|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 26, 2021 18:07:22 GMT
I'm not a fan but I'd have been more interested to read an article praising the band, even offering some kind of rationale behind their ongoing success. That wasn't a particularly smart piece of writing. And this:
is just wrong from any angle.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 26, 2021 18:13:19 GMT
It is aye. Like I've said before, people project so much onto Oasis and are therefore incapable of viewing their music objectively so you get all this dismissive doggerel that really fails to understand their appeal because they can't see beyond their own biases and prejudice. The truth falls somewhere inbetween both camps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2021 18:14:04 GMT
The problem is John that you can't critique Oasis without sounding snobbish because they are the lowest common denominator.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 26, 2021 18:15:12 GMT
Yeah.
The subtext is often 'they were successful and I don't understand it!'
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 26, 2021 18:17:58 GMT
The problem is John that you can't critique Oasis without sounding snobbish because they are the lowest common denominator. But whenever people talk about MUSIC that way it bothers me. Because in fact they're not talking about music - because they can't. Not many of us can. They're talking about the singer. The lyrics. The fans. All of these things are easy to sneer at. Just like Nandos! But although all of those things play their part, the key to their appeal is the music. The music. The music!
|
|
|
Post by tory on Sept 26, 2021 18:22:17 GMT
The writer does have a point that there was absolutely nothing new about Oasis at all though. Perhaps the only thing was the anti-intelligence, the lack of any reference to any idea of elevated art of any sort. Even the Sex Pistols at their most guttural projected something new and powerful, if only because it was a reaction to something. All Oasis did, emphatically, was to recycle countless other tropes about rock music and cast them as their own. For all the pseuds the infuriating thing is that whilst they didn't have an original bone in their body, they simply wrote very basic hook-laden songs very well.
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Sept 26, 2021 18:55:31 GMT
The Pistols were probably more important socially, culturally and subculturally, particularly in the UK. Rock an' roll was the perfect vehicle for their rebellion, because it reached an audience, their audience. But musically, they were probably worse players than Oasis and they really only have about 4-6 worthy tunes, 4 of which had huge impact in the UK. Oasis just happen to come around when the foundation work was done, rock was 3 generations in, and they stole better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2021 23:57:04 GMT
Oasis certainly weren't better players than The Pistols, not the original guys anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Sept 27, 2021 0:57:46 GMT
Not sure what the reception in the US would be, 90s product is the primary Cd dumpster glut. It's selling on VINYL now. Often to people who were not yet born at the turn of the century, and think the '90s were cool. I try to steer them straight, but what can anyone tell kids these days?
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Sept 27, 2021 7:10:51 GMT
Why are we comparing them to The Pistols anyway? Did they really have that cultural impact? Certainly musically, they were quite staid and stodgy in comparison, whether they could play or not. They had a way with an anthemic chorus, but really that was their only trick, and one they stretched way past breaking point.
|
|
fange
god
Listening to long jazz tracks
Posts: 4,522
|
Post by fange on Sept 27, 2021 8:28:31 GMT
They really did have a cultural impact, fishy; i was living in Tokyo the day Be Here Now was released, and a whole group of about 8 of us - Aussies, Brits and Kiwis - went down to the CD store to buy our copies. Whether they deserved it musically or not, Oasis represented a shared experience for many that can only be called a cultural moment.
Also, my 18-year old daughter went with her Oasis-mad friend to see the Knebworth film at the cinema last week; for them, Oasis (along with several others in the britpop and grunge scenes) represent a special part of musical history.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 27, 2021 8:56:07 GMT
I'm just a wee bit surprised this new Knebworth film is doing such good business - maybe it says more about the lack of half-decent rock bands about in 2021 than the idea that Oasis are important or cool or whatever. I think if I was 15 I'd be turning to them over Ed Sheeran or Dua Lipa, actually, bit like going for the burger instead of the quinoa in the school canteen.
|
|
fange
god
Listening to long jazz tracks
Posts: 4,522
|
Post by fange on Sept 27, 2021 9:34:29 GMT
Yeah, a few years ago she liked Ed Shitren and Shawn Mendes. She outgrew them.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 27, 2021 10:02:48 GMT
They really did have a cultural impact, fishy; i was living in Tokyo the day Be Here Now was released, and a whole group of about 8 of us - Aussies, Brits and Kiwis - went down to the CD store to buy our copies. Whether they deserved it musically or not, Oasis represented a shared experience for many that can only be called a cultural moment. Also, my 18-year old daughter went with her Oasis-mad friend to see the Knebworth film at the cinema last week; for them, Oasis (along with several others in the britpop and grunge scenes) represent a special part of musical history. For about 18 months in the UK they were everywhere. Every pub in the country had at least one moment on Friday and Saturday night when groups of men and women sang Oasis in unison. Every goddamn pub and I've never seen anything like it. It was like being on a football terrace. It united people and it was a shared cultural moment regardless of what you feel about the quality of the music and given cultural changes that will never happen again. It's understandable that younger people will look at that moment with a sense of envy. Who else does your daughter and her peers rate Fange?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 27, 2021 10:20:39 GMT
I'm just a wee bit surprised this new Knebworth film is doing such good business - maybe it says more about the lack of half-decent rock bands about in 2021 than the idea that Oasis are important or cool or whatever. I think if I was 15 I'd be turning to them over Ed Sheeran or Dua Lipa, actually, bit like going for the burger instead of the quinoa in the school canteen. I feel sorry for young people these days. Imagine being brought up on a diet of Ed Sheeran, lame ass indie bands and asinine politically correct culture. Is it any surprise that being "mad for it" might appeal? No wonder they have mental health issues.
|
|