|
|
Post by dadrocker on Nov 3, 2017 11:18:52 GMT -5
I have trouble with these quick rating threads. I gave it a 7, but it probably should be an 8. It's constantly in my damn head! Love the tune and I think it'll be even better on record.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Nov 3, 2017 12:38:32 GMT -5
I'd say if your song sounds better live, then you did something very wrong in the studio. You might need rock and roll lessons mate lol. It’s a live medium. When you first discovered Oasis, did you first hear Wonderwall's studio version or a live version? Probably the studio version. Studio albums are waaaaaaaaayyyyyy more important than live performances. They're your first introduction to a band. They are a band's legacy. Unless they release a particularly renowned live album like Live at Leeds or Nirvana's MTV Unplugged, in 30 years nobody's gonna remember if they smashed it live. Plus very few people listen to live albums or even attend concerts unless they're fans of the band. I respect a band that can play a venue like a stadium just like you do, but the studio albums are gonna last a whole lot longer than a live tour. That's why rock 'n' roll is not a live medium. Maybe we should only watch movies whose scenes are easy to replicate on stage.... You’re comparing apples and oranges, quite silly actually, as movies don’t tour the world as live acts lol. Hmmm I wonder why that might be? Maybe because performance art doesn't necessarily have to be replicable right in front of you to be brilliant? |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Nov 3, 2017 12:48:23 GMT -5
I'd say if your song sounds better live, then you did something very wrong in the studio. I'd say thats just as wrong as stating a song should sound better live. Some songs work better live and some work better in the studio, some songs start as something great in the studio and become something entirely different in the live setting. Saying it should work one way or the other is a bit weird. |
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Nov 3, 2017 12:54:48 GMT -5
ill wait until i hear the album version, but so far its the weakest song for me
|
|
|
|
Post by carlober on Nov 3, 2017 12:58:29 GMT -5
I'd say if your song sounds better live, then you did something very wrong in the studio. I'd say thats just as wrong as stating a song should sound better live. Some songs work better live and some work better in the studio, some songs start as something great in the studio and become something entirely different in the live setting. Saying it should work one way or the other is a bit weird. You might have a point here. Although, personally speaking, when the live version of a song is better than the album take I always think something like "man, I wish the album version had the same balls"! I do appreciate when live performances of a song evolve into huge monsters, but the studio version is always the definitive version in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by eva on Nov 3, 2017 13:03:01 GMT -5
I must be the only one, but most of the times, with many of my favourite artists, I enjoy more the live versions rather than the studio
|
|
|
|
Post by psj3809 on Nov 3, 2017 13:04:41 GMT -5
Love the sound of this one. Best one of the 3 but just a 7/10 as it’s very repetitive. Sounds great though
Boring lyrics but love the new order style sound
|
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Nov 3, 2017 13:52:27 GMT -5
You might need rock and roll lessons mate lol. It’s a live medium. When you first discovered Oasis, did you first hear Wonderwall's studio version or a live version? Probably the studio version. Studio albums are waaaaaaaaayyyyyy more important than live performances. They're your first introduction to a band. They are a band's legacy. Unless they release a particularly renowned live album like Live at Leeds or Nirvana's MTV Unplugged, in 30 years nobody's gonna remember if they smashed it live. Plus very few people listen to live albums or even attend concerts unless they're fans of the band. I respect a band that can play a venue like a stadium just like you do, but the studio albums are gonna last a whole lot longer than a live tour. That's why rock 'n' roll is not a live medium. You’re comparing apples and oranges, quite silly actually, as movies don’t tour the world as live acts lol. Hmmm I wonder why that might be? Maybe because performance art doesn't necessarily have to be replicable right in front of you to be brilliant? I personally agree that the official studio recording is more important but many bands absolutely live for their live performances. Innumerable bands and musicians would laugh at the idea that "Rock 'N' Roll isn't a live medium considering many give their lives to it. What you're suggesting sounds like a narrow consumer viewpoint. Why do so many bands try (often fail) to capture their live sound? Steve Albini would be out of a job. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Nov 3, 2017 14:00:27 GMT -5
I'd say thats just as wrong as stating a song should sound better live. Some songs work better live and some work better in the studio, some songs start as something great in the studio and become something entirely different in the live setting. Saying it should work one way or the other is a bit weird. You might have a point here. Although, personally speaking, when the live version of a song is better than the album take I always think something like "man, I wish the album version had the same balls"! I do appreciate when live performances of a song evolve into huge monsters, but the studio version is always the definitive version in my mind. The most obvious example for me is C&A, a song built for live performance, I honestly have listened to the studio version in years and it doesn't bother me but i'd be gutted to be without the Greek Theatre version from 2001. I suppose a lot of it comes down to preference. |
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Nov 3, 2017 17:02:02 GMT -5
When you first discovered Oasis, did you first hear Wonderwall's studio version or a live version? Probably the studio version. Studio albums are waaaaaaaaayyyyyy more important than live performances. They're your first introduction to a band. They are a band's legacy. Unless they release a particularly renowned live album like Live at Leeds or Nirvana's MTV Unplugged, in 30 years nobody's gonna remember if they smashed it live. Plus very few people listen to live albums or even attend concerts unless they're fans of the band. I respect a band that can play a venue like a stadium just like you do, but the studio albums are gonna last a whole lot longer than a live tour. That's why rock 'n' roll is not a live medium. Hmmm I wonder why that might be? Maybe because performance art doesn't necessarily have to be replicable right in front of you to be brilliant? I personally agree that the official studio recording is more important but many bands absolutely live for their live performances. Innumerable bands and musicians would laugh at the idea that "Rock 'N' Roll isn't a live medium considering many give their lives to it. What you're suggesting sounds like a narrow consumer viewpoint. Why do so many bands try (often fail) to capture their live sound? Steve Albini would be out of a job. I don't mind if other people think that live performances are more important than studio recordings. That's a perfectly fine viewpoint. I'm just saying that in the grand scheme of things a band's public image and legacy is far more dependent on the studio albums than the live performances. Studio albums reach far, far more ears than gigs. However, I do believe that if a band's strength is in the live performances, they should absolutely hire someone like Steve Albini to best capture that live, rough sound. I've always been a champion of using the studio to explore new possibilities and creating sounds not replicable live, but if the band's sound works best live, record it live! I'm not one of those people who thinks that rough, no-frills production is inherently inferior to lush arrangements. I love records that have a rough, live sound from Rid of Me to Surfer Rosa to Definitely Maybe, just as much as I love ornate productions like Sgt. Pepper and Laughing Stock. The live-in-the-studio sound is just another aesthetic choice in the same way that elaborate production with 5 orchestras is an aesthetic choice. A band that works best live trying their hardest to capture their live sound on their studio albums is 100% consistent with my way of thinking because it shows that they care enough about their studio albums that they want to put the best incarnation of themselves on the thing that will reach the most people and have the strongest legacy. |
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Nov 3, 2017 17:17:12 GMT -5
For this album at least, it looks like it'll be all about the studio recordings. My enjoyment of HM and FK is partly because of the layers upon layers I keep discovering every time I listen to them. And I like how HM bounces as a live track, but it's secondary to the album experience. Sort of like the way I enjoy watching Beatles tribute bands reproduce Pepper on stage, but accepting the studio versions are untouchable.
Or to put it another way: WTSMG is -for me- an approximation of what Oasis could do as a live act. Noel's latest live shows are an approximation of what he can do in the studio. Different animals, different listening approaches.
|
|
holidayinthesun
Oasis Roadie
It's got a back beat, you can't lose it.
Posts: 174
|
Post by holidayinthesun on Nov 3, 2017 19:39:02 GMT -5
The history of rock and roll is the history of its live performances. In fact, great studio albums that fail to translate live are considered disingenuous. Famous gigs, festival performances, legendary nights... Oasis had them, every essential rock band has them... it’s what it’s all about. “Performance art pieces,” as someone said above, must be having a laugh. The Pistols, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, The Who, Oasis... and on and on... the album releales are steps to reaching the live show where rock and roll truly lives. It’s why great albums by bands that can’t or won’t play them live are forgotten (Forever Changes by Love, as an example). But some people just can’t take the fact that Noel released a clunker so they even need to redefine the medium as a studio lab. Good luck with all that...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 4, 2017 3:14:48 GMT -5
The history of rock and roll is the history of its live performances. In fact, great studio albums that fail to translate live are considered disingenuous. Famous gigs, festival performances, legendary nights... Oasis had them, every essential rock band has them... it’s what it’s all about. “Performance art pieces,” as someone said above, must be having a laugh. The Pistols, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, The Who, Oasis... and on and on... the album releales are steps to reaching the live show where rock and roll truly lives. It’s why great albums by bands that can’t or won’t play them live are forgotten (Forever Changes by Love, as an example). But some people just can’t take the fact that Noel released a clunker so they even need to redefine the medium as a studio lab. Good luck with all that...  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 4, 2017 3:45:14 GMT -5
As a creative form, the album still beats live experiences. But for the pure visceral and primal energy of rock n roll at its rawest, the live capacity is hard to beat. Noel’s new music isn’t really rock and maybe that’s throwing people off.
|
|
|
|
Post by AubreyOasis on Nov 4, 2017 4:52:06 GMT -5
The history of rock and roll is the history of its live performances. In fact, great studio albums that fail to translate live are considered disingenuous. Famous gigs, festival performances, legendary nights... Oasis had them, every essential rock band has them... it’s what it’s all about. “Performance art pieces,” as someone said above, must be having a laugh. The Pistols, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, The Who, Oasis... and on and on... the album releales are steps to reaching the live show where rock and roll truly lives. It’s why great albums by bands that can’t or won’t play them live are forgotten (Forever Changes by Love, as an example). But some people just can’t take the fact that Noel released a clunker so they even need to redefine the medium as a studio lab. Good luck with all that... Many of the best albums of all time by the likes of Beatles, Beach Boys, Van Morrison or Bob Dylan, were never or almost never played live. Many others were but did not translate live especially well. And of course Forever Changes is not a forgotten album: actually it is the album by Love that gets regularly listed in all best-of lists. So it's difficult to agree with your point here. Maybe true for you personally but certainly not for everybody Which leads me to my next point: maybe you should consider the possibility that what you personally consider a "clunker" is actually liked by other people, not because they "can't take the fact", but because they have different tastes. I could use the same "cheap psychology" to say that maybe the problem is that some people are so eager for Noel to release a clunker that they cannot accept that other people talk positively about it. |
|
holidayinthesun
Oasis Roadie
It's got a back beat, you can't lose it.
Posts: 174
|
Post by holidayinthesun on Nov 4, 2017 9:23:26 GMT -5
Come on now I never said that “only good music is live music.” I said that when discussing rock and roll that it is the live dynamic that’s most prized, and I stick to that completely. PS re: Sgt Peppers that’s a non-starter there as The Beatles decided not to play live ever again, versus some example of them trying to play Mr Kite on live TV and then me calling it a clunker live but obviously great on the album, so it doesn’t really apply here.
I just can’t imagine a scenario where you’re seeing NGHFB live, they play She Taught Me How To Fly, it’s flat and clunky, but you turn to your mate and say “it’s ok, it’s fine, because on the album it actually sounds good.” No it’s not ok, if he brings a new tune into his live set list (and a live TV performance!), then it better be good live, and let’s be honest how in the world is that asking too much of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 4, 2017 9:31:19 GMT -5
All this is pointless 'cos it sounds fucking great live, clearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Nov 4, 2017 11:42:03 GMT -5
The history of rock and roll is the history of its live performances. In fact, great studio albums that fail to translate live are considered disingenuous. Famous gigs, festival performances, legendary nights... Oasis had them, every essential rock band has them... it’s what it’s all about. “Performance art pieces,” as someone said above, must be having a laugh. The Pistols, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, The Who, Oasis... and on and on... the album releales are steps to reaching the live show where rock and roll truly lives. It’s why great albums by bands that can’t or won’t play them live are forgotten (Forever Changes by Love, as an example). But some people just can’t take the fact that Noel released a clunker so they even need to redefine the medium as a studio lab. Good luck with all that... Revolver Sgt. Pepper The White Album Abbey Road Let It Be |
|
|
|
Post by andrewmattcoles on Nov 4, 2017 13:45:30 GMT -5
The history of rock and roll is the history of its live performances. In fact, great studio albums that fail to translate live are considered disingenuous. Famous gigs, festival performances, legendary nights... Oasis had them, every essential rock band has them... it’s what it’s all about. “Performance art pieces,” as someone said above, must be having a laugh. The Pistols, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, The Who, Oasis... and on and on... the album releales are steps to reaching the live show where rock and roll truly lives. It’s why great albums by bands that can’t or won’t play them live are forgotten (Forever Changes by Love, as an example). But some people just can’t take the fact that Noel released a clunker so they even need to redefine the medium as a studio lab. Good luck with all that... Revolver Sgt. Pepper The White Album Abbey Road Let It Be Think playing get back on the roof top is an example of making “Let it be” memorable...it’s the first thing I think of But Beatles are an exception to most rules |
|
holidayinthesun
Oasis Roadie
It's got a back beat, you can't lose it.
Posts: 174
|
Post by holidayinthesun on Nov 4, 2017 14:26:39 GMT -5
I addressed The Beatles in full above but you guys are only proving my point: Ed Sullivan, Shea Stadium, beatlemania LIVE shows are what established them as pioneers and kings. Same with Elvis, Stones, Pistols... so random references to late 60’s bearded Beatles album references aren’t really clever or on-point.
|
|
|
|
Post by walterglass on Nov 9, 2017 9:52:21 GMT -5
Think this is me favourite of the songy songs. Appeals to the Cyndi Lauper in me.
But I think it’s probably destined to always be the “wa-la-laa” song in my heed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2017 12:01:48 GMT -5
I'm inspired tbh. Gonna go audition for a band, i'll play the pot grinder up against the mic and it'll blow everyone's tiny little minds. See ya on Jools Holland next year!
|
|
|
|
Post by AdidasNG72 on Nov 11, 2017 12:11:44 GMT -5
Come on now I never said that “only good music is live music.” I said that when discussing rock and roll that it is the live dynamic that’s most prized, and I stick to that completely. PS re: Sgt Peppers that’s a non-starter there as The Beatles decided not to play live ever again, versus some example of them trying to play Mr Kite on live TV and then me calling it a clunker live but obviously great on the album, so it doesn’t really apply here. I just can’t imagine a scenario where you’re seeing NGHFB live, they play She Taught Me How To Fly, it’s flat and clunky, but you turn to your mate and say “it’s ok, it’s fine, because on the album it actually sounds good.” No it’s not ok, if he brings a new tune into his live set list (and a live TV performance!), then it better be good live, and let’s be honest how in the world is that asking too much of him. STMHTF sounds great live, going by that TV performance. If he plays the song live as good as that when I see him live next year, I'll be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by SheSaidHerNameWasDot on Nov 11, 2017 12:17:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by durk on Nov 11, 2017 13:17:46 GMT -5
lol
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5