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

james.miller said:
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
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, I think you probably could chuck SOAD, Static-X and Rammstein quite easily into the same sort of room. I agree with your point though obviously :)
 
Carzy said:
To play devil's advocate, I think you probably could chuck SOAD, Static-X and Rammstein quite easily into the same sort of room. I agree with your point though obviously :)
Click to expand...


thats true enough. given a list of songs, you'd probably find 1 from every band under the genre that would sound exactly the same, and probably several from bands who have nothing to do with metal lol
 
Woody__ said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They didn't go downhill because of playing the 'same kind of songs, in a similar style'. If they had kept up what they'd done in Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory, then I would be more than happy, although then there would be an even more evident lack of innovation and direction. They went downhill because they changed their style, most notably worsening on Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants and Heathen Chemistry. Noel handing out songwriting duties to the other band members hasn't worked out too well (a few exceptions, Andy Bell has written a couple of ok songs I guess) but as Woody just mentioned, he's probably run out of things to write about and has no need to give one anymore which is Oasis' weakness.
 
Doohickey said:
I disagree. They didn't go downhill because of playing the 'same kind of songs, in a similar style'. If they had kept up what they'd done in Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory, then I would be more than happy, although then there would be an even more evident lack of innovation and direction. They went downhill because they changed their style, most notably worsening on Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants and Heathen Chemistry. Noel handing out songwriting duties to the other band members hasn't worked out too well (a few exceptions, Andy Bell has written a couple of ok songs I guess) but as Woody just mentioned, he's probably run out of things to write about and has no need to give one anymore which is Oasis' weakness.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because he realised that hes not working class and angry anymore, so theres no point in trying to replicate that. I think their songs are still very samey, just a lot less angry.
 
Carzy said:
Not indie in the independent record label sense obviously :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Columbia, Meaning of Soul and Some Might Say are all the same style? If someone asks you what sort of music Oasis make what do you say? There isn't one genre they fit completely into. I'm only arguing this stupid point as you used it as a reason why Oasis were bad musicians. I've already said I haven't liked Oasis since 1997 (bar perhaps the odd song) but I don't think that after the first few albums the rest is absolutely shocking. I don't think you can actually name a band that has managed to churn out 6 classic albums in a row. With Oasis the first question anybody asks them when bringing out a new album is 'Is it as good as Definitely Maybe or Morning Glory?'. People have this massive expectation from Oasis which is pretty much impossible to live up to. Noel even said that there is no way he can still write songs like Live Forever, Rock n Roll Star or Cigs and Alcohol because he isn't a poor working class youth anymore - he's a mid 30s millionaire. Then again that highlights something else, if you don't have working class attitudes then you might not 'get' some of Oasis' music. Rock n Roll Star is never going to have the same effect on you if you don't live in the city and don't want to be a millionaire...

Carzy said:
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...
Click to expand...
I said you needed both. Are you actually suggesting that My Chemical Romance had more of an effect in British culture than a band like the Beatles or the Sex Pistols? Those two had them both, I really do doubt in the next 30 years we will hear one huge band after the next cite My Chemical Romance as a major influence like they do with the Beatles and Pistols.
 
Column Matrix said:
I said you needed both. Are you actually suggesting that My Chemical Romance had more of an effect in British culture than a band like the Beatles or the Sex Pistols? Those two had them both, I really do doubt in the next 30 years we will hear one huge band after the next cite My Chemical Romance as a major influence like they do with the Beatles and Pistols.
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood my post.
 
Woody__ said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, it was on the third album actually. Things started going downhill at Be Here Now, though there are a few corking tracks on it, but DBTT is back to the good old days :) If they can match that again they'll be at the level they were at on WTSMG.
 
Carzy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can only think one band who produced different styles of music and that was Led Zeppelin but their sound was still stamped all over the music.
I can't think of one other band who produce music thats different from the last.
(Bowie obviously).

I'd like to know what bands you listen to that make music that doesn't sound like the last thing they released.
 
dmpoole said:
I can only think one band who produced different styles of music and that was Led Zeppelin but their sound was still stamped all over the music.
I can't think of one other band who produce music thats different from the last.
(Bowie obviously).

I'd like to know what bands you listen to that make music that doesn't sound like the last thing they released.
Click to expand...

Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock.

Hahaha.

And there's a difference between sounding similar, but being a progression, and sounding the same. Plus, in all fairness, if your initial concept can withstand it, then I suppose you could bash out seven albums of the same stuff, all sounding great. Problem is, Oasis had a pretty shallow base from which to start, so there wasn't nearly enough to work with after they'd released the first album.
 
Last edited:
Just seen Pitchfork's review for "Various Artists
The Brit Box: U.K. Indie, Shoegaze and Brit-Pop Gems of the Last Millennium"

Little comment in there made me laugh, thought it relevant for this thread:

"Within 18 months, however, Britpop devolved into just another version of the dour classic/arena rock retread it was meant to oppose in the first place. Cocaine didn't help, but Oasis' dominance was probably to blame most of all."
 
Column Matrix said:
Then again that highlights something else, if you don't have working class attitudes then you might not 'get' some of Oasis' music. Rock n Roll Star is never going to have the same effect on you if you don't live in the city and don't want to be a millionaire...
Click to expand...

Missed this bit. I don't think not having working class attitudes precludes me from judging Oasis' music, just as, not being there when Rachmaninoff was composing his concertos doesn't stop me from appreciating the music that was created.

(6,999 posts woo!)
 
Regardless of whether you like them or not, Oasis are by far and away one of the best bands the UK has put out in recent times. Ironically, I appreciate their music now much more than I used to, after hearing exactly how bad British music could get.
 
dmpoole said:
Those are individual artists.

Where are the bands that are doing this 'different' material with every release?
And isn't it spelt A-Ha?
Click to expand...

Ah you said Bowie, so I ran with it :p Wasn't an entirely serious answer to your question haha. I don't know whether to "lol" or "hahaha" at the A-ha comment :p

Bands whose output has varied across the course of their lifespan:

Minus
The Prodigy
Radiohead
Thrice
Nine Inch Nails
Cursive
 
Carzy said:
Bands whose output has varied across the course of their lifespan:

Minus
The Prodigy
Radiohead
Thrice
Nine Inch Nails
Cursive
Click to expand...

Don't know Minus or Cursive but I'm betting their output is based around the same stuff.
Prodigy, Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have always been in the same ballpark.
Thrice did an acoustic album which was different than their normal stuff.
I'm still not convinced.
The whole idea of a band is to sell music that their fans will understand from the last one.
Radiohead did depart from the tracks and the fans let them know about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom