Music Where has all the music gone?
- Thread starter Scoreboard Red
- Start date
My posts in this thread seem a lot more cnuty reading back than I intended. I blame it on a long day at work with a hangover.
I blame it on you being a cnut...listen to my Atheism song and tell me what you think of it....art wise you arty farty snob you
Where is it?
I'll PM it to you
The Irony of this thread is excellent, Most of the processed bullshit which passes for music today is simplistic to the point of being infantile for a reason that reason is because if you want to sell singles today you aim it at the under 16 crowd who are unlikely to be into file sharing and so will go out and legally buy the music, thus propelling it to a high chart postion.
Whilst file sharing has lead to the broadening of peoples musical tastes it also means that the fact that so much of it goes on among the 20-45yr old crowd means that they are less likely to purhase music by good musicians and thats the reason why every good band nowadays will tell you that the real money in the industry for them isn't in record sales, its in live performances.
This thread is a prime example one of the largest problems with the music industry today because huge record sales for real bands are now mostly a thing of the past. The perception that music is poorer today than it has been previously is based on what currently in the charts/mainsteam and whats within the charts/mainstream is mostly dictated by the under 16 crowd due to the reasons I mentioned earlier. Sadly both myself and many other posters on this forum are actually part of this problem and not part of the solution.
Hopefully you will never hear me complain about the quality of the music industry as a whole in todays society as that would possibly make me look a little silly.
Whilst file sharing has lead to the broadening of peoples musical tastes it also means that the fact that so much of it goes on among the 20-45yr old crowd means that they are less likely to purhase music by good musicians and thats the reason why every good band nowadays will tell you that the real money in the industry for them isn't in record sales, its in live performances.
This thread is a prime example one of the largest problems with the music industry today because huge record sales for real bands are now mostly a thing of the past. The perception that music is poorer today than it has been previously is based on what currently in the charts/mainsteam and whats within the charts/mainstream is mostly dictated by the under 16 crowd due to the reasons I mentioned earlier. Sadly both myself and many other posters on this forum are actually part of this problem and not part of the solution.
Hopefully you will never hear me complain about the quality of the music industry as a whole in todays society as that would possibly make me look a little silly.
Pop music is shit almost by it's definition. Most people are morons.
You can though find great music as long as you know where to look. There are many, many people thinking the same thing as you.
You can though find great music as long as you know where to look. There are many, many people thinking the same thing as you.
Yes but are you talking about legally buying great music(which not enough 20-45yr olds do) or file sharing.
Does it matter? Most people are morons, the reason pop music is what it is is because most people aren't cultured enough to enjoy really good music. Even if the relative minority did buy all their great music legally it wouldn't make a difference to the top 10 charts.
From my experience, under 20s seem to buy much more music than the older generations. Perhaps its the added responsibilities and commitments that take away the time and money.
Yeah so why bother trying right?
Why would you say that?
You're equating buying music as a means to influence chart positions, completely missing the point.
I hate people like you "Oh, I dont like the music you like, therefore you are an uncultured moron."
fecking grow up.
Its been tried before and has proven to have an impact, maybe it doesn't always work but that might be because people largely have the same why try attitude as yourself. Iam not saying you don't have a right to complain about the charts being filed with shite but as long as you continue to complain whilst making little or no effort to change the status quo then not only are you in danger of being a hypocrite you are also part of the problem and not the solution.
Buying decent music as a reaction to processed bullshit almost succeded last year with Jeff Buckley(possibly the year before) reaching no 2 in the charts with a much better version of hallelujah. If enougth people who complained enough made an effort beleive me there would be at least a marginal improvement in the mainstream charts.
Worse than British public transport, was expecting this reply 10 minutes ago.
In my opinion, it takes a certain level of musical understanding to appreciate some types of music. That can't be said about pop, which follows a set of rules so precisely you'd think it was made by Germans. Let's have 4/4, accentuate 1 and 3. A 2-5-1 chord progression and a a dreadfully dull melody (if one exists at all) which only rides on a simplistic rhythm.
Lady Gaga said herself that her no. 1 took about 2 minutes to write.
So now you're accusing me of illegally downloading music are you?
I complained about pop music, but I can't find the post where I said I got my music illegally.
Interesting concept. So you have to have studied classical piano to understand Rap?
How did you come to that conclusion?
I didn't say that you need classical training to understand all music. I said some. What value "some" takes on wasn't specified.
What does the time it takes to write have to do with anything?! If it sounds good to someone does it realy matter how long it takes? Should we ban music that took under 1 hour to compose?
At the end of the day you are one of those uptight dicks who seems to think they have a superior taste in music and think that people who enjoy something that you so bluntly dont are "morons". It's fecking stupid and childish and as you can tell realy winds me up.
