Sure he was. They were getting so big that it became absured. That was what he wanted to say. He wasn't saying The Beatles were better than Jesus. But everywhere youngsters were losing their religion. Rock was everywhere, it was becoming a new religion, and The Beatles were the biggest thing in rock at the time.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
He wasn't the messiah and he didn't say that he was. He knew it would fuck people up though. But he was right The Beatles were getting more populair than Christianity.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
then to answer the question. no, oasis are not better than the beatles. cause that would make them bigger than jesus wouldn't it? and i do believe there's more jesus fans in the world than oasis fans.
No, no, no..... MORE POPULAR than Jesus. THAT'S what John said. And he certainly didn't mean it the way it was interpreted.
"and he still gives his love, he just gives it away and the love he receives is the love that is saved,..."
Sure he was. They were getting so big that it became absured. That was what he wanted to say. He wasn't saying The Beatles were better than Jesus. But everywhere youngsters were losing their religion. Rock was everywhere, it was becoming a new religion, and The Beatles were the biggest thing in rock at the time.
FINALLY another person who understands the mind of John Lennon! High five that!
"and he still gives his love, he just gives it away and the love he receives is the love that is saved,..."
Truthfully, I just got into Oasis in the last year & a half, two years or so (I have a habit of getting into stuff post-humously), and it (their attitude) was a part of their appeal to me. I dunno. I guess I dig it that they are unapologetic rockstars, just saying "fuck it, gimme a fuckin beer ya wanka" as opposed to trying to be all deep & meaningful all the time.
exactly. i was so tired of everybody acting like being a great band was something to be ashamed of. all this false humility and whatnot was getting tired and im glad pearl jam grew out of it. everybody posing to be the deepest most sensitive and tortured artist around.
oasis was a breath of fresh air. no pretension, no we're super deep and meaningful, no "we dont deserve this." they showed up writing great tunes and loving it. they play rock to rock the fuck out. they've got an attitude that was missing from rock. that "this is us and if you dont like it piss off" thing. in that sense they're more punk than 99% of punk bands out there. sure they're not innovators, but innovation is over-rated. ill take a band willing to be the best godamn arena rock band out there writing the catchiest songs out there over some artsy pretentious group that ends up turning out half assed unlistenable pieces of trash in the name of breaking new ground (im lookin at you radiohead) any day of the week.
not that oasis is better than the beatles. the beatles are a tough act for anyone to follow. but the oasis bashing is stupid, esp when the only reason is "they're wankers." so were most of the original bad boys that made rock so popular. rock isn't SUPPOSED to be wholesome.
FINALLY another person who understands the mind of John Lennon! High five that!
Ha, I cheated. I read his book.:D
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
The Beatles were 10000000 times better than Oasis.
But I think we can all agree that Pearl Jam is better than both
Sorry I can not agree to that not even on a Pearl Jam forum.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
ya, and my dick is bigger than eddie's and boom's put together.
How would you know that I wonder?:D
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
but the oasis bashing is stupid, esp when the only reason is "they're wankers."
Reasons I dont like Oasis, I dont like Liam's voice, I find it quite monotonous, musically they're not bad but like I say cant get past Liam's drone like voice.
If I dug the music then the wankers part wouldn't matter, I love GN'R for fuck sake, wankers dont come much bigger than Axl Rose:)
exactly. i was so tired of everybody acting like being a great band was something to be ashamed of. all this false humility and whatnot was getting tired and im glad pearl jam grew out of it. everybody posing to be the deepest most sensitive and tortured artist around.
oasis was a breath of fresh air. no pretension, no we're super deep and meaningful, no "we dont deserve this." they showed up writing great tunes and loving it. they play rock to rock the fuck out. they've got an attitude that was missing from rock. that "this is us and if you dont like it piss off" thing. in that sense they're more punk than 99% of punk bands out there. sure they're not innovators, but innovation is over-rated. ill take a band willing to be the best godamn arena rock band out there writing the catchiest songs out there over some artsy pretentious group that ends up turning out half assed unlistenable pieces of trash in the name of breaking new ground (im lookin at you radiohead) any day of the week.
not that oasis is better than the beatles. the beatles are a tough act for anyone to follow. but the oasis bashing is stupid, esp when the only reason is "they're wankers." so were most of the original bad boys that made rock so popular. rock isn't SUPPOSED to be wholesome.
No Mogwai, no Mars volta, no Do make say think, no Sonic youth and no Blonde redhead for you then?
Why you would want a change in attitude I can understand, why you find the Oasis attitude refreshing is beyond me. I find it rather obvious and not refreshing at all. Didn't we just have that with Guns 'N' Roses, The whole antihero attitude was the change on that look at me I am god like behaviour.
but the oasis bashing is stupid, esp when the only reason is "they're wankers."
I thought it was a pretty good reason. Although I don't think I am bashing them.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
That they were refreshing comment is old hat now, Oasis are a bunch of selfish rich rock stars who criticised everyone who does anything worthy, Liam is always having a go at Bono, although U2 continually support Oasis. ( I don't know why)
They might of well been refreshing around 94 -96 time but after that they became bloated over ambitious and a cliche, Be Here Now still ranks as one of the worse albums to come out of the 90's, although WTSMG wasn't that good save some of the singles and the rest is filler.
The difference between Oasis & Radiohead is Ok Computer will be remember long after Oasis & Def Maybe have been forgotten about, Radiohead challenge and innovate, it's become so trendy to knock bands for wanting to develop.
Yeah thats right we wanna listen to bands that sound exactly like other great bands with no identity themselves ( Wolfmother stand up) So many bands today think they can get away with carbon copiies of their previous albums. ( The Strokes anyone!)
Yes Radiohead might not always suceed but damn it! at least they try, unlike some. I really can't stand bands that have no sense of progression. Yeah thats right I wanna own the same album a few times over.
Great Legendary bands have their place because they developed and challenged, take Pink Floyd after Darkside did they make mark 2, No they released and album which was richer and more accomplished than it 's predecessor and Animals was completly different from darkside as was the Wall.
The Beatles developed from a Pop Boy band to something completly different and continued to develop and change and influence right up to the end of their career.
Oasis on the other hand gave us a solid impressive debut and have never been able to top it, The production has got slicker but the music as got more turgid and unexciting as time as progressed. ( it's a pity they havn't)
Their really is no comparrison, it's a ridiculous question the gap is infinite between these 2 bands. As I said before 1 is Historically without doubt the most important band of all time the other is more famous for Tabloid stories than any musical achievement.
So the they we were refreshing comment may have worked back then but it's such a cliche now.
No Mogwai, no Mars volta, no Do make say think, no Sonic youth and no Blonde redhead for you then?
Why you would want a change in attitude I can understand, why you find the Oasis attitude refreshing is beyond me. I find it rather obvious and not refreshing at all. Didn't we just have that with Guns 'N' Roses, The whole antihero attitude was the change on that look at me I am god like behaviour.
I thought it was a pretty good reason. Although I don't think I am bashing them.
no, the only one of those bands i ever listened to was sonic youth, who are ok but not my cup of tea. oasis is a nice change of pace, and anyone who takes their grandstanding seriously is an even bigger wanker than they are. yeah they talked a lot of shit when they were doing mountains of coke, now it's just a gag and if you can't see that they love playing up to that then you're blind. it's entertaining as all hell and only a show to get a huge rise out of folks like you who get so offended by it and wonder why their pet "nobody's heard of them" band that is so deep and artistic will never sell 1/100000th of the records oasis will.
now the guy who said he doesnt care for liam's voice, that i can understand. to each their own.
That they were refreshing comment is old hat now, Oasis are a bunch of selfish rich rock stars who criticised everyone who does anything worthy, Liam is always having a go at Bono, although U2 continually support Oasis. ( I don't know why)
They might of well been refreshing around 94 -96 time but after that they became bloated over ambitious and a cliche, Be Here Now still ranks as one of the worse albums to come out of the 90's, although WTSMG wasn't that good save some of the singles and the rest is filler.
The difference between Oasis & Radiohead is Ok Computer will be remember long after Oasis & Def Maybe have been forgotten about, Radiohead challenge and innovate, it's become so trendy to knock bands for wanting to develop.
Yeah thats right we wanna listen to bands that sound exactly like other great bands with no identity themselves ( Wolfmother stand up) So many bands today think they can get away with carbon copiies of their previous albums. ( The Strokes anyone!)
Yes Radiohead might not always suceed but damn it! at least they try, unlike some. I really can't stand bands that have no sense of progression. Yeah thats right I wanna own the same album a few times over.
Great Legendary bands have their place because they developed and challenged, take Pink Floyd after Darkside did they make mark 2, No they released and album which was richer and more accomplished than it 's predecessor and Animals was completly different from darkside as was the Wall.
The Beatles developed from a Pop Boy band to something completly different and continued to develop and change and influence right up to the end of their career.
Oasis on the other hand gave us a solid impressive debut and have never been able to top it, The production has got slicker but the music as got more turgid and unexciting as time as progressed. ( it's a pity they havn't)
Their really is no comparrison, it's a ridiculous question the gap is infinite between these 2 bands. As I said before 1 is Historically without doubt the most important band of all time the other is more famous for Tabloid stories than any musical achievement.
So the they we were refreshing comment may have worked back then but it's such a cliche now.
see above. they do it for kicks to infuriate people like you. oasis' sound has changed, maybe not dramatically like pink floyd or the beatles, but it is different than it used to be. pearl jam hasn't exactly turned their sound inside out or done anything progressive or stunningly original. so why do they get a pass and oasis doesnt?
I think you have to cheat to understand the mind of John Lennon. I watched the movies and many interviews. I want to read the book, though. I just can't find it anywhere.
"and he still gives his love, he just gives it away and the love he receives is the love that is saved,..."
Reasons I dont like Oasis, I dont like Liam's voice, I find it quite monotonous, musically they're not bad but like I say cant get past Liam's drone like voice.
If I dug the music then the wankers part wouldn't matter, I love GN'R for fuck sake, wankers dont come much bigger than Axl Rose:)
I understand where you're coming from.
I'm a metal-head, and I can't stand Dave Mustain's voice, and find Megadeth's music hard to listen to for the same reason you cite regarding Oasis.
see above. they do it for kicks to infuriate people like you. oasis' sound has changed, maybe not dramatically like pink floyd or the beatles, but it is different than it used to be. pearl jam hasn't exactly turned their sound inside out or done anything progressive or stunningly original. so why do they get a pass and oasis doesnt?
Please don't compare Oasis to Pearl Jam, they might not have changed as radically as some but each album as a different sound to it. PJ have more passion in their little fingers than Oasis have had in their whole career. I know Liam says what he does to wind up people and I admit it's funny so why dosn't he quit his day job and become a Fuckin comedian.
You can usually spot where Oasis hve stole their songs from in no time. The importance of being Idle was definetly one of their best songs in a long while but it's a direct steal from the kinks. If your happy to listen to cover bands and spend your hard earned cash on this then be my guest.
The whole we're the best band band in the World Thing is so funny !
They wern't even the best band in Britain not alone the whole world.
They even say that the new album is our best since Def Maybe, why can't it be better, because they are not capable of doing it, spent out, dryed up and peddling the same old tricks.
If stealing from different songs than they use to is your idea of progression , your welcome to it.
