Oasis

Dudess

Come on! It's unrealistic to expect someone to listen to everything an artist/band has recorded before they make up their mind about them. And what about the opposite? Is it ok for someone to say they love a band on the strength of a few songs or albums? I've only three Bob Dylan albums and a best of and I'm gonna say it: I love Bob Dylan. Should I not, just because I haven't heard the rest of his back catalogue...?

I can understand the, I suppose, frustration when people diss your favourite artist and you know so much more by them - e.g. I see a red mist when I hear people with otherwise impeccable taste in music saying they hate The Smiths. Of course the first thing I think is: listen to their ****ing albums! However, at the same time, they would know enough Smiths songs to get the gist, and really, it's not for me to say whether they'd be converted if they actually sat down and listened to all Smiths albums and singles collections in their entirety.

mental07

@ Xavi - I can remember the hype around the time leading up to Be Here Now's release. It's entirely plausible that Dudess did indeed hear every single track from it on the radio around that time, because I'm pretty sure I did. So she's entitled to write it off as crap if she thinks it is. As for me, my sister was a huge fan at the time and she bought it. I really like Stand By Me and that's about it The rest is just average...

Dudess

I also don't believe for an instant that Xavi has listened to every U2 album since their inception - that's not a dig btw - but through radio exposure alone, he has enough to go on to make his mind up. And fair enough.

TestTransmission

I'd love to get involved in this discussion....but im scared of Dudess

Dudess

LOL - afraid of me?! You should see some of the **** people give me! Believe me, I'm not gonna attack you for your opinion - that ain't my style.

grumpytrousers

Right - my two cents...

oasis were hitting the airwaves during my first ragweek in college and it was just what was needed at that time. Feck off Albran with your floppy hair. Anderson - your androgynous schtick is getting on my tits. But this? This 'Cigarettes and Alcohol' stuff? 100% T-Rex riff that could blow down a brick sh*thouse and the daftest lyrics since All The Young Dudes. What, I ask you, is there not to like!

Note i'm not saying that this was anything innovative. But God, it was needed at the time. I eventually picked up the album and considered it worth the money alone for Slide Away. Morning Glory still gets regular play 'round chez Grumpytrousers.

I take the point that it all went a bit Pete Tong around Be Here Now. I bought it the day it came out, and recall no less than Q magazine giving it 5 stars. I think we were all caught up in the hype - those of us who bought it early, without having friends road-test it wanted to like it more than actually felt it, if you know what i mean.

it's not that the songs were bad - they were fine, but it was overdone. I've always said that a classic album (and obviously doubles don't count) should adhere to the rule of 'no more than 12 songs and no more than 45 minutes'. If BHN was shorter, and the songs more reined in, I think history would be kinder to it. But it wasn't, and they weren't and that's the lesson, sports fans. Industrial amounts of Bolivian Marching Powder dusted on your cornflakes is NOT going to get the musical mojo running half as much as your dealer tells you it will.

Since then, i've bought all the albums. They've all had their moments. And their 'good' moments have been a fecks sight better than *anything* Hard Fi, Kasabian, Travis, Toploader, Stereophonics etc would have come up with. Sunday Morning Call from 'Giants' has a melodic hook that i'd have given my eye teeth to write. Hindu Times and Stop Crying your Heart Out did *just* the job that the first and second singles from an album should do.

As for the last one? Bought it. Liked it when i heard it. Played it feck all since.

I'll end up getting the next one. I still like them live, but i know that they're doing nothing new. But they're at an age where that's impossible. Noel is 40. Put simply, as a musician, he's got sod all to be 'angry' about. The hunger isn't there. It's the same as The Rolling Stones. By the time Jagger was 40. they were just about to have their last big single 'Start Me Up'.

I think that the band should stop trying to endlessly overpromote themselves. Noel Gallagher is one of the most entertaining musicians i've ever read interviews with. He's genuinely funny, but if he'd talk a little less about how great the new album is, and concentrate more on doing the simple things and doing them well, i think there'd be life in the old dog yet. The Halcyon days are long gone and in a sense, we should be thankful. Growing old gracefully mightn't suit them, but maybe they should give it a lash

Nailz

Ooh, now I wouldn't go as far as comparing Oasis' time scale to the Stones', they are in a whole different league!

Dudess

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Right - my two cents...

oasis were hitting the airwaves during my first ragweek in college and it was just what was needed at that time. Feck off Albran with your floppy hair. Anderson - your androgynous schtick is getting on my tits. But this? This 'Cigarettes and Alcohol' stuff? 100% T-Rex riff that could blow down a brick sh*thouse and the daftest lyrics since All The Young Dudes. What, I ask you, is there not to like!

