Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Debate: Oasis or The Darkness
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Well if that is your argument then I shall ask that you regurgitate your overused clichés somewhere else as you are wrong. What more can I say?
Fact is Oasis have never given a Beatles cover a major release, ie Album track or Single so what your saying is utter tripe.
You can always ask. Which clichés in particular are you objecting to?
You think I meant Beatles covers literally! Thats 2 funny.
Fact is lots of people loathe Oasis. Thats a fact.0 -
Originally posted by RicardoSmith
You can always ask. Which clichés in particular are you objecting to?
You think I meant Beatles covers literally! Thats 2 funny.
Fact is lots of people loathe Oasis. Thats a fact.
The 'oasis just copy the beatles' cliché is the one I was referring to. This comment wasn't backed up or anything.
I'm sure you'll bring up the beginning of 'don't look back...' but that is simply a tribute, not a rip off. It doesn't feature in the song further and the song would be the same without it.
Here's your chance big shot.
How have Oasis ever ripped off The Beatles???0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Who asked him to defend them? He was asked to give his reasons for saying "Slayer are shít" when noone is allowed say it about Oasis without giving reasons. It was purely on the basis of the favourtist hypocirsy displayed.
God Hates Us All was a pretty terrible album, as a fan I can and will admit to that.
The riffs only drive the songs, its the drumming and the solos that make Slayer the force they are, before I get shot down, this is of course only my opinion. But as a drummer I love Slayer, and their songs hold an appeal to me, (and I can alos point out that its more than likely the top 2 strings you refer to), they are interesting to people who enjoy listening to good musicians within the metal genre, and the band have put out some of the best metal albums ever.
And Tom Ayra's a vocalist, not a singer!
See, that was objective, as to why I like Slayer (and I even admit to their last album sucking balls!), my problem with isthisit was his blatnat "Slayer are shít" with no reasoning, yet when its said about Oasis he doesn't take kindly to it. Slayer have been around longer, sold millions of records, and have legions of fans. By the basis for what has defined Oasis as 'great' throughout this thread then surely Slayer can be considered great too?!
(Hehe, that just HAD to be done!)
But as said, this isn't about Slayer, its about the double standards and poor attitude isthisit displayed.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I wouldn't call it a tribute. I'd say it was a band running out of ideas putting the bucket back into the well
I think what the gist of it all is is this: Oasis had some great songs, but, overall, their sound was generally derivative and after a bright start the quality of their output has faded. This prevents them from being recognised as a truly great band. I think that's fair. Plus, their success was extremely localised and they rode the crest of the Britpop wave. This, again, would prevent them from being recognised as a great band.
In my opinion, they were a good band. Now they seemingly have little else to offer. Not great though, no way.0 -
Originally posted by Doctor J
I wouldn't call it a tribute. I'd say it was a band running out of ideas putting the bucket back into the well
I think what the gist of it all is is this: Oasis had some great songs, but, overall, their sound was generally derivative and after a bright start the quality of their output has faded. This prevents them from being recognised as a truly great band. I think that's fair. Plus, their success was extremely localised and they rode the crest of the Britpop wave. This, again, would prevent them from being recognised as a great band.
In my opinion, they were a good band. Now they seemingly have little else to offer. Not great though, no way.
Doctor J has said it far better than I could have.
The Beatles have some fairly rocked out versions of their songs too. Especially live. They weren't adverse to an overdriven amp here and there at all. But one of the things that made them great was the diversity of styles that they used and the wide variety of material that they could write.0 -
Originally posted by Doctor J
I wouldn't call it a tribute. I'd say it was a band running out of ideas putting the bucket back into the well
I think what the gist of it all is is this: Oasis had some great songs, but, overall, their sound was generally derivative and after a bright start the quality of their output has faded. This prevents them from being recognised as a truly great band. I think that's fair. Plus, their success was extremely localised and they rode the crest of the Britpop wave. This, again, would prevent them from being recognised as a great band.
In my opinion, they were a good band. Now they seemingly have little else to offer. Not great though, no way.
well put .....0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement