Skipstone: haha what a funny 'truth' you mention about Oasis.

Do you think the Stones rock - 'are classless with class' with all the background singers, with Chuck and his plunky plunky piano, with Ronnie and Keith their amateur sometimes embarassing playing these days?

I think Oasis their last album is better than anything the Stones made after Emotional Rescue. But I don't see it is the truth or whatever

who care's!

Quote
LOGIE
As the last of the truly great bands, they will be sorely missed.

Sadly, we must stand aside now for the Girls Aloud/Take That generation of music where all gigs/productions sound more or less the same; backing tapes, choreographed moves, scripted banter, computerised lighting etc.

I saw it last week whilst watching U2 in Sheffield; fantastic show, great songs and amazing sound, but without a single ounce of soul.

Oasis needed no glitz or glimmer; they gave it to you straight, and didn't give a monkey's toss whether you liked them or not.

...unlike so many.

Interesting you should say that about the Sheffield U2 gig, LOGIE, it's how I felt listening to it on the Radio ... too professional and perfect - panache .... but then I thought ' well maybe I shouldn't judge' , not Being There (then) and all that ....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-30 22:18 by Four Stone Walls.

I always liked them but I was never a full blown fan. I saw them in 1995 at the Fillmore after their first album came out and really dug them then. Great show and album. However they lost their shine to me when they got uber popular. Their first and second albums though are classics in my view.

Quote
skipstone
You're wrong.

Funny how that works.

Wrong again. Oasis don't seem like the classless one's here. "The music world is better without them"? Please. Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory stack up against anything the Stones have done in the past 25 - 30 years. And there's about a million other bands I would weed out before I got to Oasis when talking about who the music world would be better without.

Obviously some of you don't get it. I guess that's because y'all think Oasis are good. Y'all can have Oasis and their great albums and their wonderful classy treatment of their fans. Their absence and presence has never meant anything in the music world that I am aware of. Their attitude of wanting to be bigger than the Stones was hilarious.

Whatever.

skipstpne, they were huge in the music world of mid- to late 90s Britain - as per Stones in mid to late sixties - not saying as good as Stones ofcourse and nor was there a lot of 'competitiom' - but they were big in Britain. Never 'broke' America though -that's the big difference

lead singer lacks charisma (amongst other things)

but in UK (inter alia) two full (successive) Knebworth gigs

Noel's got the simple rawness, soul and forceful economy of one KR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-31 00:21 by Four Stone Walls.

They were really that big in Britain? That's crazy. Britain had The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. I would think nothing could compare to the two of them after that. Not because anyone isn't as good or whatever - just that they were so huge. I find it difficult to believe that Oasis were that huge or that they were talented that much.

Quote
skipstone
I find it difficult to believe that Oasis were that huge or that they were talented that much.

huge and talented....they'll be back, i'd wager.

Quote
skipstone
Obviously some of you don't get it. I guess that's because y'all think Oasis are good. Y'all can have Oasis and their great albums and their wonderful classy treatment of their fans. Their absence and presence has never meant anything in the music world that I am aware of. Their attitude of wanting to be bigger than the Stones was hilarious.

Whatever.

And what exactly is it that "we" don't get?

Is it the bit perhaps, about not meaning anything in what YOUR interpretation of the music world is; a world in which even John Lennon is deemed as "classless"?

Get this straight; without the likes of John Lennon and all those others who behaved in a so-called "classless" manner, we'd still be forced to suffer the manufactured, sanitised crap of Pat Boone and Bobby Vee; a world where musicians are allowed no opinion and little or no "attitude" other than that written for them by their PR men; a globalised hicktown where "popular music" is used as a means of sedating and controlling the masses; a world in which those who question, rebel, or try something different, are deemed as upstarts.

...i.e. your world.

What Barl Owl said

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
skipstone
Obviously some of you don't get it. I guess that's because y'all think Oasis are good. Y'all can have Oasis and their great albums and their wonderful classy treatment of their fans. Their absence and presence has never meant anything in the music world that I am aware of. Their attitude of wanting to be bigger than the Stones was hilarious.

Whatever.

And what exactly is it that "we" don't get?

Is it the bit perhaps, about not meaning anything in what YOUR interpretation of the music world is; a world in which even John Lennon is deemed as "classless"?

Get this straight; without the likes of John Lennon and all those others who behaved in a so-called "classless" manner, we'd still be forced to suffer the manufactured, sanitised crap of Pat Boone and Bobby Vee; a world where musicians are allowed no opinion and little or no "attitude" other than that written for them by their PR men; a globalised hicktown where "popular music" is used as a means of sedating and controlling the masses; a world in which those who question, rebel, or try something different, are deemed as upstarts.

