Thanks for the call.

Now we go to Lexington, Kentucky...

And "I'd Love Just Once To See You" had instant notoriety-  I remember hearing teenage boys singing that last line to girls to see what sort of reaction they would get...and most people thought the background vocals on "I Was Made To Lover Her" said "...you son of a bitch I love her".

That's funny. My dad who was about 20 years old when Wild Honey came out still swears that he can hear "you son of a bitch" in the background vocals in I Was Made To Love Her. Personally, I cannot fathom how ANYONE can hear that. Clearly, though, this must have been something in wide circulation during the late 60s. I'd be curious if anyone else knows the story behind that. How did this rumour start? And how on earth could people hear that?

The anti-Oasis vibe here is staggering and confounding. Shows the kind of work that the media can do. It's like "Disco Sucks!" all over again!

I read an interview with Oasis in the early 90's, when they were pretty much unknown. Halfway through the interview one of the two twats ripped into the Beach Boys, dismissing them as "hippy s h i t", whilst extolling the Beatles in the same breath. This sort of put me against them. Then when I heard their feeble attempts at music my dislike turned to hate. Fast forward a few years to when everyone and their mother loved Oasis, to when Noel Gallagher was being called a genius, I felt as if I was the only sane person in Bedlam. Do these people not have ears?

You're right. There was an advanced study that showed that the people who made What's The Story Morning Glory the 4th biggest selling album in the UK of all time had no ears. The study went on to show that the people who actively disliked Oasis DID have ears and really "knew their music."

Also, I have a hard time believing your claim. You're telling me you don't like Oasis because they put down The Beach Boys but not The Beatles? I can't believe that you would seriously consider that a valid enough reason for dismissing their music.

And I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could be a fan of Oasis and The Beach Boys

To me that is like being a fan of a pile of turd and.....er.....The Beach Boys.

Is that what it's like? That's quite the analysis.

I thought Waiting for the Rapture was a brilliant song.  So what the intro sounds like five to one?  What someobody owns an Aminor chord in that rythm?  Just my 2 cents...long live the Chief!

I thought it was a great song too. My point was not a point of criticism. I was saying that it is ironic when critics say that Oasis are derivative when critics typically say the same thing about Oasis music that just about every other critic says. In other words, the critic is as guilty of being unoriginal as the artist that they're criticizing. The Guardian article was particularly laughable but the critic was trying desperately to point out where Oasis stole from The Beatles (because he just knows that must have done it) and because of this, he missed what was probably the most obvious reference to another song and another artist on the entire album. Almost the entirely of Waiting for the Rapture sounds like 5 to 1, but he went for the coda of The Turning as an example of something that made a vague reference to a Beatles song (maybe Blackbird, maybe Dear Prudence) because it is simply ingrained in him from other critics that Oasis are bad because they rip off The Beatles.

, this whole "they ripped off the Beatles" is tiresome and perhaps the result of media influence/infiltration backed up the band members themselves always waxing on about the Beatles.  I remember distinctly hearing the first album and thinking "what the f*ck are people talking about?  This does not sound like the Beatles.  Jesus Bring it on down, live forever?  Beatles?  What?

Absolutely! Oasis hardly sound anything like The Beatles and rarely even try to. They are, like several others, a band that came up in the post-Stone Roses atmosphere of England in the early 90s. The Stone Roses were like The Velvet Underground in many ways in the sense that they were a band that didn't have a tremendous amount of success (though more than VU in their first run) but inspired a bunch of kids to pick up guitars and make music. So that's why you have a scene of music emerging in the early 90s of artists like Oasis, The Charlatans, and The Bluetones who have basically the same sound. The difference between Oasis and those other bands though, is that, simply put, they could write better songs, had the ability to create massive hits, and had the kind of attitude to disrupt early 90s sensibilities (the hallmark of any great artists). So, yes, I agree, they don't sound like The Beatles and they don't try to. And I think someone who really called themselves knowledgeable about music would recognize that after listening to about 30 minutes of Oasis music.

I don't get your point about ripping off? 'Stupid reviewer only catches one of several rip-offs Oasis incorporated into single song'. That is a reviewer who maybe doesn't know his Doors, but that doesn't change the point they rip off their record collection incredibly obviously. Step Out = Uptight (Everything's Alright), to name one. And themselves. D'you Know What I Mean = Wonderwall, and all that.

The lyrical ones are the worst - Noel has a fantastic habit of chucking song titles into his lyrics. 'Blood on the tracks, and it must be mine/Fool on the Hill and I Feel Fine'. How does he sleep at night?!
 

Yeah, just like Surfin' USA = Sweet Little Sixteen and Amusement Parks USA = County Fair. Artists do that all the time. The difference between Oasis and many other bands is that Oasis is very upfront with it. They wear their influences on their sleeve and there is nothing wrong with that. It's not like someone who has the slightest knowledge of Beatle music doesn't catch the references - just as anybody who has an awareness of film history catches Quentin Tarantino's nods to say, The Graduate, at the beginning of Jackie Brown  or Woody Allen's repeated use of Ingmar Bergman's shots in his films. Which brings me to the important point of context. What, I think, makes Oasis really above most other musical acts is precisely the kind of referencing that you think should keep Noel Gallagher awake - this is a point that Pete Townshend agrees with, incidentally. Oasis were really the first to do in music what artists in other mediums had started doing in the 70s. Music was lagging in the realm of postmodernism, and Oasis were the first ones to really pick up on the important trend of recognizing that their are making texts in a field of other texts. Tarantino doesn't constantly reference other movies because he is a bad writer - he does it because it speaks to the role of the author and nature of origins.

