|
Post by glider on Sept 18, 2017 14:27:41 GMT -5
I'm going to have to disagree with this notion that great songwriting is always the core element of greatness. When it comes to ballad/anthem driven bands that were sprouted up during the 90s Britpop renaissance it absolutely made or broke songs - but the way those songs were sung had a massive impact as well - one that could elevate songs from having lyrical mastery to become pop perfection. The vocalist is so important to a track - when you hear Blur, Damon's vocals have a audible impact immediately that reel you into the song - as does Liam (at least in the 90s for me). Everything after that is for the listener to properly digest - the songwriting can hit you as brilliant, but then again there will be the arrangement of the mix that makes the experience of listening to the song all the more enticing! I know I always bring up Verve as they're arguably my favorite band, but I can tell you after listening to it so many times, as with their earlier EPs and singles, that A Storm In Heaven isn't a masterpiece because of the songwriting - which is hit and miss on it. Leckie's ethereal mix, Nick's guitars, the jazz arrangements and the brillant fusion of multiple genres make those songs classics - not songwriting. It's like when I see Ashcroft saying "See You In The Next One is like my first written song - it showed me the potential I had" ....uh no Richard. See You In The Next One's lyrics are good - melancholic and simple, but the best thing about that song is Leckie's mix with the atomspheric acoustic guitar and reverb space echo piano. The vocals and his lyrics are a great addition, but was not the core element to why that song is great. Basically I'm saying is there is many things that makes a song great, and songwriting is always an important element, but will not always be the make or break one. A song with dull lyrics can get elevated to a good one by masterful musicianship. I totally agree with your argument there glider , but I'm talking in the context of Oasis where conventional pop song structure is the bread and butter of what makes them great, as opposed to awe inspiring sonic soundscapes ala early The Verve. I absolutely love Sigur Ros which your argument certainly applies to but these acts rely on vivid and imaginative soundscapes to be great. Oasis are at the opposite end of the spectrum where they stick to a rigid structure in which melody is the priority. That's a narrow definition with regards to Oasis, and that is what we are measuring them by. It worked magnificently back in the day when Noel was a melodic genius, but that stopped being the case in the early 2000s with melody becoming stale and the song structures becoming tedious. The stubborn and rigid methods by which he wrote songs should have forced him out of the conventional song structures which were a creative straitjacket on the man and prompted an exploration of different ideas to conjure up a new sense of creativity. Barring a handful of belters in the 21st century, he's been inhibited ever since. Which is why I hope he's thrown them off for this forthcoming album. This whole discussion reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel - Simon was the songwriting genius and sung the majority of the tunes, but Art also did as well and most of the time they sang as a duet. Bridge Over Troubled Water sung by Paul instead of Art would be a great song, but Art at the mic I believe made it a timeless classic (even though Paul is a great singer as well). Their combination together is what made their albums classics - and while if you take away Paul from the equation you don't get those songwriting masterpieices, yet then again before Graceland his solo career wasn't the best. So yeah, when it comes to conventional song structure songwriting is key and can make or break - but the vocal and overall mix has a huge impact as well, which seems to be universal for songs either conventional or unconventional.
|
|
|
Post by walterglass on Sept 18, 2017 14:29:13 GMT -5
For What It's Worth is Mind Games for pre-schoolers. Bland, beige, inoffensive - ironically all the insults Liam throws out to other acts. Where's the confrontation and snarl of Wall of Glass or the more understated mystical and melancholy qualities of Chinatown? FWIW is just pseudo-bleeding heart Robbie Williams style cheesy naffness packaged up in Pretty Green clothing to deter others from that harsh fact. Derivative and naff to the extreme, it would fit nicely in Beady Eye and is probably a Gem Archer wet dream of a tune, but is a big drop in quality from the previous two songs. Let's hope the rest of the album does not follow suit. So you like it then? 👍🏻
|
|
|
Post by SheSaidHerNameWasDot on Sept 18, 2017 14:32:03 GMT -5
Love how some posters go out of their way to try install hatred into songs they secretly like. Suppose it's keeping up with appearances and all that.
|
|
|
Post by frjdoasis on Sept 18, 2017 14:42:27 GMT -5
"In my defence all my intentions were good" when I started this thread LOL ![](http://www.undertheradarmag.com/uploads/article_images/liam_gallagher_for_what_its_worth_live_air_studios_video.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Sept 18, 2017 14:45:09 GMT -5
I'm not asking anyone to go on a treasure hunt.
I've been confronted with genuinely over 50+ of my posts from 2011 liked by a certain user. When i click a couple and go back, the same people who are now making whatever digs they can at Liam, and i mean the first chance they've had to do so, are the same who were making the comments about how pathetic Beady Eye were, and how Liam is hated by the public and will never sell out anything more than 1000 capacity places etc etc etc.
The main issue here is the sheer amount of pleasure there was in this at the time. And go back to any of those threads and the same names liked the same other posters shots at Liam then.
All i'm saying is stick by you guns, or at the very least admit you got Liam's scale of popularity wrong. All this "im pleased for him" bollocks is such a cop out.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Sept 18, 2017 14:47:03 GMT -5
"In my defence all my intentions were good" when I started this thread LOL ![](http://www.undertheradarmag.com/uploads/article_images/liam_gallagher_for_what_its_worth_live_air_studios_video.jpg) And it's a long way down When you're the wrong way round
|
|
|
Post by walterglass on Sept 18, 2017 14:47:58 GMT -5
Love how some posters go out of their way to try install hatred into songs they secretly like. Suppose it's keeping up with appearances and all that. It's when users try to pass their opinion off as fact and their ability to post as confirmation of their authority on an issue that gets me laughing me cap off. Tourists.
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Sept 18, 2017 14:50:16 GMT -5
For What It's Worth is Mind Games for pre-schoolers. Bland, beige, inoffensive - ironically all the insults Liam throws out to other acts. Where's the confrontation and snarl of Wall of Glass or the more understated mystical and melancholy qualities of Chinatown? FWIW is just pseudo-bleeding heart Robbie Williams style cheesy naffness packaged up in Pretty Green clothing to deter others from that harsh fact. Derivative and naff to the extreme, it would fit nicely in Beady Eye and is probably a Gem Archer wet dream of a tune, but is a big drop in quality from the previous two songs. Let's hope the rest of the album does not follow suit. It really is, it's awful. The worst "song writing by numbers" bland, turgid, beige dreadful song I'd be happy never to hear again.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Sept 18, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5
For What It's Worth is Mind Games for pre-schoolers. Bland, beige, inoffensive - ironically all the insults Liam throws out to other acts. Where's the confrontation and snarl of Wall of Glass or the more understated mystical and melancholy qualities of Chinatown? FWIW is just pseudo-bleeding heart Robbie Williams style cheesy naffness packaged up in Pretty Green clothing to deter others from that harsh fact. Derivative and naff to the extreme, it would fit nicely in Beady Eye and is probably a Gem Archer wet dream of a tune, but is a big drop in quality from the previous two songs. Let's hope the rest of the album does not follow suit. It really is, it's awful. The worst "song writing by numbers" bland, turgid, beige dreadful song I'd be happy never to hear again. "FACT!" These are opinions people!
|
|
|
Post by The Milkman & The Riverman on Sept 18, 2017 15:51:22 GMT -5
Here's a little math for you : If For What it's Worth is a 6/10 song and Beady Eye were a 5/10 band, how good is Flick Of the Finger ? The correct answer will be awarded.
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Sept 18, 2017 15:58:33 GMT -5
Here's a little math for you : If For What it's Worth is a 6/10 song and Beady Eye were a 5/10 band, how good is Flick Of the Finger ? The correct answer will be awarded. 6/10 + 5/10 = 11/10?
|
|
|
Post by The Milkman & The Riverman on Sept 18, 2017 16:00:17 GMT -5
Here's a little math for you : If For What it's Worth is a 6/10 song and Beady Eye were a 5/10 band, how good is Flick Of the Finger ? The correct answer will be awarded. 6/10 + 5/10 = 11/10? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by SheSaidHerNameWasDot on Sept 18, 2017 16:15:38 GMT -5
Here's a little math for you : If For What it's Worth is a 6/10 song and Beady Eye were a 5/10 band, how good is Flick Of the Finger ? The correct answer will be awarded. LG band = 2/5 of Beady Eye 6/10 ÷ 2/5 = 30/20 = 1.5 1.5 x 6/10 = 0.9 = 9/10 So, 9/10 ![(rofl)](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/Xs1davOYhobbIuqMMWUr.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Sept 18, 2017 20:25:19 GMT -5
I reported this thread to the F.B.I for possible tampering and collusion....
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Sept 18, 2017 20:26:17 GMT -5
I reported this thread to the F.B.I for possible tampering and collusion.... God bless. Her emails were here all along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 20:40:32 GMT -5
I for one never got the hype about Flick of the Finger. While i still listen to some Beady Eye tunes from time to time, that´s never one of them.
|
|