Debate: Oasis or The Darkness

Giblet

Hey Oasis are just boring, and Liam whines too much, the end.

Töpher

Originally posted by Giblet
Hey Oasis are just boring, and Liam whines too much, the end.

How many posts did it take me to get that point across?!

I envy your english skills Giblet!

Bungalow Bill

"Hey Oasis are just boring, and Liam whines too much, the end. "

Obviously a genius writing here and why did we spend ages discussing if this was so blatantly the only conclusion???

Well in case you didn't realise I'm being sarcastic here dipsh*t. Boring bands don't sell millions of records and if they do it's to 8yr old or 80yr olds. Oasis have a loyal fanbase of 15-35 year olds.

And as for your comment about Liam being whiney, the exact same could be said for billy corgan, thom yorke, damien rice and loads of others. This isn't even bringing stupid american rock bands who at 30+ still seem to suffer from teenage angst.

honru

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
None of those songs sound even vaguely similar! Yes the beginning of 'don't look back in anger' but that is just a small tribute and the riff is used nowhere else in the song.

Well I'm not going to continue arguing about this. The fact is is that Oasis coy alot from The Beatles. If you are content with that, that's fine, I don't care.

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Eh....the fact that most people see them as a joke novelty band is partly the reason!
And I didn't say it for definite i said it was barely plausible, given the silliness of their act.

How about Kiss, a band that are arguably sillier than The Darkness and have been around together longer than the two in-question bands combined. They are still alive and well.
All in all, the statement you made is a little unjustified and very biased. It's still very appearant that you pass off the The Darkness because their image/videos have a humourous aspect about them.

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Now your comparing the darkness to Led Zeppelin???

First off, I wasn't comparing any bands at all. And even if I was, it wouldn't make it morally wrong to, or undermine any band in either way. The fact that you see a problem with this just proves how irrational and irrelevant your arguements are.

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
And forgive us if we don't like our music 'silly'.

Taking my points literally? Why? I explained what I meant by this. Go back and read my post.

Originally posted by isthisit
These Oasis tracks have "borrowed" riffs etc. from Beatles tracks. the intro to 'Don't Look Back In Anger' and the final riff of 'Shes Electric'. But they are not excessivly used and couldn'r really be classed as ripoffs.

I didn't say they were ripping off The Beatles, I said they were trying to be the new Beatles, a Beatles for the ninties if you will. Why this is such an issue, I don't know, but in my opinion, it doesn't appeal to me. It has just left them too unoriginal.

Originally posted by isthisit
Quite simply their haircuts dont matter. It's the music that counts.

Still a valid point, I believe. But if it really is the music that counts, then why does The Darkness' humorous image come into the equation?

Bungalow Bill

"Well I'm not going to continue arguing about this. The fact is is that Oasis copy alot from The Beatles. If you are content with that, that's fine, I don't care."

That was my point, this is not a fact, it is a silly statement made my some uneducated fool. The truth is is that the beginning of don't look back.... was a tribute and neither further featured nor added to the song. That IS a fact.

"Now your comparing the darkness to Led Zeppelin???"

I said this in relation to you grouping them in the same category, Led Zeppellin were not 'silly'.

"The fact is is that Oasis copy a lot from The Beatles"
"I didn't say they were ripping off The Beatles"

Do YOU even know what you are trying to say?


"QUOTE]Originally posted by isthisit
Quite simply their haircuts dont matter. It's the music that counts.

Still a valid point, I believe. But if it really is the music that counts, then why does The Darkness' humorous image come into the equation?"

There is a huge difference between people having similar haircuts and a band arriving in a spaceship to an award show, wearing tails, trying to appeal to 6year old girls and rock fans alike, and the fact that they are regularly compared with the pisstake band spinal tap.

Töpher

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Boring bands don't sell millions of records and if they do it's to 8yr old or 80yr olds. Oasis have a loyal fanbase of 15-35 year olds.

Many of whom delight us with their fashionable tracksuits, lack of hair, and classy jewellery, and enjoy drinking Dutch Gold in a field somewhere.*

On a serious note, are you actually tring to say that because Oasis dont have 8 or 80 year old fans they're not boring, but those that do have 8 or 80 year old fans and sell millions of records are boring? What you essentially said just there is that because alot teenagers and young adults like Oasis they're not boring. Round of applause to you, ol' chum.



*If you cant take that with a pinch of salt you've got your tongue too far up Liams colon.

Creamy Goodness

both crap but darkness are less annoying outta the two

Bungalow Bill

"Boring bands don't sell millions of records and if they do it's to 8yr old or 80yr olds. Oasis have a loyal fanbase of 15-35 year olds. "

This is a valid comment, don't just rubbish it. I was making the point that with Oasis' fanbase being the most fickle demographic then if they were boring then surely they wouldn't be so successful .ie, Old people like Daniel o' Donnell and really young people like westlife.


"Many of whom delight us with their fashionable tracksuits, lack of hair, and classy jewellery, and enjoy drinking Dutch Gold in a field somewhere.*

Am I actually supposed to respond to this, you say take it with with a pinch of salt but the comment didn't come from nowhere, you obviously have certain preconceptions about what type of person I am, and I assure you, I am not.

Giblet

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
"Boring bands don't sell millions of records and if they do it's to 8yr old or 80yr olds. Oasis have a loyal fanbase of 15-35 year olds.

Oh I'm sorry, you want me to tell you what I find boring.
Well prepare for the longest post ever.....

Oh wait, it's quite simple, their simple, uninspiring music, makes me yawn, I yawn when I'm tired, or bored. Your comment about the 15-30 demographic also has no merit, as 90% or this demographic would listen to almost anything, or have no distinguished taste in music, and no, I don't mean this in a "holier than thou" way from my perspective, just that they don't care what they listen to, and like anything "catchy"

Good enough for you.

Britney Spears also sells millions of CD's, does this mean I can't have an opinion on her music either.

Why bother to talk about other artists who are whiney, we are "discussing" Oasis aren't we, so please feel free to justify why you like Oasis, but don't try and justify why I should....dipshit.

As to the question, "why did we spend ages here when that was the obvious conclusion"

It's because I'm smarter than you.

Töpher

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Am I actually supposed to respond to this, you say take it with with a pinch of salt but the comment didn't come from nowhere, you obviously have certain preconceptions about what type of person I am, and I assure you, I am not.

Did that count as a response?

Spunog UIE

Originally posted by Giblet
Oh I'm sorry, you want me to tell you what I find boring.
Well prepare for the longest post ever.....

Oh wait, it's quite simple, their simple, uninspiring music, makes me yawn, I yawn when I'm tired, or bored. Your comment about the 15-30 demographic also has no merit, as 90% or this demographic would listen to almost anything, or have no distinguished taste in music, and no, I don't mean this in a "holier than thou" way from my perspective, just that they don't care what they listen to, and like anything "catchy"

Good enough for you.

Britney Spears also sells millions of CD's, does this mean I can't have an opinion on her music either.

Why bother to talk about other artists who are whiney, we are "discussing" Oasis aren't we, so please feel free to justify why you like Oasis, but don't try and justify why I should....dipshit.

As to the question, "why did we spend ages here when that was the obvious conclusion"

It's because I'm smarter than you.

haha.... !

honru

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
That was my point, this is not a fact, it is a silly statement made my some uneducated fool. The truth is is that the beginning of don't look back.... was a tribute and neither further featured nor added to the song. That IS a fact.

So if that was your point, we are in an agreement that Oasis coy alot from The Beatles? Thank God that's over with!

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
I said this in relation to you grouping them in the same category, Led Zeppellin were not 'silly'.

Led Zeppelin WERE silly, just lighten up! While I wouldn't call them the silliest band during the 70's and definetly wouldn't use them as a direct comparison to The Darkness, they were big guitar rock and didn't take everything so seriously, elements that The Darkness clearly portray.

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
"The fact is is that Oasis copy a lot from The Beatles"
"I didn't say they were ripping off The Beatles"
Do YOU even know what you are trying to say?

Um... yes, I said to coy, which is to take influence from something. Just read my damn post and stop editing my sentences!

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
There is a huge difference between people having similar haircuts and a band arriving in a spaceship to an award show, wearing tails, trying to appeal to 6year old girls and rock fans alike, and the fact that they are regularly compared with the pisstake band spinal tap.