And you go on about having to be "cultured" to appreaciate certain forms of music....well then, why are you so against appreciateing things such as Pop?
Appologies as i can see that you may not have suggested personally that you do not legally buy music, i should also stress that i have no problem with people who don't legally buy music, my issue is with those who complain about what passes for mainstream music and then make no effort to change this by legally buying music.
The point within my last post however still stands in regaurd to your arguement as you seem to be suggesting that if all those who complain and then illegally download music went out and bought music instead it still wouldn't make a difference.
Beleive you me it would.
Musically morons. I don't think that people who only enjoy pop are stupid per se. I know a few people who are very intelligent but follow pop music culture without ever trying something new.
I don't really give a shit whether anyone appreciates pop. I was just pointing out that pop has reached a level of musical primitiveness that the great music has been drowned out.
I knew that comment was going to piss some people off. I knew that before I wrote it. It's how I feel about the state of affairs though.
You may be right. How things would turn out if everyone bought music no one really knows. I personally think that things would mostly change in proportion to each other. People listening to chart music would buy more, people listening to other types illegally would buy more.
I don't care how long it took to write - I think she's great. Gosh, sorry for being such a musically uneducated pygmy. Imagine me having the temerity to like POP MUSIC. The utter outrage. I must have sullied my eardrums to such an extent that I will never be 'cultured' enough to enjoy an eclectic range of music.
Or possibly musical tastes are just the same as all subjective tastes. One man's Oasis is another man's Joe Dolce. Monobrowed twats - good riddance. (Did like Wonderwall though - great lullaby for my kids).
I'm a southern pansy, of course I was a Blur fan.
PJ Harvey
Stars of the Lid
Iron & Wine
Dirty Three
Sonic Youth
Grouper
Buffalo Daughter
Lightning Bolt
Eluvium
Kayo Dot
The Mountain Goats
All the above have released fine albums in the last two or three years. And i've not even mentioned any of the great extreme metal bands that are out there.
It's silly to denegrate modern music by just going off high profile bands.
Yeah, that one has really grown on me.
I disagree. Well, perhaps not if we're talking about fully appreciating/"understanding" theoretically complex stuff, but I think the main thing is being willing or able to listen to unfamiliar music with an open mind. It's perfectly possible to appreciate (ie enjoy) absolutely anything even if you don't have clue what's going on musicologically speaking.
Yup. If you can't appreciate PJ Harvey you don't deserve music.
Oh good grief, Blur over Oasis? Get tae fook...
Blur were the poster-boys for Britpop and all that it stood for with their fun little music and their happy little prancing about in Parklife and in Country House when in reality they were the bit in between before Oasis came along, a sort of prelude, a warm-up with their Parklife album before Definitely Maybe hit the shelves which blew any album out of the water for five years with it's songs and I defy anyone who claims this isn't onje of the all time classics.
Of course, as bands go, Blur had their moments, certainly as shown with their success but they were a far cry behind Oasis in terms of talent and fanbase, despite 'winning't the battle to get to number one with Country House getting there ahead of Oasis' Roll With It. From then on, Blur's moment in the sun was short-lived and Oasis were by far the bigger and better band and whilst Blur plateau'd with Song 2, Oasis were selling out Knebworths and Loch Lomonds and smashing records whilst Damon Albarn in a pit of despait began to take heroin and subsequently released druggy, lazy songs such as Beetlebum and Tender....gay.
I seemed to remember Tender as a nice little song, so went to youtube to give it a listen, and on this one you're quite right - it's shit.
If I were to choose between Blur and Oasis, I'd probably still go with the former. That's more to do with my dislike for Oasis than Blur being any good though.ø
If I were to choose between Blur and Oasis, I'd probably still go with the former. That's more to do with my dislike for Oasis than Blur being any good though.ø
This does explain your ridiculous original post.
Definitely Maybe is a good album, but Oasis have spent the subsequent decade and a bit trying to recreate that album, and been unsuccessful to boot.
I'm sorry Blur plateaued while Oasis sold out Knebworth? Robbie Williams sold out Knebworth too, are you going to claim him as another example of music at it's best? Oasis fecking plateaued with their first album and spent the rest of their career trying to emulate the Beatles, only without any of the Beatles' creativity and originality. I'm not a big Blur fan, but anyone can see that where the Gallagher's were mediocre musicians with some "swagger" Blur had far and away the greater innovators and musicians - just look at Damon Albarns stuff since blur - an album of collaborative Malian music, 2 genre bending Hip-Hop albums and an opera. Look at Graham Coxon (we'll ignore the twat with a bass who now makes cheese)...
I mean Jesus, do you honestly think Oasis are the best thing musically in the last 20 years? Lady fecking Gaga has shown more musical innovation than the Gallaghers!
Definitely Maybe is a good album, but Oasis have spent the subsequent decade and a bit trying to recreate that album, and been unsuccessful to boot.
I'm sorry Blur plateaued while Oasis sold out Knebworth? Robbie Williams sold out Knebworth too, are you going to claim him as another example of music at it's best? Oasis fecking plateaued with their first album and spent the rest of their career trying to emulate the Beatles, only without any of the Beatles' creativity and originality. I'm not a big Blur fan, but anyone can see that where the Gallagher's were mediocre musicians with some "swagger" Blur had far and away the greater innovators and musicians - just look at Damon Albarns stuff since blur - an album of collaborative Malian music, 2 genre bending Hip-Hop albums and an opera. Look at Graham Coxon (we'll ignore the twat with a bass who now makes cheese)...
I mean Jesus, do you honestly think Oasis are the best thing musically in the last 20 years? Lady fecking Gaga has shown more musical innovation than the Gallaghers!
they were easily the best British band for some time and I dunno what innovation has to do with it, they were a good band and yet they are dismissed because their lyrics were simple and they borrowed from others, so what? The music was good, the band were good, the hype about them was good, why does it have to be about a load of twats with flicked fringes who have one good song then all grow facial hair, go away for a year and come back with some musically 'genius' album that gets to number seventy nine in the charts?
Some of the best ever music has been very simple, musically and lyrically with the Beatles the main candidates for that proof. Seriously, all this nonsence about them being unimaginative or unoriginal might be true but for feck's sake, they were a top band and the fact they have done more or less nowt since 1997 does not change the fact the first two albums and to a lesser extent parts of the third were brilliant and geting back to my first post, the cultural hype surrounding Oasis in 1994-97, or the Stone Roses in 1988-90, The Smiths or the Clash in the early 80s, T-Rex, Bowie or other Glam Rock artists in the early 70s, punk in the late 70s, etc etc.
There have been no cultural movements due to the inspiration of a band or genre of bands since Oasis in Britain aside from a mini-Goth effort a while back, that's my point and yes, I think Oasis have been the best band of the last two decades in my opinion albeit they peaked with their first effort.
I think there's two different things here, on the one hand you clearly loved Oasis - no problem with that, musically I think whatever floats your boat, if you enjoy it fantastic. But don't then claim they're in some way empirically "good" or "better".
Also I really don't understand your use of the Beatles as evidence of good but simple music - the Beatles were hugely, hugely innovative, experimental and forward thinking. Oasis were none of those things, hence if you like them (and many clearly did) then great, but they were not in any way shape or form the best band of the last 2 decades
the Beatles didnt employ simple lyrics? Erm, have a wee listen pal, they were simple, uncomplicated and highly effective. And they were heavily influenced by Elvis, Chuck Berry, the Shadows, and later by Dylan and even The Byrds with their psychadelia but yes, were hugely influential in their own right. As were Oasis, on a less grander scale. Bands ruch as Coldplay, Starsailor, Kasabian etc exist because of Oasis.
I was a big fan of Oasis, yes but havent been at all enthused about anything they have done for a long time but they were the best band around for a long time, even with a few crap albums they still outshone all around them until Coldgay came along (the new Phil Collins plus 3) who were much more commercially viable in America as theyre nice and adhere to their perceptions of British people.
Who, in your view, has been the best may I ask?
I don't subscribe to the belief that music shit nowadays, it's disappointing that generic manufactured bullshit dominates the charts but there is quality that shines through the crap. I don't know why you only named two rock bands, (Kings of Leons first and second albums were actually quality and full of energy to).. shit like The Strokes, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Libertines, Arcade Fire, At the drive in, Queens of the Stone Age, Jamie T... feck I can't be arsed to keep naming but each of these bands have their own sound and produced some sick music.
Great music is still out there for sure.. but it is tragic that the majority of people I know are musically retarded.
Great music is still out there for sure.. but it is tragic that the majority of people I know are musically retarded.
Oh Johnno....
..Oasis were soft pop rock and nothing more, and still are. You're speaking like it was Dark Side of The Moon or Sgt Peppers and musically changed the landscape. It wasn't. They were just the loudest and captured the Zietgeist....Their entire speil was "ey, look how fookin' hard I am, I'm right fookin hard me!!...Now listen to me sing "What a life it would be, If you would come to mine for tea, 'll pick you up at half past three"...
Wow, hyperbole to the max...Definitely Maybe is a great album, but "all time classic"...hmmmm, yes I defy that. It's not a patch on St Peppers, Revolver, Thriller, Nevermind, Let it Bleed, Dark Side of The Moon, Songs in the Key of Life etc etc... Proper Albums, that had proper long term influence and where proper serious music...Not a collection of fluffly pop songs with the same tempo and the same chords in the same Key... DM was not the rock equivalent of the Renaissance Johnno. Put it up against any of those albums and it's utter fluff...You obviously like them, and dressed up and swaggered like an obnoxious little cnut when you where younger, but that doesn't mean they were the greatest things since sliced rock!
No wait no.....
Damon Albarn wrote an Opera (but Operas probly propper poncey southern Sheeiiite though aint it) and formed Gorillaz after Blur. Oasis are still writing the same song...Talent? You're having a fecking laugh mate
For a start only Noel had any talent in Oasis....Whereas Blur Co-Wrote the majority of their songs. Seriously, that is one bold and ridiculous statement.
So?...The Spice Girls had a bigger fanbase still?...Does that prove they were better than Oasis?
All you've done is give a back of cereal packet synopsis of the late 90s...with no muisical analysis or critique or attempt at deeper understanding or analysis....basically you're argument rests soley on what happened on Top of The Pops!
Blur plateau'd with Song 2 because it's the last song you remember them being big with....For a start Coffee and TV was just as big a commercial success and, like a few other songs, like Song 2, was very big in America (something Oasis continued to fail to do), but then moved away from commercial base music and into experimental territory, attempting to broaden their horizons and try different things. Something almost all seminal music acts have done from The Beatles to Bowie to even New fecking Order....Whereas Oasis stuck to their guns, did the same old shit and decided that they where the greatest thing in the world, couldn't get any better and that if they shouted at enough people and called them pricks they were right....a bit like you're doing
Quite a lot actually if we're talking about Legacy
You could be talking about The Beatles here by the way
Well seriously, you're actually showing your musical naivity here...The Beatles were not simple for their time. Now, yes, a lot of their songs are seen that way, but at the time, for pop, they were considered extremely experimental and very complex...certainly in way they messed with tempo, instrumentation, eastern melody and recording techniques. None of those things had been done before in contempory pop. As for Lyrics, well thats bollocks as well. In the early 60s ALL pop lyrics were about love and the Beates actually became hugely seminal for breaking away from that and writing lyrics about everyday banal things..Something that at the time was groundbreaking in mainstream pop, especially for a band like The Beatles....Trust me John, I did a course on it,
Well it is to most of us....and isn't that the point we're arguing?
Subjective. I don't think anything beyond DM wa brilliant. Be Here Now certainly wasn't. But thats opinion, bits of WTS were very good I'd admit
Well again, that just shows their cultural affect on you...not everyone walked around in a parker acting like a complete cnut...Your world view, or nationwide view in this case, is very small and limited to your area, assuming the rest of Britain must of been the same. It's a rather arrogant assumption and something, perversely, that Northerners often level at us Southerners.
Furthermore you're again dismissing a whole sway of other cultural influences...For example you've gone for The Clash and The Smiths in the 80s but not the New Romantics or the Proto Punks, which were both arguably bigger cultural 'scenes', and not just in England but worldwide. Blondie, Ultravox, Culture Club, Spandau Ballet, Frankie Goes to Hollywood etc etc all sold more records than the Clash or The Smiths and had a much bigger cultural affect worldwide and by your definition of what makes Oasis better than Blur, that makes them better than either.....Why havent you mentioned them?...Probably because that's not what you like...Which is basically whats wrong with everything you've posted John.
Already done this point John...And it shows your rather limited understanding of Musical history and standard way of commercial song writing in the 60s, which they totally changed.
As were Blur on a less grander scale..Again you're picking and choosing your influences based on what you conisder righteous, and also speculating wildly. It also equally speculatively accurate to say that bands like Radiohead (far musically superior to both) where a direct counter reaction to Oasis
What comparissons are you using for this?...In th World? There were no better bands in the WORLD??...Or simply in England?...Or Manchester?...Personally I think Ocean Colour Scene were a far better English band than Oasis during the same time...But that's my opinion
you see here you come across as a typical block headed Oasis fan. Taking cheap digs at bands you don't like and definitely claiming they were shit because that's your opinion and you're right...by shouting and being obnoxious you win the argument, which, for me, is Oasis' main legacy....And thats a shit fecking legacy.
Well I would say Radiohead were the best 90s band...but
Red Hot Chilli Pepers
Pearl Jam
Sublime
Ocean Color Scene
Rage Against The Machine
Nirvana
R.E.M
Pixies
Smashing Pumpkins
Portishead
and Blur...and in fact even the Verve
Were all better bands, musically, in that time period....In my opinion
For me, Oasis was all hype and swagger and the music, listening 15 years on, is rather weak....But having said all that, there are still several songs I really enjoy, Live Forever for example I think is a great song.
..Oasis were soft pop rock and nothing more, and still are. You're speaking like it was Dark Side of The Moon or Sgt Peppers and musically changed the landscape. It wasn't. They were just the loudest and captured the Zietgeist....Their entire speil was "ey, look how fookin' hard I am, I'm right fookin hard me!!...Now listen to me sing "What a life it would be, If you would come to mine for tea, 'll pick you up at half past three"...Wow, hyperbole to the max...Definitely Maybe is a great album, but "all time classic"...hmmmm, yes I defy that. It's not a patch on St Peppers, Revolver, Thriller, Nevermind, Let it Bleed, Dark Side of The Moon, Songs in the Key of Life etc etc... Proper Albums, that had proper long term influence and where proper serious music...Not a collection of fluffly pop songs with the same tempo and the same chords in the same Key... DM was not the rock equivalent of the Renaissance Johnno. Put it up against any of those albums and it's utter fluff...You obviously like them, and dressed up and swaggered like an obnoxious little cnut when you where younger, but that doesn't mean they were the greatest things since sliced rock!
No wait no.....
Damon Albarn wrote an Opera (but Operas probly propper poncey southern Sheeiiite though aint it) and formed Gorillaz after Blur. Oasis are still writing the same song...Talent? You're having a fecking laugh mate
For a start only Noel had any talent in Oasis....Whereas Blur Co-Wrote the majority of their songs. Seriously, that is one bold and ridiculous statement.
So?...The Spice Girls had a bigger fanbase still?...Does that prove they were better than Oasis?
All you've done is give a back of cereal packet synopsis of the late 90s...with no muisical analysis or critique or attempt at deeper understanding or analysis....basically you're argument rests soley on what happened on Top of The Pops!
Blur plateau'd with Song 2 because it's the last song you remember them being big with....For a start Coffee and TV was just as big a commercial success and, like a few other songs, like Song 2, was very big in America (something Oasis continued to fail to do), but then moved away from commercial base music and into experimental territory, attempting to broaden their horizons and try different things. Something almost all seminal music acts have done from The Beatles to Bowie to even New fecking Order....Whereas Oasis stuck to their guns, did the same old shit and decided that they where the greatest thing in the world, couldn't get any better and that if they shouted at enough people and called them pricks they were right....a bit like you're doing
Quite a lot actually if we're talking about Legacy
You could be talking about The Beatles here by the way
Well seriously, you're actually showing your musical naivity here...The Beatles were not simple for their time. Now, yes, a lot of their songs are seen that way, but at the time, for pop, they were considered extremely experimental and very complex...certainly in way they messed with tempo, instrumentation, eastern melody and recording techniques. None of those things had been done before in contempory pop. As for Lyrics, well thats bollocks as well. In the early 60s ALL pop lyrics were about love and the Beates actually became hugely seminal for breaking away from that and writing lyrics about everyday banal things..Something that at the time was groundbreaking in mainstream pop, especially for a band like The Beatles....Trust me John, I did a course on it,
Well it is to most of us....and isn't that the point we're arguing?
Subjective. I don't think anything beyond DM wa brilliant. Be Here Now certainly wasn't. But thats opinion, bits of WTS were very good I'd admit
Well again, that just shows their cultural affect on you...not everyone walked around in a parker acting like a complete cnut...Your world view, or nationwide view in this case, is very small and limited to your area, assuming the rest of Britain must of been the same. It's a rather arrogant assumption and something, perversely, that Northerners often level at us Southerners.
Furthermore you're again dismissing a whole sway of other cultural influences...For example you've gone for The Clash and The Smiths in the 80s but not the New Romantics or the Proto Punks, which were both arguably bigger cultural 'scenes', and not just in England but worldwide. Blondie, Ultravox, Culture Club, Spandau Ballet, Frankie Goes to Hollywood etc etc all sold more records than the Clash or The Smiths and had a much bigger cultural affect worldwide and by your definition of what makes Oasis better than Blur, that makes them better than either.....Why havent you mentioned them?...Probably because that's not what you like...Which is basically whats wrong with everything you've posted John.
Already done this point John...And it shows your rather limited understanding of Musical history and standard way of commercial song writing in the 60s, which they totally changed.
