|
Post by spyrosfab4 on Mar 6, 2014 9:07:37 GMT -5
The Beatles made a lot 2 minute songs. Are they worse than Oasis 6 minute or more,plodding and overblown songs? wtf! A song needs to justify its length and Oasis songs rarely do that. Again,listen to the soundcloud files i posted,notice the edits and tell me which version is more direct and effective. Ywah, I listened and I don't like them. They do nothing for me. I prefer the original versions Fair enough. If you like the official IGBM more than the 4min 48sec edit i posted , i throw my hands in despair,haha. Whatever,like i said,in my opinion Oasis's songs rarely justify their lengths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 9:27:53 GMT -5
so because people prefer the original, longer songs, they are idiots? WTF man. Punk rock makes 2 minutes long songs. Is that better? A song needs to justify its length and Oasis songs rarely do that. Again,listen to the soundcloud files i posted,notice the edits and tell me which version is more direct and effective. Could not disagree more. A song only needs to JUSTIFY its length to the listeners ears. So in my opinion and most here Oasis length songs are perfect. To you no FairPlay. but the song only speaks to the individual . And you I disagree with on this .....now innagaddadavita. Is too long to my ear but Achilles last stand is not. , I think most pop Beatles songs work in the 2 minute format. Stand by me , slide away would not IMO, I FUCKING HATE SPELLCHECK IT ASSUMES PHRASES
|
|
|
Post by bardes on Mar 6, 2014 9:34:30 GMT -5
Are you serious? Slide Away should have been 8 minutes long, true . It's Getting Better Man is perfect, I love solos at the end. The Girl In Dirty Shirt too - awesome keyboard licks... it should be longer . spyrosfab4Who the fuck care about casual listeners? Be Here Now it's from 1997, not 2014.
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Mar 6, 2014 11:46:20 GMT -5
All around the world is long and it could have done with a minute or two less (the official vid is 7 mins long as far as I know) but its one of my favourites, so is its getting better man. Champagne supernova..no justification required.
Its true though, some of their songs do feel a bit long
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Mar 6, 2014 12:30:12 GMT -5
All around the world is long and it could have done with a minute or two less (the official vid is 7 mins long as far as I know) but its one of my favourites, so is its getting better man. Champagne supernova..no justification required. Its true though, some of their songs do feel a bit long All Around The World is also the longest #1 single in UK history (9 min, 20 seconds). Probably in the world as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Bigglesworth on Mar 6, 2014 12:42:55 GMT -5
Oasis really should've had legendary producer Bruce Dickinson work on their albums. he produces a great sound and knows how to get the best out of musicians. God bless. I always wondered how Liam would have looked like, if he had a cowbell instead of the tambourin I GOT A FEVER!!!! (and the only prescription is more cowbell!)
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Bigglesworth on Mar 6, 2014 12:49:09 GMT -5
so because people prefer the original, longer songs, they are idiots? WTF man. Punk rock makes 2 minutes long songs. Is that better? The Beatles made a lot of 2 minute songs like Yesterday,In My Life and others. Are they worse than Oasis 6 minute or more,plodding and overblown songs? wtf! A song needs to justify its length and Oasis songs rarely do that. Again,listen to the soundcloud files i posted,notice the edits and tell me which version is more direct and effective. The End by the doors is over 10 minutes. fucking boring indeed ....... not?! your argumentation is the weirdest thing ever! if a song is great, than fuck it should go on! American X by BRMC, this is the one thing we didn`t want to happen by Brian Jonestown Massacre, someone`s in the wolf by queens of the stone age, freebird by lynyrd skynyrd, peace brothers and sisters by colour haze. all beautiful songs near or over ten minute mark. I hate people, that think that songs have to fullfill kind of a clichee or something (HAS TO HAVE A CHORUS, not longer than 3 minuets, guitar solo after second chorus etc. etc.) go on and make every song predictable and the same, by cutting the heart out, by editing it down
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Mar 6, 2014 12:51:54 GMT -5
The Beatles made a lot of 2 minute songs like Yesterday,In My Life and others. Are they worse than Oasis 6 minute or more,plodding and overblown songs? wtf! A song needs to justify its length and Oasis songs rarely do that. Again,listen to the soundcloud files i posted,notice the edits and tell me which version is more direct and effective. The End by the doors is over 10 minutes. fucking boring indeed ....... not?! your argumentation is the weirdest thing ever! if a song is great, than fuck it should go on! American X by BRMC, this is the one thing we didn`t want to happen by Brian Jonestown Massacre, someone`s in the wolf by queens of the stone age, freebird by lynyrd skynyrd, peace brothers and sisters by colour haze. all beautiful songs near or over ten minute mark. I hate people, that think that songs have to fullfill kind of a clichee or something (HAS TO HAVE A CHORUS, not longer than 3 minuets, guitar solo after second chorus etc. etc.) go on and make every song predictable and the same, by cutting the heart out, by editing it down In an alternate 1997 to 2014, It's Getting Better Man!!!!! still has a guitar solo blaring.
|
|
|
Post by LlAM on Mar 6, 2014 12:57:48 GMT -5
LOL could you imagine Be Here Now with short songs? That would be like Ferrari making a Smart car ha ha
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Mar 6, 2014 13:27:13 GMT -5
All around the world is long and it could have done with a minute or two less (the official vid is 7 mins long as far as I know) but its one of my favourites, so is its getting better man. Champagne supernova..no justification required. Its true though, some of their songs do feel a bit long All Around The World is also the longest #1 single in UK history (9 min, 20 seconds). Probably in the world as well. Which means the casual listeners obviously thought it was alright. All this, to me, looks as if the armchair producer in this thread has a short attention span.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Bigglesworth on Mar 6, 2014 13:48:32 GMT -5
listen to this beauty! 22 minutes!!! but it`s worth taking the time. Sure if the whole genre is not yours.... but give it a try. this song proves, that lenght can be the best thing happening to a song.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Mar 6, 2014 14:14:31 GMT -5
listen to this beauty! 22 minutes!!! but it`s worth taking the time. Sure if the whole genre is not yours.... but give it a try. this song proves, that lenght can be the best thing happening to a song. I'll raise you a Pink Floyd. 23+ minutes long and the best parts don't kick in until around the 16 minute mark.
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Mar 6, 2014 16:40:35 GMT -5
Oasis really should've had legendary producer Bruce Dickinson work on their albums. he produces a great sound and knows how to get the best out of musicians. God bless. I always wondered how Liam would have looked like, if he had a cowbell instead of the tambourin I GOT A FEVER!!!! (and the only prescription is more cowbell!)
|
|
|
Post by shoes222 on Mar 6, 2014 17:40:35 GMT -5
As someone who actually mixes music, I'm offended at calling spyro's spam posts "remixes". Those tracks he keeps posting don't qualify as remasters OR remixes. I don't know why he's so obsessed with making the Gallaghers sound like little boys, but what he does is what anyone can do in two minutes with amateur music editing software. Oh and P.S...by time compressing the audio, you're actually making the brickwalling worse. It doesn't matter if you apply an EQ filter over it and say "it's less trebly". You're degrading the sound quality even more than the original. As someone who mixes music you should be offended with the obnoxious,brickwalled,clipping and unlistenable official versions that they released in the first place. I never said they were remixes, but simple eq and editing to make some of the stupid treble go away and also make the songs less plodding and shorter so that a casual listener will actually bother to listen to them through the end without falling asleep. Also if you care so much about sound quality,download the lossless wav from those soundcloud files and tell me that the boring as little else originals,sound better than these edits. soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/08-its-gettin-better-man 4 min and 48 sec soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/01-be-here-now 4 min soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/04-stand-by-me 5 min instead of 6 soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/06-the-girl-in-the-dirty-shirt 4min 40 sec All taken from the vinyl and casual listeners actually liked them instead of saying once again "fuck they are really boring,take it off",like most people react when i play them the official versions. Listen dude. It's fine if you want to edit the song lengths to make them shorter for your own personal enjoyment. I have no problem with that. But why on earth did you raise the pitch as well? If you wanted to simply increase the tempo, there are ways to do that without changing the key of the songs. I have some issues with Owen Morris's original mixes, (and most of them are clipping-related) but overall I enjoy them a lot. Those mixes are pretty close to how I think Oasis should sound. To call the originals "unlistenable" is a stretch and pretty blatant trolling. You have to realize you're in the minority opinion, right? Oasis' first 3 albums alone sold over 40 MILLION albums worldwide...and that's not even counting the singles sales. Plenty of those sales were from casual fans. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if you output your edits as a lossless wav or FLAC... the act of compressing the audio in the first place degrades the sound quality. To use an analogy, if I'm watching TV and I record video of what I'm watching with a cheap cell-phone camera, it doesn't matter if I then save that video in 1080p HD...the quality won't be better than the original.
|
|
|
Post by spyrosfab4 on Mar 6, 2014 18:04:31 GMT -5
As someone who mixes music you should be offended with the obnoxious,brickwalled,clipping and unlistenable official versions that they released in the first place. I never said they were remixes, but simple eq and editing to make some of the stupid treble go away and also make the songs less plodding and shorter so that a casual listener will actually bother to listen to them through the end without falling asleep. Also if you care so much about sound quality,download the lossless wav from those soundcloud files and tell me that the boring as little else originals,sound better than these edits. soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/08-its-gettin-better-man 4 min and 48 sec soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/01-be-here-now 4 min soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/04-stand-by-me 5 min instead of 6 soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/06-the-girl-in-the-dirty-shirt 4min 40 sec All taken from the vinyl and casual listeners actually liked them instead of saying once again "fuck they are really boring,take it off",like most people react when i play them the official versions. Listen dude. It's fine if you want to edit the song lengths to make them shorter for your own personal enjoyment. I have no problem with that. But why on earth did you raise the pitch as well? If you wanted to simply increase the tempo, there are ways to do that without changing the key of the songs. I have some issues with Owen Morris's original mixes, (and most of them are clipping-related) but overall I enjoy them a lot. Those mixes are pretty close to how I think Oasis should sound. To call the originals "unlistenable" is a stretch and pretty blatant trolling. You have to realize you're in the minority opinion, right? Oasis' first 3 albums alone sold over 40 MILLION albums worldwide...and that's not even counting the singles sales. Plenty of those sales were from casual fans. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if you output your edits as a lossless wav or FLAC... the act of compressing the audio in the first place degrades the sound quality. To use an analogy, if I'm watching TV and I record video of what I'm watching with a cheap cell-phone camera, it doesn't matter if I then save that video in 1080p HD...the quality won't be better than the original. None of the soundcloud files i posted have raised pitch. You obviously didn't listen to them. They are taken from vinyl rips on lossless flac files and edited from 24/96 flac files to wav. Simply download one and check the waveform. No clipping anywhere and much warmer sound. But the more important thing for me is the edits. Notice the lengths, notice the edits and then tell me that you prefer the originals. Many more edits on that soundcloud page. Also if i didn't like the songs in the first place, i wouldn't bother. I think that the official studio versions are terrible sounding and too slow and overlong in their majority.
|
|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Mar 6, 2014 18:23:29 GMT -5
up to give a shot and edit Sister Ray? a 4m15s version would be so fucking AMAZING.
good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Mar 6, 2014 18:30:57 GMT -5
As someone who mixes music you should be offended with the obnoxious,brickwalled,clipping and unlistenable official versions that they released in the first place. I never said they were remixes, but simple eq and editing to make some of the stupid treble go away and also make the songs less plodding and shorter so that a casual listener will actually bother to listen to them through the end without falling asleep. Also if you care so much about sound quality,download the lossless wav from those soundcloud files and tell me that the boring as little else originals,sound better than these edits. soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/08-its-gettin-better-man 4 min and 48 sec soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/01-be-here-now 4 min soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/04-stand-by-me 5 min instead of 6 soundcloud.com/spyrosfab4/06-the-girl-in-the-dirty-shirt 4min 40 sec All taken from the vinyl and casual listeners actually liked them instead of saying once again "fuck they are really boring,take it off",like most people react when i play them the official versions. Listen dude. It's fine if you want to edit the song lengths to make them shorter for your own personal enjoyment. I have no problem with that. But why on earth did you raise the pitch as well? If you wanted to simply increase the tempo, there are ways to do that without changing the key of the songs. I have some issues with Owen Morris's original mixes, (and most of them are clipping-related) but overall I enjoy them a lot. Those mixes are pretty close to how I think Oasis should sound. To call the originals "unlistenable" is a stretch and pretty blatant trolling. You have to realize you're in the minority opinion, right? Oasis' first 3 albums alone sold over 40 MILLION albums worldwide...and that's not even counting the singles sales. Plenty of those sales were from casual fans. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if you output your edits as a lossless wav or FLAC... the act of compressing the audio in the first place degrades the sound quality. To use an analogy, if I'm watching TV and I record video of what I'm watching with a cheap cell-phone camera, it doesn't matter if I then save that video in 1080p HD...the quality won't be better than the original.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Mar 7, 2014 16:37:50 GMT -5
So spyros...you made those Oasis songs shorter for the "casual listener", then proceed to post the links on an Oasis fan forum? Great idea. We're definitely your target audience...
|
|
|
Post by Elie De Beaufour 🐴 on Mar 10, 2014 0:18:20 GMT -5
Spyros, your attention span must be short. If you like 2 minute pop songs, fine. Some of us do not. Don't make me go Coach Willis on you now:
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Mar 10, 2014 4:05:18 GMT -5
Liam is not totally wrong. imo, it about money and money and money.to sell you again something, to make you believe that a remastered version is better than the original.
DM is already perfect.do we really need a remastered version of it? btw, we still dont know if its gonna sound better or not.some remastered releases from many artists had serious problems cause these new versions were really bad (too loud, too clean etc)
a reissue of DM with all those bonuses could be great. in every case i m gonna wait n see how it sounds...
it would be great to make a search about the subject of remastering an album.you are gonna find very interestings thoughts about it and so many problems...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 8:27:14 GMT -5
Liam is not totally wrong. imo, it about money and money and money.to sell you again something, to make you believe that a remastered version is better than the original. DM is already perfect.do we really need a remastered version of it? btw, we still dont know if its gonna sound better or not.some remastered releases from many artists had serious problems cause these new versions were really bad (too loud, too clean etc) a reissue of DM with all those bonuses could be great. in every case i m gonna wait n see how it sounds... it would be great to make a search about the subject of remastering an album.you are gonna find very interestings thoughts about it and so many problems... I hear you ,..., actually I don't care what Liam says as said many times I only care about there music , not there politics , or teams , or views ...... If I agree ( like city ) great if not fuck em , I'm right But about the remasters I could care less who produced new versions , I will buy for the bonus shit . To me it's fresh and worth spending money on . Better than dropping money on new bands I don't like , The bonus stuff and extras is why I'll buy ... I wouldn't be bothered if it was just same sings different producer so I hear ya
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Mar 10, 2014 9:40:00 GMT -5
Liam is not totally wrong. imo, it about money and money and money.to sell you again something, to make you believe that a remastered version is better than the original. DM is already perfect.do we really need a remastered version of it? btw, we still dont know if its gonna sound better or not.some remastered releases from many artists had serious problems cause these new versions were really bad (too loud, too clean etc) a reissue of DM with all those bonuses could be great. in every case i m gonna wait n see how it sounds... it would be great to make a search about the subject of remastering an album.you are gonna find very interestings thoughts about it and so many problems... A very valid point. However, based on the names of those involved, I'm optimistic about it. A lot of "remasters" that get released are done by the record companies and all that happens is more compression is added to make the album louder. The Beatles and The Smiths remasters show that when the right people are involved it can sound great. I don't think Noel, as lazy as he can be, is the type to sign off on a lackluster re-release of those first two albums either.
|
|
|
Post by shinealight on Mar 12, 2014 2:50:17 GMT -5
I have' t even thought of buying it till now, that says it all. Hope in 10 years we' ll get another DM remastered2 deluxe box
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Mar 20, 2014 5:20:03 GMT -5
(btw, searching the internet) found that Liam's words were finally the best promo for Definitely Maybe! more articles about his tweet about DM than the release of DM!!!
|
|
|
Post by Boy with the Blues on Mar 20, 2014 9:07:33 GMT -5
I'm buying the deluxe 3CD edition, for £15 on Amazon its something nice to add to my collection
|
|