My question is still unanswered. What is this? A last ditch attempt to deter me from the band? I already know they are taking the piss, and the fact that you prescribed them to a six-year old fanbase is truely unfair indeed. And Spinal Tap rules.

But you've just pointed out the best thing about The Darkness. Name another rock band that would risk doing this (it is partly glam rock after all), and still manage to put on such a rockin' good show? Not really looking for a reply here, this thread has really just watered down far much which your ridiculous misconceptions. I leave you now with my original posts and you see if anything has developed;

Oasis are just that MOR band that, musically just doesn't blow me away. They're uninventive and it's painfully obvious that they are trying to be the new Beatles. I also really dislike the Gallagher brothers for their attitude.

The Darkness, on the other hand, is the first time rock has been so fun in ages. The fact that they are taking the piss IS the best thing about them, they're able to capture the imagination. This has been lost for, what? 20 years?

Bungalow Bill

"Hey Oasis are just boring, and Liam whines too much, the end."

See this is the thing, I have said why I think Oasis are a great band(see my first post). I spoken at length throughout this thread why I think so. This quote you see at the top was the subtotal of your argument!

The FACT of the matter is that what I said about the demographic IS TRUE. If a band selling millions of albums to young(ish) people begin to get boring and diminish in quality then they will go downhill very, very fast. Oasis after being hyped as the 'world's greatest band' still have legions of fans who believe this.

"Why bother to talk about other artists who are whiney, we are "discussing" Oasis aren't we, so please feel free to justify why you like Oasis, but don't try and justify why I should....dip****."

You said Liam was whiney and I quite simply said that that was a stupid comment because that can be said about almost any rock singer. Ironically Oasis are a notoriously feel-good band!


"feel free to justify why you like Oasis, but don't try and justify why I should....dip****"

In practice these two things serve the very same purpose!

And also please provide examples of songs that you like that aren't "catchy", isn't this the essence of a song??If there is nothing memorable about it then how can it be good???

"Britney Spears also sells millions of CD's, does this mean I can't have an opinion on her music either."

Eh...nobody said you couldn't. It just has to be informed and discussive and not 'shoving it down our throats'.

Anything else smartass???

Bungalow Bill

And the other guy.......

"Led Zeppelin WERE silly"

You would not catch Led Zeppelin singing "Love is only a feeling" or "Don't let the bells end"

The bit from 'Imagine' "neither further featured nor added to the song". I certainly was not in agreement with you.

"The fact is is that Oasis coy a lot from The Beatles"

True, but all bands have their influences and can only create by adapting what they already know.
Apologies I thought it was a misspelling.

"you prescribed them to a six-year old fanbase is truely unfair indeed"

No it's not. They are on cd:uk every turnabout and have supported Robbie Williams.

Töpher

Didn't Robbie Williams used to be in Oasis?

AL][EN

dont really hate either band but tbh the darkness are a fresh upbeat band something new to listen to, everyones herd of oasis and everyone knows there lyrics, herd there songs a million times before, so it gets old really,

i actually like quite a few of the darkness songs, i'd deff go to see em in concert however i dont think id go see oasis unless they were playing at a festival or something, my vote goes to the darkness

Bungalow Bill

Giblet

"It's because I'm smarter than you"

While I was reading the thread for rock/metal, I see that you like METALLICA! HAhaHAhaHAhaHAha.

Don't ever make such a stupid statement again about my, or your lack of, intelligence. It is only someone suffering from a severe case of ignorance that would say such a thing:p

You insult my music tastes but like the band that released 'frantic'?

Giblet

Oh did I now, because it looks to me like I was slagging the guy above, and saying that they should of broken up years ago, because they are shit.

You are an idiot, I suggest you read, and re-read, and re-re-read that post again.

God you really have shown your ignorance and stupidity.
Now go back to listening to your G chord music and talk to your equally ignorant mates about how Liam is a genius, and how your "mad for it"

Töpher

Don't forget the Dutch Gold

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by f®eak s©enery
Led Zeppelin WERE silly, just lighten up! While I wouldn't call them the silliest band during the 70's and definetly wouldn't use them as a direct comparison to The Darkness, they were big guitar rock and didn't take everything so seriously, elements that The Darkness clearly portray.

I like Zeppelin, but I think they did take things a bit too seriously.
Ever see The Song Remains The Same? The film parts of that were all deadly serious from what I know (i.e. total pretention, besides Bonham and the drag racing/drinking pints in a pub).
Also when Page used a bow to play guitar in concert I don't think he was trying to amuse people

Oh yeah, back on topic:
Oasis - Bland, adequate musicians, bad lyrics, best left in the mid 90s.
Darkness - Bad rip-off of Spinal Tap.

Bungalow Bill

'ye i tink thy rool 2, i cant w8 til tha RDS'

What more can I say???
unless this is some sort of internet nerd code of sarcasm or something then I am right again.
Why didn't you respond to the rest of my post....Because you know I am right.

funktastic

It's pretty fashionable for people students especially to slag Oasis, with loads of people never bothering to hear them. It's like people who disregard Nirvana purely because they see 13 year old skaters going round with a Nirvana smiley face t shirt and makes them think its'uncool' to listen to Nirvana.

Oasis make a classic album in 'Definitely Maybe', and while their career after did go to ****, and they amassed a huge skanger following, putting people into music off them. Does anyone remember the hugely positive reviews Definitely Maybe got at the time? Think of the music at the time, Liams delivery was unique and a breath of fresh air.

Quote 'f®eak s©enery'
' Led Zeppelin WERE silly, just lighten up! While I wouldn't call them the silliest band during the 70's and definetly wouldn't use them as a direct comparison to The Darkness, they were big guitar rock and didn't take everything so seriously, elements that The Darkness clearly portray'

Yeah Zeppelin did take the piss,songs like the Crunge etc are purely tongue in cheek , but they cannot be compared at all to the TOTAL pisstakes of the Darkness. Page wrote some stunningly innovative material, when The Darkness come out with an album anywhere near as good as LZ 3 they can begin to warrant respect,
At the moment they're just a happy-go-lucky band which brings people who arent into rock music into it- teens will probably look further into older rock music from listening to the Darkness which can't be a bad thing.

Anyway , The Darkness and Oasis are pretty much poles apart musically- But on cpmparison of each of their debut albums, Oasis were miles ahead, yeah they ****ed it up, but at least it wasnt just some guy screeching into a mic playing kiss riffs and textbook spandex 80s hairmetal- it's pretty sad when people see this nostalgic **** with everything being justified in terms of the past as 'A breath of fresh air' its not, its just a piss-take, some fun - absolutely nothing more! and I'm sure the Darkness would be the first to admit this

Giblet

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
'ye i tink thy rool 2, i cant w8 til tha RDS'

Again, I have already explained this, so I think, for the final time, I should type it in a manner your simple mind can comprehend.


READ .... THE ..... POST ...... ABOVE ..... MY .... ONE.... IN... THE ..... METALLICA .... THREAD ..... I ...... WAS .....SLAGGING .... HIS ..... STYLE ..... OF ...... POSTING ..... BECAUSE ...... IT ..... LOOKED ..... LIKE ...... A ..... TEXT ..... MESSAGE!


DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH!

honru

OASIS R TEH SUK
DARKNESS ROOL!!!1

Capisce?

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
You would not catch Led Zeppelin singing "Love is only a feeling" or "Don't let the bells end"

I was never comparing Led Zeppelin to The Darkness and you should honestly get that into your head someday.

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill ]
True, but all bands have their influences and can only create by adapting what they already know.

Well yeah, sort of, but in the case of Oasis the comparisons between them and The Beatles are heavily documented and heavily discussed. Now, in my opinion, I just feel that the band has been left in an unoriginal state with nowhere to go.

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
No it's not. They are on cd:uk every turnabout and have supported Robbie Williams.

Well, Oasis have appeared (or have had videos played) on CD:UK, so does that mean they should be regelected to a six-year old fanbase? Record labels request that bands perform on these shows once they have a hit single, despite the fact that the charts today in majority are filled with dribble.

