Oasis split

theUbiq · 01-09-2009 12:46pm

Glassheart wrote: »

They were signed to Creation records.An independent label.

They WERE signed to creation but are obviously now not alternative or indie. They're now with some major label and their music is not alternative; it's dad rock, I think the commonly used term is AOR...

I think it's fair to ask why this is being discussed in the Alternative & Indie section.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 1:02pm

theUbiq wrote: »

They WERE signed to creation but are obviously now not alternative or indie. They're now with some major label and their music is not alternative; it's dad rock, I think the commonly used term is AOR... I think it's fair to ask why this is being discussed in the Alternative & Indie section.

Again because they started as an Independent band and were on an Independent label that why!

Glassheart · 01-09-2009 1:03pm

theUbiq wrote: »

They WERE signed to creation but are obviously now not alternative or indie. They're now with some major label and their music is not alternative; it's dad rock, I think the commonly used term is AOR... I think it's fair to ask why this is being discussed in the Alternative & Indie section.

If you can convincingly define Indie music for me then you win the argument.

The term was made for bands signed to Indie labels.

Pink Floyd,The Beatles,The Who.Led Zeppelin,The Stones etc could be labelled 'Dad Rock'.
So is it a bad thing? Certainly ****ing not in my book.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 1:08pm

Glassheart wrote: »

If you can convincingly define Indie music for me then you win the argument.

The term was made for bands signed to Indie labels.

Pink Floyd,The Beatles,The Who.Led Zeppelin,The Stones etc could be labelled 'Dad Rock'.
So is it a bad thing? Certainly ****ing not in my book.

Yes its a non issue. Oasis may have gone mainstream but they were signed by an Independent label.
REM i would think can be discussed on this Alternative Indie music boards as well and a whole host of other bands.

Bonavox · 01-09-2009 1:28pm

I don't understand why the split of this band warrants a thread. The band were terrible in recent times. The lead singer is a pri©k and Noel deserved better.

I'm glad their broke up and while Noel will still continue to rock, Liam will go down in flames like his little band.

theUbiq · 01-09-2009 1:49pm

Glassheart wrote: »

If you can convincingly define Indie music for me then you win the argument.

The term was made for bands signed to Indie labels.

Pink Floyd,The Beatles,The Who.Led Zeppelin,The Stones etc could be labelled 'Dad Rock'. So is it a bad thing? Certainly ****ing not in my book.

Here's the wikipedia definition of Independent Music.

'In popular music, independent music, often generally abbreviated as "indie", is a term used to describe independence from major commercial record labels and an autonomous, Do-It-Yourself approach to recording and publishing.

Independent labels have been known to strive for minimal influence on the artist they represent, avoiding the artist-cultivating behavior of many major labels. Artists represented by Independent labels have been known to be focused more on producing music than becoming wealthy and/or well known.'

In fact, Oasis signed to Creation after the label had been sold to Sony. I think its fair to say that Creation was no longer an independent label if it was owned by Sony... Come on, how can you honestly say that Oasis were an alternative band? They were\are the alternative to genuinely alternative music... what's alternative about pub rock with nursery rhyme lyrics?

They aren't a patch on Pink Floyd,The Beatles,The Who.Led Zeppelin,The Stones etc... each of these bands was genuinely revolutionary in their day. There is nothing revolutionary about Oasis' music.

This is pretty much a pointless debate... I believe they're not an indie\alternative band, you do. Let's agree to disagree?

darrenh · 01-09-2009 2:17pm

Oasis were on their own independent label Big Brother for the last few years. Does that mean that they re-qualify to be indie?!!

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 2:41pm

End of the day if NME, a magazine that for most part caters for the Indie alternative scene, covers Oasis its good enough for this thread. End of.

theUbiq · 01-09-2009 3:00pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

End of the day if NME, a magazine that for most part caters for the Indie alternative scene, covers Oasis its good enough for this thread. End of.

Don't take this up the wrong way but the NME is completely and utterly irrelevant, 10\15 years that argument would have held weight but not now. The NME is complete and utter rubbish and has been for a long time. They are not indie-centric, it's more like Q magazine (crossed with Smash Hits) for teenagers now.

Perhaps we should be discussing Madonna or the Sugababes because they are regularly covered by the NME. That was the 'end of' you making any sense.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 3:14pm

theUbiq wrote: »

Don't take this up the wrong way but the NME is completely and utterly irrelevant, 10\15 years that argument would have held weight but not now. The NME is complete and utter rubbish and has been for a long time. They are not indie-centric, it's more like Q magazine (crossed with Smash Hits) for teenagers now.

Perhaps we should be discussing Madonna or the Sugababes because they are regularly covered by the NME. That was the 'end of' you making any sense.

Yes NME not as relevant as it used to be but was just making a general point. Okay to return to Oasis split, the idea floated by one music critic last night was that Oasis would continue without Noel given that Liam does the odd bit of writing.
And as such they will stay together like Pogues did without Shane and maybe release an album or two.
Five years down the line we may see the band go back together.

walrusgumble · 01-09-2009 5:09pm

Bono Vox wrote: »

I don't understand why the split of this band warrants a thread. The band were terrible in recent times. The lead singer is a pri©k and Noel deserved better.

I'm glad their broke up and while Noel will still continue to rock, Liam will go down in flames like his little band.

i have a lot of respect for noel. (so does many others when asked to pitch against his idiot brother) when i was younger, i taught liam was teh f*cking bomb, but he has not grown up and is a pure tw*t. i would not mind but half the time he is playing up (eg when he son was born and picked a fight with some photographer outside the hospital for no reason - compare that to teh reception when david beckham went outside to speak to the press when his missus gave birth - shortly around this time)

if word is true that liam was insulting to family members of another bandmates well to hell with him. whatever about picking on the band, surely innocent family members is not on.

Hope noel does well in solo work. a lot of his acoustic b sides and unreleased stuff was brilliant. Surely he will have much to sing about now. I hope gem stays along with him. those semi acoustic gigs during 2006-2007 are surely the two finger salute to those who doubted him

I would not rule liam out yet as far as musical success. (snigger) if he drops that john lennon nonsense style, and get someone like liam howlett around, he maybe ok. Not manner taight the mighty ian brown would make it after the stone roses. Then of course, liam is going into fashion (snigger snigger)

i hope both do well in their own right.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 5:12pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

i have a lot of respect for noel. (so does many others when asked to pitch against his idiot brother) when i was younger, i taught liam was teh f*cking bomb, but he has not grown up and is a pure tw*t. i would not mind but half the time he is playing up (eg when he son was born and picked a fight with some photographer outside the hospital for no reason - compare that to teh reception when david beckham went outside to speak to the press when his missus gave birth - shortly around this time)

if word is true that liam was insulting to family members of another bandmates well to hell with him. whatever about picking on the band, surely innocent family members is not on.

Hope noel does well in solo work. a lot of his acoustic b sides and unreleased stuff was brilliant. Surely he will have much to sing about now. I hope gem stays along with him. those semi acoustic gigs during 2006-2007 are surely the two finger salute to those who doubted him

I would not rule liam out yet as far as musical success. (snigger) if he drops that john lennon nonsense style, and get someone like liam howlett around, he maybe ok. Not manner taight the mighty ian brown would make it after the stone roses. Then of course, liam is going into fashion (snigger snigger)

i hope both do well in their own right.

Well I think Noel will do well whatever he does. Everyone knows what a good guitarist he is. Think the band needs a few years off and then lets see what happens from there.

Jeanious · 01-09-2009 6:46pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well I think Noel will do well whatever he does. Everyone knows what a good guitarist he is. Think the band needs a few years off and then lets see what happens from there.

Songwriter maybe? Noel ain't a threat to Hendrix, that's for sure.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 6:58pm

coyle wrote: »

Songwriter maybe? Noel ain't a threat to Hendrix, that's for sure.

Sorry said a good guitarist. Not a great guitarist. But Oasis made better albums then Hendrix.

Hardrain · 01-09-2009 7:25pm

Noels no guitar whizz and even he knows it. What he is though is a very competent guitarist and has a knack for writing melodies that stick in your head.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 7:30pm

Hardrain wrote: »

Noels no guitar whizz and even he knows it. What he is though is a very competent guitarist and has a knack for writing melodies that stick in your head.

Found this link to an interview which Liam gave to Tony Fenton before Slane gig. Obviously For those who are getting nostalgic about band now!

http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Tony-Fenton/Interviews-and-Sessions/liamgallagher.aspx

Jeanious · 01-09-2009 9:16pm

Hardrain wrote: »

Noels no guitar whizz and even he knows it. What he is though is a very competent guitarist and has a knack for writing melodies that stick in your head.

Completely agree, he looks clunky and awkward when playing, but fcuk it, youre dead right about the writing, and he doesnt even need to be a great guitarist.