As were Blur on a less grander scale..Again you're picking and choosing your influences based on what you conisder righteous, and also speculating wildly. It also equally speculatively accurate to say that bands like Radiohead (far musically superior to both) where a direct counter reaction to Oasis
What comparissons are you using for this?...In th World? There were no better bands in the WORLD??...Or simply in England?...Or Manchester?...Personally I think Ocean Colour Scene were a far better English band than Oasis during the same time...But that's my opinion
you see here you come across as a typical block headed Oasis fan. Taking cheap digs at bands you don't like and definitely claiming they were shit because that's your opinion and you're right...by shouting and being obnoxious you win the argument, which, for me, is Oasis' main legacy....And thats a shit fecking legacy.
Well I would say Radiohead were the best 90s band...but
Red Hot Chilli Pepers
Pearl Jam
Sublime
Ocean Color Scene
Rage Against The Machine
Nirvana
R.E.M
Pixies
Smashing Pumpkins
Portishead
and Blur...and in fact even the Verve
Were all better bands, musically, in that time period....In my opinion
For me, Oasis was all hype and swagger and the music, listening 15 years on, is rather weak....But having said all that, there are still several songs I really enjoy, Live Forever for example I think is a great song.
All the more reason to loathe Oasis.
Have you heard Radiohead? Jesus feck.
This is like saying Eastenders is better than the Sopranos.
You're talking about lyrical simplicity, I was talking about musical simplicity. Oasis are musically very basic, derivative and repetitive while the Beatles were te absolute antithesis of this. Lyrically the Beatles were less ground breaking, but were still more interesting than Oasis.
Alright first of all the Beatles were influenced by those artists, while Oasis imitated a certain period, image and sound from the Beatles. Secondly Coldplay, Starsalior, Kasabian etc. are a bit crap.
I'm confused, Oasis were the best until Coldplay were better? Only Coldplay are crap (the new Phil Collins plus 3) - so what, how good a band are is based upon sales in the US?
From the same sort of period as Oasis? I don't really like to call someone the best, as I'm fully aware that bands I think have been superb are not everyone's cup of tea. But if you're talking about a combination of musical innovation, commercial success and some sort of mythical Rock'n'Roll style that the kids like...
Sonic Youth
Pixies
Nirvana
Radiohead
The Strokes
The Smashing Pumpkins
At The Drive In
Oh Johnno....
Damon Albarn wrote an Opera (but Operas probly propper poncey southern Sheeiiite though aint it) and formed Gorillaz after Blur. Oasis are still writing the same song...Talent? You're having a fecking laugh mate
For a start only Noel had any talent in Oasis....Whereas Blur Co-Wrote the majority of their songs. Seriously, that is one bold and ridiculous statement.
All you've done is give a back of cereal packet synopsis of the late 90s...with no muisical analysis or critique or attempt at deeper understanding or analysis....basically you're argument rests soley on what happened on Top of The Pops!
Blur plateau'd with Song 2 because it's the last song you remember them being big with....For a start Coffee and TV was just as big a commercial success and, like a few other songs, like Song 2, was very big in America (something Oasis continued to fail to do), Quite a lot actually if we're talking about Legacy
Well seriously, you're actually showing your musical naivity here...The Beatles were not simple for their time. None of those things had been done before in contempory pop. As for Lyrics, well thats bollocks as well.Something that at the time was groundbreaking in mainstream pop, especially for a band like The Beatles....Trust me John, I did a course on it,
Well again, that just shows their cultural affect on you...not everyone walked around in a parker acting like a complete cuntIt's a rather arrogant assumption and something, perversely, that Northerners often level at us Southerners.
Already done this point John...And it shows your rather limited understanding of Musical history and standard way of commercial song writing in the 60s, which they totally changed.
As were Blur on a less grander scale..Again you're picking and choosing your influences based on what you conisder righteous, and also speculating wildly. It also equally speculatively accurate to say that bands like Radiohead (far musically superior to both) where a direct counter reaction to Oasis
What comparissons are you using for this?...In th World? There were no better bands in the WORLD??...Or simply in England?...Or Manchester?...Personally I think Ocean Colour Scene were a far better English band than Oasis during the same time...But that's my opinion
you see here you come across as a typical block headed Oasis fan. Taking cheap digs at bands you don't like and definitely claiming they were shit because that's your opinion and you're right...by shouting and being obnoxious you win the argument, which, for me, is Oasis' main legacy....And thats a shit fecking legacy.
Well I would say Radiohead were the best 90s band...but
Red Hot Chilli Pepers
Pearl Jam
Sublime
Ocean Color Scene
Rage Against The Machine
Nirvana
R.E.M
Pixies
Smashing Pumpkins
Portishead
and Blur...and in fact even the Verve
Were all better bands, musically, in that time period....In my opinion
For me, Oasis was all hype and swagger and the music, listening 15 years on, is rather weak....But having said all that, there are still several songs I really enjoy, Live Forever for example I think is a great song.
fecking hell Mocko, you argumentative twat!!! Honestly, it's taken me an age to sift through all this bollocks as I'm at work so excuse the lateness of reply as I've been trying to juggle a few things whilst replying to your mammoth effort. Seriously our kid, don't go near TJ from Deuce Bigalow because he would eat you with fried chicken, because you've done nowt but WAFFLE!
