gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 09:37:23 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: no more legends, the cynical honest retrospective..  (Read 7838 times)
Lee Marshall
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1639



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2015, 08:50:31 AM »

This thread needs more mentions of The Ramones.

Guts, Glory, Ram one.  S'good?
Logged

"Add Some...Music...To Your Day.  I do.  It's the only way to fly.  Well...what was I gonna put here?  An apple a day keeps the doctor away?  Hum me a few bars."   Lee Marshall [2014]

Donald  TRUMP!  ...  Is TOAST.  "What a disaster."  "Overrated?"... ... ..."BIG LEAGUE."  "Lots of people are saying it"  "I will tell you that."   Collusion, Money Laundering, Treason.   B'Bye Dirty Donnie!!!  Adios!!!  Bon Voyage!!!  Toodles!!!  Move yourself...SPANKY!!!  Jail awaits.  It's NO "Witch Hunt". There IS Collusion...and worse.  The Russian Mafia!!  Conspiracies!!  Fraud!!  This racist is goin' down...and soon.  Good Riddance.  And take the kids.
Mr. Verlander
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2015, 09:09:24 AM »

Oasis is better than The Beatles in every way and I'm not trolling in the slightest.

That's probably in the top 10 of 'Worst Quotes Ever' on this board.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2015, 09:21:25 AM »

Oasis is better than The Beatles in every way and I'm not trolling in the slightest.

That's probably in the top 10 of 'Worst Quotes Ever' on this board.

Well, Oasis are amazing and get a pretty bad deal, particularly in North America.
Logged
halblaineisgood
Guest
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2015, 09:54:34 AM »

J&D are not as musically nourishing as the beatles .
Phil Spector wasn't great , but his records were.  MM.Hmmm.
wait a minnnnute--lets not bring poor ol fats domino into this.
 Live Forever and the singles from Whats the Story Morning Glory.



Logged
zachrwolfe
Guest
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2015, 11:58:30 AM »

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 07:55:02 PM by zatch » Logged
VanDykeParksAndRec
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2015, 12:25:26 PM »

Oasis is better than The Beatles in every way and I'm not trolling in the slightest.

That's probably in the top 10 of 'Worst Quotes Ever' on this board.

Well, Oasis are amazing and get a pretty bad deal, particularly in North America.


I find Oasis to be one of the blandest bands of all time possibly right behind Pearl Jam.   Lacking any sort of substance and sonically dull.   I do not think they ages well and unlike the Beach Boys or Beatles, are in no way timeless.  At least blur pushed some boundaries and had some sort of commentary and purpose driven aspect, a far better suited comparison to the Beatles than Oasis....

Logged
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2974


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2015, 08:44:26 PM »

I think that saying that George Martin made the Beatles, or visa versa is rather harsh. I think Martin helped their sound, especially at the beginning. To me Abbey Road is miles better than the white album or Let it Be. As good as those two are. But Martin brought something extra I think.

Although it took Paul and John several years of preforming and recording before they finally hit their stride. For Brian, Surfin hit the top 100 and within a year they were on Capitol and soon after had a smash hit in Surfin USA. Even though Paul and John started making music before Brian, it seems that Brian was 2 years ahead of them. It took some polishing and George Martin to get them over the hump.
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2974


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2015, 08:47:08 PM »

In terms of present geniuses, yes they exist. It is not top 40 music, or radio friendly for the most part. One of my favorite artists, second only to Brian is Jason Lytle. He was the leader of Grandaddy who in 2009 went solo. He wrote, produced, and usually plays all the instruments!
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2015, 04:27:37 AM »

Oasis is better than The Beatles in every way and I'm not trolling in the slightest.

That's probably in the top 10 of 'Worst Quotes Ever' on this board.

Well, Oasis are amazing and get a pretty bad deal, particularly in North America.


