Debate: Oasis or The Darkness

RicardoSmith · 22-03-2004 5:20pm

Originally posted by bazH
Jaysis this has turned into some amount of crap, anyone willing to show me the songs where Oasis rip off The Beatles. if they do it so often there must be at least 5-6

All their songs sound like the Beatles. Either you can hear it or you can't.

wiped · 22-03-2004 5:21pm

I agree with Bungalow Bill regarding their early B-Sides ... some great tracks that should really have been album tracks , but that's what I believe is part of Oasis' problem ...

Definately Maybe - great songs from an unknown band with fire in their belly and a point to prove - Rock 'n' ****in Roll.

What's The Story - a good 2nd album considering the 2nd is always the difficult one ... however I would say that they had lost a bit of the rawness of the first with an increased studio budget leading to it being a lot more "polished" etc etc ....

now during this time they had a lot of good songs that popped up on B-Sides when really they should have been stored away as future album tracks ... but i believe the arrogance and "coke" had really started to kick in at this stage and they thought - "nah **** it , we'll be able to write plenty more top tunes - we're ****in unstoppable".

Then came "Be Here Now" and the cracks began to show ... Oasis had officially begun to believe their own "tabloid" hype and released a very , very dodgey album ... even they admit that now (in hind sight) ....

Everything after that is complete sh!te ..... and the impact of Guigsey & Bonehead leaving the band is often overlooked ... not so ... the were integral to the fabric that once was Oasis ......

... I dread Oasis releases now as I listen to them with pity and think what might have been.

All of this is obviously my opinion but is why I would consider Oasis NOT to be a "great band".

zAbbo · 22-03-2004 5:43pm

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
All their songs sound like the Beatles. Either you can hear it or you can't.

Specifically show me, the above sentence is utter crap, you could say a fair amount of The Beatles songs are based on Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly, Elvis etc.

RicardoSmith · 22-03-2004 6:02pm

I'm not saying this Oasis song A is a exact note for note rip off of Beatles song A but they SOUND like the beatles. I'm not saying Oasis song A is the same song as Oasis song B but that their songs all SOUND the same.

Bungalow Bill · 22-03-2004 7:06pm

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Whats the point in talking about other bands, the thread topic is (in board terms) "Oasis is a great band". Theres no need to talk about anyone else.

What examples do you want. I'm saying that the Oasis sound is highly derivitive of the Beatles. I'm not going to analyse it note by note with you, phrase by phrase thats just stupid. I'm not saying that Oasis rehash Yellow Submarine on every album for Petes sake!

Doctor J post sums it up nicely. Theres nothing more to add.

ANd the award for biggest cop-out goes to.....Ricardosmith!

Jesus just back up your bloody point man that's all we ask and the least we deserve.

Could 'highly derivative' be ANY more vague???

Look if you can't back it up then admit it and stop embarrassing yourself. Surely there must be a lot of examples, i mean "

All their songs sound like the Beatles. Either you can hear it or you can't.

Töpher · 22-03-2004 7:06pm

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Still wating for those examples Ricardo!! Or is it that you cannot provide any??

The reprise is hardly an example of a band running out of ideas! It is a small tribute that had little to no significance.

Are you saying the Strokes album cover rip off of 'smell the glove' is because they couldn't think of anything else??
It's a stupid argument.

Don't get me wrong The Beatles are my favourite band of all time and I don't think Oasis are even in their league, then again though, I don't think anybody is.
This is why I know what I'm talking about. Oasis do not sound like the beatles! I don't see where this is coming from! The Beatles had so much harmonies, so much more lead guitar, country influences, indian influences, completely different vocalists, were in to concept albums, had bits of french in their songs, funny songs, silly songs, werent even a 5 piece. I mean none of this applies to Oasis. Oasis are anthemic predominantly rock band.
Contrary to what people assume they are certainly not stuck ina rut either. Other band members are now writing songs and some good ones too, see Born on a different cloud, better man, thankyouforthegoodtimes, hung in a bad place. Some really good tracks.

I will agree that sotsog was a poorer effort than the other albums but hell if they hadn't wasted so many great tracks as b-sides it would have been class! Flashbax, idler's dream, Aquiesce(sp*), take me away, stay young.

Why the fck isn't Eminem slammed for literally stealing a sample, and just rapping during the verses? Surely this is far worse than a band doing a reprise on an album??

And as for not moving forward. Has anybody heard Slayer's last album??Utter tripe at best. And as for Metallica another supposed great band. St anger anybody??WTF was that?

Surley A band like the Coral are far more guilty of stealing the beatles sound ??? no? because I think are. See the similarities between things we said today and pass it on by the coral. Now that is ripping off.

Now now. Who mentioned the Strokes? Or Metallica? Or the Coral? Or Eminem? Stick to the point...!

Doctor J's post was well put, and seems to have been agreed on by alot of people, so there's some form of logic too it... I suggest you reread it and think carefully about the points made.

As I said before, as a Slayer fan I dislike their last album (barring about 2 songs), but spanning a 20 year career you're going to have low points, fact.

(I must say I loved the argument that they aren't ripping off the Beatles cuz Oasis are a 5 piece!)

And also, anyone who has listened to both bands is just as qualified as yourself to say "This is why I know what I'm talking about."

And as for your comment on the Strokes album cover being a rip off being a stupid argument, no one but you mentioned that! Are you actually slagging off yourself?

(And yes, I know what you were referring to, I just found it amusing to read your post!)

Bungalow Bill · 22-03-2004 7:15pm

Originally posted by Einstürzende
Now now. Who mentioned the Strokes? Or Metallica? Or the Coral? Or Eminem? Stick to the point...!

Doctor J's post was well put, and seems to have been agreed on by alot of people, so there's some form of logic too it... I suggest you reread it and think carefully about the points made.

As I said before, as a Slayer fan I dislike their last album (barring about 2 songs), but spanning a 20 year career you're going to have low points, fact.

(I must say I loved the argument that they aren't ripping off the Beatles cuz Oasis are a 5 piece!)

And also, anyone who has listened to both bands is just as qualified as yourself to say "This is why I know what I'm talking about."

And as for your comment on the Strokes album cover being a rip off being a stupid argument, no one but you mentioned that! Are you actually slagging off yourself? (And yes, I know what you were referring to, I just found it amusing to read your post!)

My point about The Strokes was highly valid.
Slagging off myself????WTF??? I was saying that the reprise was not that they couldn't think of anything else but a little tribute. I then gave the example of the strokes using 'smell the glove'. Whats wrong with that?

Someone back a while had used the argument that Oasis even model their haircuts on The Beatles. Surley if this was the case then they would have an equal amount of bandmembers. It was a minor addition to my argument and you know it.

And yeah I agree that anyone with an truly informed opinion should be allowed express it, but if people are saying nonsensical things then I should question them. Whats the problem??

RicardoSmith · 22-03-2004 7:15pm

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
ANd the award for biggest cop-out goes to.....Ricardosmith!

Jesus just back up your bloody point man that's all we ask and the least we deserve.

Could 'highly derivative' be ANY more vague???

Look if you can't back it up then admit it and stop embarrassing yourself. Surely there must be a lot of examples, i mean "

All their songs sound like the Beatles. Either you can hear it or you can't.

Precisely how would you like me to back it up? What form/format would you accept?
How am I embrassing myself by stating my opinion, on something that is subjective?

Its just like your bs criteria for "great".

Bungalow Bill · 22-03-2004 9:03pm

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Precisely how would you like me to back it up? What form/format would you accept?
How am I embrassing myself by stating my opinion, on something that is subjective?

Its just like your bs criteria for "great".

Someone asked me to define great.... so I did, and I thought I did an ok job too!Whats wrong with it??

I want you to name The Bealtes songs/riffs or whatever that Oasis seem to steal all the time, and show me exactly where they have popped up in Oasis songs.
What did you think I meant?

You say they are a rip-off band, back it up.

Töpher · 22-03-2004 11:10pm

Oh for the love of God, if isthisit can get away with refusing to list reasons, then surely RicardoSmiths post is to be considered well written. He makes a valid point, he says this key word, DERIVATIVE, means highly similar too, not always the exact same. Which writes off your list of reasons (Of course they both had bloody different influences! Doesn't stop them sounding similar!), he never said they were the same band. And then points out that for more of what he thinks read Doctor J's thread, which is probably the most level headed post on this thread. Oasis are not original, its no shame to admit to it.

RicardoSmith · 23-03-2004 12:10am

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Someone asked me to define great.... so I did, and I thought I did an ok job too!Whats wrong with it??

I want you to name The Bealtes songs/riffs or whatever that Oasis seem to steal all the time, and show me exactly where they have popped up in Oasis songs.
What did you think I meant?

You say they are a rip-off band, back it up.

Please quote where "I" said they were a rip-off band.

You defined great by criteria which would also make Slayer are "great", But you have clearly posted your opinion that you don't value Slayer at all. So therefore...

1. Your criteria are meaningless
2. Slayer as great as Oasis
3. Oasis are as woeful as Slayer

You also said critical acclaim. I asked from who, you didn't respond.

I asked you to give us some stats on their sales in the US. Instead you give us stats on the UK (with no links we note) which is a vastly smaller market. Surely a truely great band would have huge success in the States, despite not having toured there.

However you could argue that stats in the States or even in general are not a measure of a band greatness. However if you do that then the stats in the UK have no relevance either. You can't have it both ways.

You ask for a songs/riffs that are directly copied from the Beatles, despite being told that its the sound that copied, and that they are DERIVATIVE.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Oasis have one sound. Theres no variation in what they do. They found a beatles like sound, then repeated ad nausem. They don't have to copy a song note for note to be copying someone else. Its mind numbingly boring. Its like fast food music. Theres no originality.

You mustn't don't understand the difference. If its not a transcription note by note you seem to think its not a copy. Doctor J has posted a few times about how Oasis have limited musical scope, more eloquently than I and how they have sampled from others but you appear to ignore this when you talk about rappers etc.

Originally posted by Doctor J
.... Oasis claim they wrote riffs and melodies which are clearly ripped off. (point in case being the second song on the last album, Iggy Pop wouldn't give them clearance to sample the drum beat which provides the intro so they got the same drum machine he used and programmed in exactly the same beat, is that not ripping off?)....

....Look, you like Oasis, I think they're ok, if vastly overrated. I have all the albums, saw a couple of gigs. They're ok. However, I think there are many, many other bands who have done greater things and written better songs, if not with the same success. Westlife are more successful than Oasis, and the Westlife crowd go mad when the lads dance to a climax. Popularity means little.

Blur wrote better songs (excluding Country House) and were vastly more original and creative, for a close example. Before you wet yourself, let me point out I'm not saying Blur are the best band ever, I'm saying that they were a better band than Oasis. Better musicians, better songs. They may not be/have been as successful as Oasis, but the songs are there for all to listen to.

Theres nothing I can add that others haven't already posted. You just not listening. You are blind and deaf to any reasonable view point rationally argued.

Executive Steve · 23-03-2004 2:18am

give it a rest. neither have any originality and i dont blame them... trying to get an original sound out of a few glued together bits of dead tree is like pissing in the wind. the darkness at least were mildly amusing for about five minutes [esp the time they were on jools holland and your man jumped on top of that smug w.ankers piano]

oasis - music for spotty children in celtic tops who dont like thinking for themselves.

the darkness - "ironic" metal for people who were too young to go to slade/wizzard/ac dc/iron maiden gigs.

liking either makes you a d!ckhead.

Lucutus · 23-03-2004 2:21am

gg, shots, plyd, locked.

Lucutus · 23-03-2004 5:17pm

Wow,

After a few quite passionate and emotionally touching pm's about not being able to 'finish' the arguments here, I've decided to open this thread up again for finishing comments and/or statements, the last words on the subject, if you will. It will be locked again tomorrow morning as it's simply become a modding headache.

So, fire away, but instead of replying on it with a mind to continuing on to infinity, let's all just accept that musical tastes can and do differ and put this whole thread behind us, (read: me.)

Luc

Doctor J · 23-03-2004 5:39pm

Lock it man, lock it now!!!

Executive Steve · 23-03-2004 5:43pm

Originally posted by Lucutus
Wow,

After a few quite passionate and emotionally touching pm's about not being able to 'finish' the arguments here, I've decided to open this thread up again for finishing comments and/or statements, the last words on the subject, if you will. It will be locked again tomorrow morning as it's simply become a modding headache.

So, fire away, but instead of replying on it with a mind to continuing on to infinity, let's all just accept that musical tastes can and do differ and put this whole thread behind us, (read: me.)

Luc

deal tony, i promise not to post in it again! :thumbsup:

RicardoSmith · 23-03-2004 5:54pm

Originally posted by Doctor J

Lock it man, lock it now!!!

The voice of reason as ever.....I second the motion.

Bungalow Bill · 23-03-2004 8:04pm

Ok pretty much my last post on the issue.

If I can be given some hard evidence on where oasis even sound remotely like the beatles I will be satisfied.

All their songs sound like the Beatles. Either you can hear it or you can't.
Oasis claim they wrote riffs and melodies which are clearly ripped off
You ask for a songs/riffs that are directly copied from the Beatles, despite being told that its the sound that copied, and that they are DERIVATIVE.
oasis - music for spotty children in celtic tops who dont like thinking for themselves.
it's painfully obvious that they are trying to be the new Beatles.
I still say all they do is Beatles cover songs that are rehashed over and over

These are some of the arguments put forward to me.

The only example is some drum-beat of which song hasn't even been named yet!And a drum-beat is hardly the basis for a whole song now is it?

You say derivative.
Does this mean similar chord progressions?instumentation?harmonies?song structure?

Surely there must be some melodies or riffs ripped off to say hat they basically are the new Beatles?

What do you mean by rehashed?? Same melodies? same what?

Examples to back up these silly claims people?

Töpher · 23-03-2004 9:23pm

I give up, if you could just completely ignore that informative post of RicardoSmiths there is no point in arguing. You overlooked all questions posed to you and still waffled on about the sounding similar arguments. :rolleyes: it wouldn't have been so bad had you answered the questions and then posed your own.

The Phenom · 23-03-2004 9:40pm

RicardoSmiths informative post he just says things everybody else has already said.

We know there not that big in America we never said they were Bill said they were hugely sucessful and gave you the UK facts but he never said anything bout them being big in America to begin with but you think a band who we consider great have to have made it big in America.

And then you say they do cover Beatles songs and they sound exactly like them but you give no examples of any songs.

And name two songs that sound the same.

Thats all Bill wants and after reading this thread id like to see you back up these claims too.

Bungalow Bill · 23-03-2004 9:50pm

Bottom line is nobody has offered examples of anything any of you are referring to!
It's ridiculous!

All there is is some drum-beat from an unnamed song and has nothing to do with the beatles! This somehow makes them a band with no originality. Even you can somehow back this up it's one song out of 5 albums and one b-sides album.

Ridiculous.

Just provide some bloody examples of what you are saying to back up what you've said otherwisae it's all meaningless.

Töpher · 23-03-2004 10:19pm

Note to morons: I didn't make that accusation. The only thing I had even remotely said towards that particular point was about 5 posts ago when I said they sound a bit similar. Attack the right people here. :rolleyes:

Bungalow Bill · 23-03-2004 10:26pm

Originally posted by Einstürzende
Note to morons: I didn't make that accusation. The only thing I had even remotely said towards that particular point was about 5 posts ago when I said they sound a bit similar. Attack the right people here. :rolleyes:

It was directed at the opposition in general. Calm down.

honru · 23-03-2004 11:13pm

The Beatles actually brought Oasis to court over plagiarism.