...i.e. your world.

Brilliant, screaching diatribe, wise Wol ........

my only slight proviso being that Oasis were incredibly derivative, both musically and attitude-wise (they couldn't help liking Lennon and couldn't help being foul-mouthed!)..... but I don't think they were too calculating about it ....they were generally raw and abrasive and flew fairly shamelessly and gracelessly in the face of the cleaner Britpop scene .....

Quote
skipstone
They were really that big in Britain? That's crazy. Britain had The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. I would think nothing could compare to the two of them after that. Not because anyone isn't as good or whatever - just that they were so huge. I find it difficult to believe that Oasis were that huge or that they were talented that much.

Strange statement.

Considering the Beatles broke up in 1970, and the Stones are in their 60s and hardly ever play the UK or release any music anyway, what do you expect - an entire nation to stop listening to any music made after 1969?

Garth Brooks is second only to The Beatles in terms of record sales in the US.

Now THAT is 'crazy'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-31 01:19 by Gazza.

Oasis have not split up. Noel has had yet another spat with Liam. They'll be back. Talks of split are premature and pathetic, imo.

I'm always amazed at people on these Stones boards who are outraged - OUTRAGED - when someone slags another act. Whether it's the 'boss' or Oasis or Britney Spears, remember this: THE STONES ALWAYS RULE. I'm sure these cats have their lackeys/fans but if you don't put the Stones #1, why the hell are you here? That said, I did like Oasis & I still play the 3 CDs I have. But there is NO way in hell I would ever consider those things to be better than even DW.

Quote
glencar
I'm always amazed at people on these Stones boards who are outraged - OUTRAGED - when someone slags another act. Whether it's the 'boss' or Oasis or Britney Spears, remember this: THE STONES ALWAYS RULE. I'm sure these cats have their lackeys/fans but if you don't put the Stones #1, why the hell are you here? That said, I did like Oasis & I still play the 3 CDs I have. But there is NO way in hell I would ever consider those things to be better than even DW.

A few questions:

1) Who ARE these people who are supposedly OUTRAGED?
2) If Mick & Keth sang say, a reggae version of "Three Blind Mice" must it be considered as better than anybody else's music (i.e. Dylan's Blood On The Tracks) simply because THE STONES ALAWAYS RULE?
3) What's up with Dirty Work?
4) Aren't Stones fans allowed to listen to other artists and thus defend them against unjust criticism?

...take your time.

1) Certainly they were at a board I used to post at. I'm here to talk about the Stones & the Stones only. I don't care as much about ANYONE else. That doesn't mean I don't like other people but no, no one is better than the Stones, even doing 3 Blind Mice.

2) Already answered.

3) It's heavily underrated.

4) I didn't see anything skipstone said that was unjustified. Again, this is a Stones board. I saw one asswipe proclaim that the 'boss" does a better show than the Stones. If you really think that's true, leave. I like the 'boss' in limited doses (and not the latter day stuff; it's shit) & I actually like Oasis as I stated above. I also like the Beatles, Van, Dylan, U2 & others. But none of them besides Dylan comes close to the Stones.

Now if you have a witty reply, I might not see it until tomorrow. I have to get some sleep.

So let's get this straight.

You say you like the Beatles, Van, Dylan, U2 & others (good choices), yet would regard a reggae version of "Three Blind Mice" by the Stones as better. Are you really being rational here? Still, it might explain why a Bruce Springsteen concert would be way beyond your comprehension. Too many words for one thing; political issues, another.

Regarding your defence of Skipstone, I am firstly, presuming that you are in agreement with his assertion that John Lennon is "classless". Could you give us a clue as to exactly why?

Secondly, if you agree with Skipstone about Oasis, then why do you play the 3 CDs you have of them?

Thirdly, on the subject of being "bigger than the Stones" are you not aware that Morning Glory is the second biggest selling album EVER in the UK?

...again, take your time.

Quote
glencar
I'm always amazed at people on these Stones boards who are outraged - OUTRAGED - when someone slags another act. Whether it's the 'boss' or Oasis or Britney Spears, remember this: THE STONES ALWAYS RULE. I'm sure these cats have their lackeys/fans but if you don't put the Stones #1, why the hell are you here? That said, I did like Oasis & I still play the 3 CDs I have. But there is NO way in hell I would ever consider those things to be better than even DW.

Come back to Rocks Off!

Love Honky Tonk Man

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Noel gives a good interview though. He's a good talker; better than player. He should use his name and produce, or get a radio show on the waves.

You should check out Wibblin' Rivalry then. The Mancunian banter between Noel and Liam ii farking hiliarious!

I don't think someone having a huge selling album makes them bigger than someone else. It just sold a lot. Hootie And The Blowfish sold more copies of one album than a lot of acts in the US have had for several albums. That doesn't make them bigger than anyone.

After reading about the breaking up of The Beatles and how Lennon acted...

My point about music in Britain after the Stones and Beatles is that they were HUGE and basically were the soundtrack to a generation and an era. A huge music era at that. A defining era of and for rock'n'roll. Is it that there really has been nothing since the Stones and Beatles until Oasis to be hailed so? That's what I find amazing.

I've never understood the album certifications for sales in the Britain. Why are albums deemed platinum etc for such low sales when there are so many people?

I love Oasis. They made R&R a lot more fun back in those days.
Let's face it, Pearl Jam and that ilk adon't seem to be a very fun bunch.
However, their last two albums have been a bit spotty for me.
Noel's a first-class writer and, I think, he's still got a few masterpieces
left in him. That being said, I prefer Weller and The Jam!

BTW, Lennon is no working-class hero. He put the Beatle suit on 1: 'cause Epstein told him to and 2: that's where the money was and he knew it.
Nothing wrong with that, mind you.

Quote
skipstone
I don't think someone having a huge selling album makes them bigger than someone else. It just sold a lot. Hootie And The Blowfish sold more copies of one album than a lot of acts in the US have had for several albums. That doesn't make them bigger than anyone.

After reading about the breaking up of The Beatles and how Lennon acted...

My point about music in Britain after the Stones and Beatles is that they were HUGE and basically were the soundtrack to a generation and an era. A huge music era at that. A defining era of and for rock'n'roll. Is it that there really has been nothing since the Stones and Beatles until Oasis to be hailed so? That's what I find amazing.

I've never understood the album certifications for sales in the Britain. Why are albums deemed platinum etc for such low sales when there are so many people?

I agree, just because you sell a lot of albums doesn't necessarily mean that you deserve to. On the other hand, having the second biggest selling UK album of all time under your belt is pretty impressive. And if you listen to it, it really is a great record. Point is, they are not insignificant. They were/are a rock and roll band that takes it's cues from bands like the Stones and the Beatles. In today's musical climate, that alone should make you have a little bit of respect for them.

And who said anything about them being the best band since the Beatles or the Stones? No one said that.

And to not like them because you think that they're "classless". I mean, give me a break...yeah, they have had some public dickhead moments (which I personally just find amusing) but i mean, for all you know, Mick Jagger is the biggest dickhead walking the planet. Afterall, you don't know the man on a personal level. But.... It has nothing to do with the MUSIC, and that's all that matters in the end.

Are Oasis the best band in the world? No. But they are a solid one. Do you have to like them? No. But at least justify why you DON'T like them a little better.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-31 08:12 by deuce.

Brothers in bands and bands with brothers...Ray/Dave Davies-John/Tom Fogerty-Mark/David Knopfler is bands with real life brothers and also bands where one of the brothers is the shining star. No good connection. In Oasis they were pretty equal being succesful but did it help? Anyway, I won't grieve to much over the death of Oasis...

2 1 2 0

Quote
skipstone


I've never understood the album certifications for sales in the Britain. Why are albums deemed platinum etc for such low sales when there are so many people?

Eh? Is far easier to get a platinum certification in the US than it is in the UK.

UK. Platinum threshold - 600,000 sales. Population - 60 million
US. Platinum threshold - 1 million sales. Population - 300 million.

Oasis are one of the best bands around, to have been formed since the beginning of the 90's that is, great guitar based music and a superb Live act. I have seen them 9 times in large veunes such as Earls Court in 1997 and Wembley Stadium this year through to Shepherds Bush Empire and The Clapham Grand and they always turn out an exciting show. I met Noel and Gem after one show (Beatles music playing through their ipod dock!) and they were relaxed and joking around, fun guys to hang out with. Sure, Liam has had his moments and his strops but big deal, they are still a great band who have made some fantastic songs which will 'live forever'. I guess you need to have been in the UK since their arrival on the scene to truly 'get' them.
Don't Look Back In Anger.

Quote
glencar


4) I didn't see anything skipstone said that was unjustified. Again, this is a Stones board. I saw one asswipe proclaim that the 'boss" does a better show than the Stones. If you really think that's true, leave.

Hey I liked Springsteen show better, so sue me.I still think that I am entitled to post on the board dedicated to one of my favourite bands.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
skipstone


I've never understood the album certifications for sales in the Britain. Why are albums deemed platinum etc for such low sales when there are so many people?

Eh? Is far easier to get a platinum certification in the US than it is in the UK.

UK. Platinum threshold - 600,000 sales. Population - 60 million
US. Platinum threshold - 1 million sales. Population - 300 million.

I always hate it when they say something like "outsold the Beatles".

Maybe they did.

But what was the world population then compared to now?

And more importantly, what was the population that had access to buy the music?

Maybe there's no better way to track sales, and it's fine for comparing competing albums at the same point in history, but comparing something today to something that came out 40 years ago is like comparing apples and oranges.

Same goes for the movie industry, they track that in $$. How many movies come out now that had the "biggest opening day in history". Well 30 years ago you could go to a movie for $2. Of course they're going to make more in ticket sales today when the tickets 4X the cost! Even for a mediocre showing...

Quote
Zack
Noel dropped the ball after his second album and never picked it back up. I suspect Liam will keep Oasis alive. Maybe Noel will do a decent solo album. He can sing too.

I saw a concert special on TV years ago with them, where the singer didn't show for whatever reason, and they went on with it anyway with Noel doing all the singing, and it was BETTER!

I read an interview somewhere, where Liam said something like his whole goal in singing is to sound as much like John Lennon as possible. Now, I like the Beatles, and Lennon, but when your whole goal is to sound like someone else, there's not much originality there. And I think he comes off as a bad Lennon impersonator anyway.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
LOGIE
As the last of the truly great bands, they will be sorely missed.

Sadly, we must stand aside now for the Girls Aloud/Take That generation of music where all gigs/productions sound more or less the same; backing tapes, choreographed moves, scripted banter, computerised lighting etc.

I saw it last week whilst watching U2 in Sheffield; fantastic show, great songs and amazing sound, but without a single ounce of soul.

Oasis needed no glitz or glimmer; they gave it to you straight, and didn't give a monkey's toss whether you liked them or not.

...unlike so many.

Interesting you should say that about the Sheffield U2 gig, LOGIE, it's how I felt listening to it on the Radio ... too professional and perfect - panache .... but then I thought ' well maybe I shouldn't judge' , not Being There (then) and all that ....

Over the past twenty years or so, I've watched U2 transform themselves from a great rock band into an excellent pop combo, and their ability to consistently churn out great, catchy tunes with superb hook lines serves them immense credit, as indeed, does their boldness in having the guts to actually take their new material out on the road with them and perform it live.

U2 also know how to put on a great show, which is why I spent the entire day standing in line so as to secure a position in the mosh pit, just a few feet away from Bono’s microphone stand.

This current extravaganza of theirs features a stage and lighting set-up that is easily the most impressive I have ever seen. It is quite simply, amazing; and in case that isn't enough, they have a sound system which again, is better than anything I have ever heard (Bruce Springsteen please take note).

Although the opening half hour of the show is basically a bombardment of the senses, the band are hugely impressive at being able to offer innumerable elements of surprise, and for the first six or seven numbers, I have to admit to being blown away by the entire experience.

It was just after the hour mark however, that I began to realise that in their current guise, they had little else to offer beyond those initial shock-and-awe tactics.

Yes, the band delivered a very impressive setlist, but by the mid-point of the show, it all tended to sound exactly the same, and their dependency upon backing tapes only helped to exacerbate the problem. As a consequence, former anthems such as “Sunday Bloody Sunday” and “Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” offered so little of their former dramatic impact when performed alongside the likes of “Vertigo” and “Get On Your Boots”.

In their former days as an actual rock band, there was plenty of scope for spontaneity; indeed much of their success was built upon Bono’s ability to improvise and augment, and to communicate with his audience as the mood took him. This is no longer possible, not just because of their reliance upon complex backing tapes, but crucially, by the more “poppy” structure of their songs. Practically bereft of any guitar solos, there is little scope either, for any technical virtuosity to lift the proceedings beyond what deteriorates into little more than an impressive procession of karaoke renditions.

Even their acoustic rendition of “Stuck In A Moment” became nothing much more than a music hall sing-along.

By the end of the gig, I was actually left with a feeling of emptiness; like I had witnessed U2’s participation in their own gig as a mere walk-on part.

It never used to be like this.