hogso Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 4 hours ago, lapal_fan said: - okay. Tuttava or Govinda? I always liked Hey Dude and their cover of Hush 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, Xela said: They're probably not in the all time great bands, but who,from the UK, in the last 20-25 years would you class as greater? I think in terms of 'modern' music, there aren't many. They were very good at what they did and for a few years were a force of nature. Over the past 20-25 years I think the only UK bands who could remotely compete with Oasis are Radiohead, Muse and Arctic Monkeys (and dare I say it.... Coldplay?? I feel like puking after saying that). Oasis were definitely a great band. Edited February 15, 2016 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Radiohead are better than Oasis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 Radiohead write better albums. Oasis write better singles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I don't like Oasis much, but I'd rather listen to the monobrow brothers than the Arctic **** Spunkies 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I can't think of many bands worse than Muse and Arctic Monkeys. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 The singles from The Bends and OK Computer are easily better than any Oasis singles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, useless said: I can't think of many bands worse than Muse and Arctic Monkeys. Whilst I appreciate that you may not like Muse or Arctic Monkeys, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that they are a bad bands. Muse (More so Matt Bellamy) is obviously a very talented individual and as a bad they have incredible chemistry. Their live performances are something else. I'm not a huge Muse fan, but to say they are bad is just laughable. Edited February 15, 2016 by PieFacE 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 3 hours ago, omariqy said: Been a tough couple of weeks. Had to say goodbye to my dad. He was more like a mate to me and influenced me and my brother so much. From everything to supporting Villa, music tastes and how to be a good dad. Cherish your parents. That's tough, sorry to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Oasis got dirty basic rock n roll nailed down. First album is great pub rock. Many bands were better technicians, smarter programmers, more complex lyricists etc.. But I'll take the dirt over gsce's in music every time. But hey, personally, if my Primal Scream stuff, SFA stuff and my Oasis stuff were washed out to sea, I'd rescue all the Scream and Furries stuff first. If the Scream and SFA stuff caught fire whilst I was drying it out, I'd rescue the Furries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 Just now, PieFacE said: Whilst I appreciate that you may not like Muse or Arctic Monkeys, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that they are a bad bands. Muse (More so Matt Bellamy) is obviously a very talented individual and as a bad they have incredible chemistry. Their live performances are something else. Somebody gave me a copy of a Muse live album. It left me cold - overblown bluster, a sort of Queen/U2 hybrid (not a compliment). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Somebody gave me a copy of a Muse live album. It left me cold - overblown bluster, a sort of Queen/U2 hybrid (not a compliment). Appreciate that and can relate to the Queen comment. However, seeing it live and listening to it live on a CD are two very different things. I don't think it's possible for anyone to see Muse live and not walk away being impressed. Not saying you'd fall in love with them, but anyone with an interest in (rock) music can see that they're obviously talented. Which was my point. Edited February 15, 2016 by PieFacE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Whilst I appreciate that you may not like Muse or Arctic Monkeys, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that they are a bad bands. Muse (More so Matt Bellamy) is obviously a very talented individual and as a bad they have incredible chemistry. Their live performances are something else. I'm not a huge Muse fan, but to say they are bad is just laughable. I just think they sound really cheesy like a modern day Queen just not as good. There probably are worse bands, but I'm sure, there must be better candidates than them when it comes to rivaling Oasis over the last twenty or so years, Manics, Pulp and of course Blur I'd say have all done better from a general perspective, than Muse, Arctics and Coldplay. As for Arctic Moneys I think they just bland. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Radiohead went with the grain and made grunge music in the early 90s, because American grunge was popular (ala Nirvana). Oasis were only invented because Noel and Liam were bored with all the pop/grunge in music at the time, and also because Liam wanted to recreate the Stone Roses (who I also like). Also, as Noel says "who wants to listen about someone else problems? Music should make you happy" - and I agree with that, I mean, I know some Oasis songs are pretty depressing, but most of them are upbeat songs you can listen to on a night out - hence why there is a "I know where I was when Morning Glory came out". I like Radiohead, but they're not rock and roll are they? I tell you what though, there's a **** gaping maw of an opportunity for some 17 year olds to get together and make some proper rock and roll music and become absolutely huge. There isn't anyone under 40 and already famous doing it now. Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian etc are fast food bands - they have 1 or 2 good songs on an entire album. Oasis always (imo) had about 5/6. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I always thought The Enemy would go on to big things, they were great in Heaton Park (the gig before Oasis split up in 09), but the main singer (Tom?) is a massive dick, but in a pip-squeak way, not a Liam (I will probably chin you, or try) Gallagher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, useless said: I just think they sound really cheesy like a modern day Queen just not as good. There probably are worse bands, but I'm sure, there must be better candidates than them when it comes to rivaling Oasis over the last twenty or so years, Manics, Pulp and of course Blur I'd say have all done better from a general perspective, than Muse, Arctics and Coldplay. As for Arctic Moneys I think they just bland. I could be wrong but I always thought that Blur never really broke out of England, whereas bands like Oasis, Arctic Monkeys, Coldplay and Muse have. Which was the tool I was using to measure how "great" they are. It's a bit of a subjective conversation anyway, it's a bit like having an argument about what football clubber is bigger, what defines a big club? And what defines a "great" band? Is it album sales, personal taste, type of tours they did, how big they were in other countries etc..... guess everyone has their own definition of that. Edited February 15, 2016 by PieFacE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Most music released on major labels from about the early seventies, is rubbish, with Wu Tang's early stuff being an exception and perhaps a select few others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 15, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, lapal_fan said: Radiohead went with the grain and made grunge music in the early 90s, because American grunge was popular (ala Nirvana). Oasis were only invented because Noel and Liam were bored with all the pop/grunge in music at the time, and also because Liam wanted to recreate the Stone Roses (who I also like). Also, as Noel says "who wants to listen about someone else problems? Music should make you happy" - and I agree with that, I mean, I know some Oasis songs are pretty depressing, but most of them are upbeat songs you can listen to on a night out - hence why there is a "I know where I was when Morning Glory came out". I like Radiohead, but they're not rock and roll are they? I tell you what though, there's a **** gaping maw of an opportunity for some 17 year olds to get together and make some proper rock and roll music and become absolutely huge. There isn't anyone under 40 and already famous doing it now. Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian etc are fast food bands - they have 1 or 2 good songs on an entire album. Oasis always (imo) had about 5/6. I really wouldn't put Arctic monkeys in the same bracket as Kasabian. Far from it. Kasabian are a jack the lad type band, Arctic monkeys have a bit of substance. "Suck it and See" is one of the best albums of the past 15-20 years imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I **** hate the Arctic Monkey's and think they sound hilariously bad, so I can't comment, let alone agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 1 minute ago, PieFacE said: I could be wrong but I always thought that Blur never really broke out of England, whereas bands like Oasis, Arctic Monkeys, Coldplay and Muse have. Which was the tool I was using to measuring how "great" they are. It's a bit of a subjective conversation anyway, it's a bit like having an argument about what football clubber is bigger, what defines a big club? And what defines a "great" band? Is it album sales, personal taste, type of tours they did, how big they were in other countries etc..... guess everyone has their own definition of that. Coldplay and Oasis (not sure about Arctics and Muse) I imagine were probably more commercially successful and Blur more critically acclaimed and probably had a bigger impact culturally than the others mentioned with the exception of Oasis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts