Always interesting. Music and politics.

video: [youtu.be]

I believe in ROCK N ROLL.

Thank you Mr. Gallagher.

Noel Gallagher is a giant of rock and roll. He never sold well here in the US, but Oasis was as good as the 90s ever got for new and fresh rock and roll.

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Great reactions... Interesting.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-21 02:15 by RipThisBone.

noel gallagher disappeared up his own backside about 20 years ago.

ive never known a band to talk themselves up so much the way oasis did, and they were in the big scheme of things an average band at best.

arrogant sods they were.

they could have learned a thing or 2 about humility by listening to charlie watts being interviewed.

Humility...

Well Well.

LONG LIVE CHARLIE WATTS for playing the drums as a part of THE ROLLING STONES.

Edit:

By the way... did you actually watch the interview and the people starting to sing?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-22 03:32 by RipThisBone.

Quote
stonesstein
Noel Gallagher is a giant of rock and roll. He never sold well here in the US, but Oasis was as good as the 90s ever got for new and fresh rock and roll.

Er, he played - and still plays - pop music.

Quote
stonesstein
Noel Gallagher is a giant of rock and roll. He never sold well here in the US, but Oasis was as good as the 90s ever got for new and fresh rock and roll.

He sure aint no giant. He THINKS he is.
he is a boring arrogant little boy. and he sure dont play rock n roll.
jeroen

Only reactions until now are directed at Noel Gallagher as a person, not to what he says.

He sure aint no giant. He THINKS he is.
he is a boring arrogant little boy. and he sure dont play rock n roll.

Well, well...

Interesting.

Quote
corriecas

Quote
stonesstein
Noel Gallagher is a giant of rock and roll. He never sold well here in the US, but Oasis was as good as the 90s ever got for new and fresh rock and roll.

He sure aint no giant. He THINKS he is.
he is a boring arrogant little boy. and he sure dont play rock n roll.
jeroen

An opinion. Certainly not mine and millions of others though. Oasis defined an era in the UK and I for one would go back to those times in a heartbeat. Liam and Noel bring colour to the music world and even estranged they are making some really good music.

Listen to Oasis' cover of Street Fighting Man. It's fantastic.

Also, that band was incredible live. I saw them 2x in 1996 (the last 2 US shows before their massive Maine Road shows) and once again in 2002, and they absolutely rocked the doors off the joints.

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Talking shit is part of rock n roll
Noel is a giant standing on shoulders of giants...his songs are fantastic and he knows where the inspirations came from. Hope to see him again soon.

Although Oasis gained global success, I do think it can be difficult for a non-Brit to really grasp just how big they were in the U.K. circa 1994-97. Even after their star faded a little post-Brit Pop, they were still hugely popular. Their influence and cultural significance cannot be denied. Noel
Gallagher is the greatest British songwriter since Paul Weller and the Morrissey and Marr partnership.

Quote
buttons67
noel gallagher disappeared up his own backside about 20 years ago.

ive never known a band to talk themselves up so much the way oasis did, and they were in the big scheme of things an average band at best.

arrogant sods they were.

they could have learned a thing or 2 about humility by listening to charlie watts being interviewed.

Well I'd personally put Definitely Maybe up there with any of the best British albums ever made.

Quote
Big Al
Although Oasis gained global success, I do think it can be difficult for a non-Brit to really grasp just how big they were in the U.K. circa 1994-97. Even after their star faded a little post-Brit Pop, they were still hugely popular. Their influence and cultural significance cannot be denied.

Wasn't that part of the problem? Musically they were pretty bland (a band ripping off the Beatles at every occasion). Like you said their influence was mainly cultural = they gave Britain a sense of "feelgood" as they brought it back to the beloved 1960's.

Quote
scoreboardpaddock

Quote
buttons67
noel gallagher disappeared up his own backside about 20 years ago.

ive never known a band to talk themselves up so much the way oasis did, and they were in the big scheme of things an average band at best.

arrogant sods they were.

they could have learned a thing or 2 about humility by listening to charlie watts being interviewed.

Well I'd personally put Definitely Maybe up there with any of the best British albums ever made.

FOR SURE! I enjoy their interviews, always a funny line or two.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Big Al
Although Oasis gained global success, I do think it can be difficult for a non-Brit to really grasp just how big they were in the U.K. circa 1994-97. Even after their star faded a little post-Brit Pop, they were still hugely popular. Their influence and cultural significance cannot be denied.

Wasn't that part of the problem? Musically they were pretty bland (a band ripping off the Beatles at every occasion). Like you said their influence was mainly cultural = they gave Britain a sense of "feelgood" as they brought it back to the beloved 1960's.

I'm not a musician but I've never really seen the whole Beatles rip off thing, especially with their most successful songs.

Always thought they're more Slade / Sex Pistols / Stones myself.

Quote
stonerolling

Quote
scoreboardpaddock

Quote
buttons67
noel gallagher disappeared up his own backside about 20 years ago.

ive never known a band to talk themselves up so much the way oasis did, and they were in the big scheme of things an average band at best.

arrogant sods they were.

they could have learned a thing or 2 about humility by listening to charlie watts being interviewed.

Well I'd personally put Definitely Maybe up there with any of the best British albums ever made.

FOR SURE! I enjoy their interviews, always a funny line or two.

Absolutely. Both Liam and Noel provide some of the funniest interviews going, in their own completely different styles.

Quote
scoreboardpaddock

Quote
dcba

Quote
Big Al
Although Oasis gained global success, I do think it can be difficult for a non-Brit to really grasp just how big they were in the U.K. circa 1994-97. Even after their star faded a little post-Brit Pop, they were still hugely popular. Their influence and cultural significance cannot be denied.

Wasn't that part of the problem? Musically they were pretty bland (a band ripping off the Beatles at every occasion). Like you said their influence was mainly cultural = they gave Britain a sense of "feelgood" as they brought it back to the beloved 1960's.

I'm not a musician but I've never really seen the whole Beatles rip off thing, especially with their most successful songs.

Always thought they're more Slade / Sex Pistols / Stones myself.

Musically, they were definitely more inspired by the Beatles. Culture-wise, I'd say they took after the mods. I wouldn't call it «rip-off», though.

A good band, but they weren't really a rock band. Brit-pop is a suitable label, methinks. Not all of their music stood the test of time, imo.

I liked their attitude, and brit-pop was huge in Norway as well.

But musically, Oasis is nowhere near being among the best british acts of all time, like mentioned above.

Like Liam said, and he’s right: Oasis were not Britpop.

Bands like Blur & Pulp were. Really poppy bands.
Oasis were very much a rock band. Riffs, many layers of guitars, attitude vocals.

Show me the rock, show me the roll, show me the layers...

Nice Beatles-esque pop music, though.





[www.youtube.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
scoreboardpaddock

Quote
dcba

Quote
Big Al
Although Oasis gained global success, I do think it can be difficult for a non-Brit to really grasp just how big they were in the U.K. circa 1994-97. Even after their star faded a little post-Brit Pop, they were still hugely popular. Their influence and cultural significance cannot be denied.

Wasn't that part of the problem? Musically they were pretty bland (a band ripping off the Beatles at every occasion). Like you said their influence was mainly cultural = they gave Britain a sense of "feelgood" as they brought it back to the beloved 1960's.

I'm not a musician but I've never really seen the whole Beatles rip off thing, especially with their most successful songs.

Always thought they're more Slade / Sex Pistols / Stones myself.

Musically, they were definitely more inspired by the Beatles. Culture-wise, I'd say they took after the mods. I wouldn't call it «rip-off», though.

A good band, but they weren't really a rock band. Brit-pop is a suitable label, methinks. Not all of their music stood the test of time, imo.

I liked their attitude, and brit-pop was huge in Norway as well.

But musically, Oasis is nowhere near being among the best british acts of all time, like mentioned above.

I disagree to be honest. I think they personified British rock n roll down to a tee.

That’s a power ballad. And yes a rock ballad.

Check out Supersonic, Rock and Roll Star, Cigarettes and Alcohol, entire Definitely Maybe.

Some Might Say, Champagne Supernova, D’you know what I mean,...

You want some guitar layers: Be Here Now. That has more guitar layers than the entire career of certain bands.

Quote
BowieStone
That’s a power ballad. And yes a rock ballad.

Check out Supersonic, Rock and Roll Star, Cigarettes and Alcohol, entire Definitely Maybe.

Some Might Say, Champagne Supernova, D’you know what I mean,...

You want some guitar layers: Be Here Now. That has more guitar layers than the entire career of certain bands.

I know all of those tunes. But the singles illustrated who they were and what they were influenced of. The songs were they kicked their distortion pedals, not so much, imo.

BTW, Don't Look Back In Anger is neither a ballad, a rock ballad or a power ballad. It's faster, and it's a typical Oasis brit pop-track.

PS: It won't automatically become rock'n'roll just because you push a distortion pedal and play full barre chord.

PS II: I never said Oasis were bad. Only that they won't be remembered as a rock'n'roll band. I like some of their stuff. But it was only their attitude that was rock'n'roll - I liked their attitude

No, that’s true, it has nothing to do with pedals.

All those tracks I mentioned were singles. I think their first album defines them. If you think that’s a pop record: fine. It’s not really about labels. But in that case Bowies glam-phase, T rex, Slade,... are also pop.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
BowieStone
That’s a power ballad. And yes a rock ballad.

Check out Supersonic, Rock and Roll Star, Cigarettes and Alcohol, entire Definitely Maybe.

Some Might Say, Champagne Supernova, D’you know what I mean,...

You want some guitar layers: Be Here Now. That has more guitar layers than the entire career of certain bands.

I know all of those tunes. But the singles illustrated who they were and what they were influenced of. The songs were they kicked their distortion pedals, not so much, imo.

BTW, Don't Look Back In Anger is neither a ballad, a rock ballad or a power ballad. It's faster, and it's a typical Oasis brit pop-track.

PS: It won't automatically become rock'n'roll just because you push a distortion pedal and play full barre chord.

PS II: I never said Oasis were bad. Only that they won't be remembered as a rock'n'roll band. I like some of their stuff. But it was only their attitude that was rock'n'roll - I liked their attitude

I think you'll be in the minority there to be honest.

Most people, at least in the UK, record them as a rock n roll band.

Quote
BowieStone
Like Liam said, and he’s right: Oasis were not Britpop.

Bands like Blur & Pulp were. Really poppy bands.
Oasis were very much a rock band. Riffs, many layers of guitars, attitude vocals.

I kind of like Oasis, at least their first 2 albums. I kind of like Noel too in his interviews and I think Liam had a nice voice for a while (but not varied enough to keep me interested for more than 2 albums) but hardly ever managed to seem more than a complete idiot.
However, be that as it may be, they definitely are not rock n roll as far as I am concerned. Bashing 6-string chords with distortion is no rock n roll, and I never noticed anything like a real riff in their songs. They were a pop-band: clever chord structures and harmonies with sing-a-long melodies on top, almost the definition of pop music.

Quote
scoreboardpaddock

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
BowieStone
That’s a power ballad. And yes a rock ballad.

Check out Supersonic, Rock and Roll Star, Cigarettes and Alcohol, entire Definitely Maybe.

Some Might Say, Champagne Supernova, D’you know what I mean,...

You want some guitar layers: Be Here Now. That has more guitar layers than the entire career of certain bands.

I know all of those tunes. But the singles illustrated who they were and what they were influenced of. The songs were they kicked their distortion pedals, not so much, imo.

BTW, Don't Look Back In Anger is neither a ballad, a rock ballad or a power ballad. It's faster, and it's a typical Oasis brit pop-track.

PS: It won't automatically become rock'n'roll just because you push a distortion pedal and play full barre chord.

PS II: I never said Oasis were bad. Only that they won't be remembered as a rock'n'roll band. I like some of their stuff. But it was only their attitude that was rock'n'roll - I liked their attitude

I think you'll be in the minority there to be honest.

Most people, at least in the UK, record them as a rock n roll band.

Most people? I have never heard people in the UK describe them as a rock'n'ROLL-act. Rock, maybe – and a solid dose of pop.

I'm attaching a pretty standard description of rock'n'roll, as a musical genre, for you, and then I'm out of this discussion:

«Rock and Roll (often written as rock & roll or rock 'n' roll) is a genre of popular music that originated and evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s, from African American musical styles such as gospel, jump blues, jazz, boogie woogie, and rhythm and blues, along with country music. While elements of rock and roll can be heard in blues records from the 1920s and in country records of the 1930s, the genre did not acquire its name until 1954.

According to Greg Kot, "rock and roll" refers to a style of popular music originating in the U.S. in the 1950s prior to its development by the mid-1960s into "the more encompassing international style known as rock music, though the latter also continued to be known as rock and roll." For the purpose of differentiation, this article deals with the first definition.

In the earliest rock and roll styles of the late 1940s and early 1950s, either the piano or saxophone was often the lead instrument, but these were generally replaced or supplemented by guitar in the middle to late 1950s. The beat is essentially a blues rhythm with an accentuated backbeat, the latter almost always provided by a snare drum. Classic rock and roll is usually played with one or two electric guitars (one lead, one rhythm), a double bass or string bass or (after the mid-1950s) an electric bass guitar, and a drum kit».

I wouldn’t call them rock and roll indeed. But who plays rock and roll these days? I think The Black Crowes are the last major rock and roll band. Blackberry Smoke does a fine job these days.

But a rock band? Yes, to me they are. Not really a compliment as I dislike most ‘rock’, but they are an exception.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
scoreboardpaddock

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
BowieStone
That’s a power ballad. And yes a rock ballad.

Check out Supersonic, Rock and Roll Star, Cigarettes and Alcohol, entire Definitely Maybe.

Some Might Say, Champagne Supernova, D’you know what I mean,...

You want some guitar layers: Be Here Now. That has more guitar layers than the entire career of certain bands.

I know all of those tunes. But the singles illustrated who they were and what they were influenced of. The songs were they kicked their distortion pedals, not so much, imo.

BTW, Don't Look Back In Anger is neither a ballad, a rock ballad or a power ballad. It's faster, and it's a typical Oasis brit pop-track.

PS: It won't automatically become rock'n'roll just because you push a distortion pedal and play full barre chord.

PS II: I never said Oasis were bad. Only that they won't be remembered as a rock'n'roll band. I like some of their stuff. But it was only their attitude that was rock'n'roll - I liked their attitude

I think you'll be in the minority there to be honest.

Most people, at least in the UK, record them as a rock n roll band.

Most people? I have never heard people in the UK describe them as a rock'n'ROLL-act. Rock, maybe – and a solid dose of pop.

I'm attaching a pretty standard description of rock'n'roll, as a musical genre, for you, and then I'm out of this discussion:

«Rock and Roll (often written as rock & roll or rock 'n' roll) is a genre of popular music that originated and evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s, from African American musical styles such as gospel, jump blues, jazz, boogie woogie, and rhythm and blues, along with country music. While elements of rock and roll can be heard in blues records from the 1920s and in country records of the 1930s, the genre did not acquire its name until 1954.

According to Greg Kot, "rock and roll" refers to a style of popular music originating in the U.S. in the 1950s prior to its development by the mid-1960s into "the more encompassing international style known as rock music, though the latter also continued to be known as rock and roll." For the purpose of differentiation, this article deals with the first definition.

In the earliest rock and roll styles of the late 1940s and early 1950s, either the piano or saxophone was often the lead instrument, but these were generally replaced or supplemented by guitar in the middle to late 1950s. The beat is essentially a blues rhythm with an accentuated backbeat, the latter almost always provided by a snare drum. Classic rock and roll is usually played with one or two electric guitars (one lead, one rhythm), a double bass or string bass or (after the mid-1950s) an electric bass guitar, and a drum kit».

That's getting far too pedantic. How old are you out of interest? I don't think you'll get many people under probably 45 regard it as anything else.

If you stuck to the traditional definition of rock n roll then it well and truly died about 40 years ago.


Liam certainly doesn't regard his music as anything else:

Liam probably thinks "rock n roll" means getting drunk, taking loads of drugs, and calling everybody a f------ this or that.

[www.youtube.com]