I find Oasis to be one of the blandest bands of all time possibly right behind Pearl Jam.   Lacking any sort of substance and sonically dull.   I do not think they ages well and unlike the Beach Boys or Beatles, are in no way timeless.  At least blur pushed some boundaries and had some sort of commentary and purpose driven aspect, a far better suited comparison to the Beatles than Oasis....



I'd say that Oasis pushed more boundaries than Blur. They were the first class conscious band to come around in quite some time -- and to articulate a working class attitude and character specifically at a time when such behaviour had been marginalized and denigrated was a remarkable achievement and it was a decision which has given the band an enduring place in British culture. Their music was definitely purpose-driven: it was utterly a reaction against conservative rule in England which had worked to silence and demonize an entire culture. Oasis reacted to that by basically saying, "We've got dreams too and we're going to live them out even if it's only in our minds," and, also, "Just try to shut us up." The idea that they "are in no way timeless" is proven false by the evidence. Twelve years after Definitely Maybe was released, the album was voted by NME readers as the best album of all time ahead of Sgt. Pepper and Revolver. Two years after that, it was voted as the number one British album in a poll taken by Q and HMV. Furthermore, Noel Gallagher's first solo album in 2011 was the second biggest selling rock album of the year, so the sound still resonates with people.

I like Blur as well but as a critic said in a documentary I recently watched, Blur's music lacked what Oasis's music had in spades, which was heart.
Logged
Please delete my account
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 872

Please delete my account


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2015, 04:47:02 AM »

Oasis is better than The Beatles in every way and I'm not trolling in the slightest.

That's probably in the top 10 of 'Worst Quotes Ever' on this board.

Well, Oasis are amazing and get a pretty bad deal, particularly in North America.


I find Oasis to be one of the blandest bands of all time possibly right behind Pearl Jam.   Lacking any sort of substance and sonically dull.   I do not think they ages well and unlike the Beach Boys or Beatles, are in no way timeless.  At least blur pushed some boundaries and had some sort of commentary and purpose driven aspect, a far better suited comparison to the Beatles than Oasis....



I'd say that Oasis pushed more boundaries than Blur. They were the first class conscious band to come around in quite some time -- and to articulate a working class attitude and character specifically at a time when such behaviour had been marginalized and denigrated was a remarkable achievement and it was a decision which has given the band an enduring place in British culture. Their music was definitely purpose-driven: it was utterly a reaction against conservative rule in England which had worked to silence and demonize an entire culture. Oasis reacted to that by basically saying, "We've got dreams too and we're going to live them out even if it's only in our minds," and, also, "Just try to shut us up." The idea that they "are in no way timeless" is proven false by the evidence. Twelve years after Definitely Maybe was released, the album was voted by NME readers as the best album of all time ahead of Sgt. Pepper and Revolver. Two years after that, it was voted as the number one British album in a poll taken by Q and HMV. Furthermore, Noel Gallagher's first solo album in 2011 was the second biggest selling rock album of the year, so the sound still resonates with people.

I like Blur as well but as a critic said in a documentary I recently watched, Blur's music lacked what Oasis's music had in spades, which was heart.

Thanks for providing more insight into why some people might like Oasis, who on the face of it made derivative records ranging in quality from boring to downright ugly, (plus "Live Forever" which I did like). I don't remember much of a political angle to them but maybe my strong aversion to their music made me overlook it. Certainly from a "class warfare" point of view they had the edge over Blur. Pulp had the best of both worlds- great music and subversion.
Logged

Please delete my account
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2015, 05:16:31 AM »

Thanks for providing more insight into why some people might like Oasis, who on the face of it made derivative records ranging in quality from boring to downright ugly, (plus "Live Forever" which I did like).

Sure - I'd say though that that's very much the manufactured "face of it" -- in reality, Oasis's records are no more derivative than anything Bob Dylan's ever done. It's just that Dylan didn't have the misfortune of being an overtly and transparently working class person from England in the 90s. But, hey, that hasn't stopped all the accusations of plagiarism that Dylan has faced but it has rendered those accusations less significant than they have for Oasis.