Note i'm not saying that this was anything innovative. But God, it was needed at the time. I eventually picked up the album and considered it worth the money alone for Slide Away. Morning Glory still gets regular play 'round chez Grumpytrousers.

I take the point that it all went a bit Pete Tong around Be Here Now. I bought it the day it came out, and recall no less than Q magazine giving it 5 stars. I think we were all caught up in the hype - those of us who bought it early, without having friends road-test it wanted to like it more than actually felt it, if you know what i mean.

it's not that the songs were bad - they were fine, but it was overdone. I've always said that a classic album (and obviously doubles don't count) should adhere to the rule of 'no more than 12 songs and no more than 45 minutes'. If BHN was shorter, and the songs more reined in, I think history would be kinder to it. But it wasn't, and they weren't and that's the lesson, sports fans. Industrial amounts of Bolivian Marching Powder dusted on your cornflakes is NOT going to get the musical mojo running half as much as your dealer tells you it will.

Since then, i've bought all the albums. They've all had their moments. And their 'good' moments have been a fecks sight better than *anything* Hard Fi, Kasabian, Travis, Toploader, Stereophonics etc would have come up with. Sunday Morning Call from 'Giants' has a melodic hook that i'd have given my eye teeth to write. Hindu Times and Stop Crying your Heart Out did *just* the job that the first and second singles from an album should do.

As for the last one? Bought it. Liked it when i heard it. Played it feck all since.

I'll end up getting the next one. I still like them live, but i know that they're doing nothing new. But they're at an age where that's impossible. Noel is 40. Put simply, as a musician, he's got sod all to be 'angry' about. The hunger isn't there. It's the same as The Rolling Stones. By the time Jagger was 40. they were just about to have their last big single 'Start Me Up'.

I think that the band should stop trying to endlessly overpromote themselves. Noel Gallagher is one of the most entertaining musicians i've ever read interviews with. He's genuinely funny, but if he'd talk a little less about how great the new album is, and concentrate more on doing the simple things and doing them well, i think there'd be life in the old dog yet. The Halcyon days are long gone and in a sense, we should be thankful. Growing old gracefully mightn't suit them, but maybe they should give it a lash

Excellent post Grumpy. You wouldn't see writing like that in today's NME, that's for sure!
And god yeah, I'd agree: post Start Me Up marks the Stones' decline, and Jagger was only 40. I suppose the Stones were going 18 years at that stage, Oasis haven't reached that point... although they're not far off it - a mere three/four years.

And good point about the over-consumption of drugs - sorry Nailz but... Yes Please anyone?

Xavi6

Dudess wrote: »

I also don't believe for an instant that Xavi has listened to every U2 album since their inception - that's not a dig btw - but through radio exposure alone, he has enough to go on to make his mind up. And fair enough.

To be fair my main gripe with U2 is the absolute drivel they've released and gotten away with since roughly 1991. Before that I fully agree that they released some excellent songs (New Year's Day being my favourite) and I've said as much. I have heard all their albums, and have of course had massive exposure to their later stuff as I grew up thanks to my mates palying it non bloody stop (:rolleyes:) so my opinion is quite an informed one, and I wouldn't be so against them had I not given it a decent listen.

On Oasis, again I've no problem with people disliking them and the album, once it is an informed opinion. Radio exposure is probably enough for some people to decide but for me it isn't and I guess that's where the difference lies.

Nailz

Dudess wrote: »

Excellent post Grumpy. You wouldn't see writing like that in today's NME, that's for sure!
And god yeah, I'd agree: post Start Me Up marks the Stones' decline, and Jagger was only 40. I suppose the Stones were going 18 years at that stage, Oasis haven't reached that point... although they're not far off it - a mere three/four years.

And good point about the over-consumption of drugs - sorry Nailz but... Yes Please anyone?

Nah, I actually agree. Shaun messed up that album completely, Wilson had to con off his mistakes by using Factory Too with London Records' money to finish it, and the thing still took 2 years! But you have to admit, there are some funny storys behind it!!

Edit: But one wonders, did Shaun just not write lyrics for Yes Please? Because they were well able to finish "Judge Fudge" & "Tokoloshe Man" in the same time scale...

KrazeeEyezKilla

Nailz wrote: »

Nah, I actually agree. Shaun messed up that album completely, Wilson had to con off his mistakes by using Factory Too with London Records' money to finish it, and the thing still took 2 years! But you have to admit, there are some funny storys behind it!!

The story about how Shaun couldn't leave the Bahamas because if he was on a plane he'd have a heart attack was very funny. If I was New Order or Tony Wilson I'd have went to the Bahamas and killed him myself for wasting so much money.

