Oasis, all these years and still a bit pants

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:11 pm

The video to Oasis' new song's just come on telly. Its a bit depressing to think I'll be hearing this soulless crap all over the place within a week or so. They've gone downhill at about the same rate as their egos expanded since they started, but this painfully plodding toss that they've apparently taken 3 years to throw together really takes the cake.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:15 pm

Cool! Oasis' new video looks just like Die Hard 2!

But seriously, they've been playing it on the radio all week, and basically, it's 3 minutesworth (per airplay) that I'd rather've listened to some of their early work.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:16 pm

Yet all Oasis's fans will buy it, it'll go to number one, they'll do sell-out tours, have a high-profile bust-up or rumpus, possibly a brawl, fall out with each other, split up half-way through the tour, break up with the wives, admit to drugs problems, get new wives, disappear for three years and write another album.

angloconvoy · Post by **angloconvoy** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:17 pm

See, putting Die Hard 2 on instead is what teh smart execs would do.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:21 pm

Saw the video. I thought Liam looked quite cool as usual. The song is catchy, I quite like it. They have a habit of writing stuff that gets lodged in your skull, even if it is the same chords reused every time.

Nowhere near as good as The Hindu Times as comeback singles go tho.

Post by **Denyer** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:23 pm

I don't mind Heathen Chemistry and I'm rather fond of some of the self-indulgence on Be Here Now. Plus the singles from the second album were good even if the album itself sounds like a coke binge...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0007XZPGE

^ This it? Guess I may watch TOTP this week.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:50 pm

I dunno, I like Oasis. "(What's The Story) Morning Glory?" is a staple permanent resident of my CD case...

I'm drawing a blank on Heathen Chemistry for some reason. I must have bought it, I know I've heard it but I can't find it anywhere, rrrgh. Hate it when that happens.

And this is the first I've heard of this album too. Interesting. Yeah, if I can I'll probably end up buying it...

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:00 pm

Loved the first two albums. Both are great

Afterwards....meh!

I've tried and there's been stuff thats 'not bad' but none of it is great really and none of it 'talks to you' anymore as it used to even when it sounds quite decent.

It's just spoiled self indulgence. At least their not caliming their as good as the Beatles anymore

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:48 pm

on a happier note, Beck just released a new album!

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:54 pm

Tried to get into the first album, but the songs didn't really leap out at me apart from 'Live Forever'. The second is v. pleasant and I won't turn off (might skip 'Wonderwall')—I just realised that I'd not thought of it in years, had no tracks on the playlist from it, so gave it to visiting friend. I've also had it played at me non-stop a few too many times over the years, which rarely helps to appreciate something.

Be Here Now is hideously self-indulgent, yes. And I love it for it—well, the few tracks I usually listen to on it—as not many bands do long songs. 'I hope, I think, I know' and the whole blurring mess of 'All Around the World' that forms the last three tracks are perennial favourites.

Have always thought the Beatles were hellishly overrated with the exception of a few tracks, so if the comparison is valid then that may be why I don't like the first album...

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:02 am

Beatles overrated? Why?

As for Oasis, IMO:

Definitely Maybe 9/10
Whats the Story (Morning Glory) 10/10
Be Here Now 6/10
Standing On the Shoulder of Giants 7/10
Heathen Chemistry 7/10

The problem is, their 94-96 heydey is accompanied by many great memories for me. So anything they bring out now whilst I've got a mortgage, car, steady job and girlfriend isn't going to compare. Sometimes music can capture a 'moment' and never recapture it.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:30 am

Denyer wrote:Be Here Now is hideously self-indulgent, yes. And I love it for it

I agree with what Spidey says about certain bands capturing a moment. You always associate them with a specific time in your life... later stuff is different, and you've moved on, so it doesn't evoke the same feeling.

But it can evoke the exact same feeling for somebody else, though, so that's a good, right?

Def Maybe and Morning Glory are by far and a way my favourite of their albums, but I wouldn't be able to list one above the other, as they're both stylistically distinct. One is "merrily drunk in a packed club with the speakers up full blast" stuff, the other is "kick back on a Sunday afternoon and relax" - or maybe that's just me.

Be Here Now is brilliantly up its own arse. It's one of those albums that knows it's arrogantly pretentious and just doesn't care about it. "Yeah, yeah, we're pricks. But we've got Johnny Depp on slide guitar, so we don't give a damn."

SOTSOG... Liked Gas Panic and Sunday Morning Call... ******* in the Bushes is quality, as are a lot of the other songs if you try and ignore some of the lyrics. I'd love I Can See a Liar if it was an instrumental.

Really liked Heathen Chemistry. Not as much energy as the first two albums... almost like they're doing stuff by identikit formula, but better than the previous album.

The new single? Meh. Nothing horrendously offensive, nothing spectacularly brilliant... rather listen to that than 50 Cent rapping about getting a blowjob, though.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:14 pm

i think everything since theri first 2 albums just sounds like they are plagarising themselves...

so they have managed to bore me with their new stuff and suck a lot of my enjoyment out of their original good stuff.

i don't listen to them at all anymore.

As an aside i think U2 are mediorce and i wish people would stop spaffing all over them like they are one of the best bands ever*

*This rant was inspired by what is currently on the radio

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:12 pm

Best First wrote:
As an aside i think U2 are mediorce and i wish people would stop spaffing all over them like they are one of the best bands ever*

I 100% agree.

I mean they have a few good songs. "Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, kill me", "Stuck in the moment" and 1 or 2 others are good stuff. However they hardly have an array of great albums and tunes. certainly not morw than an averge band who managed a few decent tunes and faded away and even their 2 greatest hits mostly bore me.