Quote
I don't remember much of a political angle to them but maybe my strong aversion to their music made me overlook it.

They were political on a subtle level - ina similar vein with, say, I Want to Hold Your Hand and Elvis, in terms of how they shook up the status quo and gave parents something to worry about. Yet Oasis was throwing down the gauntlet not just for a generation but for a whole category of society.

Quote
Pulp had the best of both worlds- great music and subversion.

Pulp was amazing. But I might make that same point about Oasis - great music and subversion. And furthermore, Pulp seemed to only be able to do what they could do after Oasis broke through the barrier. Pulp had been around for years without making much of an impact.
Logged
Please delete my account
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 872

Please delete my account


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2015, 06:15:06 AM »

Yeah, I regretted immediately using the word "derivative" in my criticism of Oasis, because that's not why I didn't like them. Pulp were just as derivative but I actually liked them.

As for Oasis paving the way for Pulp, maybe there's some truth in that in terms of gross sales but they had already become my favourite band with the "his 'n' hers" singles, (which charted and everything) before I had even heard of Oasis. And the real commercial crossover breakthrough for this sort of thing in Britain was Blur's "Girls and Boys"- everything seemed to happen in the wake of that. At least that's how it felt at the time, to a teenager in the UK.

Come a bit off-topic, haven't we!

EDIT: regarding northern working class voices in British pop, the Happy Mondays and Stone Roses from a few years previously deserve mention, though they didn't make quite as much mainstream impact.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 06:32:03 AM by unreleased backgrounds » Logged

Please delete my account
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2015, 07:46:39 AM »

I think that saying that George Martin made the Beatles, or visa versa is rather harsh. I think Martin helped their sound, especially at the beginning. To me Abbey Road is miles better than the white album or Let it Be. As good as those two are. But Martin brought something extra I think.

Although it took Paul and John several years of preforming and recording before they finally hit their stride. For Brian, Surfin hit the top 100 and within a year they were on Capitol and soon after had a smash hit in Surfin USA. Even though Paul and John started making music before Brian, it seems that Brian was 2 years ahead of them. It took some polishing and George Martin to get them over the hump.

Isn`t this a rather skewed viewpoint? I mean, Surfin USA is obviously a classic hit but let`s not forget that The Beatles had 3 number ones in 1963 and the members had written several big hits for other acts (most produced by George Martin of course).

Brian`s genius was certainly beginning to shine by this point but I really don`t see how it can be said that Lennon and McCartney were 2 years behind???
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2015, 08:05:19 AM »


I'd say that Oasis pushed more boundaries than Blur. They were the first class conscious band to come around in quite some time -- and to articulate a working class attitude and character specifically at a time when such behaviour had been marginalized and denigrated was a remarkable achievement and it was a decision which has given the band an enduring place in British culture. Their music was definitely purpose-driven: it was utterly a reaction against conservative rule in England which had worked to silence and demonize an entire culture. Oasis reacted to that by basically saying, "We've got dreams too and we're going to live them out even if it's only in our minds," and, also, "Just try to shut us up." The idea that they "are in no way timeless" is proven false by the evidence. Twelve years after Definitely Maybe was released, the album was voted by NME readers as the best album of all time ahead of Sgt. Pepper and Revolver. Two years after that, it was voted as the number one British album in a poll taken by Q and HMV. Furthermore, Noel Gallagher's first solo album in 2011 was the second biggest selling rock album of the year, so the sound still resonates with people.

I like Blur as well but as a critic said in a documentary I recently watched, Blur's music lacked what Oasis's music had in spades, which was heart.

I think this gives Oasis rather too much credit. The first class conscious band to come around in quite some time? I don`t think that`s true at all as there had been numerous outspoken working class bands around from The Smiths onwards. Liam Gallagher`s whole persona was nicked from Ian Brown after all some might say…

The timing obviously did work for them and tied in with New Labour and the false dawn that offered but the basic reasons that they were successful is that they had catchy, singalong songs and a charismatic singer.


« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 08:08:52 AM by Nicko1234 » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2015, 08:20:03 AM »

I think this gives Oasis rather too much credit. The first class conscious band to come around in quite some time? I don`t think that`s true at all as there had been numerous outspoken working class bands around from The Smiths onwards. Liam Gallagher`s whole persona was nicked from Ian Brown after all some might say…

The timing obviously did work for them and tied in with New Labour and the false dawn that offered but the basic reasons that they were successful is that they had catchy, singalong songs and a charismatic singer.


I didn't respond to the last comment about this from unreleased backgrounds because I agree with him that we may have been veering off topic, though maybe this kind of thread demands it. So I don't want UB to think I'm ignoring him but I thought that I would give a response to this.

To be honest, there's very little that you wrote that I disagree with. When I said that they were the first "class conscious band to come around in quite some time," I suppose I really meant for a few years. But, to be perfectly honest, I would still say that while The Smiths and The Stone Roses did present that kind of Mancunian character and contributed to a lineage in which Oasis eventually placed themselves, they were nevertheless even more "conscious" of themselves as representative of a working class than those two bands. This doesn't make them better, incidentally, it's simply an observation of their aesthetic. In other words, whereas The Smiths would sing about Keats and Yeats, Oasis flagrantly sang about dole culture. If their first album is about anything, it's that we have a fantasy of a better life that we'll probably never achieve and ultimately the best things that are culturally available to us are cigarettes, alcohol, and sex. I just don't see this kind of very class conscious message being articulated in the Smiths and Stone Roses as good as (and as Mancunian as) their music is. And further to the point, as I said, this whole class of people had largely been marginalized and silenced by conservative rule. The Stone Roses response to that was largely more silence - they may be the quietest people in the history of British rock - arrogant, yes, but quiet. Oasis were the exact opposite - they were always talking, refusing to shut up, and making a point that they were going to be heard. If Liam was Ian Brown, he was Ian Brown times a thousand. And Ian Brown moved more on stage.

I also agree that this is not what made them successful. I was only bringing that up to say how they pushed boundaries too - maybe not in the same way as, say, Blur, but they pushed them nevertheless in a very politically sensitive time (as you note). What made them successful was indeed catchy music that carried with it an ethos of positivity.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2015, 08:33:12 AM »


I didn't respond to the last comment about this from unreleased backgrounds because I agree with him that we may have been veering off topic, though maybe this kind of thread demands it. So I don't want UB to think I'm ignoring him but I thought that I would give a response to this.

To be honest, there's very little that you wrote that I disagree with. When I said that they were the first "class conscious band to come around in quite some time," I suppose I really meant for a few years. But, to be perfectly honest, I would still say that while The Smiths and The Stone Roses did present that kind of Mancunian character and contributed to a lineage in which Oasis eventually placed themselves, they were nevertheless even more "conscious" of themselves as representative of a working class than those two bands. This doesn't make them better, incidentally, it's simply an observation of their aesthetic. In other words, whereas The Smiths would sing about Keats and Yeats, Oasis flagrantly sang about dole culture. If their first album is about anything, it's that we have a fantasy of a better life that we'll probably never achieve and ultimately the best things that are culturally available to us are cigarettes, alcohol, and sex. I just don't see this kind of very class conscious message being articulated in the Smiths and Stone Roses as good as (and as Mancunian as) their music is. And further to the point, as I said, this whole class of people had largely been marginalized and silenced by conservative rule. The Stone Roses response to that was largely more silence - they may be the quietest people in the history of British rock - arrogant, yes, but quiet. Oasis were the exact opposite - they were always talking, refusing to shut up, and making a point that they were going to be heard. If Liam was Ian Brown, he was Ian Brown times a thousand. And Ian Brown moved more on stage.