Right, let's get cracking. Yes, Definitely Maybe should be comparable to a few of those mentioned in your classic album list as it was a classic, an instant one at that. Incessantly, you bang on about Oasis' unoriginality and lack of musical prowess as in playing in the same key. The songs may have been akin to a Beatles tune, or to a hundred other influential bands to Noel Gallagher but the songs themselves and hence the album(s) were high energy and top class, that's why it was the quickest selling debut album of all time and why they amassed a large following in the UK and overseas and why several of their songs between 1995 and this decade reached number one.
I am not going to argue your case about the Beatles as I am a massive Beatles fan myself so that holds no sway with me, but comparing them to Nirvana who had about two songs of note and are only remembered for the dickhead blowing his head off than for anything else other than the originality of their appearance with their straight greasy hair, t-shirts over jumpers and facial hair as opposed to the curly-boffed, leather pant wearing Bon Jovi clones that swarmed rock in the 1980s. Nirvana peaked with their breakthrough 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' and never got any bigger until Cobain killed himself which was a posthumous tribute as they were never that good, and held no variety unlike Oasis' Definitely Maybe who had high-tempo tunes (Rock N Roll Star), slow-tempo'd (Supersonic) and melodic anthems (Slide Away) as well as satirical entries (Digsy's Diner, as you mentioned and also on Morning Glory with She's Electric).
And of course I like them, I haven't hidden that anywhere yet I can honestly say they haven't done anything for ages, as I did in an earlier post which you quoted but it still doesn't mask the fact they were the best band about by a country mile (or Country House, but I'll get into them cnuts from Cheltenham shortly), but what does swaggering about like a cnut have anything to do with it? I think you'll find pre-Liam Gallagher, me and most of my mates were already off on one being little knobheads and the fashions were in full effect in Manchester as remnants from the Stone Roses era, we merely emulated our older mates and role models who had adopted and still carried that look so many of us had fringes, wore Adidas and classic trainers and obviously already had inner-city Manc accents so to say we dressed up and acted like 'them' is miles wide of the mark as they acted like us because essentially, they were us and we were them.
Did Damon Albarn really write an opera? Shows what a sad twat he really is and yes it might show talent but Kenny G is talented but his music is shite in my opinion also, and Gorillaz is a bag of shite with their cartoons and no-frills rap segments, even getting the legendary Shaun William Ryder on Dare was lost on me; Albarn with his ear-ring and his top Cockney accent, what a melon. I don't think opera is Southern wank at all, I can't see too many kids from Shadwell, or Rotherhithe or Bermondsey buzzing to opera to be fair but each to their own.
And to say only Noel had any talent is plain daft, Liam was a massive presence as a frontman, like him or loathe him (for me, it was a bit of both), he was the life and soul of the band and his vocal talents were fairly unique, something you've even mimicked yourself with the 'sheeite' comment earlier, he sang 'sunsheeeeine' which became his trademark. The other band members were fairly adept as well if unspectacular in Bonehead, Guigsy et al but the drummer Alan White was a cracking percussionist. Now, these chaps didn't have as much coverage as obviously Noel or Liam, but also of their respective back-room band players from Blur, whose main man was obviously Damon but the other band members in Coxon, James and the other cnut whose name escapes me also enjoyed media attention which was lapped up and again epitomised Britpop with their quirky little framed glasses and skinny arms, floppy fringes and androgynous guitar wanking. Sorry fella, but you can stick that gay shite up your hoop, I'd rather watch the Village People than Blur - at least the majority of them were butch.
Then your argument stagnates into the Spice Girls having a bigger following; we all know we're talking about proper bands here, not manufactured nonsense, it's like comparing Take That into the equation or saying The Monkees were better than El Beatles, were they feck yet they were hugely popular and held more of a fan base at certain points in the 1960s than the Fab Four.
