There are 100s of bands as 'good' as Oasis

Hmm well, Lee worked for Earache too [as I'm sure you know] and he probably passed them to Digby through A&R. That's my guess. But it's unlikely the two of them will ever speak again anyway :p
I can't think of anyone who parted ways with Earache on good terms with Digby...

:/

*n
 
And I've nailed my colours to the mast.
Some of my DVD collection -

New York Dolls – Royal Festival Hall 2004
Nickelback – Live At Home [v]
Nightwish – End Of Innocence
Nightwish – From Wishes/End Of An Era
Nils Lofgren – Live Acoustic
Nils Lofgren – Rockpalast
Oasis – Here And Then
Oasis – Live By The Sea
Oasis – Lord Don’t Slow Me Down
Old Grey Whistle Test 1
Old Grey Whistle Test 2
Old Grey Whistle Test 3
Oomph – Rohstoff
Opeth - Lamentations
Ozzy Osbourne – Live & Loud
Ozzy Osbourne – Live At The Budokan
Page & Plant – No Quarter Unledded
Pantera – 3 Vulgar Videos From Hell
Paul Gilbert – Space Ship Live
 
Seems strange how my upload of bootlegs was removed, but you can link to anything you want from YouTube. Actually the Up In the Sky Acoustic version which was linked in this thread was one of the bootlegs in my original post, recorded sometime in 1993 (ie before their first single, before they had recorded any of the first album). The rest of them were basically live tracks or demos, I'm sure if I uploaded them to YouTube then there would be nobody crying about it being illegal, even though it is exactly the same thing.

Anyway, it only took 8 pages before somebody actually got the point of the thread, thanks to nero120 for that. He brings forward something else as well, that (at least in London anyway) there are countless bands who bring along their mates to every gig and they worship them no matter how bad they are.

Noel has said it was 18 months of rehearsing until he thought the band was good enough to go somewhere, so that must do something to dispel the myth that it is mostly luck that will get you signed. How many bands do you reckon put the effort in to rehearse 5 days a week for 2 years without getting anywhere? Infact probably over half of Oasis songs from the first two albums have lines in them that stress the importance of working hard or being yourself. Obviously to become the biggest band in the world you have to have more than just music, but that is what sets apart the good bands and the great bands. There are good bands with just the music, and then there are great bands who manage to change the way people dress, think and speak or spearhead a new genre of music.

I don't think Oasis are anything new or original, moreso that they are just a rock band that have taken inspiration from many great bands before them, rather than completely trying to imitate one. The Beatles, Sex Pistols, Who, Kinks, Rolling Stones.. You only have to look at Liam's singing to see the mix. The falsetto, the way he pronounces shine, the sneer from Johnny Rotten.. Infact the production on What's the Story Morning Glory reminded me strangely of Never Mind the ********. But then again, some of you will claim the Sex Pistols were the worst musicians of all time, despite the producer Chris Thomas describing Steve Jones as the tightest guitar player he has heard in his life and having also worked with the Beatles, Pink Floyd, and The Who.

The basis of half the arguments on here are that if the music is easy to play or has simple chord progressions it is automatically bad. That really doesn't cut it. Just because a song is easy to play on your acoustic doesn't mean the band are awful musically. How many times have you seen a local band manage to murder a song like My Generation? There is a lot more to being a musician that just how difficult the song is physically to play.
 
Seems strange how my upload of bootlegs was removed, but you can link to anything you want from YouTube. Actually the Up In the Sky Acoustic version which was linked in this thread was one of the bootlegs in my original post, recorded sometime in 1993 (ie before their first single, before they had recorded any of the first album). The rest of them were basically live tracks or demos, I'm sure if I uploaded them to YouTube then there would be nobody crying about it being illegal, even though it is exactly the same thing.

I think legally it's quite different. I'd think it would be something along the lines of Youtube being liable for stuff on their website, whereas you, as a member of these forums, would make OcUK liable for copyrighted material that you personally upload. So stop your whining.

Noel has said it was 18 months of rehearsing until he thought the band was good enough to go somewhere, so that must do something to dispel the myth that it is mostly luck that will get you signed. How many bands do you reckon put the effort in to rehearse 5 days a week for 2 years without getting anywhere? Infact probably over half of Oasis songs from the first two albums have lines in them that stress the importance of working hard or being yourself. Obviously to become the biggest band in the world you have to have more than just music, but that is what sets apart the good bands and the great bands. There are good bands with just the music, and then there are great bands who manage to change the way people dress, think and speak or spearhead a new genre of music.