Please don't compare Oasis to Pearl Jam, they might not have changed as radically as some but each album as a different sound to it. PJ have more passion in their little fingers than Oasis have had in their whole career. I know Liam says what he does to wind up people and I admit it's funny so why dosn't he quit his day job and become a Fuckin comedian.
You can usually spot where Oasis hve stole their songs from in no time. The importance of being Idle was definetly one of their best songs in a long while but it's a direct steal from the kinks. If your happy to listen to cover bands and spend your hard earned cash on this then be my guest.
The whole we're the best band band in the World Thing is so funny !
They wern't even the best band in Britain not alone the whole world.
They even say that the new album is our best since Def Maybe, why can't it be better, because they are not capable of doing it, spent out, dryed up and peddling the same old tricks.
If stealing from different songs than they use to is your idea of progression , your welcome to it.
kinda like unemployable cribbing from dont fear the reaper? come on. there's only so many chord progressions. the new rhcp song sounds like a tom petty tune. do you tear anyone who likes them or that song a new asshole for it? if you're talking about oasis not topping definitely maybe, 90% of the music world would say pearl jam has never been able to top ten... only their diehard fans would say differently and the oasis diehards would do the same. pearl jam has been quoted as saying "there's nothing new on this album" for the latest record... are they now a tired retread cover band? if you're a hardcore fan splitting hairs... yeah every pj album has a different feel. but joe music fan cant tell teh difference between the last 3-4 albums, they just sound like generic lackluster pj albums (thus why sales have plummeted). i can tell you that each oasis album has its own feel too, but you have to be a diehard fan who listens to them a few times to notice the subtle differences, not just someone who hears the single on the radio and says "yup, i knew oasis sucked" and writes off the album.
in any case, you're entitled to not like them. it just seems like everyone around here holds a double standard for oasis. they'll crucify oasis for doing some of the same things many other bands get away with frequently just becos they are offended by liam's shit-talking.
oasis are a bunch of wankers. no way possible for them to come close to having a mere fraction of the talent of the beatles. there will NEVER be another band to accomplish what the beatles did in the short amount of time they were together.
kinda like unemployable cribbing from dont fear the reaper? come on. there's only so many chord progressions. the new rhcp song sounds like a tom petty tune. do you tear anyone who likes them or that song a new asshole for it? if you're talking about oasis not topping definitely maybe, 90% of the music world would say pearl jam has never been able to top ten... only their diehard fans would say differently and the oasis diehards would do the same. pearl jam has been quoted as saying "there's nothing new on this album" for the latest record... are they now a tired retread cover band? if you're a hardcore fan splitting hairs... yeah every pj album has a different feel. but joe music fan cant tell teh difference between the last 3-4 albums, they just sound like generic lackluster pj albums (thus why sales have plummeted). i can tell you that each oasis album has its own feel too, but you have to be a diehard fan who listens to them a few times to notice the subtle differences, not just someone who hears the single on the radio and says "yup, i knew oasis sucked" and writes off the album.
I certainly don't listen to them on the radio, I work in music retail and have had more than my fill of their albums so please do not assume I'm making casual attacks, I know Oasis enough to have an opinion about them, PJ might
not sound that different on the last 3 albums but they have certainly had enough progression over their career, From Ten to Vs the jump is significant.
Oasis certainly havn't shown as much progression, I know their music and they have no sence of progression, maybe if you count Liam writing some songs now as progression, as you say fans of bands will notice subtle changes but Oasis must have some extremly subtle changes in their music because I have seen no change since Standing on the Shoulders, the fact that this band is still popular in the UK just shows the lack of imagination in this country. We have the same old shit with the Libertines ( a poor man's Clash) and also the Arctic Monkeys. Also Oasis never cracked it in the US properly, they have a loyal fan base but nothing amazing like the sales of Ten or Vs, Pearl jam are in a similar situation, their sales have dropped and so has their popularity but Advoca album shows a band willing to try new things (Inside Job) the last Oasis album is the same old same old with a new producer and no doubt their next album will be the same a well.
