Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 11:26:15 GMT -5
This thread is really confusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 12:41:37 GMT -5
How can Oasis be better than The Beatles when they're not even better than Blur? Musically, maybe they were superior (and even, what does that really mean ?) but when Noel was at his peak of songwriting, he was light years ahead Albarn, imo. The man has written Live Forever, Whatever, Supersonic, Don't Look Back In Anger. Albarn's best song might be "The Universal". I love that song but that isn't as the same level than the four songs I've mentioned above, imo.
|
|
|
Post by gemarcher1 on May 3, 2016 12:50:02 GMT -5
Noel Gallagher > Oasis > radiohead > shit > bluuuuuur
|
|
|
Post by gemarcher1 on May 3, 2016 12:52:59 GMT -5
Oasis are MY band. But in another league, Pink Flody > The Beatles > Led Zeppelin My 3 fav band of all time. Queen and Stones are shit.
|
|
|
Post by uǝɥʇɐǝɥ on May 3, 2016 16:00:30 GMT -5
Noel Gallagher > Oasis > radiohead > shit > bluuuuuur Gem Archer > Heavy Stereo
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on May 3, 2016 17:24:52 GMT -5
Can't say I've ever been impressed with "they did it first" accolades. Anything more than 'who wrote the most good songs' has a limited impact as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 17:27:24 GMT -5
Liam's voice > Noel's voice > Arsenal
|
|
|
Post by Aman on May 3, 2016 18:00:55 GMT -5
Noel Gallagher > Oasis > radiohead > shit > bluuuuuur Gem Archer > Heavy Stereo You know what, I think you might be right.
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on May 4, 2016 0:41:23 GMT -5
How can Oasis be better than The Beatles when they're not even better than Blur? This made me chuckle! Personally, I prefer Oasis to Blur, but there's quite a lot that you could use as arguments in Blur's favor. Blur had the more sophisticated lyrics, and were much more willing to try new things than Oasis ever were. Neither Noel nor Liam would have the balls to create something as game-changing as Blur's self-titled album, let alone 13 or Think Tank.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on May 4, 2016 1:26:58 GMT -5
Liam's voice > Noel's voice > Arsenal I'm not sure about that. I've never heard any Arsenal players sing. They might have amazing voices.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on May 4, 2016 4:13:03 GMT -5
Liam's voice > Noel's voice > Arsenal I'm not sure about that. I've never heard any Arsenal players sing. They might have amazing voices. ...perhaps not
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on May 4, 2016 4:26:33 GMT -5
How can Oasis be better than The Beatles when they're not even better than Blur? This made me chuckle! Personally, I prefer Oasis to Blur, but there's quite a lot that you could use as arguments in Blur's favor. Blur had the more sophisticated lyrics, and were much more willing to try new things than Oasis ever were. Neither Noel nor Liam would have the balls to create something as game-changing as Blur's self-titled album, let alone 13 or Think Tank. Agree with the points, although it was 'Blur' that lost them around 600,000 UK sales from the previous album but still got a platinum disc for 300,000 sales. In the USA it was their best selling album with 679,000 copies sold, so although those are small sales for a country that size it was a game changer in the fact the record hadn't sold just to Anglophiles buying British records. I think what those two records you mentioned did do amongst other things was speed up Blur's demise by building up Damon's confidence to branching out with the mega successful Gorillaz, whose first two albums broke 15,000,000 worldwide and proved you could still in that era be both innovative and successful on a major scale. It is a shame that at the time of the Gorillaz initial success Noel was entrenched in a dad rock mentality with Heathen Chemistry, and as the Live Forever documentary on Britpop at the time showed still very bitter towards Damon in general. If he could have let that go and been more objective then perhaps he could have taken cues from Damon & Co. regarding innovation and moving forward, although I think Mean Mrs. Mustard had it sussed in another thread with Noel being a perfectionist over his current set lists and hence not branching out with spontaneity or unrehearsed numbers. I think if he had tried to follow Blur or Radiohead's examples and be truly like the spirit of The Beatles at least then he may well have become his generation's Brian Wilson at best with Smile, and at worst Axl Rose with Chinese Democracy.