Also, the demographic you applied to Oasis (15-35) could easily be applied to Robbie Williams. So why I ask, do you think it's fair to heavily emphasize a six-year old fanbase, just because of your stagnant preconceptions and distaste of the band's humourous image/videos. I honestly couldn't give a crap if six-year olds listen to The Darkness, but this just proves the amount of narrow-minded tripe that you just continuesly pull out of your ass.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I like Zeppelin, but I think they did take things a bit too seriously.
Ever see The Song Remains The Same? The film parts of that were all deadly serious from what I know (i.e. total pretention, besides Bonham and the drag racing/drinking pints in a pub).

I actually thought that movie was pretty insane, it's basically a fantasy movie with interpertations of the Zeppelin members, all during a live concert :cool:.

Originally posted by funktastic
Yeah Zeppelin did take the piss,songs like the Crunge etc are purely tongue in cheek , but they cannot be compared at all to the TOTAL pisstakes of the Darkness.

While I agree with you, you should know that I was not comparing these two bands. Bungalow Bill has just hauled on with this for so long that it would make you see otherwise.

isthisit

Concerning The Darkness. In the beginning it was mildly amusing and even refreshing to have a new band in the charts dressing up like idiots and so forth, but it got old fast. The clothes aren’t funny anymore and the songs are bad. The Darkness have had an uninspiring album, some surprisingly similar tracks and a song with the words ‘don’t let the bells end’ in it. I mean now people, that’s very poor, particularly from a band that won three Brit Awards and are being called ‘the best band in Britain today’. And that falsetto is just getting annoying. They have worm themselves out, become bland and uninteresting, and made themselves look like idiots while they’re doing it. And all in the space of six months. And this is supposed to be the best Britain can offer??……….Rubbish.

isthisit

Here are some recent quotes from Noel Gallagher and Justin Hawkins:

Noel branded the Darkness ‘inoffensive’, and said ‘their music does nothing for me’.

Justin said Noel is ‘an overrated guitarist losing his credibility, who has to fire shots on his way down’.

What Noel said is fine. He is just expressing his opinion. Fair enough.

What Justin said makes no sense. While Noel has done lots of great guitar work (e.g. Live Forever, Champagne Supernova), the main hype about Noel, especially in the early years, was his great talent as a songwriter, not as a guitarist. Since when is he ‘losing his credibility’? The last Oasis album was very good and the next one will be even better. Therefore he has not lost any credibility. He hasn’t been ‘firing shots’ too much lately either. He is definitely not on his way down.

Töpher

*cough*

They have worm themselves out, become bland and uninteresting, and made themselves look like idiots while they’re doing it.

While I respect your right to say this, I feel the need to point out the obvious...: The songs were written and recorded before the first single off the album even came out. How in the name of jebuz can you say they've "become" bland, this is what they always were. Moron. The songs were already written and already pressed on a cd. Just because you're only hearing them now doesnt mean that they had a hit and then wrote crap, they already had them written. And no, I'm not including the chessy Christmas single, thats beyond the point. It was a joke.

Just be thankful I didn't have capslock on.

And for the record, I don't like the Darkness, was just pointing out the hideous holes in what you said.

And whether or not that talentless spa has lost credibility or not is down to opinion. You don't think he has, many think he has. Outright saying he hasn't means nothing and makes you look like an idiot,

Bungalow Bill

"The songs were written and recorded before the first single off the album even came out. How in the name of jebuz can you say they've "become" bland, this is what they always were. Moron. The songs were already written and already pressed on a cd. Just because you're only hearing them now doesnt mean that they had a hit and then wrote crap, they already had them written"


It is true that they were recorded BUT it is also true that for debut albums the strongest songs are released first. I think that it is plainly obvious that the x-mas song and 'love is only a feeling' are not a patch on 'i believe in a thing called love' and 'growing on me'.
He is not wrong in saying that the falsetto has become more than tiresome and the singles have become considerably blander as they have progressed.
When he said that he meant that to the passive listener who was expecting some more big songs as singles that they have been disappointed

Töpher

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill

He is not wrong in saying that the falsetto has become more than tiresome and the singles have become considerably blander as they have progressed.

HAD he actually said then then you'd be right. But it is not what was said.

They have worm themselves out, become bland and uninteresting, and made themselves look like idiots while they’re doing it.

isthisit

that is what i said.
best songs first followed by poor singles. they have become bland and simply not very good.
the fact that all the songs were written and recorded at once doesnt matter. thats the way it is on every CD.
the first few are good and then its just downhill.