Oasis

Creature

Xavi6 wrote: »

The uber cool, music snob

Lulz, a snob like you, you mean?

Xavi6 wrote: »

likes to criticise 'Be Here Now' despite the fact that it does in fact contain some top drawer songs that would have easily been at home on either of the first two albums.

In your opinion :pac:.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Now how can someone who hasn't even heard the whole bloody album describe it as 'unremarkable' and 'tedious'? Seriously.

Because she can. Because if the majority of an album is shit and it has a few 'good' songs that she may not have heard, It's still an unremarkable album. Which it is, and rest assured I have listened to the album, all of it.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it rubbish. There's a huge difference between a crap album and an album which doesn't appeal to you.

Lol the hypocritical bull**** you spout on this and the other music forums is unreal. One minute you're defending your tastes, waa waa waa it's good in my opinion whinge whinge. Then you're lecturing people on how a band is shit, or to quote the post I linked to above what's "wrong with music nowadays". Gimme a break.




Oh and on topic, Oasis: The first two albums-good. The rest-pointless and bland rubbish. Their career at this stage is like whipping the long decayed corpse of Redrum and expecting him to get up and win the Grand National.

Dudess

Ooh, showdown!

/grabs popcorn, Pringles and Coca Cola... then switches to Club Orange.

Have to say, I like the Red Rum analogy a lot - and I think it's most fitting.

Sherifu

Dudess

I love the way that little dude takes not one but two swigs out of his drink - there's a fella who knows what he wants!

Sherifu

Max Power.

KrazeeEyezKilla

Creature wrote: »

Lulz, a snob like you, you mean?

Ha, I knew there was something strange about that comment. He has no problems slagging off U2 either. Has he heard all their albums?

I like Be Here Now and have defended to others but there are many reasons to dislike it and they are all understandable. It is much too long and messy.

Creature

Dudess wrote: »

Ooh, showdown!

/grabs popcorn, Pringles and Coca Cola... then switches to Club Orange.

Have to say, I like the Red Rum analogy a lot - and I think it's most fitting.

Ha, no showdown here. At least thats not what I had planned on. Anyway you should be thanking me. You were the main instigator in the thread and then you just side stepped out of there once Xavi came along. Coward :pac:.






Please don't ban me from AH and Alt&Indie

chalad07

Creature wrote: »

Oh and on topic, Oasis: The first two albums-good. The rest-pointless and bland rubbish. Their career at this stage is like whipping the long decayed corpse of Redrum and expecting him to get up and win the Grand National.

I really dont why everyone maintains that it's only Oasis's first two albums that were any good. Be Here Now is full of great songs, and while it might not have the 'listen to it once and love it' feel of morning glory, it's still a great album once you give it a chance, and that's the problem, people didnt give it a chance. You think Radiohead would be as popular today if people dismissed Albums like Kid A after one listen, not a chance,

I can understand how Standing on the Shoulders of giants may not be everyone's cup of tea, but there is still some cracking tunes (where did it all go wrong, sunday morning call, gas panic). Often times the guys that slag Oasis wouldnt gave heard these. It's a bit too easy to dismiss Oasis as pub rock for football hooligans. That's just a lady attitude, and doesnt do Oasis the justice they deserve. They are one of the most important British bands of their generation.

Before treating Oasis as past-it, have a listen to some of the tracks from Dont Believe the Truth. Kaiser Chiefs et al would have given their left nuts to have written a song like Mucky Fingers.

humberklog

Espcially for you Dudess. Humberklog's ever moist loins. Well one of them. The other's thrown so far akimbo I could only frame one at a time.

stovelid

overexcitedaj wrote: »

Noel is a very underated guitar player to

I think Oasis were once described as electric busking, which admittedly made me laugh.

Affable

chalad07 wrote: »

I really dont why everyone maintains that it's only Oasis's first two albums that were any good. Be Here Now is full of great songs, and while it might not have the 'listen to it once and love it' feel of morning glory, it's still a great album once you give it a chance, and that's the problem, people didnt give it a chance..

I've given it a chance, it does have some rockin songs on it. But it's nowhere near the quality of the first two and just doesn't have as much of a claim to be a classic. they had just lost the urgency of the times that was in the previous two IMO.

beertons

They're all great albums. Pity Masterplan was released though. Masterplan the best of the lot, imo.

Edit: Pity the album "Masterplan" was released, 'twas better having the b sides a secret for those who bought the singles. And the song "Masterplan" was their greatest song.

chalad07

Oasis did have a life after Be Here Now. I personally really liked Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, but i will admit Heathen Chemistry was weak. It's the only one of their albums i dont go back to,

@Beertons - nah, i'm glad it was released, it was good to give those songs such good exposure (and there's still loads of other great B-Sides that didnt make it on eg Do you wanna be a Spaceman, Round our way),

Actually thinking back to songs like that i really dont understand that Oasis were nothing but Pub Rock and only used three chords. The whole 3 chords thing stinks of people wanting to sound like they know loads about music when they dont, so they rattle out old clichés that they've heard from other people.

Affable

chalad07 wrote: »

Actually thinking back to songs like that i really dont understand that Oasis were nothing but Pub Rock and only used three chords. The whole 3 chords thing stinks of people wanting to sound like they know loads about music when they dont, so they rattle out old clichés that they've heard from other people.

Yup, same with the old 'Beatles rip off' thing.

JerryHandbag

Nah I dont buy that Beatles rip-off nonsense....they do rip off other bands too you know! David Bowie, TRex, The Doors, The Kinks, Stones, Stone Roses, The Who and they had an old b-side that had a sample from Stevie Wonder no less. A good artist borrows, a great artist steals I can see why people dont like them, but Im not one of them

Dudess

Creature wrote: »

Ha, no showdown here. At least thats not what I had planned on. Anyway you should be thanking me. You were the main instigator in the thread and then you just side stepped out of there once Xavi came along. Coward :pac:.






Please don't ban me from AH and Alt&Indie

I wrote a thank you post but deleted it. Once again, thank you for saving this damsel in distress!

Nailz

They're very un-original, and they always seem to be repeating themselves.

Xavi6

Creature wrote: »

Lulz, a snob like you, you mean?

See I can admit I'm a music snob. No problem whatsoever doing that, and I criticise based on informed opinions, i.e. listening to a whole feckin album.

Because she can. Because if the majority of an album is shit and it has a few 'good' songs that she may not have heard, It's still an unremarkable album. Which it is, and rest assured I have listened to the album, all of it.

And there is the crux of my argument.

Lol the hypocritical bull**** you spout on this and the other music forums is unreal. One minute you're defending your tastes, waa waa waa it's good in my opinion whinge whinge. Then you're lecturing people on how a band is shit, or to quote the post I linked to above what's "wrong with music nowadays". Gimme a break.

And again, I refer to you to the fact that I make opinions on something I've actually heard, not a review I've read in NME or Q, or what my mates down the pub have said about an album. That's the difference here. If Dudess had said that she'd listened to the album 5 or 6 times and not one of the songs appealed to her then fair enough. However she hasn't even given it a chance to play through before dimissing it. That is naivety of the highest level.

I stand by everything I post. I have no problems admitting I'm a music snob, or that I profoundly dislike certain bands but at least I do it having heard the music on offer.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote: »

Ha, I knew there was something strange about that comment. He has no problems slagging off U2 either. Has he heard all their albums?

Yep I have. I wouldn't be able to criticise them otherwise.

chalad07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXpoG8wY7Z4&feature=related

Sorry if this has been posted before. New Oasis tune, i'm not sure if it's going to be on the new album or not. I think this is a great song

I'm sure there's going to be lads on her saying it's a Beatles rip off. If more bands today sounded like the Beatles music would probably be a better place. I dont think people can claim this tune is just standard Oasis stuff, really good, and bodes well for the upcoming album,

(and please don't slate it if you haven't listened to it more than once)

Dudess

Why not? Sometimes once is enough. If you like Oasis, fine. But there's no need to get personally offended if others don't.

Xavi6 wrote: »

And again, I refer to you to the fact that I make opinions on something I've actually heard, not a review I've read in NME or Q, or what my mates down the pub have said about an album. That's the difference here.

Not applicable to me - if the NME says something is bad, I'd make a point of investigating it for myself. Equally, if the NME heaped praise on something I'd prepare myself for something unremarkable.

If Dudess had said that she'd listened to the album 5 or 6 times and not one of the songs appealed to her then fair enough. However she hasn't even given it a chance to play through before dimissing it. That is naivety of the highest level.

Ridiculously condescending. That album saturated the airwaves in summer 1997 - not just the singles off it, the album tracks. I heard them plenty of times and had more than enough to go on.
Never did I make my mind up based on a review.

Xavi6

I'm not personally offended in the slightest. I just can't understand have somebody can give an album a fair going if they haven't heard the whole thing. What's wrong with that?

If you read the first 4 or 5 chapters of the Da Vinci Code could you say it's an awful book?

Dudess

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm not personally offended in the slightest

That wasn't aimed at you, it as aimed at Chalad.

If you read the first 4 or 5 chapters of the Da Vinci Code could you say it's an awful book?

You're not comparing like with like there, because if the first four or five chapters of a book are awful in terms of writing (if that's what you're interested in rather than plot) then things are unlikely to improve.

When it comes to albums, if one finds the majority of it tedious, turgid, generic and bland, then they're in a position to judge it. Sure, maybe they've only heard 10 out of 12 tracks, but even if the two tracks they haven't heard are works of genius, they're not gonna make the album worth buying.

