What Else Did The Beatles "Borrow" From Smile?

[The Shift]

That's selective reaosning, because McCartney also stated they were dissecting James Jamerson's bass sound. 

Someone needs to tell Paulie the truth about that... 

You mean, those were Carol Kaye's basslines?   

[Mike's Beard]

Seeing as Andrew beat me to the Oasis rebuttal, I'd just like to add that I always hated Coldplay before it became 'cool' to slag 'em. Chris Martin - what a wanker.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Let me say first that I am a fan of Noel Gallagher as a songwriter, and I know bringing up his name can cause some negative reactions, but would this reasoning apply to Noel in the way some folks for years have accused him of nicking and "borrowing" too many obvious ideas from other songwriters to use in his own songs? If not, why not apply it to rebuke criticism of Noel as well? I think I agree with what rockandroll posted above - and that an artist or creator simply can't escape what they've heard or seen in the time leading up to that spark of inspiration which leads to creating a new work.

Yes, and in fact, I have defended Noel on this very board with that point of view. I think "unoriginality" became a particularly unoriginal line taken by critics who were critiquing Oasis once it became fashionable to hate them.

I hated them long before it became hip. Likewise The Smiths, or rather that caterwauling twat Morrissey.

Same here. I've hated them before they were even famous! Then watched in utter disbelief as they became more and more critically acclaimed.

I don't think it's going too far to say that Noel Gallagher should be executed for crimes against music

[guitarfool2002]

I knew it, just as soon as Noel Gallagher or Oasis are mentioned the anger starts to spill over. It's gotten so predictable it's funny to read the variations on the "they suck" theme.

Crimes against music? Do we really want to compare notes on that one, on a Beach Boys message board? All I can say there is "wipe it out wipe out, wipe it out wipe out" and "Whhhhhheeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.......etc." Before reaching for Pet Sounds and Sunflower, play those chestnuts for someone you're trying to turn on to the Beach Boys.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I know, I know. Maybe executing him is a bit too far.

Just a knee-capping then.......

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Let me say first that I am a fan of Noel Gallagher as a songwriter, and I know bringing up his name can cause some negative reactions, but would this reasoning apply to Noel in the way some folks for years have accused him of nicking and "borrowing" too many obvious ideas from other songwriters to use in his own songs? If not, why not apply it to rebuke criticism of Noel as well? I think I agree with what rockandroll posted above - and that an artist or creator simply can't escape what they've heard or seen in the time leading up to that spark of inspiration which leads to creating a new work.

Yes, and in fact, I have defended Noel on this very board with that point of view. I think "unoriginality" became a particularly unoriginal line taken by critics who were critiquing Oasis once it became fashionable to hate them.

I hated them long before it became hip. Likewise The Smiths, or rather that caterwauling twat Morrissey.

Well, I meant at the critical level. The critical reaction to Oasis from Definitely Maybe to Be Here was such an overwhelming embarrassment that it should have ended small scale music criticism for good. Unfortunately, the self serving enterprise limps on.

At the level of popular reaction to Oasis, there are clearly many detractors and, yes, some of them are responding to the critical reaction and some of them are responding to their own internal subjective standard for what is good music. Nevertheless, the importance that Oasis had on popular culture was enormous. Their only real 90s rival was Nirvana. As far as I'm concerned they headed up the last important era of music, precisely because they helped in no small part to not only create a musical culture but more importantly to get large masses of people heavily invested in music again precisely because they reflected the concerns of the people - something popular music has rarely done since the 60s and something that most high-falutin self-proclaimed complex original artists rarely ever do at all.

[schiaffino]

I'm not afraid to stand up and say that both Oasis & The Smiths are great!

Bono once wrote "every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief" in the lyrics to the song The Fly and that statement somehow sums up the beauty of music: great art feeds itself from other great art! It's a constant evolution that's doesn't deny the past, but that actually uses it to project itself into the future

Take the example of MGMT and psychedelia rock. This band released a top charting album, Oracular Spectacular, in 2008 which went gold in this time & age with songs heavily influenced on 60s rock. 3 singles made the top20 and one of them, the superbly psychedelic Kids, managed to reach number 9 (US Billboard 2008)! We're talking just 4 years ago, when top charters were still Black Eyed Peas, Eminem (which I don't mind) and some really merda stuff!!!
 
And nowadays we're getting a whole new wave of indie rock influenced on MGMT. So kids that buy albums from Florence and the Machines, for ex, they'll be curious (like we all are) and get back to the beginnings of psychedelia with Pink Floyd, The Yarbirds, The Beatles and of course our beloved BBs

So if imitation and strong influence leads to interest in the original source...I'd say hell yeah, bring'em on!