That critics should usually only comment on The Beatles thing is more of a comment on the critics than Oasis. Oasis said all the time that they took from the Beatles - they even made it obvious in their song lyrics. So a critical response that highlights all the Beatles references is probably the easiest thing anyone could say. The critic not only did not know his Doors, he didn't know his music in general. He talked about how Oasis ripped off The Beatles because he just figured that that's what you do when you put down Oasis.

If the class thing was the problem, I'd hate The Beatles too.

But The Beatles overcame a lot of their working class background right before they came on the scene. Even when they rebelled by taking off the suits, they didn't exactly revert back to their teddy boy days.

As it stands, can I hate them for being boorish thugs separate to their upbringing?

Honestly? No. Their attitude and actions are pretty much entirely bound to their class.

I think you're right with the 'important band' thing. Which is a shame, as I don't like where they took british music and guitar bands are not going to be able to remove themselves from their shadow. Which is a shame, but then you can make great rock and roll music with synthesisers nowadays so it's not dead. But post-Oasis (and post-Arctic Monkeys, I spose, but thats a different thread) the concept of making music on guitars and being a 'rock and roll' band seems to be less popular than ever.

It was pretty unpopular before Oasis too. What, I think, Oasis did was temporarily revitalize a genre that was on its last legs. I think it's safe to say, though, that rock and roll is pretty much a dead medium now.

I know they used old blues songs, I just just thought they used them originally compared to the crap Oasis does.

Erm, LZ took songs that were not commercial hits that very few people outside of connoiseurs knew about at the time, re-vamped them, and made huge sums of money off them without crediting the original writer. Oasis typically references mainstream songs that most people know (see more on this in my response to hypehat below) so really I think it is harder to claim that what LZ did was in any way better. There have been fairly good arguments stating that what they did was, in fact, shameful.

 I take them over the jerks in Oasis any day, hell this is why I like the Beach Boys so much, they are original compared to Oasis.

To be honest, I just don't think originality is a good way of evaluating art. Art is typically a borrower's game - it's about a free exchange of ideas. It really only became more about "originality" because it was forced on artists after stronger copyright laws were put into place. That being said, most art still remains heavily indebted to something else. The Beach Boys is a fine example - the Four Freshmen and Phil Spector especially are all over their music. Meanwhile "Girl Don't Tell" (a great song by the way) is basically a re-make of Ticket to Ride. I think the more "original" artists you find, the less I'm likely to enjoy them.

I can't stand how they rip off great bands from the 1960s and act like jerkoffs to everybody like they are the greatest band ever. They are not like Led Zeppelin in 1970s, which were original and deserved to be gods among men.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Tell that to Willie Dixon

I find it amusing when someone talks about how derivative Oasis are. It's a textbook definition of irony. I think the height was that typical Guardian review of Dig Out Your Soul where the critic went through a great deal of effort to tell us that Noel was referencing Blackbird (or was it Dear Prudence? Depending on the review, the song Oasis was ripping off changed) at the end of The Turning. In doing so, he missed the even larger reference to The Doors' "5 to 1" on the following song. But it was easy for the critic to go to the ol' "ripping off the Beatles" chestnut when he wasn't ripping into Noel for not making an opera like Damon Albarn.

Of course you don't have to like them - but Oasis are really the only important band to emerge after Nirvana. Not only did they pick up on the zeitgeist in England before any other band did (or at least, quite so well), but they really created an entire culture, shifted the direction of music in the UK entirely, and had one of the biggest selling rock albums of the decade.

The problem was they were working class boys who became successful. This is why most of the arguments against them are usually about how boorish and stupid they are. If you don't want to come across as a bougeois cliche, you might not want to evoke the typical buzzwords that bourgeois cliches evoke when degrading lower classes.

The anti-Oasis vibe here is staggering and confounding. Shows the kind of work that the media can do. It's like "Disco Sucks!" all over again!

Pet Sounds  psychedelic? Nope-not a chance-wiki was off on that one-of course GV certainly was. WH  was not in any way psychedelic.

So let me get this straight: you tell us to go look at wikipedia to find out what psychedelic music is and then when we actually do go to wikipedia and find something that you disagree with, the source that you initially gave to prove us wrong suddenly lacks credibility? You have officially given up your right to be taken seriously in this dicussion.

Get this straight, proving anyone wrong wasn't the point, jack. If you r e a d it, (try it slower next time) you'll see that it  does a faily good job at explaining what kind of music it is-and I said that I don't agree that PS or WH  qualify as that brand of music. And, further, you may want to take note that I do agree that GV was part of the genre, so button up RR -if you wanna argue all night, bring it on, Clem.