My 'cereal-box' argument that rests solely on what I saw on TOTP is incorrect I'm afraid, I was actively attending many gigs (albeit exclusively in the Manchester area) in my youth from the age of 14 onwards, which include Oasis (of course), Cast, Ocean Colour Scene, The Manic Street Preachers, Audioweb, Pulp (don't tell anyone about this one), Space, The Supernaturals (a really decent band form Glasgow), Ash and The Verve plus a few others I can't remember no doubt. You will also notice in there, most of those bands aren't Mancunian, it really is a coincidence and for us personally back then, convenient, that Oasis were from Manchester. I'd go to these gigs and I'd say lads and birds with the merchandise, the haircuts (not the birds), the walk and the Adidas jackets and they'd be from London, Glasgow, Bristol, Newcastle and beyond. I remember a lad with a City shirt on at the Maine Road gig back in 96 and he was a SCOUSER! He started supporting City just because the Gallaghers did, which is very sad of course but my point here I'm getting at is back to my original post and further what I've touched on in others is the massive cultural effect they had on British youth back in the mid-late Nineties and beyond. Manchester Unis had a huge influx of students from around Britain basically due to the fact they wanted to experience Mancuniasm because of Oasis and get their 2.2 at the same time rather than in Oxford or Cambridge.
And most British people got them, they were as you say knobheads, working class lads etc etc but yes, they were mainly knobheads, Liam is a wanker and Noel an outspoken twat who knows it all but they were still iconic style wise, musically and appealed more to the majority of British music fans because they were more like them than Thom York or Brett Anderson who were the previous leaders in British Rock Music, or Britpop if you want to call it that.
But the reasons why they never made it in America is exactly that - they are dicks. Their first real big time in America at the MTV Awards back in 1996, they were singing Champagne Supernova and Liam decides he'll drink a can of beer, launch it in the orchestral pit and spat all over the stage. If I saw that, I'd think he was a twat if I knew nowt about him prior to seeing that. We thought it was great obviously at the time but it was juvenile behaviour despite him being much older than us, and he never made amends either with some shabby appearances, his strong accent and swearing not being taken in by American audiences and by then (the late 90s, early 2000s), their work was also less quality than their first two albums so they weren't considered big there. It's exactly the same in Oz, too. Liam nutted some lad and that detracted a massive amount of their actual appeal which should have been for the music but they will be forever remember in Oz for Liam's head butt and Cathay Pacific flight behaviour when he was arrested after being abusive on the way.
Now, with respect to my comments regarding going out after a few hits and growing facial hair, of course the Beatles pioneered this, I agree but so have a million bands since and basically, it's clichéd to feck!
And this is getting interesting because you claim I have naivety when it comes to the musical history of The Beatles. Now you do know the Beatles had some songs out BEFORE Sgt Pepper, don't you? Because lyrics such as 'Love, love me do, you know I love you', 'I wanna hold your haaaaaaand, I wanna hold your hand', 'She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah' in my view are not the pinnacle of stretching lyrics to the full extent of the English language, yet these songs were simple, brilliant and highly effective. Now obviously as time went on, the band's brilliance shone through their tight-held control that George Martin held over them and they were allowed to experiment with the Indian sitars, the odd-yet-brilliance of A Day in the Life and all the other amazing tunes on that album and beyond, yet if you ask me, for all the innovation and brilliance they brought, I do not prefer one particular 'genre' of the Beatles, I could sit and shuffle through my Beatles iPod playlist, and be content as it bounces from 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' to 'Dear Prudence' through to Lennon's 'Woman' and back, I do not segment them at all and whilst I have favourites, I do not say 'well, they were only good after 1966 or 1968', do I feck. Yet their simplicity, lyrically AND musically is not panned like Oasis's is....and feck me! You did a course on the Beatles? Jeez mate, I hope you didn't pay for it, what did you do, analyse what 'tangerine trees and marmalade skies' refers to? Mate, if you sit and watch VH1 or something, they usually have Beatles days on each night and they give you all the info you need. A course on the Beatles, fecking hell!
Come on mate, these bands you've mentioned here look like you've gone to the NME's favourite band segment, Pearl Jam? They were a poor, poor, poor second to Nirvana riding their coat-tails until grunge died a painful quick death in April 1994.
Ocean Colour Scene I'll give you, a top, top band and Mosely Shoals for me was the musical highlight to the summer of 1996.
Rage Against the Machine? What the feck, 'feck you I won't do what you tell me?', are we heavy metal, are we hip-hop, what are we? They were the first confused rock-rap artists at least.
REM are decent but come on, how are they culturally siginificant to young kids into music, they're a hundred years old and are a bit odd.
Radiohead? Bollocks, whiny, dreary, suicide tunes with a shit frontman who dyes his head orange and is called Thom with an unneccessary H. Creep is the highlight but that was 1993 and when it was still controversial for white people to say 'feck' in a song.
The Verve is one of my all time faves too, but despite their incredible library of a good FOUR top tunes from Urban Hymns, they never really encapsulated the mood and feeling of the youth of Britain and when you were out in a club or whatever, it was pretty hard to dance or whatever to a Verve tune.
I'm knackered!
You have a very staccato approach to paragraphing Johnno.