Oasis, are they twats or not?

Affable

OK yeah I know they got over exposed and acted like twats, Liam especially. And I know they became boring because of overexposure.

But take the music aside from all that and there is greatness and beauty there. I just noticed Liams got a clothing line, that's what made me think of it yeah he's a twat but can't be as dumb as he makes out, he's kinda hard to read.

'Pretty Green' read it in NME...website is up btw if you care.

mal1

twat:
1. Vulgar Slang The vulva.
2. Offensive & Vulgar Slang A woman or girl.

Harsh!

loveissucide

Staggeringly derivative it must be said.Their sound is almost a precise rip-off of Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, and The Jam.

Affable

loveissucide wrote: »

Staggeringly derivative it must be said.Their sound is almost a precise rip-off of Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, and The Jam.

That's a staggerlingly derivative opinion, sorry.
Great artists steal and make better right. You can't just write great songs by ripping off, even if their sound is influenced by others. And out of those they only sound anything like The Jam, besides Liams voice.

cherryghost

Affable wrote: »

OK yeah I know they got over exposed and acted like twats, Liam especially. And I know they became boring because of overexposure.

But take the music aside from all that and there is greatness and beauty there. I just noticed Liams got a clothing line, that's what made me think of it yeah he's a twat but can't be as dumb as he makes out, he's kinda hard to read.

'Pretty Green' read it in NME...website is up btw if you care.

Yes.

mega man

oasis are legends!:)

CoachBoone

loveissucide wrote: »

Staggeringly derivative it must be said.Their sound is almost a precise rip-off of Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, and The Jam.

Beatles ripped off Chuck Berry.
Stone Roses ALSO ripped off Beatles. Jimi Hendrix too.
etc etc

Its how music works unfortunately...

JerryHandbag

Twats or not their latest album is mega....sound like they've been listening to a lot of blues, on the first half anyway....right on cue "Stand By Me" shuffles in on my ipod

Notorious

No Oasis aren't 'twats'. They're not boring either. And its not called ripping off or stealing, its more influenced by. If every artist was required to create their own style and sound there'd be a lot less music out there.

Liam has a clothing line to make money, simple as. Its just like the Wu-Tang Clan did throughout their 10 year plan. If I could make money through designers slapping my name on a clothing line, I'd definitely cash in.

doyler442

loveissucide wrote: »

Staggeringly derivative it must be said.Their sound is almost a precise rip-off of Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, and The Jam.

The typical answer from this forum - why do so many people here always give this crap? This forum is wreckless for it!!!

It seems being influenced by another band is bad or something - Oasis have admitted many times that they use The Beatles for a lot of their music and I don't see why people moan about this when they are still writing great songs.

Great artists steal and make better right. You can't just write great songs by ripping off, even if their sound is influenced by others.

Very well put.

Honestly on this forum sometimes it seems people expect bands to invent a completely new genre and even than they would find something to moan about, i.e. it doesn't sound enough like The Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, or The Jam

Affable

doyler442 wrote: »

Very well put.

Honestly on this forum sometimes it seems people expect bands to invent a completely new genre and even than they would find something to moan about, i.e. it doesn't sound enough like The Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, or The Jam

Because they got popular and loved the beatles, everyone said they ripped them off. You don't write stuff like Live Forever, Slide Away, Cast No Shadow, Wonderwall, Morning Glory, The Masterplan etc etc etc without being a genius. I mean, The Beatles loved Elvis, The Stone loved Blues and Muddy Waters, doesn't mean they didn't do genius of their own.

I think they are more on the level of enigmatic genius like Morrissey gets rated than they credit for, namely because they got too mainstream, and became not as good later, though even some of the later stuff is better than it seems.

Liams voice could be a bit OTT.

I find a lot of humanity and sincerity in their songs, sorry if that sounds earnest.

fillmore jive

Blur.... or Oasis?

lordgoat

doyler442 wrote: »

The typical answer from this forum - why do so many people here always give this crap? This forum is wreckless for it!!!

It seems being influenced by another band is bad or something - Oasis have admitted many times that they use The Beatles for a lot of their music and I don't see why people moan about this when they are still writing great songs.



Very well put.

Honestly on this forum sometimes it seems people expect bands to invent a completely new genre and even than they would find something to moan about, i.e. it doesn't sound enough like The Beatles,Stone Roses,Sex Pistols, or The Jam

On topic. Oasis for me are completely a meh band, boring melodies and simplistic lyrics. Outside of music i couldn't give a ****e aabout them. It doesn't matter.

Off topic.
I think some people find it impossible to believe that modern bands are actually capable of making new, great music that will stand the test of time on it's own and can't be likened to someone else. If you want an example take Sigur Ros. There are countless others.
Personally i hate the phrase influenced by as used in this thread. I find it an easy way out. There are many great bands out there at the moment doing their own thing. And while imitation is the greatest form of flattery give me the real thing over a plastic knock off anyday.

lordgoat

fillmore jive wrote: »

Blur.... or Oasis?

Wha'?

Glassheart

Liam is definitely a twat.

Noel is a genius songwriter who has surpassed many of his own heroes.I don't care what anybody says...
The Beatle comparisons are lazy.As a band they sound more like the Stones or the Who.

I think Noel really rediscovered his ability on the last two records.Looking forward to this solo album that he's been talking about...

Aridstarling

+1 everything Lordgoat said. Nailed it in one mate, well done.

Quint

Liam is a twat. Noel always comes across as a funny guy that you'd like to have a pint with. And a fantastic songwriter too

buck65

twats and twats all I'm gonna say

getz

manchaster twats from a [not working[working class /irish/ background who have a talent,--i can say that because i,m from manchester with a irish background and no talent

neilisagam

they are both stuck back in the 90's when the were big. 5 albums since "whats the story" and they haven't once created an album anywhere near close to "whats the story and "definitely maybe". They are complete twats that hav done fcuk all in ten years. Fair enough they influnced alot of bands around today but they had their time, now move the fcuk over

Aridstarling

Did anyone see where the guy from the Enemy slagged them off? After The Enemy were announced as support act for the next big Oasis gig in England! Funny stuff.

Glassheart

neilisagam wrote: »

5 albums since "whats the story" and they haven't once created an album anywhere near close to "whats the story and "definitely maybe".

Neither has anybody else.They set an incredibly high standard for themselves and every other band of the era.

neilisagam wrote: »

They are complete twats that hav done fcuk all in ten years.

Don't Believe the Truth is widely considered to be a great album.For that record alone i'm glad they didn't split after Morning Glory.
Dig Out Your Soul is almost a great album too.Shame about 2 or 3 of the tracks near the end...

neilisagam wrote: »

Fair enough they influnced alot of bands around today but they had their time, now move the fcuk over

Move over for who?!!
The Wombats? The Kooks? The Enemy? Scouting For Girls?

Even if that was true then it's only fair that they take Radiohead with them.:cool:

Affable

Glassheart wrote: »

Move over for who?!!
The Wombats? The Kooks? The Enemy? Scouting For Girls?

Even if that was true then it's only fair that they take Radiohead with them.:cool:

SOTSOG aint half as bad as it's made out to be, got some good tunes. Like you say they set a high early standard and were at their peak, hard to be as good as that once all the cash and accolades have come through.

neilisagam

Glassheart wrote: »

Neither has anybody else.They set an incredibly high standard for themselves and every other band of the era.



Don't Believe the Truth is widely considered to be a great album.For that record alone i'm glad they didn't split after Morning Glory.
Dig Out Your Soul is almost a great album too.Shame about 2 or 3 of the tracks near the end...



Move over for who?!!
The Wombats? The Kooks? The Enemy? Scouting For Girls?

Even if that was true then it's only fair that they take Radiohead with them.:cool:

If Don't beleave the truth is a pop album then its a great album....
Lyla sounds like something that Busted would release.

They set a high standerd for themselfs and havent achieved anything like it since. Their choice....give up. Fame hungry money grabbers at this stage. Everyone will look back and remember those 2 albums. As Neil Young said....better to burn out than fade away.

Driver 8

That'd be the same Neil Young who's still going strong at 60 odd?

neilisagam

Neil Youngs still making good albums as appose to the **** oasis spew out

splashdown18

glorified pub rock i think.they say they're the next beatles and stone roses but they just havent got the creativity.and for a band to be great, all members play a central role.i dont think id even know oasis' drummer or bassist to see

The Pontiac

Comparing Neil Young to Oasis? Jesus h, that's a joke.

I kept quiet all along, but Oasis are absolute twats. What's with the stupid walk Liam keeps putting on...and giving the two-finger salute? Does he practice being a wanker? He's certainly got it off to perfection. Boasting about their narcotic consumption, their robberies when young fellas.. who gives a fúck..moronic fools.