Like I said, you entirely forfeited the right to be taken seriously when you made it abundantly clear that you were not prepared to have this discussion in good faith. Your playground tirade that came in lieu of a real response to my post is only further evidence that you are simply unwilling to participate in a rational discussion. Who would want to "argue all night" with someone like that?

At the concert that I went to, it wasn't about photography so much as it was about video.

Pet Sounds  psychedelic? Nope-not a chance-wiki was off on that one-of course GV certainly was. WH  was not in any way psychedelic.

So let me get this straight: you tell us to go look at wikipedia to find out what psychedelic music is and then when we actually do go to wikipedia and find something that you disagree with, the source that you initially gave to prove us wrong suddenly lacks credibility? You have officially given up your right to be taken seriously in this dicussion.

Jeff did this at the concert I went to as well, along with Paul Mertens. It was embarrassing for the band but even more embarrassing that it seems built into the repertoire of the performance. You could tell that like Darian and Bennett were distancing themselves from the tirade that, in fact, interrupted Brian's introduction to his next song.

Go to psychedelic music on wiki-It will help you figure out just what this music was and who really made it

According to the page on Psychedelic pop, The Beach Boys made it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_pop

Note too that the article on psyche pop basically said exactly what I said about how pop and psyche merged in the late 60s and developed a particular sound as a result:

Psychedelic sounds were also incorporated into the output of early bubblegum pop acts like The Monkees and The Lemon Pipers with "Green Tambourine" (1968) and Tommy James and the Shondells with their number one "Crimson and Clover" (1969).

Can't say I think it's more interesting than Smile. I disagree with your assertion that Smile is a "hodge-podge" but maybe that's because I don't quite understand how you're using the term. To me, Smile has a fairly consistent vision despite all the talk about Brian's confused mindset at the time.

That being said, I think that Wild Honey is very interesting and it's probably my third favourite released BB album after Pet Sounds and Today! As for the psychedelic debate, I think that there's some credibility to that argument. Remember that the line between R&B inspired garage and psyche is pretty thin and it's no surprise that these garage bands that did fuzzed out covers of Otis Redding  songs turned quite easily into bands who wore paisley and sang about pretty flowers. I think that, in many ways, Wild Honey anticipates the scene that brought about songs like "Judy in Disguise", "Midnight Confessions" and "Build Me Up Buttercup" - which, I think, one could argue is when the pop scene grabbed onto psychedelia and turned it into something a bit different by mixing in extra catchiness and soul sensibilities. Sounds like Wild Honey to me.

I am sorry that you got your feelings hurt. It happens here quite often. I know that my skin has grown thicker since becoming a member here.

My feelings weren't hurt. A comment like that elicits laughter, not tears.

[As drbeachboy noted]

For them as care to read things properly, it was you quoting someone else, thus:

"As drbeachboy noted before flying off into a tantrum, Bruce's own knowledge about the music is limited at best."

So, not directed towards you at all.  

Well, to be fair to drbeachboy here, he was extrapolating from my own point - though with his typical creative flair.

But, like I said, "for them as care to read things properly" - nothing warrants that kind of response because no one has the authority to make it.

No, you get someone who wants to deal with facts or at least deal with people who put some thought into their opinions.

Don't most people here do that? Or is it just the ones who tell us that they do that?

Absolutely, most do, but what you quoted AGD as saying wasn't directed at the factual or thoughtful ones, was it?

Well, as you can note by the url I posted, it was directed towards me. Since I was relying on a direct quotation, I would suggest that I was being factual and since my very livelihood depends on my ability to work with factual evidence and interrogate it, I don't think it was anything that warranted serious critique. Regardless, even if it wasn't factual, that wouldn't justify that kind of response. Not one single person on planet earth has that kind of authority, let alone someone who wasn't even being challenged on their facts.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10436.msg190537.html#msg190537

No, you get someone who wants to deal with facts or at least deal with people who put some thought into their opinions.

Don't most people here do that? Or is it just the ones who tell us that they do that?

You see what happens here when opinions run amuck?

Yes. You get a big baby who throws around phrases like "that's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board", doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong when the issue is pressed further, but can do so comfortably because his little cheerleaders can pretend like it didn't happen since nothing he says could possibly be wrong. That's exactly a textbook definition of opinions running amok.

\One other thing, I'll take what AGD has to say over anyone else's opinion. At least I know that he checks his sources and facts before he speaks.

Some people are better than others at convincing people they have the kind of authority that allows them to throw a childish tantrum and hurl insults. You're certainly convinced!

I threw together a short slideshow under one of several recordings I have of Steele's "Fractious Friday" sign-offs, featuring his signature "You Can't Sit Down". I date this around 1967 because Steele mentions our Smile buddy Humble Harve following him at 6pm.

That was nuts! Thanks for posting. I enjoyed it a lot.

I'll try to grab something from my collection, I should have an mp3 of one of Steele's raps. He'd do this as a sign-off on "Fractious Friday", just before 6pm on KHJ Fridays in the 60's, and he'd basically talk loud and fast as "You Can't Sit Down" played under his voice. Really cool stuff.

Awesome! Would love to hear it.