|
|
Post by SlideAway on Sept 24, 2005 17:23:28 GMT -5
If there is any one behavior of the Gallaghers I'd have changed back in the day it would have been their constant trumpeting of The Beatles when they first emerged. Let's recap what Noel said - he made clear that they were a major influence on him (although he also made clear he worshipped plenty of other groups too: The Sex Pistols, The Stone Roses, The Jam, T. Rex). He and Liam also continually talked about how they wanted to be bigger than the Beatles. So was born one of the laziest slurs in rock journalism. Now, I'm not going to claim that everything Oasis has produced has been gold. Nor do I claim that Oasis is particularly visionary. Nor do I insist that everyone should love Oasis - they have a very clearly defined sound that I really enjoy and that are very hard to actually dislike. But it's not everyone's cup of tea and that's fair enough. What does get on my nerve, however, is when the group is constantly slagged as being "inferior Beatles-wannabes. " It has become such a widespread sentiment that it even seeps into otherwise positive reviews. I read one the other day on an internet site for (WTS)MG? in which the reviewer gave the album an A- but dismissively said "every single note has been shamelessly cribbed from The Beatles" - if he can document this, I'd be more than grateful, because I can't find it anywhere besides the intro to DLBIA and She's Electric - which is a damn novelty tune, not a standard! Another internet review site declared that this reviewer didn't like Oasis because "their stated musical mission - their sole purpose to exist - is to rip-off the Beatles. Even they have said this." Except that neither Noel or Liam EVER DID! Oasis certainly has a large Beatles influence. What modern pop/rock group does not? Moreover, when you get right down to it, where Oasis is like the Beatles is primarily in song structure and the emphasis on melody. That said, Oasis is also far more rock-oriented and heavier than the Beatles. They are far more abrasive, far more anthemic, and altogether quite different. Does "Live Forever" sound like a Beatles song? Does "Slide Away" or "Champagne Supernova"? What about "Some Might Say"? Oh, and of course "Bring it on Down" sounds exactly like "She Loves You:  Frankly even "Wonderwall" isn't as much of a Beatles-tribute as people say. Yes, it's clearly influenced by them, but can anybody honestly imagine The Beatles producing a track that sounds like "Wonderwall"? Even "DLBIA," if you have to find a comparison, sounds more like "Mott the Hoople" or a glam-rock standard than The Beatles. Anybody who is familiar with Oasis' back catalogue will recognize this. People who say otherwise are relying on laziness in regards to Oasis. Or they're unfamiliar with the output of the Fab Four. The problem is that given Noel's constant trumpeting of the Oasis-Beatles connection, that view got ingrained. The press ran with it, they became the subject of way too much hype. New Beatles? Seriously. That's an impossible standard to meet. Better they be proclaimed the new U2 or new R.E.M. Noel's statements simply gave fodder to Oasis' critics who latched onto it and used it to constantly slag Oasis. Relentlessly. Even in positive pieces, the Beatles-Oasis connection totally minimizes Oasis and treats the band as though they are a disposable, indistinct group. Which is ridiculous. Even if you don't like Oasis you have to admit they have an instantly identifiable sound. While none of the individual pieces are innovative, blended together they create a mix that is wholly their own. Oasis is the only group I know of where "Beatlesesque" is used as a slur. Every other review I've read in which a song is melodic, the term "Beatlesesque" is a compliment. Yet with Oasis it's a slur. It's ironic I'd be slagging Indie music snobs, considering that I actually like quite a few of their favorite bands (Talking Heads, Wilco, The White Stripes, Supergrass, Franz Ferdinand), but the double standards are quite impressive. The same critics who slag Oasis will gush about The Strokes (great band, but they're to The Velvet Underground and The NY Dolls what Oasis was to The Beatles) and Bloc Party. They'll also call Oasis indistinct and derivative while praising to the sky every jangly, orchestrated indie-rock group out there, 80% of which are complete rip-offs of The Zombies, Pet Sounds, and The Left Banke that retain no individual identity. Perhaps I'm blaming the victim. But I honestly believe that if Noel hadn't talked up the Beatles connection, they would be far better regarded today. All it did was to antagonize classic-rock fans, create expectations for them that were far too immense, and make their entire output look inferior. I really wish they hadn't said this. And to be fair, he only gave these critics ammunition with some of Be Here Now's silly lyrical allusions to the Beatles (underrated album yes, but there are flaws: this is one of them). If the band hadn't talked up the Beatles-connection, I guarantee you people would have given their music more time of day. They'd have more respect, fewer haters, and more realistic expectations. Their Beatles-sounding songs would have been APPROVINGLY called "Beatles-esque." And Oasis fans wouldn't have to constantly keep defending their musical tastes to their perceived "musical superiors." Sorry, that was a long rant. But I've been needing to get this off my chest. |
|
carlm
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 227
|
Post by carlm on Sept 24, 2005 18:21:06 GMT -5
Oasis are better than The Beatles
|
|
tadas
Oasis Roadie
???
