|
|
Post by The Milkman & The Riverman on Nov 21, 2014 8:33:40 GMT -5
It will always be more of a Liam and Noel reunion then an Oasis reunion anyway, so whoever they get in on drums, bass, guitar won't matter. Great observation there cause nobody even care about other members instead of the gallagher no matter how much we like them.they just come and go. For me Oasis was always the two brothers plus the chemistry between them and the rest of the band. It was better with Guigs and Bonehead, and Alan White the best period, but even with Andy and Gem, they mattered. If they do it with session musicians then you'll realise that you cared about the others, just didn't realise that. A lot will be missing. |
|
|
|
Post by Digsy's Dinner on Nov 21, 2014 11:54:38 GMT -5
Apparently he said this on Jonathan Ross
“I don’t see the appeal. That’s not to say it never will.”
So we've gone from not if all the starving children in the world depended on it to that, all in good time me thinks
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 21, 2014 12:07:37 GMT -5
Oasis developed quite a bit after Gem and Andy joined. The whole original lineup reunion is ridiculous. As much as i loved oasis in the 90's they were a far better band with Gem and Andy. From what Bonehead showed playing columbia he hasn't improved his skills, and i highly doubt Guigsy did. An original lineup would simply be embarrassing. We, the fans would expect the sound of oasis as we remember them, and that lineup would not be able to deliver. Also, they are all older. Liam would not "go back" to being the singer who couldn't write himself and was just being told what to do by Noel. He's older, realised he's got some talent as a songwriter. He's not gonna give that up, that would just make him miserable and lead to another bust up. The only possibility of a reunion is if all members stepped up their game and proved they could write class songs and could join as equal members without the quality dropping. That or Noel's quality dropping so he would have to go back to oasis to keep his fame. I don't see either happening. I cannot understand this, this is one of the greatest myths concerning some Oasis fans. How on earth did they develop with Andy and Gem when their albums got regressive, more unambitious and, for a large part of them, really really really shit? And tell me one gig with Gem and Andy that is superior to Maine Road or Knebworth - or in fact, the majority of shows with Bonehead and Guigsy? 'Technically better, blah blah blah' but a lot of punk bands put on great live shows with limited musical expertise. Oasis were like a punk band in the 90s - musically limited but they had the sheer energy and vitality (in addition to the songs of course) to make their shows some of the greatest of all time. That energy and vitality wasn't there when Andy and Gem came, and you can pick out the odd show here and there, but there's no question they became a tired and turgid live act when you compare it to the 90s era. I couldn't give a shit if Gem and Andy were 'better technically', because as far as I'm concerned, their contribution is far more detrimental than beneficial to Oasis when you hear the terrible songs they wrote. If you told me in the 90s that a guy from Heavy Stereo and Hurricane No 1 (lets face it - it wasn't the Ride Andy Bell we were getting) were going to write Oasis songs, I would have been sickened at the thought. That's NOT Oasis, because Gem and Andy aren't Oasis. |
|
|
|
Post by TheShakermaker on Nov 21, 2014 15:35:33 GMT -5
Oasis developed quite a bit after Gem and Andy joined. The whole original lineup reunion is ridiculous. As much as i loved oasis in the 90's they were a far better band with Gem and Andy. From what Bonehead showed playing columbia he hasn't improved his skills, and i highly doubt Guigsy did. An original lineup would simply be embarrassing. We, the fans would expect the sound of oasis as we remember them, and that lineup would not be able to deliver. Also, they are all older. Liam would not "go back" to being the singer who couldn't write himself and was just being told what to do by Noel. He's older, realised he's got some talent as a songwriter. He's not gonna give that up, that would just make him miserable and lead to another bust up. The only possibility of a reunion is if all members stepped up their game and proved they could write class songs and could join as equal members without the quality dropping. That or Noel's quality dropping so he would have to go back to oasis to keep his fame. I don't see either happening. I cannot understand this, this is one of the greatest myths concerning some Oasis fans. How on earth did they develop with Andy and Gem when their albums got regressive, more unambitious and, for a large part of them, really really really shit? And tell me one gig with Gem and Andy that is superior to Maine Road or Knebworth - or in fact, the majority of shows with Bonehead and Guigsy? 'Technically better, blah blah blah' but a lot of punk bands put on great live shows with limited musical expertise. Oasis were like a punk band in the 90s - musically limited but they had the sheer energy and vitality (in addition to the songs of course) to make their shows some of the greatest of all time. That energy and vitality wasn't there when Andy and Gem came, and you can pick out the odd show here and there, but there's no question they became a tired and turgid live act when you compare it to the 90s era. I couldn't give a shit if Gem and Andy were 'better technically', because as far as I'm concerned, their contribution is far more detrimental than beneficial to Oasis when you hear the terrible songs they wrote. If you told me in the 90s that a guy from Heavy Stereo and Hurricane No 1 (lets face it - it wasn't the Ride Andy Bell we were getting) were going to write Oasis songs, I would have been sickened at the thought. That's NOT Oasis, because Gem and Andy aren't Oasis. So, we disagree. Listen to ANY version of champagne supernova after 2000 - if it were to be played with the original lineup again we would all leave in disappointment. Listen to some might say from witness festival i think 2002, the same. I agree with the attitude of the 90´s, but Noel and Liam are not like that anymore, so getting a couple of below par musicians back certainly wont help any madferit feeling.. If we all love oasis for the music it makes no sense to me to wish for a band with poor musicians. I get the whole feeling and vibe thing, but do you really think bonehead and guigsy are gonna bring that back with Liam and Noel that are 20 years older? Gem and Andy have been "adult" with the brothers, and have been a good thing for them. It was a real band. How many ideas did bonehead bring, and how many Gem? It would be sorely embarrassing and exactly just for the money and because of lack of better if bonehead and guigs were part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by TheShakermaker on Nov 21, 2014 15:40:07 GMT -5
Just reread your post.
You seem to assume the if bonehead and guigsy hadnt left the albums would have just been better and better. I think they would have been even worse. I think that Gem and Andy challenged Noel a bit creatively in his most dried up period. I don't believe bonehead and guigsy could have and it would have been even worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Nov 21, 2014 16:05:34 GMT -5
Aw come on, they weren't that poor. To me they sounded pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 21, 2014 18:34:16 GMT -5
Just reread your post. You seem to assume the if bonehead and guigsy hadnt left the albums would have just been better and better. I think they would have been even worse. I think that Gem and Andy challenged Noel a bit creatively in his most dried up period. I don't believe bonehead and guigsy could have and it would have been even worse. There would be less - but better - albums. If Noel had taken his time rather than forcing songs, the quality would be there. I can't think of anything creative that Andy and Gem ever wrote - in fact, if Noel is criticised by critics for being derivative, then they surely haven't heard Gem and Andy's songs. I can't understand how they would 'push' Noel creatively - its not as if Damon Albarn, Thom Yorke and Bono joined the group. I don't think they would have got 'better and better' but they'd still have been way better than with Gem and Andy. If Noel was to be 'creative' he would have hired an ambitious producer to change the sound, not hire some mediocre songwriters. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 21, 2014 19:38:44 GMT -5
Just reread your post. You seem to assume the if bonehead and guigsy hadnt left the albums would have just been better and better. I think they would have been even worse. I think that Gem and Andy challenged Noel a bit creatively in his most dried up period. I don't believe bonehead and guigsy could have and it would have been even worse. There would be less - but better - albums. If Noel had taken his time rather than forcing songs, the quality would be there. I can't think of anything creative that Andy and Gem ever wrote - in fact, if Noel is criticised by critics for being derivative, then they surely haven't heard Gem and Andy's songs. I can't understand how they would 'push' Noel creatively - its not as if Damon Albarn, Thom Yorke and Bono joined the group. I don't think they would have got 'better and better' but they'd still have been way better than with Gem and Andy. If Noel was to be 'creative' he would have hired an ambitious producer to change the sound, not hire some mediocre songwriters. I always fell that Andy let me down with his songwriting contributions with Oasis. The man has talent or had serious talent when with Ride. Most of the songs he presented to Oasis outside the magnificent "Turn Up The Sun" was mostly junk. I expected a lot more high quality songs. I was wrong. Gem on the flip side went above and beyond what I ever thought he'd offer up. Nothing amazing but some solid work like Eyeball Tickler, A Bell Will Ring and To Be Where There Is Life. |
|
|
|
Post by Willie T. Soke on Nov 21, 2014 19:52:50 GMT -5
There would be less - but better - albums. If Noel had taken his time rather than forcing songs, the quality would be there. I can't think of anything creative that Andy and Gem ever wrote - in fact, if Noel is criticised by critics for being derivative, then they surely haven't heard Gem and Andy's songs. I can't understand how they would 'push' Noel creatively - its not as if Damon Albarn, Thom Yorke and Bono joined the group. I don't think they would have got 'better and better' but they'd still have been way better than with Gem and Andy. If Noel was to be 'creative' he would have hired an ambitious producer to change the sound, not hire some mediocre songwriters. I always fell that Andy let me down with his songwriting contributions with Oasis. The man has talent or had serious talent when with Ride. Most of the songs he presented to Oasis outside the magnificent "Turn Up The Sun" was mostly junk. I expected a lot more high quality songs. I was wrong. Gem on the flip side went above and beyond what I ever thought he'd offer up. Nothing amazing but some solid work like Eyeball Tickler, A Bell Will Ring and To Be Where There Is Life. I like 'A Bell Will Ring', too...there's some meaningful lyrics in that song, actually. And Gem's song's are my favorites from BDi, by far. God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 21, 2014 20:38:03 GMT -5
There would be less - but better - albums. If Noel had taken his time rather than forcing songs, the quality would be there. I can't think of anything creative that Andy and Gem ever wrote - in fact, if Noel is criticised by critics for being derivative, then they surely haven't heard Gem and Andy's songs. I can't understand how they would 'push' Noel creatively - its not as if Damon Albarn, Thom Yorke and Bono joined the group. I don't think they would have got 'better and better' but they'd still have been way better than with Gem and Andy. If Noel was to be 'creative' he would have hired an ambitious producer to change the sound, not hire some mediocre songwriters. I always fell that Andy let me down with his songwriting contributions with Oasis. The man has talent or had serious talent when with Ride. Most of the songs he presented to Oasis outside the magnificent "Turn Up The Sun" was mostly junk. I expected a lot more high quality songs. I was wrong. Gem on the flip side went above and beyond what I ever thought he'd offer up. Nothing amazing but some solid work like Eyeball Tickler, A Bell Will Ring and To Be Where There Is Life. I like Turn Up The Sun, but everything else from Gem and Andy is missable for me personally. |
|
|
|
Post by venoasis on Nov 21, 2014 22:31:47 GMT -5
Who The Fuck is Alan White??
You ALL seem to forget him....
|
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Nov 22, 2014 0:17:39 GMT -5
Who The Fuck is Alan White?? You ALL seem to forget him.... He was ON FIRE in 1995/98 but when Oasis came back he just became I dunno how to say this without being an ass but his playing became boring, being behind drum loops in most of the tracks didn't helped. His brother was a breath of air when he joined for the Brotherly Love tour. |
|
|
|
Post by Greedy's Mighty Sigh on Nov 22, 2014 0:44:17 GMT -5
Oasis developed quite a bit after Gem and Andy joined. The whole original lineup reunion is ridiculous. As much as i loved oasis in the 90's they were a far better band with Gem and Andy. From what Bonehead showed playing columbia he hasn't improved his skills, and i highly doubt Guigsy did. An original lineup would simply be embarrassing. We, the fans would expect the sound of oasis as we remember them, and that lineup would not be able to deliver. Also, they are all older. Liam would not "go back" to being the singer who couldn't write himself and was just being told what to do by Noel. He's older, realised he's got some talent as a songwriter. He's not gonna give that up, that would just make him miserable and lead to another bust up. The only possibility of a reunion is if all members stepped up their game and proved they could write class songs and could join as equal members without the quality dropping. That or Noel's quality dropping so he would have to go back to oasis to keep his fame. I don't see either happening. I cannot understand this, this is one of the greatest myths concerning some Oasis fans. How on earth did they develop with Andy and Gem when their albums got regressive, more unambitious and, for a large part of them, really really really shit? And tell me one gig with Gem and Andy that is superior to Maine Road or Knebworth - or in fact, the majority of shows with Bonehead and Guigsy? 'Technically better, blah blah blah' but a lot of punk bands put on great live shows with limited musical expertise. Oasis were like a punk band in the 90s - musically limited but they had the sheer energy and vitality (in addition to the songs of course) to make their shows some of the greatest of all time. That energy and vitality wasn't there when Andy and Gem came, and you can pick out the odd show here and there, but there's no question they became a tired and turgid live act when you compare it to the 90s era. I couldn't give a shit if Gem and Andy were 'better technically', because as far as I'm concerned, their contribution is far more detrimental than beneficial to Oasis when you hear the terrible songs they wrote. If you told me in the 90s that a guy from Heavy Stereo and Hurricane No 1 (lets face it - it wasn't the Ride Andy Bell we were getting) were going to write Oasis songs, I would have been sickened at the thought. That's NOT Oasis, because Gem and Andy aren't Oasis. i agree. andrew and colin were a waste of space. i have thrown better songs in the bin that hung in a bad place |
|
|
|
Post by TheShakermaker on Nov 22, 2014 7:26:48 GMT -5
Andy and Gem were not oasis. Liam and Noel were. Bonehead and Guigsy were not oasis either.
