Re: Oasis are for life, not just for Christmas

Date: 13 Jun 2003 15:04:11 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.music.oasis
Size: 8,293 bytes

>> Kings of Leon
>
>
>Faddish.
>
Does that make them bad? Oasis is pretty faddish if you ask me.....Notice how
much their popularity has died? Thats for one of two reasons.....1. They're
faddish 2. The quality of their output has declined...So which is it?
>> RADIOHEAD (argue that all you want, they've been a lot more important
>> than Oasis lately)
>
>
>To students.
>
Yes, that clearly renders all of their work entirely unimportant.
>> The Beta Band
>
>
>The Gomez it's okay to like.
So we're once again not judging by artistic credibility, but rather, how bands
are publicly perceived based on image?
>> U2
>
>
>Have you seen Bono's beard?
See above.
>> BRMC
>
>
>The Reid brothers should sue.
>
So should Lennon, McCartney, T. Rex, The Stereophonics, The Who, Led Zeppelin,
Jimi Hendrix, among others (some have in certain instances) if we want to talk
about ripping off sounds. (See "She's Electric", "Fucking In The Bushes",
All Around The World", etc.) You can't take a rule and apply it to one if you
wont apply it to all.
>I can honestly say I've never heard a single song by any of those bands,
>or if I have they've been so awful I've erased them from my memory
While I'm a fan of neither Phish nor Dave Matthews Band (or their fan base for
that matter), these are some popular, successful bands who haven't forgotten
what it means to pay back their fans. They allow taping at all of their shows,
in a tapers section, they change up their setlists nightly, they've released
countless live albums in between studio albums, and above all, well at least in
the case of Phish, they consistently make themselves accessible to their fans,
something that I've seen Oasis (or at least Liam) NOT do.
>If you think there are thousands of bands better than Oasis, why the
>hell do you even listen to Oasis?
>
>
I love Oasis, to death. I've been on this newsgroup for over 5 years now,
worked on 2 or 3 very succesful Oasis fan sites as the webmaster at the time,
if I didn't like them that much, that'd have been a terrible waste of my time
don't you agree? I love them for what they are: good, basic rock n roll, that
occasionally goes deeper. Oasis is the best example of a band of wasted
potential. You can hear it in songs like "Gas Panic!", and "A Quick Peep",
where they dare to experiment and go into ground that THEY'VE never covered.
But then they put out Heathen Chemistry, and its subsequent B-sides, where
oddly enough, we've got repeated chord patterns, repeated production, repeated
melodies, and hmmm, ever heard noel use the words "shine", "soul", "fade away"
"destiny". I'll say again, I LOVE Oasis, and its great that at this point
they've got such a huge catalog, which is probably right now around 10 albums
worth of music, because I have that music to fall back on when all the talks of
"souls" and "people fading away" etc., just gets to be a bit too much. As was
previously stated, they've fallen into the Lester Bangs syndrome, they're
making music only to maintain their lifestyle. They're putting their career in
more jeapordy by releasing singles like Go Let It Out, The Hindu Times, and
Stop Crying Your Heart Out, then if they were to do an album as experimental
for them as Kid A/Amnesiac was for Radiohead. I'm not saying they need to do
the same music Radiohead did which is covered in blips, synths, odd meters,
etc., but rather to push the boundaries of what they themselves do, which is
rock 'n' roll. Different instrumentation, different arrangements, different
tones!! They've got 5 reasonably intelligent men, who've got about 75 to 80
years of music experience between them, I'm sure that they can find better
lyrics to write than those as I previously stated. I'm assuming the next album
will see Noel further loosening his hold on the band's creative output which
can only be good. Andy, Gem, and Alan need to really break out of their molds
here and show what makes them unique. Like I said, the potential is
there....it's just a question of whether or not they're willing to do it.
They've got 100+ released songs, and probably another 100+ in the vaults, that
all start to sound the same after awhile, 12 years on, don't you think its time
they went in a new direction while still retaining their Oasis signature? Spike
was a step in the right direction.
>
>
>What if I just want to sing me cock off to some rock'n'roll? Who can
>offer me more than Oasis at the moment?
>
That's fine, all the more power to you about Oasis making you want to sing your
cock off to some rock n roll. For some people, that might be turning up Train
or Matchbox Twenty, and if you think you can tell me that all the bands I
mentioned are garbage, then you have to give the same for people that say that
of Oasis or any of your bands.
>
>If writing great tunes and singing with passion are rock'n'roll cliches,
>I'm all for rock'n'roll cliches.
>
I wasn't talking about the tunes, though Noels tunes have become QUITE clichéd
at this point. I was talking about the outward arrogant appearance of Liam, his
drinking binges, the constant fights that should be an * on Oasis tickets when
you purchase them. I was talking about Noel saying "This is the best stuff
we've ever done! I'm really proud of it!" and then 4 montsh later, rwiting it
off, saying "Well, I'm a bit tired of music right now, when we get around to
going into the studio again, we'll see how it turns out, but Liam's been
writing some FANTASTIC stuff with Gem". It's all become a tired and true
formula. The honesty that Oasis seems to espouse so often, or rather, Noel and
Liam, seems to have become a script that they read off teleprompters whenever
someone comes at them with a microphone or a pen and paper.
>> Yea.....I'm
>> done with my rant.
>
>
>Good. Now about the new rock revolution.
>
You know what its done? It's reenegerized my love for music. They took over for
me where Oasis has seemingly left off. Whatever you think of The Strokes, or
BRMC, or The White Stripes, I can think of about 2 bands at my old school that
were inspired by them to get a band together, and thats important. Just the way
Oasis has been important. Bands like The Strokes and BRMC have made me want to
go check out Jesus and The Mary Chain, The Velvet Underground, Television,
etc., and thats important, the same way Oasis indirectly made me check out The
Stooges, The Who, The Kinks, The Stone Roses, etc. A lack of eccentricity (is
that a word?), does not take anything away from the musical output. Few will
argue that people like Harry Chapin, Billy Joel, Paul McCartney, among
countless others have made some of the best music in the history of music
itself, but they're not terribly eccentric. The music is the music, the
personality is the personality. It's fine that the personality might make you
go out and buy the music, but dont make what you view as a lack of personality
negate the quality of the music itself.
And before I forget...
>Define important and relevant. I'm intrigued.
>
To me they mean very different things than I'm sure they mean to you. A lot of
the "new rock" bands (and individuals), like The White Stripes, The Strokes,
BRMC, Ryan Adams, etc. are important to me because they helped to define
contemporary American rock as something more than just Linkin Park, Limp
Bizkit, System of A Down, among others. To me, relevant is a band that is doing
something to greatly change or influence the music industry and its "disciples"
(i.e., people like you and i). If you look at how the bands I've mentioned have
revitalized certain aspects of the industry, which you could look at as
production, live shows, music videos, amongst others, then yes, to me they're
relevant. They're changing the way people do things. Oasis did that 7 yearrs
ago, that was THEIR important contribution to music. They changed a generation
of people throughout the world, but thats not really the case so much anymore,
for a number of reasons, whether they're own "faddishness", their decreasing
quality of their music, their repeatedly cancelled tours, or whatever else
you'd like to attribute to it. Oasis were relevant, they're still somewhat
important, a lot of people look up to them, but they just aren't doing it
anymore for a lot of reasons.
going nowhere,
max