|
Post by Binary Sunset on Jul 2, 2013 20:58:30 GMT -5
Why is it thought by the general public that they never changed it up/experimented. IMO each album sounds drastically different, and in fact pretty sure if you played DM and DOYS to the non-Oasis fan, they may not be able to even tell its the same band....
|
|
|
Post by nahuel89p on Jul 2, 2013 21:10:05 GMT -5
I believe, our perception of Oasis is more "wide" and "rich" because we really dug into it. I can understand if an outsider believes Oasis never flee from the same sort of basic rocknroll. But this view is perhaps influenced by the exposure to liam-sung pop-rock hit-singles.
But, on the one hand, Oasis does have variety, from clean acoustics to wall-of-sound rocknroll, from upbeat to slow tempo, from rockers to ballads, from liam-sung to noel-sung (most people seem to forget the fact that this is a band with two very different vocalists, that's definitely a big step in variety).
However, when it comes to the styles, well, bands such as Primal Scream and Blur released very very different albums (within the same band), for example. So it also depends on the comparison. Primal Scream is a very interesting case.
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 2, 2013 23:08:52 GMT -5
SOTSOG and DM both sounds the same.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 3, 2013 0:42:13 GMT -5
Why is it thought by the general public that they never changed it up/experimented. IMO each album sounds drastically different, and in fact pretty sure if you played DM and DOYS to the non-Oasis fan, they may not be able to even tell its the same band.... Back in the late 90s, Noel always said DM-MG-BHN were part of his masterplan for the band. They would then shift into Mach II Oasis, expand their sound and push boundaries. That sorta was begun with SOTSOG but due to backlash Noel completely aborted those intentions. Heathen Chemistry is a far cry from experimentation. I'm beginning to think Noel was bullshitting us the entire time.
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Jul 3, 2013 2:21:50 GMT -5
However,if they sound the same or not I don't give a fuck
|
|
|
Post by vespa on Jul 3, 2013 5:41:36 GMT -5
Bring it on down is a dead ringer for waiting for the rapture ,just like cigs n alcohol sounds like love like a bomb
|
|
|
Post by freddy838 on Jul 3, 2013 7:58:44 GMT -5
I reckon you could make a best of Oasis 2000-onwards that has some really varied stuff on it and would compare well with a best of by most bands from that era. I wish they'd stuck with Spike Stent for a couple more albums.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 3, 2013 8:02:17 GMT -5
I reckon you could make a best of Oasis 2000-onwards that has some really varied stuff on it and would compare well with a best of by most bands from that era. I wish they'd stuck with Spike Stent for a couple more albums. Oasis Best of (2000 to 2008) 1. Go Let It Out 2. Who Feels Love? 3. Gas Panic 4. The Hindu Times 5. Stop Crying Your Heart Out 6. Little By Little 7. She Is Love 8. Lyla 9. The Importance of Being Idle 10. Let There Be Love 11. Lord Don't Slow Me Down 12. The Shock of The Lightening 13. I'm Outta Time 14. Falling Down Some damn fine songs on this!
|
|
|
Post by freddy838 on Jul 3, 2013 8:11:21 GMT -5
And that's just the singles, most of which got ignored on Stop The Clocks. Time Flies was a much better collection, Noel's choice of tracklist for Stop The Clocks was asbolutely awful. Stuff like Let's All Make Believe, Idler's Dream, Gas Panic, Born On A Different Cloud, Bag It Up etc were quite varied.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 3, 2013 8:13:21 GMT -5
And that's just the singles, most of which got ignored on Stop The Clocks. Time Flies was a much better collection, Noel's choice of tracklist for Stop The Clocks was asbolutely awful. Stuff like Let's All Make Believe, Idler's Dream, Gas Panic, Born On A Different Cloud, Bag It Up etc were quite varied. I honestly didn't mind the tracklisting for Stop The Clocks. Oasis at it's peak was represented on those CDs. My only gripe is that it only had 9 tracks per CD! I wish he included "D'You Know What I Mean?" and "Whatever". Then it would be perfect in my mind. It's a good compilation and I love how Noel doesn't call it a greatest hits album.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 9:29:15 GMT -5
I think it's a stereotype they got caught up in by comparing themselves to the Beatles and stones , alot of "my bands " in my younger years sound pretty similiar and never did I hear a complaint from critics , until 1984 (van Halen ) lp you would be hard pressed to name the lp off any of there hits , they all had the Eddie v formula it wasnt until synthesizers in the 1984 lp that they sounded a bit different , but that was ok , they never caught flack for cranking out lp after lp filled with that sound .
Same goes for Aerosmith until they sold out because they were broke and did walk this way with run DMC and then " angel " and all that pop rock crap . All there lps in the 70 s and early 80 s were dirrivitive , in fact they were called a." Poor mans zep" by rolling stone once , but never were they criticized about being dirrivitive by any reviews I read .
Oasis committed blasphemy to the critics and some high browsed f Music fans by saying ( jokingly or not ) they were better than the Beatles and stones , and that bit them in the ass critically IMO
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 3, 2013 10:16:33 GMT -5
A band doesn't necessarily need to change to be great, just look at The Smiths, same sound for 4 albums, but almost a perfect band, even on their b-sides.
|
|
|
Post by marqueemoon on Jul 3, 2013 13:14:38 GMT -5
A band doesn't necessarily need to change to be great, just look at The Smiths, same sound for 4 albums, but almost a perfect band, even on their b-sides. There are distinct differences between the four albums, it sounds like a band creating their own sound and then perfecting. Marr and Morrissey still sound very unique, whereas Liam and Noel can be shortchanged into being a sum of their influences.
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Jul 3, 2013 13:23:38 GMT -5
A band doesn't necessarily need to change to be great, just look at The Smiths, same sound for 4 albums, but almost a perfect band, even on their b-sides. There are distinct differences between the four albums, it sounds like a band creating their own sound and then perfecting. Marr and Morrissey still sound very unique, whereas Liam and Noel can be shortchanged into being a sum of their influences. Yeah,but they've their sound too,of course not as unique as The Smiths,but you can recognise an Oasis song However Oasis album have their differences,the thing is that Noel's songwriting is that,Liam voice is that and they (a part for SOTSOG) have never wanted to change,but I don't really see it as a failure,just enjoy them for what they are
|
|
|
Post by unionpat on Jul 3, 2013 14:13:13 GMT -5
The general public lost touch with Oasis in the U.S. after BHN, as Sony did little-to-nothing to promote them here (all we only heard was the Go Let It Out single and maybe Where Did It All...being broadcast), and almost nil for the later albums. So here at least, people generally have this "no change" assumption. Fortunately the fans that hung around know better...
|
|
|
Post by unionpat on Jul 3, 2013 14:17:44 GMT -5
Sorry about repeats, thing is messed up??!
|
|
|
Post by marqueemoon on Jul 3, 2013 14:51:21 GMT -5
There are distinct differences between the four albums, it sounds like a band creating their own sound and then perfecting. Marr and Morrissey still sound very unique, whereas Liam and Noel can be shortchanged into being a sum of their influences. Yeah,but they've their sound too,of course not as unique as The Smiths,but you can recognise an Oasis song However Oasis album have their differences,the thing is that Noel's songwriting is that,Liam voice is that and they (a part for SOTSOG) have never wanted to change,but I don't really see it as a failure,just enjoy them for what they are Of course, but their sound is easier to dissect into various influences (The Who, Sex Pistols, The Beatles, etc). Even Liam's voice is so frequently described as John Lennon and John Lydon by the press (I probably read that comparison every time I pick up a Q magazine), whereas Morrissey's voice is Morrissey.
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Jul 3, 2013 14:55:28 GMT -5
Yeah,but they've their sound too,of course not as unique as The Smiths,but you can recognise an Oasis song However Oasis album have their differences,the thing is that Noel's songwriting is that,Liam voice is that and they (a part for SOTSOG) have never wanted to change,but I don't really see it as a failure,just enjoy them for what they are Of course, but their sound is easier to dissect into various influences (The Who, Sex Pistols, The Beatles, etc). Even Liam's voice is so frequently described as John Lennon and John Lydon by the press (I probably read that comparison every time I pick up a Q magazine), whereas Morrissey's voice is Morrissey. Yeah,absolutely
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 3, 2013 17:00:22 GMT -5
Yeah,but they've their sound too,of course not as unique as The Smiths,but you can recognise an Oasis song However Oasis album have their differences,the thing is that Noel's songwriting is that,Liam voice is that and they (a part for SOTSOG) have never wanted to change,but I don't really see it as a failure,just enjoy them for what they are Of course, but their sound is easier to dissect into various influences (The Who, Sex Pistols, The Beatles, etc). Even Liam's voice is so frequently described as John Lennon and John Lydon by the press (I probably read that comparison every time I pick up a Q magazine), whereas Morrissey's voice is Morrissey. Morrissey voice has some Ian Curtis influence.
|
|
|
Post by thetruth on Jul 3, 2013 17:23:32 GMT -5
They've changed their sound actually, DM was punk ad loud, MG was more accoustic classy but could be punky, BHN was loud, bigger than life, SOTSOG was kind of psychedelic, HC was complete flat shit, DBTT was classy accoustic, DOYS was loud and psychedelic.
The one thing that didn't ever really changed is the songwritting style. There was enough greatness and variety in it, but in the end all oasis carreer was rockers, ballad big or intimate, epic songs ala CS, 60's poppy ala she's electric. End of story. Some attemps to do something different here or there like falling down, FITB or gas panic, but in the end they've always got back to the same formula and that was fine, as long as the songs were great, that fitted them.
They evolved, but never changed that much, never made a kid A or a 13 and that's why they've got slatted for sticking to their style.
But in the end, their style was unique, you don't find that much variety in a lot of bands, Liam's voice is unique, Noel's ability to write instant classics is amazing, with oasis you have a punk band like the pistols, an all time classic like the beatles, the stones,the who,the kinks, some intimate accoustic moment like neil young. You have a package, a great songwritter, a great singer, a real rock n roll band. Oasis is everything that's great in rock n roll sum up in one band to me.
But I've said it already, I think it's too bad Noel doesn't explore other style in his solo carreer. the ones he oppened with the chemical brothers or with falling down more' in his solo carreer, it is the perfect slot for that. If he doesn't do it now, he won't ever. I can wait for oasis to reform to hear come on oustide on an albm, I would prefer more songs like his HFB bsides or more things like SAITS in his solo carreer. That doesn't mean I wan't to end up like Albarn writting opera...
|
|
|
Post by marqueemoon on Jul 3, 2013 19:02:30 GMT -5
Of course, but their sound is easier to dissect into various influences (The Who, Sex Pistols, The Beatles, etc). Even Liam's voice is so frequently described as John Lennon and John Lydon by the press (I probably read that comparison every time I pick up a Q magazine), whereas Morrissey's voice is Morrissey. Morrissey voice has some Ian Curtis influence. But Morrissey never liked Joy Division and he certainly never brought the comparison upon himself like Liam does. Its all about public perception and if Liam says he sounds like John Lennon and does indeed sound and look the part, people will make that comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 4, 2013 11:56:14 GMT -5
The general public lost touch with Oasis in the U.S. after BHN, as Sony did little-to-nothing to promote them here (all we only heard was the Go Let It Out single and maybe Where Did It All...being broadcast), and almost nil for the later albums. So here at least, people generally have this "no change" assumption. Fortunately the fans that hung around know better... That's not true at all. The Hindu Times got some decent airplay, as did Lyla and The Shock of the Lightning. On alternative music stations (at least 104.5 in Philly), you will still always here Live Forever, Don't Look Back in Anger, Champagne Supernova, Wonderwall, and Noel's If I Had A Gun. Sure, the contemporary Oasis songs are now ignored, but the US still plays the classics (including more than just Wonderwall). That's not bad for a band that seemingly became obsolete in the US post-1997. I'm of the opinion that Oasis did break America in the 90s, lost America from 1998 through to 2004, but 2005's DBTT put Oasis back in favor with Americans. Americans mocked Oasis in that lost period, seeing them as uncool - but now Oasis get a lot of respect in the US. All you have to do is look at American's Facebook music section, Oasis is almost always listed. It's also a crazy experience meeting an Oasis fan, but that's by-the-by. I will say this, though: The US has flat out ignored Beady Eye.
|
|
|
Post by cloudburster on Jul 4, 2013 12:52:49 GMT -5
The general public lost touch with Oasis in the U.S. after BHN, as Sony did little-to-nothing to promote them here (all we only heard was the Go Let It Out single and maybe Where Did It All...being broadcast), and almost nil for the later albums. So here at least, people generally have this "no change" assumption. Fortunately the fans that hung around know better... That's not true at all. The Hindu Times got some decent airplay, as did Lyla and The Shock of the Lightning. On alternative music stations (at least 104.5 in Philly), you will still always here Live Forever, Don't Look Back in Anger, Champagne Supernova, Wonderwall, and Noel's If I Had A Gun. Sure, the contemporary Oasis songs are now ignored, but the US still plays the classics (including more than just Wonderwall). That's not bad for a band that seemingly became obsolete in the US post-1997. I'm of the opinion that Oasis did break America in the 90s, lost America from 1998 through to 2004, but 2005's DBTT put Oasis back in favor with Americans. Americans mocked Oasis in that lost period, seeing them as uncool - but now Oasis get a lot of respect in the US. All you have to do is look at American's Facebook music section, Oasis is almost always listed. It's also a crazy experience meeting an Oasis fan, but that's by-the-by. I will say this, though: The US has flat out ignored Beady Eye. Yeah I believe Lyla and Shock were both top 20s on the US Modern Rock Chart. And you're right they DID break America, people who say they didn't might wanna look at their album sales in the US compared to, say, The Strokes or The White Stripes - bands who definitely broke the States... they also had three top 5 albums there. In terms of chart positions that's pretty good for a UK rock band Selling out the Hollywood Bowl, MSG, Red Rocks time after time isn't to be sniffed at either.
|
|
|
Post by unionpat on Jul 5, 2013 5:45:28 GMT -5
Yes, some of the above is true, but ask the average joe in the U.S. about any of those songs, "Lyla," "Shock," or any of the post-BHN stuff, you'll probably get a blank stare. Mention "Wonderwall," or "Don't Look Back," and they'll be like, oh those guys! Sad, but true.
|
|
|
Post by fluff123 on Jul 5, 2013 8:40:42 GMT -5
It's all a load of bollocks. Why do bands have to change? Why stop doing what you're good at? Oasis were a Rock n Roll band. What do people want? You listen to Oasis because you like it, so why would you want it to change? Natural change is bound to happen due to the songwriters maturing etc - That's how it should be. Not just change for the sake of it or because it's 'trendy' to experiment. The Rolling Stones have been the same forever... been playing the same songs live forever yet STILL sell out stadium after stadium because that's what people want to hear! ...Rant over
|
|