I don't get this. Andy and Gem were accepted in oasis and bdi. Now they were a waste of space?
What i want to get across is, they brought something musically to oasis that wasn't there before. Yes, Noel's best songs were in the 90's. Yes, Noel and Liam were madferit in the 90's. They grew up.
When Andy and Gem joined they improved oasis. They made Liam and Noel more adventurous and came with ideas especially in the studio that i highly doubt bonehead and guigsy could ever have. Do you think Liam would have started writing songs and explored his talent if it had been bonehead who was to help him?
The latter oasis albums hadn't been fewer and better had bonehead and guigsy stayed on. We had still had an album every 2-4 years, and yes, Noel would have written all songs, but it would have been his bottom shelf stuff that had replaced Andy and Gem (and Liam's) contributions. That might have been slightly better, but the live shows would have gotten worse and worse. Bonehead wouldn't have been able to play half the stuff from after 2000, so Noel would have been limited in his songwriting.
IF there was to be a reunion it would have to be with Andy and Gem, it would make no sense to go back to a beatup toyota after driving a rolls royce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonehead's Barber on Nov 22, 2014 8:22:27 GMT -5
I think at the time of Oasis and BDI there was a sense of loyalty towards Gem and Andy, now that chapter is over I have to look at it objectively. I would be more than happy seeing three lads who I have never heard of playing the bass and rhythm guitar, drums and bass - so long as Noel and Liam were fronting the band. I don't give a shit. I want Oasis back ONLY if Noel writes all of the songs and they can be arsed
|
|
|
|
Post by Greedy's Mighty Sigh on Nov 22, 2014 9:23:40 GMT -5
the most adventurous oasis ever went was when niether andrew, colin, paul or paul where around. i am of course referring to sotsog. coincidence? i dont think so. the songs were not there but the sound was impressive. 2 years later with the shiwgazer and the beatle cliche monster on board the worst oasis album ever came out, followed by the most unadventuous oasis album ever, follwed by the noel/liam 7 track doys ep with the additional shite from lag.
an oasis reunion should be noel in the studio, make the music with whatever session musicians he desires and make it out there and get liam in to sing the vocals. enrol young liam on a singing course, tell him not to speak for six weeks. get him at a point where he can sing a good gig and then play just one gig. one big gig and then its all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greedy's Mighty Sigh on Nov 22, 2014 9:39:57 GMT -5
. 1. Yes, Noel and Liam were madferit in the 90's. They grew up. 2. Do you think Liam would have started writing songs and explored his talent if it had been bonehead who was to help him? 3. Noel would have written all songs, but it would have been his bottom shelf stuff that had replaced Andy and Gem (and Liam's) contributions. That might have been slightly better, but the live shows would have gotten worse and worse. Bonehead wouldn't have been able to play half the stuff from after 2000, so Noel would have been limited in his songwriting. 4. IF there was to be a reunion it would have to be with Andy and Gem, it would make no sense to go back to a beatup toyota after driving a rolls royce. 1. liam never grew up, as fights in 2002 and affairs in 2013 suggest. 2. liam was writing songs with bonehead in 1991. 3. if noels bottom of the shelf stuff is better than andrew and colins 1 good song then they should not be writing should they. plus liam already had a song released before the those chumps turned up. and bonehead left anyway, he wouldnt be performing live so your live show point is cobblers. 4. if we are talking cars boneface and whatshisname are a lada riva and colin and the sitar weirdo are a fiat uno. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Nov 22, 2014 10:00:20 GMT -5
Oasis developed quite a bit after Gem and Andy joined. The whole original lineup reunion is ridiculous. As much as i loved oasis in the 90's they were a far better band with Gem and Andy. From what Bonehead showed playing columbia he hasn't improved his skills, and i highly doubt Guigsy did. An original lineup would simply be embarrassing. We, the fans would expect the sound of oasis as we remember them, and that lineup would not be able to deliver. Also, they are all older. Liam would not "go back" to being the singer who couldn't write himself and was just being told what to do by Noel. He's older, realised he's got some talent as a songwriter. He's not gonna give that up, that would just make him miserable and lead to another bust up. The only possibility of a reunion is if all members stepped up their game and proved they could write class songs and could join as equal members without the quality dropping. That or Noel's quality dropping so he would have to go back to oasis to keep his fame. I don't see either happening. I cannot understand this, this is one of the greatest myths concerning some Oasis fans. How on earth did they develop with Andy and Gem when their albums got regressive, more unambitious and, for a large part of them, really really really shit? And tell me one gig with Gem and Andy that is superior to Maine Road or Knebworth - or in fact, the majority of shows with Bonehead and Guigsy? 'Technically better, blah blah blah' but a lot of punk bands put on great live shows with limited musical expertise. Oasis were like a punk band in the 90s - musically limited but they had the sheer energy and vitality (in addition to the songs of course) to make their shows some of the greatest of all time. That energy and vitality wasn't there when Andy and Gem came, and you can pick out the odd show here and there, but there's no question they became a tired and turgid live act when you compare it to the 90s era. I couldn't give a shit if Gem and Andy were 'better technically', because as far as I'm concerned, their contribution is far more detrimental than beneficial to Oasis when you hear the terrible songs they wrote. If you told me in the 90s that a guy from Heavy Stereo and Hurricane No 1 (lets face it - it wasn't the Ride Andy Bell we were getting) were going to write Oasis songs, I would have been sickened at the thought. That's NOT Oasis, because Gem and Andy aren't Oasis. I actually think you are peddling the most commonly thought of myth about Oasis. This totally bizzare dislike towards Gem and particularly Andy as in some way being part of Oasis's downfall and that poor Noel had to accommodate them at the cost of the quality of Oasis output. I personally think that is bullshit. Lets be clear, Bonehead and Guigsy left. The reason that they left was because they thought the party was over and it wasn't fun anymore. In that frame of mind do you really think that had they continued those gigs would have been filled with the energy and vitality. Had they continued people would be no doubt queuing up to say how they had stopped Oasis ever changing. The band wanted to continue and so they got Andy and Gem in. People talk here like they should have politely declined or something. Oasis were a working class band filled with confidence and putting out the songs to back it up. The joy in the music and the directness of the performances made any technical concerns irrelevant. By 98' these things weren't true. Look at the back end of the BHN tour, they looked burnt out, tired and uninspired. Maine Road and Knebworth were great spectacles of a band being carried on a huge wave of public excitement but I don't think many people here think Knebworth was there best performance. They were publicevents on a grand scale. And I've listened to many bootlegs from those first years when frankly they sound like they are going through motions. It was a golden time for Oasis but lets not pretend they were professional angels. None of this invalidates the gigs done since 99'. I think Barrowlands is one of the best gigs they have ever done and probably my favourite on film. Its not all that common to see a band nail it like that. Certainly a gig with the energy and vitality you speak of and I could name a number of others like that. Technically Andy and Gem are better and I would agree with you that doesn't always matter or mean better but just compare DYKWIM from say Earls Court 97' to the version from 02' at Superdry. Sure Earls Court was the greater spectacle with a more enthused crowd but the Superdry version is superior in almost ever other way. That's not the only song to me where its the case. And finally, the worst myth of all. That Andy and Gem in somehow detrimental to Oasis. Noel was not a song machine for Oasis after 98', while I like SOTSOG its the work of someone struggling and Noel again did little to inspire more confidence with HC. This myth that Noel had all these world beating songs that were replaced by Andy and Gem's contributions is frankly unlikely. He's promoted that sort of idea since being solo but it doesn't seem to be the case at the time. The man they call the Chief right? The controlling band leader who would have prevented Oasis putting out another classic to appease Andy and Gem? Don't make me laugh. He's already said he had songs he never thought of as Oasis songs and was clearly willing to dismiss a song like Millionaire as he has said interviews since. If Noel chose not to put certain songs on Oasis records how is that anyone else's fault? Andy and Gem may not be part of that golden age of Oasis and may not be thought of as Oasis by the wider public but lets be fair to them, they were good players and always professional and were in the band for a decade. They deserve credit in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by TheShakermaker on Nov 22, 2014 10:42:42 GMT -5
I cannot understand this, this is one of the greatest myths concerning some Oasis fans. How on earth did they develop with Andy and Gem when their albums got regressive, more unambitious and, for a large part of them, really really really shit? And tell me one gig with Gem and Andy that is superior to Maine Road or Knebworth - or in fact, the majority of shows with Bonehead and Guigsy? 'Technically better, blah blah blah' but a lot of punk bands put on great live shows with limited musical expertise. Oasis were like a punk band in the 90s - musically limited but they had the sheer energy and vitality (in addition to the songs of course) to make their shows some of the greatest of all time. That energy and vitality wasn't there when Andy and Gem came, and you can pick out the odd show here and there, but there's no question they became a tired and turgid live act when you compare it to the 90s era. I couldn't give a shit if Gem and Andy were 'better technically', because as far as I'm concerned, their contribution is far more detrimental than beneficial to Oasis when you hear the terrible songs they wrote. If you told me in the 90s that a guy from Heavy Stereo and Hurricane No 1 (lets face it - it wasn't the Ride Andy Bell we were getting) were going to write Oasis songs, I would have been sickened at the thought. That's NOT Oasis, because Gem and Andy aren't Oasis. I actually think you are peddling the most commonly thought of myth about Oasis. This totally bizzare dislike towards Gem and particularly Andy as in some way being part of Oasis's downfall and that poor Noel had to accommodate them at the cost of the quality of Oasis output. I personally think that is bullshit. Lets be clear, Bonehead and Guigsy left. The reason that they left was because they thought the party was over and it wasn't fun anymore. In that frame of mind do you really think that had they continued those gigs would have been filled with the energy and vitality. Had they continued people would be no doubt queuing up to say how they had stopped Oasis ever changing. The band wanted to continue and so they got Andy and Gem in. People talk here like they should have politely declined or something. Oasis were a working class band filled with confidence and putting out the songs to back it up. The joy in the music and the directness of the performances made any technical concerns irrelevant. By 98' these things weren't true. Look at the back end of the BHN tour, they looked burnt out, tired and uninspired. Maine Road and Knebworth were great spectacles of a band being carried on a huge wave of public excitement but I don't think many people here think Knebworth was there best performance. They were publicevents on a grand scale. And I've listened to many bootlegs from those first years when frankly they sound like they are going through motions. It was a golden time for Oasis but lets not pretend they were professional angels. None of this invalidates the gigs done since 99'. I think Barrowlands is one of the best gigs they have ever done and probably my favourite on film. Its not all that common to see a band nail it like that. Certainly a gig with the energy and vitality you speak of and I could name a number of others like that. Technically Andy and Gem are better and I would agree with you that doesn't always matter or mean better but just compare DYKWIM from say Earls Court 97' to the version from 02' at Superdry. Sure Earls Court was the greater spectacle with a more enthused crowd but the Superdry version is superior in almost ever other way. That's not the only song to me where its the case. And finally, the worst myth of all. That Andy and Gem in somehow detrimental to Oasis. Noel was not a song machine for Oasis after 98', while I like SOTSOG its the work of someone struggling and Noel again did little to inspire more confidence with HC. This myth that Noel had all these world beating songs that were replaced by Andy and Gem's contributions is frankly unlikely. He's promoted that sort of idea since being solo but it doesn't seem to be the case at the time. The man they call the Chief right? The controlling band leader who would have prevented Oasis putting out another classic to appease Andy and Gem? Don't make me laugh. He's already said he had songs he never thought of as Oasis songs and was clearly willing to dismiss a song like Millionaire as he has said interviews since. If Noel chose not to put certain songs on Oasis records how is that anyone else's fault? Andy and Gem may not be part of that golden age of Oasis and may not be thought of as Oasis by the wider public but lets be fair to them, they were good players and always professional and were in the band for a decade. They deserve credit in my opinion. I agree with many of your points. Nice to see someone actually making arguments for their opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 22, 2014 18:58:46 GMT -5