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 4, 2016 5:48:03 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me but I've never listened to Radiohead. I do know that they have a song called Creep. But what is their best album? Definitely Ok Computer if you like a bit of experimentation. The Bends is you like more structured songs. The first one is shit bar Creep obviously, Kid A you need to be on drug to like it. The rest isn't that good tbh, i wouldn't recommend trying the other records.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on May 4, 2016 6:17:04 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me but I've never listened to Radiohead. I do know that they have a song called Creep. But what is their best album? Definitely Ok Computer if you like a bit of experimentation. The Bends is you like more structured songs. The first one is shit bar Creep obviously, Kid A you need to be on drug to like it. The rest isn't that good tbh, i wouldn't recommend trying the other records. I must be unusual then- I love driving out to overlook the cliffs near where I live on a misty morning with the sun hazing through whilst listening to "Everything In It's Right Place". A bit of boring Radiohead trivia is I attended the 19 November 1997 show at Birmingham NEC (with excellent if somewhat bizarre choice of support coming from Teenage Fanclub). At one point Thom Yorke left the stage and was later reported to have gone to his dressing room feeling overwhelmed by the sudden and unexpected success of the band, both critically and commercially. The song "Everything In It's Right Place' was supposedly written as his reaction to those feelings. @tjalke OK Computer though for me is definitely the highlight of their career, although others may disagree. The Bends was the sound of a written off grunge wannabee band surprising most people by finding their own sound with some very good songs. The remainder of their catalogue can be hit and miss but like most music it's a question of personal taste.
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 4, 2016 6:40:37 GMT -5
At one point Thom Yorke left the stage and was later reported to have gone to his dressing room feeling overwhelmed by the sudden and unexpected success of the band, both critically and commercially. The song "Everything In It's Right Place' was supposedly written as his reaction to those feelings. I never understood that kinda people : i'm more on the Gallagher side of things. If you try hard to be a rock star (or any star, movie, footy... etc), be prepared to love every minute of it and don't complain if there are bad sides. You're still a fuckin' rock star. It's way better than 9 to 5. The cry baby side of that band, particularly Thom Yorke always put me off. Too bad coz they were musically interesting from 95 to 2000, but they come across as vaginas and the music suffers, coz they, unlike others, are tormented, y'a know.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on May 4, 2016 6:58:41 GMT -5
At one point Thom Yorke left the stage and was later reported to have gone to his dressing room feeling overwhelmed by the sudden and unexpected success of the band, both critically and commercially. The song "Everything In It's Right Place' was supposedly written as his reaction to those feelings. I never understood that kinda people : i'm more on the Gallagher side of things. If you try hard to be a rock star (or any star, movie, footy... etc), be prepared to love every minute of it and don't complain if there are bad sides. You're still a fuckin' rock star. It's way better than 9 to 5. The cry baby side of that band, particularly Thom Yorke always put me off. Too bad coz they were musically interesting from 95 to 2000, but they come across as vaginas and the music suffers, coz they, unlike others, are tormented, y'a know. Each to their own I suppose- I understand where you are coming from re: angst in musicians but then that those sort of feelings not only created Radiohead records but also some great John Lennon, Joy Division, The Smiths, The Verve/Richard Ashcroft and Marvin Gaye records to name a few. The idea that Liam Gallagher embodies a rock star comes to me from him being who he is- what you see and hear is what you get. I don't know if you were around for the Britpop era though I am guessing so as you seem to recall Radiohead's 95-00 output, but the problem with identifying one person as how a rock star "should" behave, look, act. etc meant the UK music scene was awash with second and third tier bands that had wannabee Liam Gallagher frontmen which wasn't possible as they were not him- they were a dull and uninspired facsimile of him. I notice as a Leicester born bloke looking in the news that Tom Meighan is once again using his Liamism's to big up Kasabian's forthcoming gigs at the King Power Freemans Wharf Stadium ( liamgallagher1992 you going to join Andy King in celebrating League One to the most unlikely title of all time? )- He is a good example of when inspiration becomes influence to the point you become a xeroxed copy of your idol, which I personally don't find very impressive. The idea that any artist should have hard and fast rules (Not saying you are saying that btw) about image, sound, etc is one of the reasons genres like Heavy Metal stagnated for so long, despite being referred to as rebellious and outsider music it was essentially four or five blokes with long hair playing similar loud and fast riff based music for a prolonged period with diminishing returns. I can name more artists that have had angst or depressed moments in their music than I can think ones who haven't. Noel Gallagher had his time with SOTSOG in particular and 'Where Did It All Go Wrong?' etc. In the case of Liam he has been quite unique in that during his admittedly not prolific time he hasn't written a song I would categorise in the same way- 'I'm Outta Time' is probably his closest for me to that sort of feel. Still as I said before each to their own chap, if it doesn't work musically for you then don't bother with it. Opinions make a forum work
|
|
|
Post by Doc Lobster on May 4, 2016 7:01:47 GMT -5
I don't know how we wound up discussing Radiohead in this thread, but anyway, here's my two pennies (for @tjalke). If you're interested in discovering the band, definitely start with Ok Computer. It's by far the best of their "rock" albums. The first album sounds like a completely different band (and a much more boring one at that), while The Bends has some great stuff but it's more conventional than Ok Computer.
Don't let the squares tell you Kid A is a difficult album, it isn't unless you're really afraid of electronic or jazzy sounds. Definitely give it a listen to make your mind up at least. It's my favourite album by them. Amnesiac is similar (I think the songs come from the same sessions) are not much worse than Kid A as some people seem to believe.
Those three albums make up in my opinion the best period for the band, when every time they released something it came off as a surprise. They've put out great music since, but haven't deviated that much from previous efforts, so the surprise factor is lost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 7:11:51 GMT -5
Thank you all! I will start with OK Computer.
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on May 4, 2016 7:21:36 GMT -5
I never understood that kinda people : i'm more on the Gallagher side of things. If you try hard to be a rock star (or any star, movie, footy... etc), be prepared to love every minute of it and don't complain if there are bad sides. You're still a fuckin' rock star. It's way better than 9 to 5. The cry baby side of that band, particularly Thom Yorke always put me off. Too bad coz they were musically interesting from 95 to 2000, but they come across as vaginas and the music suffers, coz they, unlike others, are tormented, y'a know. Each to their own I suppose- I understand where you are coming from re: angst in musicians but then that those sort of feelings not only created Radiohead records but also some great John Lennon, Joy Division, The Smiths, The Verve/Richard Ashcroft and Marvin Gaye records to name a few. The idea that Liam Gallagher embodies a rock star comes to me from him being who he is- what you see and hear is what you get. I don't know if you were around for the Britpop era though I am guessing so as you seem to recall Radiohead's 95-00 output, but the problem with identifying one person as how a rock star "should" behave, look, act. etc meant the UK music scene was awash with second and third tier bands that had wannabee Liam Gallagher frontmen which wasn't possible as they were not him- they were a dull and uninspired facsimile of him. I notice as a Leicester born bloke looking in the news that Tom Meighan is once again using his Liamism's to big up Kasabian's forthcoming gigs at the King Power Freemans Wharf Stadium ( liamgallagher1992 you going to join Andy King in celebrating League One to the most unlikely title of all time? )- He is a good example of when inspiration becomes influence to the point you become a xeroxed copy of your idol, which I personally don't find very impressive. The idea that any artist should have hard and fast rules (Not saying you are saying that btw) about image, sound, etc is one of the reasons genres like Heavy Metal stagnated for so long, despite being referred to as rebellious and outsider music it was essentially our or five blokes with long hair playing similar loud and fast riff based music for a prolonged period with diminishing returns. I can name more artists that have had angst or depressed moments in their music than I can think ones who haven't. Noel Gallagher had his time with SOTSOG in particular and 'Where Did It All Go Wrong?' etc. In the case of Liam he has been quite unique in that during his admittedly not prolific time he hasn't written a song I would categorise in the same way- 'I'm Outta Time' is probably his closest for me to that sort of feel. Still as I said before each to their own chap, if it doesn't work musically for you then don't bother with it. Opinions make a forum work Yeah i was 15 when MG came out (on my birthday ) so i have a great memory of that time. the 90s were the best to be a teenager. Oh absolutely agree with you, there's different ways to be a rock star and to make music, i'm not saying there is one way. And i'm not saying you shouldn't talk about it in the music, just that it shouldn't be a way of life. Especially when you're a rock star. If you cant stand it, just give up, that's it. If i were privileged to be a rock star, i would never complain in the media like some do. It's just not very respectful for people who have a hard time making end meet. I'm a massive Pulp fan for instance, and Jarvis Cocker has had a hard time being a rock star, but his reaction was way more interesting to me : it's in the music and stays in the music, he's a very positive person in real life, in his interviews, and i should know as I've met him and talked to him. Radiohead to me (and by that i mean Thom Yorke), on the other hand, it feels like they live for the feeling of being miserable and depressed. Make me wanna kill myself when i hear or read interviews about them, and that's what put me off of them. that's not how i see life. Bad things happen to you, put it in your art then move on. And that's one of the reason why i like Oasis so much, they make you appreciate life. But everyone's different, you're right.