I think that given how out of touch with reality Oasis were in 1997 it's a miracle the album was as good as it was. Noel himself said that they should have went away for a while like U2 did in the late 80's and come back with people desperate for a new album. In 1997 they had to compete with Blur, Radiohead and The Verve. By 1999 they had Travis and The Stereophonics which is a huge difference. Once they lost that momentum it was hard to get it back even though I don't think they have ever made a bad album just no really good ones since 1995.

grumpytrousers

Dudess wrote: »

Excellent post Grumpy. You wouldn't see writing like that in today's NME, that's for sure!

aw shucks...:o

Nailz

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote: »

The story about how Shaun couldn't leave the Bahamas because if he was on a plane he'd have a heart attack was very funny. If I was New Order or Tony Wilson I'd have went to the Bahamas and killed him myself for wasting so much money.

Nah I would have killed Nathan McGough, the stupid bastard! But in all fairness, I can't see Tony Wilson killing him, but he could have brought Rob Gretton to do that!!

Flamed Diving

I really liked the last album, and I look forward to the next.

slipss

Was going to post a big long post defending Oasis from the kids that hated them when they first came out because they had huge mainstream popularity and these absalute rebels thought they were being cool by liking bands no one ever heard of (the reason no one ever heard of these bands is because they were sh1t, not because of some big major label conspiracy to supress "real" music) but I've done that before. So I'll just say this, Oasis are a great band, the first two albums were amazing, every music critic and every music fan in general agree, if you disagree it's not that everyone else in the worlds is wrong and you are the only one thats right. Then they had a couple of dodgey albums, then they released Heathen Chemistry which was hugely original and inovative (something which these "Oh know I can't like that song because its popular" kids like to critisise Oasis for not being) which blew 99% of albums released that year out of the water. Don't Believe The Truth was muck. This album hopefully will be more like the 75% of thier oiginal material albums they have relesed. Musical brilliance.

laoisforliam

Just been reading through this thread and i think some of the opinions offered here are ridiculous.

First of all Three chords?

Why would someone bother say this? I can play all Oasis songs and while Noel is no Hendrix it is preety stupid to say he possesses three chords. Simple chord progressions are used, but with such perfeect timing it hardly matters. The end product is what is desired good strong pop/rock tunes, sing alongs, stadium rockers. IMO perfection.

Song writing
Fair enough Noel has wrote songs with nonsensical lyrics but that can be the beauty of some the songs. There is also alot more to noel as any fan will tell you. Many of his songs post 'the first two albums' have been very good lyricaly. Im not gonna pretend noel is Dylan or anything but his songs can and do tell a story.

Liams Vocals.
For people to dimsiss his vocals is laughable imo. HIs voice is pure rock and roll, he is a rock star ffs. Admitably his voice is not wat it used to be once but hell it was so good he still has a long way to fall imo. LIsten to him on Dont go away, actually anything from be here now, gas panic, stop crying your heart out, born on a diff cloud, lets all make believe, Round our way, all excellent vocal performances post 'the first two albums'. Also if anyone has seem them live in the point 2 years ago you know he still got it. Your voice will obviously wane over time look at bowie, thom york etc..

Lack of Knowledge.
Everyone has a right to their opinion but imo that opinion should be based on some degree of fact, from reading alot of the posts it seems that people who a quick to criticise oasis dont seem to have listened to thm much since 95. HOw many of you know heart of a star? Lets all makE Believe, Born on a diff cloud, mucky fingers, record machine, gas panic, sunday morning call? its getin better man? ****in in the bushes, force of nature, who put the weight of the world on my shoulders? Trust me there is so much more to Oasis than the general Public percieve. These songs are just some of many many that could be selected since 98 and i advise anyone to listen to them and still write Oasis off.

Oasis will never please the elitists, they will always seem to colloqiual for the snobs but imo they keep on rocking. Roll on October 6.

Hardrain

They have plenty of classics post 1997, I love Be Here Now also.

I Wanna Live In A Dream (In My Record Machine)

Recent leaked demo, not on the new album but hopefully a new version will be a b-side, could be a great anthem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPsgg0QxVoY

Stop The Clocks sounds great also, I hope for a Liam vocal if they ever do a proper version

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

Solve My Mystery (Unreleased)

Should have been on STOSOG album
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfUmpP6mv7w

Gas Panic
Let's All Make Believe
Roll It Over
Who Feels Love
Where Did It All Go Wrong (Jools Holland Acoustic version)
Born On A Different Cloud
Songbird
Hindu Times
Muck Fingers
Turn Up The Sun
Love Like A Bomb
Part Of The Queue

Plenty of other tunes I could think of that stands up to most new bands