I cannot understand this, this is one of the greatest myths concerning some Oasis fans. How on earth did they develop with Andy and Gem when their albums got regressive, more unambitious and, for a large part of them, really really really shit? And tell me one gig with Gem and Andy that is superior to Maine Road or Knebworth - or in fact, the majority of shows with Bonehead and Guigsy? 'Technically better, blah blah blah' but a lot of punk bands put on great live shows with limited musical expertise. Oasis were like a punk band in the 90s - musically limited but they had the sheer energy and vitality (in addition to the songs of course) to make their shows some of the greatest of all time. That energy and vitality wasn't there when Andy and Gem came, and you can pick out the odd show here and there, but there's no question they became a tired and turgid live act when you compare it to the 90s era. I couldn't give a shit if Gem and Andy were 'better technically', because as far as I'm concerned, their contribution is far more detrimental than beneficial to Oasis when you hear the terrible songs they wrote. If you told me in the 90s that a guy from Heavy Stereo and Hurricane No 1 (lets face it - it wasn't the Ride Andy Bell we were getting) were going to write Oasis songs, I would have been sickened at the thought. That's NOT Oasis, because Gem and Andy aren't Oasis. I actually think you are peddling the most commonly thought of myth about Oasis. This totally bizzare dislike towards Gem and particularly Andy as in some way being part of Oasis's downfall and that poor Noel had to accommodate them at the cost of the quality of Oasis output. I personally think that is bullshit. Lets be clear, Bonehead and Guigsy left. The reason that they left was because they thought the party was over and it wasn't fun anymore. In that frame of mind do you really think that had they continued those gigs would have been filled with the energy and vitality. Had they continued people would be no doubt queuing up to say how they had stopped Oasis ever changing. The band wanted to continue and so they got Andy and Gem in. People talk here like they should have politely declined or something. Oasis were a working class band filled with confidence and putting out the songs to back it up. The joy in the music and the directness of the performances made any technical concerns irrelevant. By 98' these things weren't true. Look at the back end of the BHN tour, they looked burnt out, tired and uninspired. Maine Road and Knebworth were great spectacles of a band being carried on a huge wave of public excitement but I don't think many people here think Knebworth was there best performance. They were publicevents on a grand scale. And I've listened to many bootlegs from those first years when frankly they sound like they are going through motions. It was a golden time for Oasis but lets not pretend they were professional angels. None of this invalidates the gigs done since 99'. I think Barrowlands is one of the best gigs they have ever done and probably my favourite on film. Its not all that common to see a band nail it like that. Certainly a gig with the energy and vitality you speak of and I could name a number of others like that. Technically Andy and Gem are better and I would agree with you that doesn't always matter or mean better but just compare DYKWIM from say Earls Court 97' to the version from 02' at Superdry. Sure Earls Court was the greater spectacle with a more enthused crowd but the Superdry version is superior in almost ever other way. That's not the only song to me where its the case. And finally, the worst myth of all. That Andy and Gem in somehow detrimental to Oasis. Noel was not a song machine for Oasis after 98', while I like SOTSOG its the work of someone struggling and Noel again did little to inspire more confidence with HC. This myth that Noel had all these world beating songs that were replaced by Andy and Gem's contributions is frankly unlikely. He's promoted that sort of idea since being solo but it doesn't seem to be the case at the time. The man they call the Chief right? The controlling band leader who would have prevented Oasis putting out another classic to appease Andy and Gem? Don't make me laugh. He's already said he had songs he never thought of as Oasis songs and was clearly willing to dismiss a song like Millionaire as he has said interviews since. If Noel chose not to put certain songs on Oasis records how is that anyone else's fault? Andy and Gem may not be part of that golden age of Oasis and may not be thought of as Oasis by the wider public but lets be fair to them, they were good players and always professional and were in the band for a decade. They deserve credit in my opinion. I don't think Noel was sitting on a whole host of great tunes but like he has said countless times, 'these albums didn't have to be made'. And he's right - there's no point in providing quantity over quality, and Oasis only released albums for an excuse to tour in the 2000s. If Noel really really cared about the music, he would have taken much more time off just to write better songs. That would result in less albums but better albums. Even then though, there are b-sides from Noel during the Andy/Gem writing era that are way better than anything they've ever done. Lord knows how mediocre rockers like A Bell Will Ring made it onto the album over, say, Lord Don't Slow Me Down. |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Nov 22, 2014 20:05:12 GMT -5
I like A Bell Will Ring. It's not the greatest Oasis song or anything but it's alright.
The Meaning Of Soul is for me the most horrible thing on that album
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5