I just realized...

[Robert_S]

They've done a lot of stuff over the years, some I think better than others. How many do you recognise from this:

Never heard most of those snippets. Is there a redeeming song in there?

I don't mind depressing songs about feeling sad, or pathetic, or helpless against the inner demons. But the music should, IMO, be aimed at complimenting or counterpointing the lyrics. I get the feeling that in their two big hits it was too much about catchy hooks and that just ruined the songs for me as soon as I paid the slightest attention to what was going on in them.

Also, when people compare them to The Beatles, I get skeptical. One thing The Beatles did is explore and evolve. Did Oasis do that on a comparable level? Did they take on new influences and push things in different directions, taking the larger music scene with them as they went? Were they For example, without Sgt Pepper to inspire George Clinton to open up and explore new possibilities, there would have been no P-Funk. Without P-Funk the sonic explorations by Dr Dre, De La Soul, Tribe Called Quest and all those cats might never have happened. That is to say, if there were no Beatles, then the rap of the past three decades and the funk of the last four would have been a lot different and probably a lot more boring.

OK, maybe I'm coming down hard on the band. They're just some guys who play music for a living and I have nothing against them as people. It might not be their fault that they got overplayed worse than Stairway, but as a phenomenon, as a cheesy sing-along sensation, as songs played by frat boys on acoustic guitars... I hate Oasis with a passion on that level.

[Hermit]

...there's many many great first albums, not so many great second albums, even with bands I adore I'm often aware that they've never managed it.

Oasis never reverberated with me. Not that the band's music is unenjoyable. It just passes through me without leaving a trace.

I can think of several bands whose subsequent albums kept improving on their debut offerings. Among them Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, and, yes, The Beatles. All of them ran out of steam before they ceased recording, except for the Stones, of course. I wish they had disbanded after "Sticky Fingers".

[Robert_S]

...there's many many great first albums, not so many great second albums, even with bands I adore I'm often aware that they've never managed it.

Oasis never reverberated with me. Not that the band's music is unenjoyable. It just passes through me without leaving a trace.

I can think of several bands whose subsequent albums kept improving on their debut offerings. Among them Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, and, yes, The Beatles. All of them ran out of steam before they ceased recording, except for the Stones, of course. I wish they had disbanded after "Sticky Fingers".

"There's only two songs in me, and this one is the third.. ♫ "

[SteveB]

I really dug Wonderwall sometime in 2013. Now... I skip over it in my YouTube playlist most of the time.

Champagne Supernova is in my tablet playlist. It's okay, kind of slow, but given it's about gettin' high, it sort of makes sense for it to be slow.

I didn't know they had any other songs.

[PsychoSerenity]

Never heard most of those snippets. Is there a redeeming song in there?

I don't mind depressing songs about feeling sad, or pathetic, or helpless against the inner demons. But the music should, IMO, be aimed at complimenting or counterpointing the lyrics. I get the feeling that in their two big hits it was too much about catchy hooks and that just ruined the songs for me as soon as I paid the slightest attention to what was going on in them.

Also, when people compare them to The Beatles, I get skeptical. One thing The Beatles did is explore and evolve. Did Oasis do that on a comparable level? Did they take on new influences and push things in different directions, taking the larger music scene with them as they went? Were they For example, without Sgt Pepper to inspire George Clinton to open up and explore new possibilities, there would have been no P-Funk. Without P-Funk the sonic explorations by Dr Dre, De La Soul, Tribe Called Quest and all those cats might never have happened. That is to say, if there were no Beatles, then the rap of the past three decades and the funk of the last four would have been a lot different and probably a lot more boring.

OK, maybe I'm coming down hard on the band. They're just some guys who play music for a living and I have nothing against them as people. It might not be their fault that they got overplayed worse than Stairway, but as a phenomenon, as a cheesy sing-along sensation, as songs played by frat boys on acoustic guitars... I hate Oasis with a passion on that level.

Well you talk about "their two big hits", and that might have been the case from America, but in the UK they had 8 number 1's, over 20 singles in the top 10, and all their albums at number 1 as well. I grew up listening to them for over a decade as they brought out new stuff and had their older hits still played on the radio. I was never really that into music myself, but they were played at parties and nights out, in the common room at college. I think with all music, it matters a lot how you first experience it.

Sure, they weren't as big as The Beatles, but nobody is any more, - and they definitely did have a significant influence, at least in British music.

[Tero]

Everything is crap. First it seems OK. A good beat, you can dance to it.

There are only about 10 dongs I can play thousands of times.

[JimC]

Everything is crap. First it seems OK. A good beat, you can dance to it.

There are only about 10 dongs I can play thousands of times.

Does every dong have a ding?

[Audley Strange]

Also, when people compare them to The Beatles, I get skeptical.

As you should, the comparison is only in the familiarity of their songs being beatlesque, like E.L.O.'s often and deliberately were.

One thing The Beatles did is explore and evolve. Did Oasis do that on a comparable level? Did they take on new influences and push things in different directions, taking the larger music scene with them as they went?

Hahah. Certainly not. No.

Were they For example, without Sgt Pepper to inspire George Clinton to open up and explore new possibilities, there would have been no P-Funk. Without P-Funk the sonic explorations by Dr Dre, De La Soul, Tribe Called Quest and all those cats might never have happened. That is to say, if there were no Beatles, then the rap of the past three decades and the funk of the last four would have been a lot different and probably a lot more boring.

I disagree. I'm not sure the Pepper's influence is that important. Equally as out there was Zappa and Miles Davis both of whom I think were more influential on Clinton, especially Zappa's crazy weirdos on stage entourage thing. It was coming out of soul and jazz, not wistful english proto-prog. Hell even Pet Sounds was bizarre and experimental. It was the zeitgeist not the album. IMO.

OK, maybe I'm coming down hard on the band. They're just some guys who play music for a living and I have nothing against them as people. It might not be their fault that they got overplayed worse than Stairway, but as a phenomenon, as a cheesy sing-along sensation, as songs played by frat boys on acoustic guitars... I hate Oasis with a passion on that level.

At this point should I get all huffy about elitism and why shouldn't working class lads have a band to have a sing song with on the piss?

Genuinely I don't think your opinion is too hard, they can be really annoying but while they were a phenomenon over here I don't think they've been considered relevant for about a decade. To me you might as well be ranting about Duran Duran, its amusingly odd.

[Tero]

No dings, no dongs. Just happy feet Or whatever.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Yes, they're pretty shit.

[Robert_S]

OK, maybe I'm coming down hard on the band. They're just some guys who play music for a living and I have nothing against them as people. It might not be their fault that they got overplayed worse than Stairway, but as a phenomenon, as a cheesy sing-along sensation, as songs played by frat boys on acoustic guitars... I hate Oasis with a passion on that level.

At this point should I get all huffy about elitism and why shouldn't working class lads have a band to have a sing song with on the piss?

It's not the working class over here that I have to hear it from. They annoy the hell out of me with stuff like that Linkin Park song that recently got re-animated and played at asinine volumes, not that it mattered, really.

Actually, I heard Oasis from the more well off suburbanite kids.

Genuinely I don't think your opinion is too hard, they can be really annoying but while they were a phenomenon over here I don't think they've been considered relevant for about a decade. To me you might as well be ranting about Duran Duran, its amusingly odd.

I know it's odd, which is why I started a thread over it. For the longest time I was like Hermit. The songs just passed through me mostly, with maybe a phrase or two kinda sticking in my head. I didn't have to think about them. They were like white noise, yet somehow catchy. Then, just a couple days ago, I did pay attention and I felt... violated somehow.

[Animavore]

I loved Oasis when they first came out. Then a year or so later everyone else found out about them and I hated them.

[Tero]

Your brain is like a sponge at age 15-25 and a bit more depending on the individual. If the trendy stuff in your youth sucked, it still absorbs it. You will spend decades shaking some of it out.

The 60s was a good time to be absorbing. The stuff before that was all, in comparison, the same as "how much is that doggy in the window?". We essentially started from scratch. One band in particular defined it all in their 7 years of recording.

[Audley Strange]

It's not the working class over here that I have to hear it from. They annoy the hell out of me with stuff like that Linkin Park song that recently got re-animated and played at asinine volumes, not that it mattered, really.

Actually, I heard Oasis from the more well off suburbanite kids.

Wonder if its because they are seen as "British Indie" which itself seems to be a taxonomy I've heard from hipster students from Boston. (You in Boston Robert? And was the last bit a joke about that bloody Linkin Park song... don't get me started on those screamo pricks :steam vents:) I wonder if its student music there. It certainly was here at first, (they were on Creation, known for its "cool" bands) but they were grabbed by the working class kids that everyone forgot still had money.

I know it's odd, which is why I started a thread over it. For the longest time I was like Hermit. The songs just passed through me mostly, with maybe a phrase or two kinda sticking in my head. I didn't have to think about them. They were like white noise, yet somehow catchy. Then, just a couple days ago, I did pay attention and I felt... violated somehow.

Yeah I know that feeling. I feel that way about Mumford and Sons currently.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yeah I know that feeling. I feel that way about Mumford and Sons currently.

As Bob Dylan said: There's nothing, really nothing, to turn off.