ArthurGuinness · 01-09-2009 9:24pm

3 chords and the truth, they do what they do and dont give a crap what anyone else thinks about them. Sad to see them gone

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 10:46pm

ArthurGuinness wrote: »

3 chords and the truth, they do what they do and dont give a crap what anyone else thinks about them. Sad to see them gone

Yes liam in link posted above said they would have receding hair lines by time band split. Interesting interview.

Howbad · 01-09-2009 11:14pm

...word to the wise-don't eat or drink during this.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6IyGAvbOs4

greenandwhite · 02-09-2009 2:38pm

Fact is Oasis were and are the most important and influential band in a long long time, they were and are a band that fall into the category of you either love them or you hate them, If any other major band split (with exception of U2) you would have a thread like this, but you wouldnt get as many people posting about how ****e they were because other than Oasis and u2 no band around is that relevant. For example if radiohead or coldplay split there would just be fans saying how terrible it is and how great they were, you wouldnt get fans of other bands coming on to slag them off the way some on here have. Oasis mattered to everyone in music whether you liked them or not and i think this thread prooves that. As for the 3 chord argument Columbia is the only Oasis song i can think of right now that has 3 chords and its a ****ing great tune, maybe some more bands should try writing songs with the proverbial 3 chords, No one wants to get the log tables out to figure out a song, It's Rock 'N' Roll no rocket science.

Dave! · 03-09-2009 8:28am

Noel is Oasis, so I'm not too concerned about them breaking up tbh. Always preferred listening to him playing acoustically than the whole band (+ Liam singing...).

So I'll eagerly await Noel's solo career and collaborations with Weller, OCS, etc., and hopefully he'll come to Dublin so I can see him

seachto7 · 03-09-2009 9:28am

greenandwhite wrote: »

Fact is Oasis were and are the most important and influential band in a long long time, they were and are a band that fall into the category of you either love them or you hate them, If any other major band split (with exception of U2) you would have a thread like this, but you wouldnt get as many people posting about how ****e they were because other than Oasis and u2 no band around is that relevant. For example if radiohead or coldplay split there would just be fans saying how terrible it is and how great they were, you wouldnt get fans of other bands coming on to slag them off the way some on here have. Oasis mattered to everyone in music whether you liked them or not and i think this thread prooves that. As for the 3 chord argument Columbia is the only Oasis song i can think of right now that has 3 chords and its a ****ing great tune, maybe some more bands should try writing songs with the proverbial 3 chords, No one wants to get the log tables out to figure out a song, It's Rock 'N' Roll no rocket science.

Columbia is a cracking tune, probably one of my faves from Oasis, but they never influenced me musically, nor U2 for that matter. Oasis don't even come up on the radar for lots of people, fact is majority of folk don't care about Oasis or if they are dead or alive...Radiohead also get a fair amount of stick about being pretentious etc., but I'd take them anyday over Oasis. Give me interesting original sounding music, but that;s just me..

Spiritoftheseventies · 03-09-2009 9:41am

seachto7 wrote: »

Columbia is a cracking tune, probably one of my faves from Oasis, but they never influenced me musically, nor U2 for that matter. Oasis don't even come up on the radar for lots of people, fact is majority of folk don't care about Oasis or if they are dead or alive...Radiohead also get a fair amount of stick about being pretentious etc., but I'd take them anyday over Oasis. Give me interesting original sounding music, but that;s just me..

Yes give a bit of credit here. It seems that Noel did pretty much in terms of song writing and arrangements here. And the band stayed together for 18 years. Good going all things considered. But yeah Radiohead have been way more consistent. And I think are more creative musically

lordgoat · 03-09-2009 10:25am

greenandwhite wrote: »

Fact is Oasis were and are the most important and influential band in a long long time, they were and are a band that fall into the category of you either love them or you hate them, If any other major band split (with exception of U2) you would have a thread like this, but you wouldnt get as many people posting about how ****e they were because other than Oasis and u2 no band around is that relevant. For example if radiohead or coldplay split there would just be fans saying how terrible it is and how great they were, you wouldnt get fans of other bands coming on to slag them off the way some on here have. Oasis mattered to everyone in music whether you liked them or not and i think this thread prooves that. As for the 3 chord argument Columbia is the only Oasis song i can think of right now that has 3 chords and its a ****ing great tune, maybe some more bands should try writing songs with the proverbial 3 chords, No one wants to get the log tables out to figure out a song, It's Rock 'N' Roll no rocket science.

What a load of crap. That is the most idiotic statement i have seen posted on boards.