Posts: 428
|
Post by tadas on Sept 24, 2005 18:25:24 GMT -5
wow man, thats i great stuff !!! totaly enjoyed reading it!!! you have a huge point in it !!! cheers!!!  |
|
tadas
Oasis Roadie
???
Posts: 428
|
Post by tadas on Sept 24, 2005 18:26:01 GMT -5
Oasis are better than The Beatles why? |
|
carlm
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 227
|
Post by carlm on Sept 24, 2005 18:32:31 GMT -5
Oasis are better than The Beatles why? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I think they have better songs in general. They also have a better good songs/average songs ratio |
|
tadas
Oasis Roadie
???
Posts: 428
|
Post by tadas on Sept 24, 2005 18:43:52 GMT -5
i love oasis, i like beatles alot.... me myself i could never say which band is better... beatles have about a million songs which might be only 50% super good songs but still it would be more even if all oasis released songs would be super. we can decide that after oasis stops putting out the records which hopefully will never happen  |
|
|
|
Post by holdonecho on Sept 24, 2005 19:34:17 GMT -5
slideaway you make a great point.
I would say that even now, all these years into the plot, the biggest problem that people i talk too have with oasis is their arrogance and these people almost always cite thier 'talking about being bigger then the beatles' as the greatest example of their arrogance.
I no longer even try to correct them.
btw, as much as i love oasis i have a hard time putting up there catalogue up against the fab four when it comes to consistency...
have you heard revolver, sgt peppers, rubber soul, let it be, the white album, hard days night, meet the beatles, help, abbey road?
|
|
|
|
Post by SlideAway on Sept 24, 2005 19:43:20 GMT -5
slideaway you make a great point. I would say that even now, all these years into the plot, the biggest problem that people i talk too have with oasis is their arrogance and these people almost always cite thier 'talking about being bigger then the beatles' as the greatest example of their arrogance. I no longer even try to correct them. btw, as much as i love oasis i have a hard time putting up there catalogue up against the fab four when it comes to consistency... have you heard revolver, sgt peppers, rubber soul, let it be, the white album, hard days night, meet the beatles, help, abbey road? Exactly. And it's sad b/c of people could just think of Oasis as a rock band they would love them. It's like people have some mental block. They'be been conditioned into thinking that Oasis just rips off the Beatles all the time and think they're better than them. Actually, even between '94 and '97 you could find Noel admit in many interviews that The Beatles were a better band. I mean, how do you equal The Beatles? In eight years they went from Please Please Me to Abbey Road. So many albums, so much music in such a short time. So good. Like I said, if the hype had been that Oasis were merely "a really great rock group" - maybe just "the next big thing" or even if they had been hyped as "the next U2" or "next REM" there wouldn't have been nearly as much hype and anti-hype against them. |
|
|
|
Post by lyla on Sept 24, 2005 23:15:22 GMT -5
yeah i have never understood why people say sounding like the beatles is some horrible thing -.- and i agree, i think while there definitley is influences from the beatles its not as much as you are lead to believe by critics. liams stuff however i think has much more obvious beatles sounds, but as i said before i dont consider it a negative.
as for whether oasis or the beatles are better, i think its subjective. i mean i listen to music that makes me feel good and love life or that i identify with (the lyrics "i need to hear some sounds that recognise the pain in me" comes to mind =) )....im not that into deconstructing it and analysing the technical aspects of it. with that criteria, i do love oasis more. but i dont claim that they are 'better' than the beatles.
but then again, the beatles are the best just the way that shakespeare is the greatest writer. i dont htink anybody bothers to question it anymore because its just a truth universally acknowledged. you may disagree, but such an opinion is generally disregarded.
i dunno. seriously, as long as it sounds good i dont fuckin care where or from whom oasis rip off!
|
|
|
|
Post by djbrades on Sept 25, 2005 18:35:03 GMT -5
great post - awesome read!
|
|
Knebworth96
Madferrit Fan
C A R D S go Cards! UofL
Posts: 70
|
Post by Knebworth96 on Sept 25, 2005 22:26:03 GMT -5
My humble opinion is that Oasis wouldn't be making music if it wasn't for the Beatles. You can compare the Beatles and Oasis all day if you want but at the end of the day the fab four would win.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockandroll on Sept 25, 2005 23:26:06 GMT -5
I agree 100% with you SlideAway. That Beatles stigma will never go away sadly...
|
|
|
|
Post by holdonecho on Sept 26, 2005 12:22:01 GMT -5
My humble opinion is that Oasis wouldn't be making music if it wasn't for the Beatles. You can compare the Beatles and Oasis all day if you want but at the end of the day the fab four would win. yeah, i guess at the end of the day the tie goes to the originator |
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Sept 27, 2005 5:22:48 GMT -5
It's a shame that people still harp on about the Beatles comparison but to be honest the band have no one to blame but themselves. They went completely overboard about it back in the day. Noel was obsessed with them to an unhealthy degree. It was around Be Here Now that it all got out of hand, with the album name-checking 4 or 5 Beatles tunes ("Sing a song for me / One from Let It Be" has to be one of Noel's worst ever lyrics), the Abbey Road number plate on the cover, and the AATW video being a Yellow Submarine homage (or rip-off, if you want to be unfriendly).
They kept banging on about and comparing themselves to a band who they were, let's be honest, never going to be bigger than. I love Oasis but The Beatles were the biggest and most sonically inventive pop group of all time, and Oasis were (at the time) locked into a loud pub rock groove that meant they were unbale to show any new facets of their music (their critics would argue they have been unable to ever since) and so looked like Beatles wanabees rather than a band who could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. Of course Liam would then name his son Lennon, which really drove the point home. It's a shame but it's a rod they made for their own backs.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobW on Sept 28, 2005 12:43:17 GMT -5
[/quote]
I mean, how do you equal The Beatles? In eight years they went from Please Please Me to Abbey Road. So many albums, so much music in such a short time. So good.
[/quote]
I agree with this but you have to remember that The Beatles had basicly 2 primary songwrighters (Lennon/Mcartney) and the ocasonial piece from Harrison and they are all fucking geniuses. Noel wrote the tunes and put out DM, WTSMG, and some of the greatest B-sides of all time in a span of 2 years!! By himself!! Just think what BHN would be like if he took 2 years off after WTSMG! There creativity was just exausted ie: SOTSOG. I my opinion DBTT is such a great sounding album because Noel has finally let the others contribute in a way its sort of like The Beatles, feeding off each other. It would be cool to hear a Liam/Noel song!
|
|
|
|
Post by holdonecho on Sept 28, 2005 13:15:16 GMT -5
I say andy may have harrison like skills in the songwriting department although it would appear that his best days (early 90's with ride) are long gone.
gem is capable of knocking off some farily good pieces and the quiet ones sounds like an all things must pass demo
liam, i think, falls somewhere between george and ringo...(yeah i know that songbird was nice and ggtia is good...) but i can't help but feel that his songwriting abilities are greatly exagerated based on his last name and his 'uncanny' ability to crib from lennon.
there is only one exceptional writer in oasis.
having more then one supremely gifted writer in a band is very, very rare.
lennon/mccartneys don't just fall off musical trees.
|
|
brandnewrebel
Oasis Roadie
"it's up to us to make, the best of all the things that come our way..."
Posts: 204
|
Post by brandnewrebel on Sept 28, 2005 14:47:58 GMT -5
;)As a fan for more than 9 years, i've always thought that Big, Great, masive bands like Oasis sometimes, i 'm just saying it seems to be a trend, undervalue or don't realize about the huge spectrum of fans that "praise" them around the world. I'm pointing this 'cause here in South America there were bigger back in the mid. 90's, they still have a presence, but it's not how it was back in the good old days.
So maybe this, some might say, neglected :oattitude to their fans or their lack of measuring their impact on the foreign audiences can become a determinant error in Oasis' carreer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poshbird05 on Sept 28, 2005 21:08:22 GMT -5
tis a good post It's hard for people who aren't fans to overlook the fact that Oasis trys to be like the Beatles. But, you can't blame the people even in DBTT you can see a very lagre impact from the fab 4. Like on the photos on the album a lot of them screamed Beatles. Personaly I like Oasis better then the Beatles but only because I wasn't even born when the Beatles were making hits. Hell John Lennon was already dead when I was born. Still Oasis is not the Beatles
|
|
|
|
Post by flashbax812 on Oct 3, 2005 1:03:43 GMT -5
when i saw the title of this i thought you were going to talk about the common mistake made by both oasis and the beatles. i was wrong though. interesting idea.
but in my opinion the big mistake was splitting off song writing duties, it made everyone do their own thing and go a seperate way. oasis is beginning to do this and we'll only see if noel becomes a mccartney-esque figure with liam or if gem and andy want more songs. the situation is eerily similar to the beatles. time will only tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Juan DeMarco on Oct 3, 2005 4:01:22 GMT -5
it's very hard to be a 'big thing' cause bands will always be compared to other bands from the past, so it is much easier for journalists to criticize and say it sounds like another great band from the past and that they're therefore not that great...
but when I experience a Manchester gig, I see a massive band ON STAGE, a big band who can make 60 000 of fans all go crazy......and that's a characteristic that not many bands have...
|
|
Frankly even "Wonderwall" isn't as much of a Beatles-tribute as people say. Yes, it's clearly influenced by them, but can anybody honestly imagine The Beatles producing a track that sounds like "Wonderwall"? Even "DLBIA," if you have to find a comparison, sounds more like "Mott the Hoople" or a glam-rock standard than The Beatles. 
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5