Oasis, are they twats or not?

"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!

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...

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.

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)..

<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 wrote: »

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.

No I never attended one of their gigs, a bit pointless really as I don't rate them at all and I hate big venues with a passion (a similar viewpoint to Roger Waters). I'm still of the belief that the vast majority of Oasis fans have a very limited taste in music in general. Not all obviously, there's always the exception.

Do they really put "energy and soul into the delivery of music" though? I found this live video on page 1 of youtube (couldn't be arsed searching more), and find it exactly as one would hear it on the radio. The exact same. The more I listen to these guys, the more I think just how terrible and basic they are. That's my honest opinion. Sorry.



[/quote] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4Y0TxW41g

That's a fantastic video, never seen it before. Bone Machine is another great Waits album. You're obviously the exception I was on about..

lordgoat wrote: »

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

Not very much. I've always found it very hard to relate to, far too constrained by a framework. There are exceptions to that of course, some really beautiful stuff but very few pieces that spoke to me personally. But it's something I haven't really explored too deeply yet. And I probably won't get around to it for a while, there's enough exciting stuff happening this century.

lordgoat wrote: »

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

You've got me with John Cage. Can't really think of anyone that just did something that ridiculous out of the blue (ie just abandoning any sort of compositional framwork and basically acting the bollocks, phrase it however you like). He was wonderfully unpretentious about what he was doing. Just dug sound an awful lot. So yeah, I'll give you that.

Unfamiliar with the others but Sigur Ros I'd argue. They also have very apparent influences in folk and some operatic styles.

lordgoat wrote: »

I can do this easily, but fail to see anything remotely moving in a three chord boring song

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? How can you appreciate it for the passion if you're getting caught up in the technicalities?

How many chords did John Cage use in 4 33 (not disagreeing with how great a concept that was, just talking ****e really)

lordgoat wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone's saying that. More so the opposite. My suggestion was that all music is an amalgamation of that which came before (with the possible exception of John Cage!). Dismissing it based on how similar it is to another one band's style or how technically challenging, or just how challenging it is to the listeners ear, is kind of unnatural as it doesn't reflect the way music evolves. With some bands their influences are just more obvious. And granted, a lot of bands are just ripping others off but I don't think Oasis are one of these. Or at least they weren't back in the day.