• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Oasis....

#65
Bruce Lindfield said:
I opened this thread expecting to see people call them the most over-rated band around!! :eyebrow:

I think they are truly awful and the only decent bits of melody/chord sequence they have, are lifted from old Beatles tunes and other sources...:hmm:

Also - I have heard live recordings and they are truly dire - just one, long, muddy dirge...

They must be the worst band I actually bothered to listen to and the start of the downfall of Brit Rock..

Out of tune singing, leaden lumping rhythm section, dirge-like distorted guitars, unvarying dynamics ...

I can't think of one thing to reccomend them...:hmm:
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with this post. I find Oarseis to be one of the most dire bands around, and the epitome of everything that was wrong with British rock music in the 90's.
 
#67
I don't see how being heavily influenced by the Beatles is a bad thing... i'd rather Oasis nicked their melodic approach from The Beatles than Neds Atomic Dustbin or Poison

most of the greatest musicians (not suggesting Oasis are that), were heavily influenced by other people... Stravinsky was a notorious style pincher and yet he always sounded like himself...

no-one here can name one single Oasis tune that was a ripoff of a Beatles song... maybe a Neil Innes song or Stevie Wonder or even a solo lennon song here and there, but no Beatles song...

anyway, the Beatles took heavy influence from others, and they were ok

i'm not the world's biggest Oasis fan, but you have to remember the original line-up were pretty much 3/5ths terrible musicians... I have to give credit to Noel Gallagher for taking guys who could barely play and write songs and create a sound that was uniquely identifiable as theirs... he took their plodding lack of dynamism and turned it into this huge static wall of sound that sounded nothing like the Beatles...
 
#68
Bruce Lindfield said:
You still haven't said what it was that made you a "musician"...:hmm:?? I just wondered what it was about this process that gave you your new insight, as I can only see it having the opposite effect! :p
Click to expand...

I simply dont have anything to prove to you Bruce.

What gave me my new insight is understanding how these kids have talent. I always thought it was just whiny pop rock with a singer slightly on the eunuch side, but once I started seriously thinking about music, as more than simply what my tastes are, but as how and why and what makes a band popular, I realized that they do, in fact, have talent. The point isn't about how technically proficient they are, but the atmosphere their music radiates. This is what made them sell records and it's sad that a musician of your caliber simply fails to understand it.

There's a new story you can tell the geezers jazz club while you guys have the glass of bourbon and smoke the cigar.

Ah wait, jazz club, drop the cigar, you never went far ;)
 
#71
morf said:
The point never is how technically proficient a band is Bruce. I would have thought any "musician" understood that :)
Click to expand...

But you seemed to be implying that your momentous transition to "musician" status, had allowed you to understand something in their music that was not apparent to the humble non-musician - I could not see what this could possibly be!!?? :p
 
#72
Bruce Lindfield said:
But you seemed to be implying that your momentous transition to "musician" status, had allowed you to understand something in their music that was not apparent to the humble non-musician - I could not see what this could possibly be!!?? :p
Click to expand...

No, i didn't imply this at all. What I said was that, as I did not like them before I started taking an interest in making music myself, I couldn't see what the big deal was.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back