I also agree that this is not what made them successful. I was only bringing that up to say how they pushed boundaries too - maybe not in the same way as, say, Blur, but they pushed them nevertheless in a very politically sensitive time (as you note). What made them successful was indeed catchy music that carried with it an ethos of positivity.

`From the ice age to the Dole age...`

`A double bed and a stalwart lover for sure...these are the riches of the poor`

Lyrically there really was nothing new in what Oasis were singing.

And I think it is an exaggeration to talk about people being silenced by Conservative rule. A massive exaggeration. There were loads of vocally critical bands around at that time gaining mainstream success (Carter USM had a number one album in 1992 for example).

And I think too little is made of the fact that they came along at the right time during Britpop. Suede had already reached number one and Oasis and many other bands were in the right place at the right time.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2015, 08:45:44 AM »


`From the ice age to the Dole age...`

`A double bed and a stalwart lover for sure...these are the riches of the poor`

Lyrically there really was nothing new in what Oasis were singing.

I didn't say there was. At the same time Some Girls Are Bigger than Others is not about dole culture just because it has one reference to it. To compare that to, say, Cigarettes and Alcohol is bizarre. And these songs were about 10 years old by the time that Definitely Maybe came out. I never argued that Noel Gallagher was the first person in the history of mankind to incorporate the word "dole" in a pop song, which appears to be your reading of my argument.

Quote
And I think it is an exaggeration to talk about people being silenced by Conservative rule. A massive exaggeration. There were loads of vocally critical bands around at that time gaining mainstream success (Carter USM had a number one album in 1992 for example).

Yes, I'm talking generally and in a political sense not an artistic sense. Like in the sense that there are left wing dissident voices in the United States but they have no political legitimacy.

Quote
And I think too little is made of the fact that they came along at the right time during Britpop. Suede had already reached number one and Oasis and many other bands were in the right place at the right time.

Well, Suede never had a #1 single but they did have a #1 album in 1993. I never suggested that Oasis created Britpop but out of all the bands that "came along at the right time" (and there were many) they were by far the most successful. Timing wasn't everything. But, of course, no matter what band you are looking at - The Beatles, Beach Boys, Dylan, Oasis - timing will always play a factor in their success. I'm not sure what this truism has to do with anything though.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 08:46:35 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2015, 08:56:38 AM »


`From the ice age to the Dole age...`

`A double bed and a stalwart lover for sure...these are the riches of the poor`

Lyrically there really was nothing new in what Oasis were singing.

I didn't say there was. At the same time Some Girls Are Bigger than Others is not about dole culture just because it has one reference to it. To compare that to, say, Cigarettes and Alcohol is bizarre. And these songs were about 10 years old by the time that Definitely Maybe came out. I never argued that Noel Gallagher was the first person in the history of mankind to incorporate the word "dole" in a pop song, which appears to be your reading of my argument.

Quote
And I think it is an exaggeration to talk about people being silenced by Conservative rule. A massive exaggeration. There were loads of vocally critical bands around at that time gaining mainstream success (Carter USM had a number one album in 1992 for example).

Yes, I'm talking generally and in a political sense not an artistic sense. Like in the sense that there are left wing dissident voices in the United States but they have no political legitimacy.

Quote
And I think too little is made of the fact that they came along at the right time during Britpop. Suede had already reached number one and Oasis and many other bands were in the right place at the right time.

Well, Suede never had a #1 single but they did have a #1 album in 1993. I never suggested that Oasis created Britpop but out of all the bands that "came along at the right time" (and there were many) they were by far the most successful. Timing wasn't everything. But, of course, no matter what band you are looking at - The Beatles, Beach Boys, Dylan, Oasis - timing will always play a factor in their success. I'm not sure what this truism has to do with anything though.

Ok. I won`t keep sidetracking the thread anymore. My basic point I guess was that Oasis were just following the other music up to that that time. The arrogance of Morrissey with the bad behaviour of the Madchester scene made their attitude. The Beatles, Stones, Status Quo etc. made their music. Too much can be read into everything else...
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.257 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!