIA I wasn't thinking about any of the Oasis songs he was playing at all. Had he played only new material I'd miss his versions of those 3, but not so much that I'd feel shortchanged.
I was faced with the same choice to trek to NYC for BDI when they came around. I thought their new songs were good, but didn't think the setlist was strong enough to justify the trip. The only song they could have played to change that assessment was Live Forever, as Noel pulled a bonehead move and took it out of the set for their last North American tour in 2008. They could have played Champagne Supernova, Cigarettes & Alcohol, and Rock 'n Roll Star and I probably wouldn't have attended because I'd essentially going to the show to hear 5 of the 15-18 they were playing.
I liked both albums, but BDI will have to step up their game with album 2 to make it worth a trip north to see them.
|
|
|
Post by del79 on Jan 3, 2012 7:58:03 GMT -5
I agree with Tom on this, Alough you shouldn't expect much from the nme. They have always put down oasis or anything to do with them for not being "sonically challenging". Think back to the late 90's how they tried to destroy any band who didn't sound like the chemical brothers or the prodigy. Then they had the cheek to champion the strokes (musically challenging?!) Just at a time when they were losing readers to metal and dance publications. And since then they have continued the same trick just to keep the masses paying for their rag.
They now champion tripe like the vaccines who are are as "sonically challenging" as a whistle, but level the generic accusation at Beady Eye?
This is a magazine that gets excited by a new rihanna album. Go figure that one out!
Nice one on the letter tom, but I suspect it was published just to keep their snotty little noses in the water and take a cheap shot.
|
|
|
Post by twineesi on Jan 3, 2012 13:23:37 GMT -5
Wouldnt use the NME to wipe my arse, full of shit
|
|
|
Post by Shockmaster on Jan 3, 2012 15:58:01 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't really take their opinions into account... They're total wankers... I just make sure I only take the actual news from it... And I only ever get the magazine, if someone I like a lot (A Gallagher or Kasabian) is on the cover...
|
|
|
Post by KeepOnNoeling on Jan 4, 2012 14:31:12 GMT -5
My main issue with the NME (though there are many) is that they will slag off Beady Eye and later-day Oasis but have no issue with sticking them on the front of the cover to sell issues. It stopped being a magazine that I took seriously a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Shockmaster on Jan 4, 2012 15:03:50 GMT -5
My main issue with the NME (though there are many) is that they will slag off Beady Eye and later-day Oasis but have no issue with sticking them on the front of the cover to sell issues. It stopped being a magazine that I took seriously a long time ago. They do that with RHCP sometimes... They said something about 4 or 5 months back about them being a shitty pop act that nobody likes, and I said something like "Are you fucking joking me? RHCP are one of the best and most popular bands ever.", and then someone replied saying that no doubt NME will lick their arses for an interview in a few weeks... I still get notifications on facebook for people liking it, even now haha
|
|