Quint

neilisagam wrote: »

they are both stuck back in the 90's when the were big. 5 albums since "whats the story" and they haven't once created an album anywhere near close to "whats the story and "definitely maybe". They are complete twats that hav done fcuk all in ten years. Fair enough they influnced alot of bands around today but they had their time, now move the fcuk over

What do you mean? They should split up even though they're still really successful because their newer stuff isn't as good as the older? Their first 2 albums are 2 of the best albums of all time, understandable that they couldn't keep up that quality

Liam - seems a bit of an idiot, undeniably a great frontman though

Noel - liking him more as he gets older and wiser. He seems to have a healthy attitude to the fame game, and is a genuinely smart and witty guy. His recent Q interview was excellent. Seems very comfortable in his own skin, unlike Liam, who always looks like he is gearing up for a confrontation

Still the best band in the world !! Went to see them in sunderland and they get better with age. Class performance. Liams voice seems to have improved from a few years back. Liam is what makes a great frontman, arrogant with a swagger. Cant wait for Slane.

Xavi6

Fantastic band.

Definitely Maybe and ....Morning Glory and two of the greatest records of all time. Throw in half of Be Here Now and a couple of tunes from each subsequent album and you have a stunning back catalogue.

And that's before I even mention the best collection of b-sides ever.

beetlebailey

"I think Oasis are one of the most over-rated and pernicious band of all time.
They have made stupidity hip.
They claim to be inspired by the Beatles but, and this so saddens me, they have failed to grasp that the Beatles were about constant change and evolution. Oasis are repetitive Luddites."-Bloc party.

Pretty much sums them up!

gustavo

I love them both in their own way , Personally I like my rock stars to be twats , I know if I became one I'd be a bit of a twat too.

Noel's not a twat though. He's hilarious IMO. Would be a great man to go for a pint with, Always love reading interviews that he does, I think Liam is quite intelligent too ,He just seems to always want to act the ****.

Great unpretentious music too ,I know it's not the done thing to like them cos ZOMGLOL THEYREBORINGBEATLESPUBBANDREPETITIVE but **** it , If Noel Gallagher can still pump out tunes like Falling Down , Bag it Up and Waiting for the Rapture I'll listen to them.

KnifeWRENCH

I like Oasis' music but as people they do come across as twats.

Liam = Complete twat, no question.
Noel = Less of a twat because he at least comes across as some bit intelligent, but still a twat imo.

Pighead

Xavi6 wrote: »

And that's before I even mention the best collection of b-sides ever.

What's Sci-Fi Lullabies got to do with anything?

Like most on this thread, I think Liam's a bit of a spanner but think Noel is hilarious.

robpurf

ive pretty much grown up with oasis and i think they have to be up there with any band.yeah liams a bit of a clown but thats part of the fun of oasis and noel is a genius especially when you take his dyslexia into consideration

JerryHandbag

I always respected Noel ever since he came out with the line about Robbie Williams "Hes just a fat dancer from Take That".....from then on I've always listened to his soundbites with some amusement....cos thats the best description of that clown I ever heard

Funny how hes off chasin UFOs now, while Oasis are sellin like hotcakes :cool:

VegetativeState

The first two albums were sublime, two of the most perfect sounding creations ever. That waterfall of sound they got was amazing. Started listening to them when I was about 6 and they still blow me away whenever I go back to them. Sure everything they've released since has been below that standard [with a few gems hidden amongst the filler] but they're still a wonderful live band, so feck all that noise about bein washed up or whatever. They've still got it where it counts: being good performers, which is just as important as being able to write new and interesting music.
With regards to twattishness, yeah of course they are. Typical rockstar dickheads. With the exception of Noel who seems like a gentleman and is one of the wittiest musicians I've ever heard get interviewed. Also still very down to Earth, still just as enthusiastic about the music that got him excited when he was young and very honest. He has absolutely no pretenses, as was mentioned before and this is reflected in the music he writes. A king of a man.

lordgoat wrote: »

Off topic.
I think some people find it impossible to believe that modern bands are actually capable of making new, great music that will stand the test of time on it's own and can't be likened to someone else. If you want an example take Sigur Ros. There are countless others.
Personally i hate the phrase influenced by as used in this thread. I find it an easy way out. There are many great bands out there at the moment doing their own thing. And while imitation is the greatest form of flattery give me the real thing over a plastic knock off anyday.

I don't think that's a good way of looking at things. No artist is ever completely original, it's an impossibility. Anyone who claims to be is under an illusion or has allowed their own mythology to get the better of them. Everyone has influences, some just are more open about it.
Some bands are able to be more progressive than others, which is what we need. But others aren't, that doesn't make their work any less legitimate. Sometimes a song is just a ****in good song. Take Tom Waits for example. He's always critically lauded for being progressive and ever-evolving, but he's bascially just playing jazz or the blues a lot of the time.




Jayzus......sorry about that...

*Miss Ní C*

oasis are brilliant. liam seems to be a bit of a twat but Noel is an utter genius!!
listen to any of their albums(though,yes, some of their songs are god-awful) and you'll see how their music has altered withen the album

there's only one thing to be said: Oasis are amazing, both live and on CD!

ShawnRaven

Twats, completely. Provided more knacker anthems than Journey and Aslan put together.

Nah seriously, they were band you either got, or you didn't. They were in the right place at the right time. I don't think they would have been anywhere near as successful either five years earlier or five years later.

bernardo mac

Enjoyed Oasis for a while but seemed to get too self important and twattish and maybe I'm wrong..Limited!

The Pontiac

VegetativeState wrote: »

The first two albums were sublime, two of the most perfect sounding creations ever.

Two of the most perfect sounding creations ever?..That's your opinion, fair enough, but I couldn't disagree more.

They've still got it where it counts: being good performers, which is just as important as being able to write new and interesting music

Am I right in thinking that this is your admission to the fact the Oasis as now making crap music? Because to state; being good performers is where "it really counts", to me is total utter bullshít. Would it not be a lot more interesting/entertaining to hear some new credible material, worthy of paying €90, rather than hearing the same old 'classics' sang in jukebox mode?.. This is a perfect example where I think the typical 'Oasis fan' is so musically inept; they really need to broaden their musical horizons, IMHO.

Take Tom Waits for example. He's always critically lauded for being progressive and ever-evolving, but he's bascially just playing jazz or the blues a lot of the time.

Basically just playing jazz or the blues a lot of the time? No, please stop now. He's also the writer of some of the greatest and most beautiful ballads ever. Great composer also. The Swordfishtrombones album is one of the most original records ever produced. The following two albums that completed the famed trilogy are equally genius. Oh, and the 1999 Mule Variations album released on an indie/punk label, grammy award winner, an album some would consider his best (not me, great album though), at 50 years of age. The 2004 Real Gone is one of his most versatile and unique albums to date and one of my favourites, even this late in his career and being able to make a record like this is quite astounding. Or produce a three cd collection of outtakes to massive critical acclaim is even more remarkable. Now that's what I call a real genius.

Tom Waits is simply one of the most innovative and original artists ever.

With regards to twattishness, yeah of course they are. Typical rockstar dickheads. With the exception of Noel who seems like a gentleman and is one of the wittiest musicians I've ever heard get interviewed.

I wouldn't mind having few pints with Noel, he seems sound enough. I think Tom is a lot wittier, tbh.. Here's a young Tom pissed (or under the influence, maybe) live on Australian tv.. He's a one off in fairness (the Letterman interviews are also great)..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSc6E4yG9s

lordgoat

VegetativeState wrote: »

I don't think that's a good way of looking at things. No artist is ever completely original, it's an impossibility. Anyone who claims to be is under an illusion or has allowed their own mythology to get the better of them. Everyone has influences, some just are more open about it.
Some bands are able to be more progressive than others, which is what we need. But others aren't, that doesn't make their work any less legitimate. Sometimes a song is just a ****in good song. Take Tom Waits for example. He's always critically lauded for being progressive and ever-evolving, but he's bascially just playing jazz or the blues a lot of the time.


Jayzus......sorry about that...

No artist is ever completely original? Bollocks. I can name you umpteen composers that past and present have more originality than you could shake a stick at.

<Ollie> has dealt with the Tom Waits comment. And the fact that you have say: but he's bascially just playing jazz or the blues a lot of the time. Makes me think you know very very little of the man or his music.

And with that i'll leave you to your oasis (of pedantic music).

VegetativeState

<Ollie> wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that this is your admission to the fact the Oasis as now making crap music? Because to state; being good performers is where "it really counts", to me is total utter bullshít. Would it not be a lot more interesting/entertaining to hear some new credible material, worthy of paying €90, rather than hearing the same old 'classics' sang in jukebox mode?.. This is a perfect example where I think the typical 'Oasis fan' is so musically inept; they really need to broaden their musical horizons, IMHO.

Yeah, pretty much. They haven't done anythin too exciting for a long time. I'm not defending their ticket prices [nor would I defend Tom Waits for that matter, though I guess that was sort of out of his hands] but they are still fantastic players. They still deliver the songs with passion, they still obviously care about the music. Personally I think the energy and soul put into the delivery of music [the only space in which music can really live, in my opinion] is just as important as that put into its creation. I'm assuming you've never been to a gig of theirs?
And making conjectures about someones 'musical horizons' based on their opinion of one mainstream act is a bit silly I think.