I'm sorry but i can think of very few bands that oasis have influenced. Matbe ocean colour scene or other such hum drums but to me and a lot of other people. They were nothing but two-beat peddlers of the same wares for almost two decades. And fair play if you can get away with it, but give me substance over that any day of the week. I can safely say that Oasis have never mattered to me. I saw them getting boo off stage at slane in 1995, they were crap then and in my opinion have consistently lived up to their low expectations.

Other than oasis and u2 no band are releve

Glassheart · 03-09-2009 10:59am

theUbiq wrote: »

Here's the wikipedia definition of Independent Music.

'In popular music, independent music, often generally abbreviated as "indie", is a term used to describe independence from major commercial record labels and an autonomous, Do-It-Yourself approach to recording and publishing.

Independent labels have been known to strive for minimal influence on the artist they represent, avoiding the artist-cultivating behavior of many major labels. Artists represented by Independent labels have been known to be focused more on producing music than becoming wealthy and/or well known.'

That makes Oasis an Indie band.
But where does it leave a band like Radiohead?

theUbiq wrote: »

In fact, Oasis signed to Creation after the label had been sold to Sony. I think its fair to say that Creation was no longer an independent label if it was owned by Sony...

This is misleading.
Creation sold 50% to Sony in 1992 but retained full creative control of the label.Sony's influence on Oasis was basically zero until around 1999/2000.

theUbiq wrote: »

Come on, how can you honestly say that Oasis were an alternative band? They were\are the alternative to genuinely alternative music...

I never said they were and don't consider them to be.

theUbiq wrote: »

This is pretty much a pointless debate...

I know... :pac:

Spiritoftheseventies · 03-09-2009 12:01pm

lordgoat wrote: »

What a load of crap. That is the most idiotic statement i have seen posted on boards.

I'm sorry but i can think of very few bands that oasis have influenced. Matbe ocean colour scene or other such hum drums but to me and a lot of other people. They were nothing but two-beat peddlers of the same wares for almost two decades. And fair play if you can get away with it, but give me substance over that any day of the week. I can safely say that Oasis have never mattered to me. I saw them getting boo off stage at slane in 1995, they were crap then and in my opinion have consistently lived up to their low expectations.

Other than oasis and u2 no band are releve

Yes was at that Slane gig in 1995. To be fair they were supporting REM so it is probably not a good example (REM fans would have different tastes in music) To my mind REM played them off the stage that day but fans have different tastes.
They are a very good live band and its backed up by the fact that they played to huge crowds and the massive amount of gear they carry around.
And I can say of what I saw in a subsequent live show at Lansdownen Road, they are very good.
Not sure about their output since Whats the story but as one rock pundit said the other day on the Last Word, Rolling Stones and even U2 make most of their money of tour sales now. Oasis as he said did the hard work with the first two albums.

Hardrain · 03-09-2009 1:45pm

There is plenty in their post Be Here Now work that stands up to the early stuff. Tracks like 'Let's All Make Believe, Gas Panic, Songbird, Who Feels Love and many others are right up there to my ears. Fantastic band. Really looking forward to some solo Noel and Liam with the right people to collaborate with can put something decent out.

The problem with both of them solo is that we will all say Liam could have sung that Noel track better or Liam's songs need Noels arrangments. All said and done I'm eager for more from both of them.

Spiritoftheseventies · 03-09-2009 1:51pm

Yes the impression i got from liam in that interview he gave to Fenton (posted in previous link) is that Liams contribution was pretty minimal.
So I think that must have been a factor with Noel who must have felt he was ploughing a lone furrow at times.
You look at good songwriting partnerhips like Buck and Stipe, Lennon and McCartney, Bono the Edge.
There was a fair bit of collaboration there.
So it seems for Oasis to have continued for that long (18 years) was good going. Obviously Liam gave the band a bit of an edge but it was always going to be tough for one band to keep it going.
Brian Wilson another case. Again he did most of the arrangements himself which in the end led to problems.

aDeener · 03-09-2009 7:06pm

lordgoat wrote: »

What a load of crap. That is the most idiotic statement i have seen posted on boards.

I'm sorry but i can think of very few bands that oasis have influenced. Matbe ocean colour scene or other such hum drums but to me and a lot of other people. They were nothing but two-beat peddlers of the same wares for almost two decades. And fair play if you can get away with it, but give me substance over that any day of the week. I can safely say that Oasis have never mattered to me. I saw them getting boo off stage at slane in 1995, they were crap then and in my opinion have consistently lived up to their low expectations.

Other than oasis and u2 no band are releve

bullshit, anytime there has been a thread about oasis you have posted on it declaring your dislike for them :rolleyes:

Oasis split

Comments