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on May 23, 2016 15:01:04 GMT -5
I never understood that kinda people : i'm more on the Gallagher side of things. If you try hard to be a rock star (or any star, movie, footy... etc), be prepared to love every minute of it and don't complain if there are bad sides. You're still a fuckin' rock star. It's way better than 9 to 5. The cry baby side of that band, particularly Thom Yorke always put me off. Too bad coz they were musically interesting from 95 to 2000, but they come across as vaginas and the music suffers, coz they, unlike others, are tormented, y'a know. Each to their own I suppose- I understand where you are coming from re: angst in musicians but then that those sort of feelings not only created Radiohead records but also some great John Lennon, Joy Division, The Smiths, The Verve/Richard Ashcroft and Marvin Gaye records to name a few. The idea that Liam Gallagher embodies a rock star comes to me from him being who he is- what you see and hear is what you get. I don't know if you were around for the Britpop era though I am guessing so as you seem to recall Radiohead's 95-00 output, but the problem with identifying one person as how a rock star "should" behave, look, act. etc meant the UK music scene was awash with second and third tier bands that had wannabee Liam Gallagher frontmen which wasn't possible as they were not him- they were a dull and uninspired facsimile of him. I notice as a Leicester born bloke looking in the news that Tom Meighan is once again using his Liamism's to big up Kasabian's forthcoming gigs at the King Power Freemans Wharf Stadium ( liamgallagher1992 you going to join Andy King in celebrating League One to the most unlikely title of all time? )- He is a good example of when inspiration becomes influence to the point you become a xeroxed copy of your idol, which I personally don't find very impressive. The idea that any artist should have hard and fast rules (Not saying you are saying that btw) about image, sound, etc is one of the reasons genres like Heavy Metal stagnated for so long, despite being referred to as rebellious and outsider music it was essentially four or five blokes with long hair playing similar loud and fast riff based music for a prolonged period with diminishing returns. I can name more artists that have had angst or depressed moments in their music than I can think ones who haven't. Noel Gallagher had his time with SOTSOG in particular and 'Where Did It All Go Wrong?' etc. In the case of Liam he has been quite unique in that during his admittedly not prolific time he hasn't written a song I would categorise in the same way- 'I'm Outta Time' is probably his closest for me to that sort of feel. Still as I said before each to their own chap, if it doesn't work musically for you then don't bother with it. Opinions make a forum work I am not having the argument that evolving your sound or adapting your style = better band. I look at the first 2 Oasis albums, 15-20 incredible standard b-sides and a plethora of fantastic singles that followed and i say right, who can better that. Blur certainly do not. I love a lot of Blur songs and i think it is great that Blur "adapted" as they went along but they never had a 20m+ selling album either did they? You honestly telling me there next few albums would have sounded so different if Parklife shifted that many? Course they fucking wouldnt. Oasis exploded into the madness of Be Here Now because of the heights they reached so early. Blur, Radiohead etc are artists who have members who see it as exactly that, an art. It will mean their members see each venture as a "project" and we will always get them experimenting and exploring new avenues. If that leads to Damon Alburn's solo album getting a 9.9 off pitchfork and boring the fucking life out of me then fine. I'd rather hear an incredible array of anthems sung by a band with attitude and genuine passion. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on May 23, 2016 15:47:57 GMT -5
Each to their own I suppose- I understand where you are coming from re: angst in musicians but then that those sort of feelings not only created Radiohead records but also some great John Lennon, Joy Division, The Smiths, The Verve/Richard Ashcroft and Marvin Gaye records to name a few. The idea that Liam Gallagher embodies a rock star comes to me from him being who he is- what you see and hear is what you get. I don't know if you were around for the Britpop era though I am guessing so as you seem to recall Radiohead's 95-00 output, but the problem with identifying one person as how a rock star "should" behave, look, act. etc meant the UK music scene was awash with second and third tier bands that had wannabee Liam Gallagher frontmen which wasn't possible as they were not him- they were a dull and uninspired facsimile of him. I notice as a Leicester born bloke looking in the news that Tom Meighan is once again using his Liamism's to big up Kasabian's forthcoming gigs at the King Power Freemans Wharf Stadium ( liamgallagher1992 you going to join Andy King in celebrating League One to the most unlikely title of all time? )- He is a good example of when inspiration becomes influence to the point you become a xeroxed copy of your idol, which I personally don't find very impressive. The idea that any artist should have hard and fast rules (Not saying you are saying that btw) about image, sound, etc is one of the reasons genres like Heavy Metal stagnated for so long, despite being referred to as rebellious and outsider music it was essentially four or five blokes with long hair playing similar loud and fast riff based music for a prolonged period with diminishing returns. I can name more artists that have had angst or depressed moments in their music than I can think ones who haven't. Noel Gallagher had his time with SOTSOG in particular and 'Where Did It All Go Wrong?' etc. In the case of Liam he has been quite unique in that during his admittedly not prolific time he hasn't written a song I would categorise in the same way- 'I'm Outta Time' is probably his closest for me to that sort of feel. Still as I said before each to their own chap, if it doesn't work musically for you then don't bother with it. Opinions make a forum work I am not having the argument that evolving your sound or adapting your style = better band. I look at the first 2 Oasis albums, 15-20 incredible standard b-sides and a plethora of fantastic singles that followed and i say right, who can better that. Blur certainly do not. I love a lot of Blur songs and i think it is great that Blur "adapted" as they went along but they never had a 20m+ selling album either did they? You honestly telling me there next few albums would have sounded so different if Parklife shifted that many? Course they fucking wouldnt. Oasis exploded into the madness of Be Here Now because of the heights they reached so early. Blur, Radiohead etc are artists who have members who see it as exactly that, an art. It will mean their members see each venture as a "project" and we will always get them experimenting and exploring new avenues. If that leads to Damon Alburn's solo album getting a 9.9 off pitchfork and boring the fucking life out of me then fine. I'd rather hear an incredible array of anthems sung by a band with attitude and genuine passion. Sorry That's fair enough and your entitled to your opinion, but to contradict a few of your points (as the contrary bastard that I am ) 1) Those first two Oasis albums and the b-sides are as you say, fantastic. However without the forward and progressive thinking of those that came before them they simply would not exist. Noel Gallagher like many songwriters in the 1990's was fortunate to be able to draw off the works of those that came before him, and in the case of Lennon/McCartney he certainly wasn't taking from the 'Love Me Do' era. 2) Record sales in my view count for popularity terms, nothing else. That isn't to say that isn't important in terms of overall success but it is only part of the picture. As an example all those eighties multimillion selling hair metal bands from Guns N' Roses to Motley Crue and even going back to Kiss owed their existence to the New York Dolls, a band who sold barely any records during the actual time together but inspired a look and sound that made many others millionaires. 3) On the subject of Blur I have to differ as to whether they would have changed or not. At the time of 'Blur' the fifth album Graham Coxon had made it clear the band had gone as far as they could with what he had described as a "music hall sound", whilst Damon Albarn had privately (much to their consternation) made Food Records aware he was happy to lose half a million sales if it meant breaking new ground. It led to an album that whilst no not an Oasis style seller was still their biggest overall album selling 3,000,000 worldwide and giving them their only US seller on any scale. 4) Critics are fairly irrelevant to me but take Gorillaz as an example where critical success meets commercial sales. The first two albums sold 15,000,000 worldwide and included tour highlights such as Glastonbury crowd singing along to 'Clint Eastwood' as Snoop Dogg made an appearance- not bad for an animator and the former singer of Blur who had not had sales on this scale outside the UK before. 5) In my experience and again only an opinion I tend to find "anthemic" bands do their best work on the first one or two records and then if they continue fall into a pattern of diminishing returns. The Fratellis, OCS, The Stereophonics, Oasis much as I love them, The Rolling Stones after 1973 and many others I could list have all toured or continue albums that did not match the sales of their earlier work whilst hearing the biggest cheers live reserved for those early anthems. Oasis and The Rolling Stones certainly had much bigger sales to fall back on which allowed them to continue at a stadium level, but it was what it was even to Noel Gallagher on the DOYS DVD- recording a record so he could "go out on tour and earn a few quid". 6) Attitude and passion- That's one we could debate a lot- I think a lot of what you see with bands like Kasabian for example much as I like their records is part of the act, screaming "Fuckin' come on!" between every other song isn't necessarily passion to me. Arguably Liam Gallagher always gave you some form of genuine feelings even if it was he didn't want to be there as in the second night of Wembley 2000 which I attended, but at least he wasn't lying I suppose. Noel by contrast especially towards the end of Oasis looked positively bored during some of the songs, but that was probably with off stage reasons coming into play. Just because an artist is playing a song live that doesn't have the singalong chorus doesn't mean they aren't genuine or passionate about their work, and IMO it shows more of those two attributes not to have been one of the many frankly dull slew of imitators that usually follow in a successful band's wake- see the Britpop bands of 1996/97 for dull, uninspired retreads of Blur/Oasis/Pulp. We will probably never agree on music but as I said before forums do work on different opinions, so never use that word 'sorry' again if you are genuine in your views Off topic hope that ten day bender hangover has cleared up sufficiently to allow you to appreciate the enormity of what Leicester City FC have achieved- If we are talking breaking new ground then this is Sgt Pepper's or The White Album to the Premier League!
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on May 23, 2016 15:56:04 GMT -5
I think the important thing is that artistic development and songwriting ability aren't mutually exclusive.
Radiohead's songwriting has remained on a high level though-out their expansion into various genres, which suggests causation, but Muse - who can't help but put about 15 genres into every song they write - have continued to release almost exclusively mediocre albums since Absolution. On the other hand, although Oasis remained largely in the same arena of songwriting for the majority of their early career (not as much as the Internet would have you believe, but still), their songwriting remained so fresh and inspired that it didn't matter. And then, on the other hand, you have Status Quo. So I don't think it does anyone any good to draw lines over what they enjoy in terms of artistic complexity. Bands who write simplistic anthems and express themselves through pop-songs are often the best bands in the world (see: Oasis), are almost always the biggest (See: ...Oasis), and can mean more to more people than any other type of musician (see: oh, you know), but music as a whole would be pretty boring without those who aren't afraid to see their work as complex art, and themselves as artists. If John Lennon hadn't been so pretentious, would we still have "I am the Walrus"? Often, music that deliberately eschews traditional songwriting ends up carrying more energy, passion, and excitement than anything offered by the anthem-crafting, stadium-filling rock 'n' roll bands. The fact is, both sides are necessary to make music as amazing as it is, and if you cut yourself off from any part of it, you're missing out on a lot.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on May 23, 2016 16:02:52 GMT -5
I think the important thing is that artistic development and songwriting ability aren't mutually exclusive. Really, there's no relationship between them at all. Radiohead's songwriting has remained on a high level thoughout their expansion into various genres, which suggests causation, but Muse - who can't help but put about 15 genres into every song they write - have continued to release almost exclusively mediocre albums since Absolution. On the other hand, although Oasis remained largely in the same arena of songwriting for the large majority of their early career (not as much as the Internet would have you believe, but still), their songwriting remained so fresh and inspired that it didn't matter. And then you have Status Quo. So I don't think it does anyone any good to draw lines over what they enjoy in terms of artistic complexity. Bands who write simplistic anthems and express themselves through pop-songs are often the best bands in the world (see: Oasis), are almost always the biggest (See: ...Oasis), and can mean more to more people than any other type of musician (see: oh, you know), but music as a whole would be pretty boring without those who aren't afraid to see their work as complex art, and themselves as artists. If John Lennon hadn't been so pretentious, would we still have I am the Walrus? The fact is, both sides are necessary to make music as amazing as it is, and if you cut yourself off from any part of it, you're missing out on a lot. Agree with much of this, although personally I stand by the 'diminishing returns' statement I made in my earlier post for some artists and you are absolutely right IMO Muse would definitely fall into that bracket for me. Music at the end of the day is wholly subjective, and no matter how bad or good you are told by critics, other musicians or your own peers a band or song is your personal taste alone is going to shape whether or not you like it. We debate because we enjoy it and like putting our views across, but on this forum for example I am under no illusions that I am changing any other person's outlook, I simply enjoy the debate and keeping a love for music alive Talking of John Lennon it would be interesting to hear how Britpop would have sounded if it had been Paul McCartney who died and was elevated to Godlike status, given his different musical tastes to John. I am still trying to picture an Oasis take on reggae or Damon Albarn looking wistful as he marches across a remote Scottish Isle
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on May 23, 2016 21:09:24 GMT -5
I am not having the argument that evolving your sound or adapting your style = better band. I look at the first 2 Oasis albums, 15-20 incredible standard b-sides and a plethora of fantastic singles that followed and i say right, who can better that. Blur certainly do not. I love a lot of Blur songs and i think it is great that Blur "adapted" as they went along but they never had a 20m+ selling album either did they? You honestly telling me there next few albums would have sounded so different if Parklife shifted that many? Course they fucking wouldnt. Oasis exploded into the madness of Be Here Now because of the heights they reached so early. Blur, Radiohead etc are artists who have members who see it as exactly that, an art. It will mean their members see each venture as a "project" and we will always get them experimenting and exploring new avenues. If that leads to Damon Alburn's solo album getting a 9.9 off pitchfork and boring the fucking life out of me then fine. I'd rather hear an incredible array of anthems sung by a band with attitude and genuine passion. Sorry That's fair enough and your entitled to your opinion, but to contradict a few of your points (as the contrary bastard that I am ) 1) Those first two Oasis albums and the b-sides are as you say, fantastic. However without the forward and progressive thinking of those that came before them they simply would not exist. Noel Gallagher like many songwriters in the 1990's was fortunate to be able to draw off the works of those that came before him, and in the case of Lennon/McCartney he certainly wasn't taking from the 'Love Me Do' era. 2) Record sales in my view count for popularity terms, nothing else. That isn't to say that isn't important in terms of overall success but it is only part of the picture. As an example all those eighties multimillion selling hair metal bands from Guns N' Roses to Motley Crue and even going back to Kiss owed their existence to the New York Dolls, a band who sold barely any records during the actual time together but inspired a look and sound that made many others millionaires. 3) On the subject of Blur I have to differ as to whether they would have changed or not. At the time of 'Blur' the fifth album Graham Coxon had made it clear the band had gone as far as they could with what he had described as a "music hall sound", whilst Damon Albarn had privately (much to their consternation) made Food Records aware he was happy to lose half a million sales if it meant breaking new ground. It led to an album that whilst no not an Oasis style seller was still their biggest overall album selling 3,000,000 worldwide and giving them their only US seller on any scale. 4) Critics are fairly irrelevant to me but take Gorillaz as an example where critical success meets commercial sales. The first two albums sold 15,000,000 worldwide and included tour highlights such as Glastonbury crowd singing along to 'Clint Eastwood' as Snoop Dogg made an appearance- not bad for an animator and the former singer of Blur who had not had sales on this scale outside the UK before. 5) In my experience and again only an opinion I tend to find "anthemic" bands do their best work on the first one or two records and then if they continue fall into a pattern of diminishing returns. The Fratellis, OCS, The Stereophonics, Oasis much as I love them, The Rolling Stones after 1973 and many others I could list have all toured or continue albums that did not match the sales of their earlier work whilst hearing the biggest cheers live reserved for those early anthems. Oasis and The Rolling Stones certainly had much bigger sales to fall back on which allowed them to continue at a stadium level, but it was what it was even to Noel Gallagher on the DOYS DVD- recording a record so he could "go out on tour and earn a few quid". 6) Attitude and passion- That's one we could debate a lot- I think a lot of what you see with bands like Kasabian for example much as I like their records is part of the act, screaming "Fuckin' come on!" between every other song isn't necessarily passion to me. Arguably Liam Gallagher always gave you some form of genuine feelings even if it was he didn't want to be there as in the second night of Wembley 2000 which I attended, but at least he wasn't lying I suppose. Noel by contrast especially towards the end of Oasis looked positively bored during some of the songs, but that was probably with off stage reasons coming into play. Just because an artist is playing a song live that doesn't have the singalong chorus doesn't mean they aren't genuine or passionate about their work, and IMO it shows more of those two attributes not to have been one of the many frankly dull slew of imitators that usually follow in a successful band's wake- see the Britpop bands of 1996/97 for dull, uninspired retreads of Blur/Oasis/Pulp. We will probably never agree on music but as I said before forums do work on different opinions, so never use that word 'sorry' again if you are genuine in your views Off topic hope that ten day bender hangover has cleared up sufficiently to allow you to appreciate the enormity of what Leicester City FC have achieved- If we are talking breaking new ground then this is Sgt Pepper's or The White Album to the Premier League! Don't worry about contradicting me, im used to it on here my response was not a direct response to you, rather all the posters that had come before. However now i shall directly respond to your points 1) I do not doubt at all that the inspirations behind the songs of Oasis early years, and indeed all of their years, were pioneers and constantly evolved, however my point was about the band themselves. My point is just because Blur changed their outlook, sound, whatever you want to call it, if i take the best 30 Oasis songs vs the best 30 Blur songs then i find Oasis have a vastly superior quality in my opinion. No doubt at all that Blur's best work was more spread out, but if you collect the great work Oasis did post 2000 then you still have enough to sit alongside the 90s stuff and stand up, in my opinion again i might add. 2) My point on record sales was merely a case of, if you sell 20 million, your record company are not in a million years going to stand for a change in direction, and neither is the people in the band when you are riding the crest of a wave and taking whatever you want and shagging whoever you want, you know the rest. It was an out of control era and Blur never came close to reaching the heights of Oasis during that period so had much more of an artistic scope or license to do whatever they pleased. Not that i am saying Noel would have done so, but SOTSOG was an example of the change in direction of sound and maturity being met with backlash in terms of sales and critical acclaim (something we know Noel loves) 3) Again, my point about their license to be more expansive with their work applies here. Be Here Now didnt sell 9m because it was Be Here Now, it sold 9m because it was Oasis. If you have a wonderwall on there it probably sells another 10m, that's the world we live in sales wise. So i, like yourself am wary of judging sales figures as a direct correlation to quality. 4) To me, the whole image of the Gorillaz was a huge factor in there success, alongside that. It was a very clever move from Damon Alburn but also something that would be so unlike Noel to ever do anyway. Noel isn't the artist he is loved for being, for being a superb musician or even great "artist" in the strict sense of the term. I think it is a case of catering for your audience. Noel Gallagher writes great songs, i think you take him for what he is and appreciate his boundaries. When his formula works, he outsells Blur's discography and has a more successful album than Alburn will ever have. It's a case of would you rather have a set formula that at it's heights has you as the biggest band in the world, or have more consistent less successful ventures? 5) I can't believe you put the fratellis and Stereophonics in the same sentence as Oasis, but you have Leicester links so i'll let you off No doubt Definitely Maybe and WTSMG are the 2 best Oasis albums, whichever you think is better. But it goes back to my point about taking the bands retrospectively now. For example, yes Heathen Chemistry is slated on here but looking back now we got Songbird, SCYHO, Little By Little and The Hindu Times. I think all 4 would fall into the bands best work post 97 and are part of that category i mentioned of sitting alongside the classics pretty well. DBTT is considered a better album but from that we only really get Lyla and IOBI from that. So although when we judge the latter albums on consistency and quality, i think the singles output as a whole was great, and certainly superior to any of the other anthemic bands that might fall into that category. You give me 20,000 Oasis fans in an arena right now and show me the reaction to SYCHO and Little By Little if anyone wants to doubt that their later stuff wouldnt go down as well. 6) Kasabian, bless them, i will try not and rip them to shreds because theyre good lads and Leicester fans so naturally they are already okay by me. However, i have seen more charisma in one of Liam's leopard print shoes than i ever have from Tom or Serge. The passion of Liam was honestly the first thing that struck me about watching the band live and i won;t change my opinion on that being a huge driving force behind the early days of the band in terms of its appeal to the youth the band so evidently tapped into. I think if you want to use the oinion that an audience doesn't have to be singing along to songs to show passion, then by the same token you need to allow Noel the freedom to look rather bored and dull while strumming along too And i do not think it is an overstatement to say Leicester winning the league is bigger than even Sgt.Pepper
|
|
|
Post by Jack on May 24, 2016 14:16:39 GMT -5
Can't we just agree Oasis are better?
|
|