:eek:

RicardoSmith · 23-03-2004 11:18pm

Since I don't have any Oasis albums and none of the MP3 collections at work has any either, I can't do a direct comparision since that THE ONLY thing that will satisfy the Oasis fanatics. So I loaded up that Recent Red Beatles Collection that someone bought me ages ago and I have never got around to listening to it. I'm really enjoying it so thanks for that. But my god the harmonies the tone of the quitars the timing its so similar. My god how can you not hear that!

Anyway so I do some quick googling and for petes sake everyone else has been on about how Oasis are huuuugeeeeee Beatles fans and are pretty up front that they are emulating their heros. Below are a few things I found. I'm not going to waste time on this anymore. Oasis are up front about where they are getting their sound from. Others have spent time working out where all the references and tracks coming from. Read their links.

I know they sound like the Beatles because they sound like that to me. I've played music for years, and most of the time you just work out what sounds right to your ear, if you can't do that then you just don't have an ear for it. If you need it transcribed and the timings written down for you them I'm sorry but you'll never get it.

But at this stage I know the Oasis fanz aren't listening, literally so I'm not going to bother with this anymore. Enjoy the links.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PARIS (AFP) -- Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards says Oasis is a "group of copycats," but adds: "Us too, so good luck to them."

In an interview with the French monthly Rock-et-Folk, Richards says: "In general, Oasis is said to copy the '60s sounds of the Beatles and the Stones, but they're light years away from what the Beatles and the Stones were."

He goes on: "I should listen more carefully to the records of Oasis and The Prodigy but, well, I usually hear them on the radio. After all, I'm not going out to buy this ****, am I?"

http://www.zoo.co.uk/~z0001530/magpie.htm

"The Machester, England-based group is infamous for its fueding brothers guitarist and songwriter Noel and singer Liam Gallagher and for their liberal "borrowing" from the Beatles and the music of the 1960s. Though the groups sound owes as much to the distorted guitars of British "shoegazer" bands like My Bloody Valentine, the Beatles are their cornerstone. Trying to remove the Beatles' influence from Oasis is like asking James Taylor to not play an acoustic guitar or to not be sensitive. And Oasis wears their influences on their sleeves better than anyone in pop music. But putting all this aside, the band does have its own sound, and their fuzz guitars and doodle-like lyrics are just plain catchy"

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6272/orenter2000.html

"To be fair, I should acknowledge that Oasis don just emulate the Beatles. They're famous for emulating the Kinks, too, since the band's heart is the most notorious pair of battling brothers since Ray and Dave Davies. Adding to the analogy is the fact that long-time members Paul "Bonehead" Arthurs and Paul "Guigsy" McGuigan left during the recording of Shoulder; they've since been replaced by rhythm guitarist Gem Archer and bassist Andy Bell. So, like the Kinks, Oasis are essentially a two-man show. You could also compare them to the Who (tensions between the brilliant, Pete Townshend-like guitarist/composer and the charismatic, Roger Daltrey-ish frontman who interprets his vision). And for the sake of variety, let's throw in an American band, the Doors, whose "Roadhouse Blues" Noel brazenly cops for the melody and lyric of Shoulder's "Put Your Money Where Yer Mouth Is."

http://weeklywire.com/ww/03-06-00/boston_music_2.html

Doctor J · 24-03-2004 10:16am

Shakermaker = I'd like to teach the world to sing

Cigarretes & Alcohol = Get it on (T Rex)

are two which spring to mind without going back to listen to Oasis. Oasis are not a "great" band. Too many of their songs have "tributes" to other songs and the last three albums have been weak as cold piss. They're a decent band, some cathy tunes but couldn't keep up the momentum of their early days. Would we still be talking about them if Be Here Now was their first album instead of their third? No, of course not. Oasis are still living on the goodwill generated by the first two albums. That is not a sign of greatness at all.

Please close this thread.

Debate: Oasis or The Darkness

Comments