I could never get into the Beatles....I dont know why. I like Oasis though. I enjoy listening to the Live at Wembley Stadium disc. They even cover Hey Hey My My.
Toledo 96, Cleveland 03, Pittsburgh 03, Vegas 06,
San Diego 06.....Do I want some more? I said FUCK YEAH!!!!
I certainly don't listen to them on the radio, I work in music retail and have had more than my fill of their albums so please do not assume I'm making casual attacks, I know Oasis enough to have an opinion about them, PJ might
not sound that different on the last 3 albums but they have certainly had enough progression over their career, From Ten to Vs the jump is significant.
Oasis certainly havn't shown as much progression, I know their music and they have no sence of progression, maybe if you count Liam writing some songs now as progression, as you say fans of bands will notice subtle changes but Oasis must have some extremly subtle changes in their music because I have seen no change since Standing on the Shoulders, the fact that this band is still popular in the UK just shows the lack of imagination in this country. We have the same old shit with the Libertines ( a poor man's Clash) and also the Arctic Monkeys. Also Oasis never cracked it in the US properly, they have a loyal fan base but nothing amazing like the sales of Ten or Vs, Pearl jam are in a similar situation, their sales have dropped and so has their popularity but Advoca album shows a band willing to try new things (Inside Job) the last Oasis album is the same old same old with a new producer and no doubt their next album will be the same a well.
i still dont see the automatic value in dramatic tinkering with your style. yes, radiohead made some changes, but was it any good? debatable. do they deserve god-like status just for that or for their musical contributions that will stand the test of time. ok computer might, but i rather doubt ANY of their last 3 albums will be heard in 30-40 years. the beatles didnt change for the sake of change and when they changed they still managed to turn out quality SONGS, not just new sounds. that's what i care about, are the songs good. yeah, radiohead has new sounds, but there are no real songs on there, it's all style and no substance. maybe oasis hasn't dramatically altered their sound, but you said yourself, they're still capable of turning out songs that rival their best work (importance of being idle).
that is what counts to me: songs, not sound. it's why i like pearl jam. or the black crowes for instance. you could easily dismiss them as a cover band throwback, but they just sound so damn good at what they do that you can't help but dig it, even if there's nothing new there. i dont think a band HAS to be groundbreaking to be a great band. and not being groundbreaking does not make them a shitty band.
basically, is it better to be a jack of all trades or a master of none? radiohead now turns out mediocre techno/rock albums. is that more noble than them turning out some of the greatest rock music of all time? you look at paintings... is half of van gogh's work shit just becos he had the same style throughout? should we dismiss those later works becos instead of constantly trying new thnigs he focused on trying to perfect his strengths?
Comments
that he was actually right about it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Sure he was. They were getting so big that it became absured. That was what he wanted to say. He wasn't saying The Beatles were better than Jesus. But everywhere youngsters were losing their religion. Rock was everywhere, it was becoming a new religion, and The Beatles were the biggest thing in rock at the time.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
He wasn't the messiah and he didn't say that he was. He knew it would fuck people up though. But he was right The Beatles were getting more populair than Christianity.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Do they have a pagier?
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
exactly. i was so tired of everybody acting like being a great band was something to be ashamed of. all this false humility and whatnot was getting tired and im glad pearl jam grew out of it. everybody posing to be the deepest most sensitive and tortured artist around.
oasis was a breath of fresh air. no pretension, no we're super deep and meaningful, no "we dont deserve this." they showed up writing great tunes and loving it. they play rock to rock the fuck out. they've got an attitude that was missing from rock. that "this is us and if you dont like it piss off" thing. in that sense they're more punk than 99% of punk bands out there. sure they're not innovators, but innovation is over-rated. ill take a band willing to be the best godamn arena rock band out there writing the catchiest songs out there over some artsy pretentious group that ends up turning out half assed unlistenable pieces of trash in the name of breaking new ground (im lookin at you radiohead) any day of the week.
not that oasis is better than the beatles. the beatles are a tough act for anyone to follow. but the oasis bashing is stupid, esp when the only reason is "they're wankers." so were most of the original bad boys that made rock so popular. rock isn't SUPPOSED to be wholesome.
But I think we can all agree that Pearl Jam is better than both
9/17/95-New Orleans,LA 8/14/00-New Orleans,LA 4/8/03-New Orleans,LA 4/13/03-Tampa,FL 10/8/04-Kissimmee,FL 8/5/07-Chicago,IL 6/16/08-Columbia,SC 6/23/09-(EV Solo)Atlanta,GA 5/1/10-New Orleans,LA 9/21/12-Pensacola,FL 11/1/13-New Orleans,LA 4/11/16-Tampa,FL 4/23/16-New Orleans,LA
Ha, I cheated. I read his book.:D
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
Sorry I can not agree to that not even on a Pearl Jam forum.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
Umm, The Beatles were better. Revolutionary, for sure.
ya, and my dick is bigger than eddie's and boom's put together.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
How would you know that I wonder?:D
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
Reasons I dont like Oasis, I dont like Liam's voice, I find it quite monotonous, musically they're not bad but like I say cant get past Liam's drone like voice.
If I dug the music then the wankers part wouldn't matter, I love GN'R for fuck sake, wankers dont come much bigger than Axl Rose:)
No Mogwai, no Mars volta, no Do make say think, no Sonic youth and no Blonde redhead for you then?
Why you would want a change in attitude I can understand, why you find the Oasis attitude refreshing is beyond me. I find it rather obvious and not refreshing at all. Didn't we just have that with Guns 'N' Roses, The whole antihero attitude was the change on that look at me I am god like behaviour.
I thought it was a pretty good reason. Although I don't think I am bashing them.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
They might of well been refreshing around 94 -96 time but after that they became bloated over ambitious and a cliche, Be Here Now still ranks as one of the worse albums to come out of the 90's, although WTSMG wasn't that good save some of the singles and the rest is filler.
The difference between Oasis & Radiohead is Ok Computer will be remember long after Oasis & Def Maybe have been forgotten about, Radiohead challenge and innovate, it's become so trendy to knock bands for wanting to develop.
Yeah thats right we wanna listen to bands that sound exactly like other great bands with no identity themselves ( Wolfmother stand up) So many bands today think they can get away with carbon copiies of their previous albums. ( The Strokes anyone!)
Yes Radiohead might not always suceed but damn it! at least they try, unlike some. I really can't stand bands that have no sense of progression. Yeah thats right I wanna own the same album a few times over.
Great Legendary bands have their place because they developed and challenged, take Pink Floyd after Darkside did they make mark 2, No they released and album which was richer and more accomplished than it 's predecessor and Animals was completly different from darkside as was the Wall.
The Beatles developed from a Pop Boy band to something completly different and continued to develop and change and influence right up to the end of their career.
Oasis on the other hand gave us a solid impressive debut and have never been able to top it, The production has got slicker but the music as got more turgid and unexciting as time as progressed. ( it's a pity they havn't)
Their really is no comparrison, it's a ridiculous question the gap is infinite between these 2 bands. As I said before 1 is Historically without doubt the most important band of all time the other is more famous for Tabloid stories than any musical achievement.
So the they we were refreshing comment may have worked back then but it's such a cliche now.
no, the only one of those bands i ever listened to was sonic youth, who are ok but not my cup of tea. oasis is a nice change of pace, and anyone who takes their grandstanding seriously is an even bigger wanker than they are. yeah they talked a lot of shit when they were doing mountains of coke, now it's just a gag and if you can't see that they love playing up to that then you're blind. it's entertaining as all hell and only a show to get a huge rise out of folks like you who get so offended by it and wonder why their pet "nobody's heard of them" band that is so deep and artistic will never sell 1/100000th of the records oasis will.
now the guy who said he doesnt care for liam's voice, that i can understand. to each their own.
see above. they do it for kicks to infuriate people like you. oasis' sound has changed, maybe not dramatically like pink floyd or the beatles, but it is different than it used to be. pearl jam hasn't exactly turned their sound inside out or done anything progressive or stunningly original. so why do they get a pass and oasis doesnt?
I understand where you're coming from.
I'm a metal-head, and I can't stand Dave Mustain's voice, and find Megadeth's music hard to listen to for the same reason you cite regarding Oasis.
Please don't compare Oasis to Pearl Jam, they might not have changed as radically as some but each album as a different sound to it. PJ have more passion in their little fingers than Oasis have had in their whole career. I know Liam says what he does to wind up people and I admit it's funny so why dosn't he quit his day job and become a Fuckin comedian.
You can usually spot where Oasis hve stole their songs from in no time. The importance of being Idle was definetly one of their best songs in a long while but it's a direct steal from the kinks. If your happy to listen to cover bands and spend your hard earned cash on this then be my guest.
The whole we're the best band band in the World Thing is so funny !
They wern't even the best band in Britain not alone the whole world.
They even say that the new album is our best since Def Maybe, why can't it be better, because they are not capable of doing it, spent out, dryed up and peddling the same old tricks.
If stealing from different songs than they use to is your idea of progression , your welcome to it.
kinda like unemployable cribbing from dont fear the reaper? come on. there's only so many chord progressions. the new rhcp song sounds like a tom petty tune. do you tear anyone who likes them or that song a new asshole for it? if you're talking about oasis not topping definitely maybe, 90% of the music world would say pearl jam has never been able to top ten... only their diehard fans would say differently and the oasis diehards would do the same. pearl jam has been quoted as saying "there's nothing new on this album" for the latest record... are they now a tired retread cover band? if you're a hardcore fan splitting hairs... yeah every pj album has a different feel. but joe music fan cant tell teh difference between the last 3-4 albums, they just sound like generic lackluster pj albums (thus why sales have plummeted). i can tell you that each oasis album has its own feel too, but you have to be a diehard fan who listens to them a few times to notice the subtle differences, not just someone who hears the single on the radio and says "yup, i knew oasis sucked" and writes off the album.
in any case, you're entitled to not like them. it just seems like everyone around here holds a double standard for oasis. they'll crucify oasis for doing some of the same things many other bands get away with frequently just becos they are offended by liam's shit-talking.
San Diego 06.....Do I want some more? I said FUCK YEAH!!!!
i still dont see the automatic value in dramatic tinkering with your style. yes, radiohead made some changes, but was it any good? debatable. do they deserve god-like status just for that or for their musical contributions that will stand the test of time. ok computer might, but i rather doubt ANY of their last 3 albums will be heard in 30-40 years. the beatles didnt change for the sake of change and when they changed they still managed to turn out quality SONGS, not just new sounds. that's what i care about, are the songs good. yeah, radiohead has new sounds, but there are no real songs on there, it's all style and no substance. maybe oasis hasn't dramatically altered their sound, but you said yourself, they're still capable of turning out songs that rival their best work (importance of being idle).
that is what counts to me: songs, not sound. it's why i like pearl jam. or the black crowes for instance. you could easily dismiss them as a cover band throwback, but they just sound so damn good at what they do that you can't help but dig it, even if there's nothing new there. i dont think a band HAS to be groundbreaking to be a great band. and not being groundbreaking does not make them a shitty band.
basically, is it better to be a jack of all trades or a master of none? radiohead now turns out mediocre techno/rock albums. is that more noble than them turning out some of the greatest rock music of all time? you look at paintings... is half of van gogh's work shit just becos he had the same style throughout? should we dismiss those later works becos instead of constantly trying new thnigs he focused on trying to perfect his strengths?