The basis of half the arguments on here are that if the music is easy to play or has simple chord progressions it is automatically bad. That really doesn't cut it. Just because a song is easy to play on your acoustic doesn't mean the band are awful musically. How many times have you seen a local band manage to murder a song like My Generation? There is a lot more to being a musician that just how difficult the song is physically to play.

I don't seem to remember seeing anyone say that "mostly luck" will get you signed. But a lot of the time it certainly isn't mostly musical talent.

I'd strongly disagree that one of the defining features of a "great band" as you put it, was managing to change the way people dress and speak (think of My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy!). And I'd go so far as to say, that all a band should need to make itself great is its music. That's kind of the whole point. Substance over style and all that. Fair enough a good live performance is needed, but that's still how you perform your music.

I'm not basing my argument on the fact Oasis is easy to play...a lot of Bright Eyes songs are easy to play...it's not that that makes Oasis bad. It's that they are crap :p
 
Last edited:
I think legally it's quite different. I'd think it would be something along the lines of Youtube being liable for stuff on their website, whereas you, as a member of these forums, would make OcUK liable for copyrighted material that you personally upload. So stop your whining.
You were one of the ones that started crying about it in the first place, and coincidently the first person to post and completely miss the point of the thread.
 
Still, I think the point to realise is that Oasis make one kind of song, and that's it, which is what people are getting at. Good artists have the skill to produce a variety of different songs, and not just rehash the same old rubbish. Nothing wrong with having a few songs that have a similar style, but when the entirety of your career is made up of one idea looped over and over, that's when you have no merit.
Tell me what style of music Oasis is then?
 
Carzy is right, you know. Regardless of wither or not you think Oasis are good, why do so many fans say they went downhill after 3 albums? Primarily because playing the same kind of songs, in a similar style for years, will only get you so many good ones, before everything becomes a below par rehash of their glory days.

Some bands manage to make it sound fresh, even if it is the same stuff they're playing. But whenever I think of Oasis now I just think that they've somehow managed to become so apathetic about their own music. It's like they lived the rock n roll lifestyle, got rich and just stopped caring about writing good albums. When I see them playing, it comes across like some kind of chore for them.
 
Carzy is right, you know. Regardless of wither or not you think Oasis are good, why do so many fans say they went downhill after 3 albums? Primarily because playing the same kind of songs, in a similar style for years, will only get you so many good ones, before everything becomes a below par rehash of their glory days.

True. I'd argue one of the greatest rock bands has to be the Chili Peppers. Compare them with the Foos - whilst I love the Foos they haven't produced anything really original for about 4 albums now (if they ever really did), but the Chili Peppers have gone from strength to strength and evolved their style to create truly original sounding music still after 20 years. Not one of their albums sound like the last, and if you listen to a track off each album back to back, it is a true musical evolution. That is very rare. I wasn't a big fan of stadium arcadium, and it might be that that album signifies their demise, but damn, I don't think anyone could have predicted they would end up a mainstream successful band when Mothers Milk came out, and even more so that if they did their music would be credible! Kudos to them.
 
A band that set out with the goal of becoming the biggest in the world sure is indie.

Not indie in the independent record label sense obviously :rolleyes:

Mind replying to the point I made earlier by the way:

"I'd strongly disagree that one of the defining features of a "great band" as you put it, was managing to change the way people dress and speak (think of My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy!). And I'd go so far as to say, that all a band should need to make itself great is its music. That's kind of the whole point. Substance over style and all that. Fair enough a good live performance is needed, but that's still how you perform your music."

I'd like to see what you say...
 
what is it if it isnt indie?


nothing much that has come from Oasis has excited me. it is bland and at times, just plain boring. I actually really likes dont believe the truth, though i couldnt tell you why. i think its because it showed the most promise of them writing their own, original, stuff. but even then, they still feel the need to blantantly rip off other songs (lyla) one once again show their lack of creativity.

i dont know, i just think they arent anywhere near as could as they could have been. as for metal, well, i love it. but not thrash, im not a big fan of slipknot, or static-x, or anything even heavier, though i do like the od track. I find it absolutely barmy that people can blanket-statement a genre like Gilly (not that i have a problem without people not liking it) does when that Genre covers such a diverse range of styles and sounds. i mean, its not like Metallica's One is at all similar to System of a Down's BYOB, Static-X's Shadow zone, or just about anythign by Rammstein lol
 
Back
Top Bottom