Peterdmc

There is much more to Oasis than just their first two albums. Be here now's problem was it was released around the same time as OK computer. Everyone was sayin, oooo Radiohead are growing and Oasis are churning out rock n roll. So what!? They're a rock n roll band!! You gonna tell AC/DC to bring in pan pipes too? Sod off!
But Be Here now is still a great album. I love the bass and Power of D'you know what i mean? and Its getting better man. Dont go away is amazing and who cant help but sing along to Stand by me?I could go on but you get the point.


I will admit they have an annoying knack of leaving their best tunes OFF the albums release. If you can get your hands on Idlers Dream from the Heathen Chemisty Era or Pass me down the wine and Who put the weight of the world on my shoulders? from Dont believe the truth sessions you will be well impressed. Great songs by any standard.

I dont think theres such a thing as a band "past it". Who are we to say, after all your success, after all your No 1 Albums , sorry Noel, you cant write and release songs any more. Sorry Mick, The Stones aint for me anymore so knock it off will ya? Truth is theres always people who want to hear more from great bands like Oasis, and I for one, am one of them.

humberklog

Xavi6 wrote: »

If you read the first 4 or 5 chapters of the Da Vinci Code could you say it's an awful book?

Yes most absolutely. I read the first chapter and a half and flung it out the window. I found the descriptive prose too awful(IMO)and for me it just wouldn't be worth persisting as I personally wouldn't enjoy what was left to pick over. If I remember correctly I returned to another re-read of Conspiracy Of Dunces to sluce the ol' grey matter of that terrible book(IMO). Last week I bought another Juliet Greco album and played four full songs and skipped through the rest. I feel it is a record I shan't enjoy putting on again anytime soon.(Still glad of the purchase as I don't mind having records that I don't particularly like as perhaps one day I may click with them)People should experience things as they see fit and not how someone else thinks they should. There's nothing worse(IMO)than having to read a book or listen to a record then on the converse of that is that there's nothing better(IMO)than reading a book (up until you want to)and listening to a record(up until you want to).

And low and behold last night in the car a radio station played that song from oasis where in the video there's a lotta helicopters going overhead. Cracking tune(I.M. fecking O.).

chalad07

Dudess wrote: »

That wasn't aimed at you, it as aimed at Chalad.

Not offended, i be pretty much offended all the time if i got annoyed when someone didnt like Oasis:)

But i really think that most of the people that say Oasis are irrelevant post Morning Glorly, really havent a right to say that, given they havent listened to much Oasis after this point,

There's loads of bands out there that i suspect i hate, but i'm not going to say it until i've had a proper chance to listen to them (and i dont think listened to isolated plays of album tracks on the Radio is enough to get a proper feel for an album).

red_ice

fitz0 wrote: »

What about REM? In their early days it was near impossible to make sense of their songs. Michael Stipe even came out and said the lyrics didnt really mean anything!

"everybody here, comes from somewhere"

Wow, thats an astute observation there michael! i really hate REM with a passion, lets not get started on them

fitz0

red_ice wrote: »

"everybody here, comes from somewhere"

Wow, thats an astute observation there michael! i really hate REM with a passion, lets not get started on them

:eek: Why? Hating REM makes baby jesus cry

Creature

Xavi6 wrote: »

See I can admit I'm a music snob. No problem whatsoever doing that, and I criticise based on informed opinions, i.e. listening to a whole feckin album.

Right...but weren't you just having a go at Dudes for being a snob? So are you the good snob and she's the bad one? Like the Robin hood of snobs?

Xavi6 wrote: »

And again, I refer to you to the fact that I make opinions on something I've actually heard, not a review I've read in NME or Q, or what my mates down the pub have said about an album. That's the difference here. If Dudess had said that she'd listened to the album 5 or 6 times and not one of the songs appealed to her then fair enough. However she hasn't even given it a chance to play through before dimissing it. That is naivety of the highest level.

Why should she play it through fully? If most of it is rubbish what does it matter if the last few songs that went unlistened to are good? It's still a rubbish alubm, albeit slightly less rubbish than if it had a few decent tracks.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Yep I have. I wouldn't be able to criticise them otherwise.

Ha, you've listened to all of their albums? In full? I very seriosuly doubt that.

Dudess

fitz0 wrote: »

:eek: Why? Hating REM makes baby jesus cry

I didn't like them for a long time either - found them dull. I did go through an obsession with them for a few months back in '91 when they brought out Out of Time, but by 1993 I was sick sh1t of them. However I'm starting to appreciate them now.
I find I've started to appreciate a number of people whom I found dull when I was younger - Neil Young being another example.

chalad07

Creature wrote: »

Ha, you've listened to all of their albums? In full? I very seriosuly doubt that.

What's so hard to believe about listening to all U2's albums? What is it one album every 2/3 years? I'm not a big U2 fan but i've listened to all their albums quite a bit at one stage or another,

I think you have to give bands a proper chance before dismissing them. I dont like Coldplay, i've listened to all their albums, and that's why i can safely say that. I wouldnt critisise a band based on the few songs you hear on the radio.