Some how I think U2 have rode the "take part in charity gigs, that celebs should do" wave after band Aid really well and they quickly critics got too scared to criticism them.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:20 pm

Jetfire wrote:However they hardly have an array of great albums and tunes. certainly not morw than an averge band who managed a few decent tunes and faded away...

I pretty much agree with this.

There's this guy on a radio station that I listen to that constantly refers to U2 as 'the greatest band ever' and it's the most annoying thing I've come across in awhile. They aren't the greatest rock band, not by a long shot. They do have a lot of hype playing in their favour though.

While I do like a few tunes and think that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" was a great album (and a personal favourite), Most of what I've heard from them hasn't seemed all that fabulous. They have quite a few really solid, good tunes but they also have their share of mediocre ones mixed in with 'em. I think it's the few tunes that make them stand out a bit more though... imo there's something "different" about the band. May just be that they believe a lot of their own hype and that translates as the difference,

, but there's something different there. I've not heard everything by them and don't know a lot of the band's history, so I can't really say too much, I guess.

It definitely seems that they've got a lot of hype working for them, but I don't think it's solely fear of criticizing them that's keeping people from doing it. A lot of ordinary people actually do believe they're the ****, why should people in the media be any different?

The charity work is definitely an asset to them. In that, it all seems a bit partially self-serving... whenever I see them on TV helping some charity I wonder how sincere it is sometimes. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it is a bit self-serving, but the thought does come up.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:26 pm

U2 and Oasis - guitar bands for people who don't like guitar bands.

Primus, Audioslave, 80's hair metal -that how to do guitar bands!!!!

Can an Oasis fan explain to me why, in 1995, they stood out from the bucketloads of other MOR indie bands? How did they become huge? Blur
were better

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:25 pm

Scraplet wrote:80's hair metal -that how to do guitar bands!!!!

People masturbating onstage. Yay.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:58 am

Denyer wrote: "People masturbating onstage. Yay."

Yay!!!!!!

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:42 pm

Scraplet wrote:
Can an Oasis fan explain to me why, in 1995, they stood out from the bucketloads of other MOR indie bands? How did they become huge? Blur
were better

Hard to say. Initially Blur were initially more popular, Country House beating "Roll with it" to number 1 rings a bell. However from mid '95-98 or so Oasis were constantly blow jobbed by the media.

I laughed at the utter hypocrisy when that guy from East 17 was steamrolled by the media for admitting to taking drugs but at the same time the media loved saying how Oasis were ultra cool because they did it and banged on and on about how drugs makes bands great because the Beatles and Stones previously did the same thing.

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:52 pm

Jetfire wrote:I laughed at the utter hypocrisy when that guy from East 17 was steamrolled by the media for admitting to taking drugs but at the same time the media loved saying how Oasis were ultra cool because they did it and banged on and on about how drugs makes bands great because the Beatles and Stones previously did the same thing.

The market for East 17 is about five years younger... by mid-teens, teenagers are into bands parents can point to and say "these people are exactly what you shouldn't be doing." It helped that Oasis were blatantly arseholes even to our fifteen year old minds.

It's also a fair point. Subtract drugs and a large chunk of your record collection probably wouldn't exist. [/Saint Bill]

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:31 pm

Hard to say. After drugs Oasis got s###. The Beatles wrote great stuff before heavy drugs entered their lives. Queen claim never to have taken any and I only really like Bowies early stuff before to much coke. I doubt Abba ever took any

Actually when drugs enter an artists life in a big way they always turn s### 3-4 years or so after. Oasis, Lennon/McCartney and Bowie are proof of that. Rapidly burns them out.

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:14 pm

Jetfire wrote:when drugs enter an artists life in a big way they always turn s### 3-4 years or so after.

Not a big fan of rock? I can think of bands who've been consistently releasing solid material for ten—coming on fifteen—years. Really depends what you mean by "big way" though, which you seem to be equating with colossal and impairing overindulgence; it's a truism going by that definition.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:19 pm

I believe so. I just believe talent is there regardless of drugs and will make great music with or without tham .

I gave some negative examples as wave upon wave of the music press claim drugs are essential.

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:41 pm

Drugs are essential because a drug is just a chemical—there are a wide variety in your body anyway (can't remember, which of the three sciences is your specialist subject?) Most restricted drugs simply act on substances and mechanisms within the body; ecstasy means you get through serotonin faster, for example.

It certainly isn't necessary to use a particular set of stimulants to find creative inspiration, but nor are most what they're demonised (or glorified) to be. The sky hasn't fallen in countries that emphasise education rather than media backlash, and people who make the papers with drug use are a tiny percentage of those who do.

For example, little of the Seventies were documented; it was impossible to do so at the time without exposing large numbers of individuals to prosecution. Not a great deal has changed, except magazine interviews are more likely these days to be regarded as hyperbole.

Do you think Coleridge would have produced Kubla Khan or various of his other works, sans the opium?

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:14 am

Bowie did 'Station to Station' in '76 when he was completely coked up. It's an amazing album...

(You can blame his 80s stuff on cocaine I suppose)

Maybe Oasis can't handle their drugs? Be Here Now was their coke album - I don't think they were there in body or mind...

My fave song is influenced by drugs (Strawberry Fields Forever - LSD). Take drugs out the equation and some great music is lost!

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:42 pm

Scraplet wrote:Can an Oasis fan explain to me why, in 1995, they stood out from the bucketloads of other MOR indie bands? How did they become huge? Blur were better

Blur aren't comparable. The two bands produced completely different types of music for cryin' out loud.

How did Oasis become the biggest of the bunch? Media. The tabloids decided that these two loudmouthed northerners were "cool" and "iconic" and therefore shoved them down the nation's throat.

Prob is that they actually believed their own press.

It's a classic example of the media telling people what they want to read about, rather than actually reporting on stuff that is genuinely important and/or interesting.