<Ollie> wrote: »

Basically just playing jazz or the blues a lot of the time? No, please stop now. He's also the writer of some of the greatest and most beautiful ballads ever. Great composer also. The Swordfishtrombones album is one of the most original records ever produced. The following two albums that completed the famed trilogy are equally genius. Oh, and the 1999 Mule Variations album released on an indie/punk label, grammy award winner, an album some would consider his best (not me, great album though), at 50 years of age. The 2004 Real Gone is one of his most versatile and unique albums to date and one of my favourites, even this late in his career and being able to make a record like this is quite astounding. Or produce a three cd collection of outtakes to massive critical acclaim is even more remarkable. Now that's what I call a real genius.

I mostly agree with everything you say. I love that guys music and just respect the man tremendously in general. He's hilarious, great in his acting roles and interviews. Real Gone is probably my favourite as well. Hoist that Rag may be my favourite guitar line of all time, it's unreal.

All the albums you mentioned display his influences very palpably. All of his stuff displays its roots. In it's delivery it's all him, I'm not questioning his innovation. I'm just sayin his music uses a lot of tropes from jazz and blues. And folk and everythin else. You don't have to listen very hard to hear Frank Sinatra and Louis Armstrong in his voice, to use an obvious example. He's very vocal about his influences in interviews as well.

Just saying that no artist can be completely original [which is a bit of an obvious and pointless statement now that I think about it]. Every artist is original or unoriginal to a degree, and I don't think that should be the last word in judging what they do.


I know we're strayin a little from the whole oasis topic but I think everyone should take a moment to dig this tune, makes the spine shake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4Y0TxW41g

VegetativeState

lordgoat wrote: »

No artist is ever completely original? Bollocks. I can name you umpteen composers that past and present have more originality than you could shake a stick at.

Could you? That play a style so alien that no one else has ever done anything even remotely similar before? It's a silly argument to get into really. I'm not saying that some artists can't be described as original, without getting too caught up in the meaning of the word [which I may be doing]. Just suggesting that it isn't the only thing that's important. You have to be able to appreciate music purely for passion of it sometimes.

And oasis are ****ing deadly.

lordgoat

VegetativeState wrote: »

Could you?
Easily. I'm guessing you've never heard classical music for a start. Let alone listened to it

That play a style so alien that no one else has ever done anything even remotely similar before?

Again yes. Off the top of my head - Sigur Ros, John Cage, Cornelius. I could put Chopin and Rossini in here as well as a host of others

It's a silly argument to get into really. I'm not saying that some artists can't be described as original, without getting too caught up in the meaning of the word [which I may be doing]. Just suggesting that it isn't the only thing that's important.

You have to be able to appreciate music purely for passion of it sometimes.
I can do this easily, but fail to see anything remotely moving in a three chord boring song

And oasis are ****ing deadly.
To you they might be, to me they are depressingly average, actually i give them to much credit by saying that

I find it entirely annoying when people say there is noting original being done in music these days, that everything is just a rehash of something old. That's just laziness in my opinion. There are many good, modern, original music makers out there.

bernardo mac

Right on Lordgoat.There is great Pop to enjoy but a lot of it is a Three Chord Trick!

Glassheart

lordgoat wrote: »

You have to be able to appreciate music purely for passion of it sometimes.
I can do this easily, but fail to see anything remotely moving in a three chord boring song

I have to laugh at this.
Of course you can't.You're too busy worrying about how many chords are in the song :rolleyes:

I find it irritating to be honest.Only a fool would dismiss Oasis as a three chord trick despite dozens of examples to the contrary.

bernardo mac

I agree Glassheart that they've produced really good music but I'm just a listener,not a musical expert,and I find the Gallagher voice somewhat monotonic,if I listen for a long period.

lordgoat

Glassheart wrote: »

I have to laugh at this.
Of course you can't.You're too busy worrying about how many chords are in the song :rolleyes:

I find it irritating to be honest.Only a fool would dismiss Oasis as a three chord trick despite dozens of examples to the contrary.

I couldn't tell you how many chords are in most of their songs all i do know is that are incredibly basic and there is a large lack of imigination across songs and albums. I did listen to them way back in the day to see what all the fuss was about and was completely underwhelmed a feeling that to me is very fitting with oasis. They do nothing for me.

I have to laugh at people that think i worry about oasis! And yes i do dismiss Oasis as three chord tricks, Most definitiely. To say they are a complex and multi faceted band would be ludicris. But as i said, enjoy your music and make sure you go see them in concert as often as possible.