The Album Review Club - End of Round #9 Break (page 1904)

[BimboBob]

To be fair, considering this ain't your bag at all giving it 4 listens is more than a fair go.

Plus, I think a score of 1.25 per listen is a very admirable return............. ;-)

Should have stuck at one then...

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Michael J Fox was a nice touch

Yeh but even he's hit the skids - he gigged with The Who! ;-)

(All the shite on the Internet, not sure why this was so fucking difficult to find - anyways, top quote from MJF).

'As The Who closed their 12-song set, Fox joined Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend on stage to play guitar on 'Magic Bus'.

"This is almost worth getting Parkinson's for!" he said.'

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Thank God for this thread, helping me to avoid dealing with what's happening over here . . .

Oasis has one all-encompassing virtue – or, rather, Noel Gallagher does: he can write an absolute whopper of a guitar hook. He’s like a guitar hook bully. He belts you in the face over and over and over with his Epiphone Les Paul until you at last succumb to his unbelievably juicy chord changes and almost clownishly-misplaced feedback and ridiculous stadium echo. You don’t just succumb – you beg for mercy.

I can’t resist hooks. And the songs I like best here have the best ones: the opener (more on that one later), “Live Forever”, “Up in the Sky”, “Supersonic”, “Slide Away”, “Columbia” sort of. Elsewhere the “humo(u)r” of “Married With Children” or the rip-off “Shakermaker” leave me pretty cold. But one of you wrote that “Supersonic” has some of their best lyrics – m’kay, isn’t Elsa a dog that had uncontrollable flatulence in their studio or something? Come on now. Forget meaning anything – this record brings meaninglessness to a level as high as rock and roll can take it – it’s ALL about the sonics, and all about the hooks. This is a POP band, friends. The same way Foo Fighters is, by the way.

So forget the insipidly pointless lyrics, the Liam caterwaul (his singing is BAD on this record – glad he got better), the mundane and underwater rhythm section, the songs that all go on at least 90 seconds too long. Forget “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star” – only a band who could not give any less of a flying fuck what you thought about them would have the audacity to open a debut album with THAT song (the balls it takes to sing it unironically – Jesus Christ). Forget the off-stage behavio(u)r. This is Oasis – a band created entirely for, and incredibly well-suited to, a crowd of 100,000. More than U2. More than – dare I say it – Boston. And for that, they should be criticis(z)ed in my book, as I’ve done the same to others. The difference is these guys aren’t faking anything – they ARE twats, they DID focus on commercialization – and the opener says it all. At least they're honest about it.

That said -- look, Oasis is my oldest kid’s favo(u)rite band of all time. I can’t gainsay how they make anyone feel and, as with Radiohead, I have a blind spot as to how and what they blew off Britsound of the day, which makes them more important to you all as Mancs than to a Yank who heard some of their hits on alt radio and liked them fine but never paid them much mind. I’m trying to approach this simply and aurally, which is easier for me. Yeah, it’s been hard to avoid them as City superfans, and yeah, I’d be in line like all of you if they somehow miraculously reformed and went on a final tour. But the fact that the bros’ disagreements cause them to forgo quadrillions after actually creating a band DESIGNED to fill stadiums as its sole purpose – that’s pretty ironic, isn’t it?

I will stand by my firm belief that WTSMG is a better record, because it focuses even more on hook breadth than this one, and because a lot of the distortion that normally I find winning but in DM's case out of place disappears, and because the songs are slightly more deeply felt, and because – since I think they’re a pop band – it’s poppier. This is also why I think “Beautiful Day” is U2’s best song, despite liking a lot of their first six records – because they’re a pop band really. The irony here? My favo(u)rite song is the title track, which sounds like it belongs more on DM!!

Anyhow, the bottom line is I like this record, though not as much as its follow up, which is an 8. Thus DM gets a 7/10.

And now can we please move on from these twats? I think enough has been said. The final irony is that they like being called twats, so . . .

 

[BlueHammer85]

Thank God for this thread, helping me to avoid dealing with what's happening over here . . .

Oasis has one all-encompassing virtue – or, rather, Noel Gallagher does: he can write an absolute whopper of a guitar hook. He’s like a guitar hook bully. He belts you in the face over and over and over with his Epiphone Les Paul until you at last succumb to his unbelievably juicy chord changes and almost clownishly-misplaced feedback and ridiculous stadium echo. You don’t just succumb – you beg for mercy.

I can’t resist hooks. And the songs I like best here have the best ones: the aforementioned opener, “Live Forever”, “Up in the Sky”, “Supersonic”, “Slide Away”, “Columbia” sort of. Elsewhere the “humo(u)r” of “Married With Children” or the rip-off “Shakermaker” leave me pretty cold. But one of you wrote that “Supersonic” has some of their best lyrics – m’kay, isn’t Elsa a dog that had uncontrollable flatulence in their studio or something? Come on now. Forget meaning anything – this record brings meaninglessness to a level as high as rock and roll can take it – it’s ALL about the sonics, and all about the hooks. This is a POP band, friends. The same way Foo Fighters is, by the way.

So forget the insipidly pointless lyrics, the Liam caterwaul (his singing is BAD on this record – glad he got better), the mundane and underwater rhythm section, the songs that all go on at least 90 seconds too long. Forget “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star” – only a band who could not give any less of a flying fuck what you thought about them would have the audacity to open a debut album with THAT song (the balls it takes to sing it unironically – Jesus Christ). Forget the off-stage behavio(u)r. This is Oasis – a band created entirely for, and incredibly well-suited to, a crowd of 100,000. More than U2. More than – dare I say it – Boston. And for that, they should be criticis(z)ed in my book, as I’ve done the same to others. The difference is these guys aren’t faking anything – they ARE twats, they DID focus on commercialization – and the opener says it all. At least they're honest about it.

That said -- look, Oasis is my oldest kid’s favo(u)rite band of all time. I can’t gainsay how they make anyone feel and, as with Radiohead, I have a blind spot as to how and what they blew off Britsound of the day, which makes them more important to you all than to a Yank who heard some of their hits on alt radio and liked them fine but never paid them much mind. I’m trying to approach this simply and aurally, which is easier for me. Yeah, it’s been hard to avoid them as City superfans, and yeah, I’d be in line like all of you if they somehow miraculously reformed and went on a final tour. But the fact that the bros’ disagreements cause them to forgo quadrillions after actually creating a band DESIGNED to fill stadiums as its sole purpose – that’s pretty ironic, isn’t it?

I will stand by my firm belief that WTSMG is a better record, because it focuses even more on hook breadth than this one, and because a lot of the distortion that normally I find winning but in this case out of place disappears, and because the songs are slightly more deeply felt, and because – since I think they’re a pop band – it’s poppier. This is also why I think “Beautiful Day” is U2’s best song, despite liking a lot of their first six records – because they’re a pop band really. The irony here? My favo(u)rite song is the title track, which sounds like it belongs more on DM!!

Anyhow, the bottom line is I like this record, though not as much as its follow up, which is an 8. Thus DM gets a 7/10.

And now can we please move on from these twats? I think enough has been said. The final irony is that they like being called twats, so . . .

Superb.

 

[journolud]

Just watched that encore. Wow... thanks to you and BH85 for clueing me in on that cameo.

Pretty emotional watching it all.... "Fix You" especially.

I’m pretty ambivalent about Coldplay, I think I did like their first couple of albums but Fix You is a terrible song, jostles with Imagine for my most hated.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Thank God for this thread, helping me to avoid dealing with what's happening over here . . .

Oasis has one all-encompassing virtue – or, rather, Noel Gallagher does: he can write an absolute whopper of a guitar hook. He’s like a guitar hook bully. He belts you in the face over and over and over with his Epiphone Les Paul until you at last succumb to his unbelievably juicy chord changes and almost clownishly-misplaced feedback and ridiculous stadium echo. You don’t just succumb – you beg for mercy.

I can’t resist hooks. And the songs I like best here have the best ones: the opener (more on that one later), “Live Forever”, “Up in the Sky”, “Supersonic”, “Slide Away”, “Columbia” sort of. Elsewhere the “humo(u)r” of “Married With Children” or the rip-off “Shakermaker” leave me pretty cold. But one of you wrote that “Supersonic” has some of their best lyrics – m’kay, isn’t Elsa a dog that had uncontrollable flatulence in their studio or something? Come on now. Forget meaning anything – this record brings meaninglessness to a level as high as rock and roll can take it – it’s ALL about the sonics, and all about the hooks. This is a POP band, friends. The same way Foo Fighters is, by the way.

So forget the insipidly pointless lyrics, the Liam caterwaul (his singing is BAD on this record – glad he got better), the mundane and underwater rhythm section, the songs that all go on at least 90 seconds too long. Forget “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star” – only a band who could not give any less of a flying fuck what you thought about them would have the audacity to open a debut album with THAT song (the balls it takes to sing it unironically – Jesus Christ). Forget the off-stage behavio(u)r. This is Oasis – a band created entirely for, and incredibly well-suited to, a crowd of 100,000. More than U2. More than – dare I say it – Boston. And for that, they should be criticis(z)ed in my book, as I’ve done the same to others. The difference is these guys aren’t faking anything – they ARE twats, they DID focus on commercialization – and the opener says it all. At least they're honest about it.

That said -- look, Oasis is my oldest kid’s favo(u)rite band of all time. I can’t gainsay how they make anyone feel and, as with Radiohead, I have a blind spot as to how and what they blew off Britsound of the day, which makes them more important to you all as Mancs than to a Yank who heard some of their hits on alt radio and liked them fine but never paid them much mind. I’m trying to approach this simply and aurally, which is easier for me. Yeah, it’s been hard to avoid them as City superfans, and yeah, I’d be in line like all of you if they somehow miraculously reformed and went on a final tour. But the fact that the bros’ disagreements cause them to forgo quadrillions after actually creating a band DESIGNED to fill stadiums as its sole purpose – that’s pretty ironic, isn’t it?

I will stand by my firm belief that WTSMG is a better record, because it focuses even more on hook breadth than this one, and because a lot of the distortion that normally I find winning but in DM's case out of place disappears, and because the songs are slightly more deeply felt, and because – since I think they’re a pop band – it’s poppier. This is also why I think “Beautiful Day” is U2’s best song, despite liking a lot of their first six records – because they’re a pop band really. The irony here? My favo(u)rite song is the title track, which sounds like it belongs more on DM!!

Anyhow, the bottom line is I like this record, though not as much as its follow up, which is an 8. Thus DM gets a 7/10.

And now can we please move on from these twats? I think enough has been said. The final irony is that they like being called twats, so . . .

Top write up as usual @FogBlueInSanFran.

The lyrics on early Oasis I find a divisive topic - poor lyrics generally annoy me / distract me from the music itself.

However, there is something almost conflicting if not poetic about '90's Britpop lyrics in that a lot of have a tendency to be absolutely throw away lines which also house a completely unifying quality.

Not on this album but something like Champagne Supernova - look at the lyrics, mean absolutely nothing. Belt them out to an avid crowd and they appear to take on a meaning along the lines of a Bohemian Rhapsody or Whilst my guitar gently weaps etc al.

They are everything and they are nothing all at the same time.

The bit in bold is a great observation - people that appreciate what the Gallaghers have brought to music and British culture, we don't really want them to change / compromise / reconcile for money (of which let's face it would be eye watering). We want them to do it because they have genuinely reconciled and realise they are better together or not at all.

When I watched Liam the other night, it was absolutely brilliant (I'm not overplaying that) - if you like the song's / the album, you will continue to do so, it hasn't aged.

To be honest, I have mooted it before I would be quite happy if they reconcile and enjoy their status. If they don't want to re-group then don't, but come on enjoy what you have achieved and acknowledge each other's contributions..............

 

[Saddleworth2]

Thank God for this thread, helping me to avoid dealing with what's happening over here . . .

Oasis has one all-encompassing virtue – or, rather, Noel Gallagher does: he can write an absolute whopper of a guitar hook. He’s like a guitar hook bully. He belts you in the face over and over and over with his Epiphone Les Paul until you at last succumb to his unbelievably juicy chord changes and almost clownishly-misplaced feedback and ridiculous stadium echo. You don’t just succumb – you beg for mercy.

I can’t resist hooks. And the songs I like best here have the best ones: the opener (more on that one later), “Live Forever”, “Up in the Sky”, “Supersonic”, “Slide Away”, “Columbia” sort of. Elsewhere the “humo(u)r” of “Married With Children” or the rip-off “Shakermaker” leave me pretty cold. But one of you wrote that “Supersonic” has some of their best lyrics – m’kay, isn’t Elsa a dog that had uncontrollable flatulence in their studio or something? Come on now. Forget meaning anything – this record brings meaninglessness to a level as high as rock and roll can take it – it’s ALL about the sonics, and all about the hooks. This is a POP band, friends. The same way Foo Fighters is, by the way.

So forget the insipidly pointless lyrics, the Liam caterwaul (his singing is BAD on this record – glad he got better), the mundane and underwater rhythm section, the songs that all go on at least 90 seconds too long. Forget “Rock ‘n’ Roll Star” – only a band who could not give any less of a flying fuck what you thought about them would have the audacity to open a debut album with THAT song (the balls it takes to sing it unironically – Jesus Christ). Forget the off-stage behavio(u)r. This is Oasis – a band created entirely for, and incredibly well-suited to, a crowd of 100,000. More than U2. More than – dare I say it – Boston. And for that, they should be criticis(z)ed in my book, as I’ve done the same to others. The difference is these guys aren’t faking anything – they ARE twats, they DID focus on commercialization – and the opener says it all. At least they're honest about it.

That said -- look, Oasis is my oldest kid’s favo(u)rite band of all time. I can’t gainsay how they make anyone feel and, as with Radiohead, I have a blind spot as to how and what they blew off Britsound of the day, which makes them more important to you all as Mancs than to a Yank who heard some of their hits on alt radio and liked them fine but never paid them much mind. I’m trying to approach this simply and aurally, which is easier for me. Yeah, it’s been hard to avoid them as City superfans, and yeah, I’d be in line like all of you if they somehow miraculously reformed and went on a final tour. But the fact that the bros’ disagreements cause them to forgo quadrillions after actually creating a band DESIGNED to fill stadiums as its sole purpose – that’s pretty ironic, isn’t it?

I will stand by my firm belief that WTSMG is a better record, because it focuses even more on hook breadth than this one, and because a lot of the distortion that normally I find winning but in DM's case out of place disappears, and because the songs are slightly more deeply felt, and because – since I think they’re a pop band – it’s poppier. This is also why I think “Beautiful Day” is U2’s best song, despite liking a lot of their first six records – because they’re a pop band really. The irony here? My favo(u)rite song is the title track, which sounds like it belongs more on DM!!

Anyhow, the bottom line is I like this record, though not as much as its follow up, which is an 8. Thus DM gets a 7/10.

And now can we please move on from these twats? I think enough has been said. The final irony is that they like being called twats, so . . .

Pop band/rock band. Please explain what you see as the difference.

 

[threespires]

Superb.

Good choice of word, much better than "'Supreme' as that word will just make him cry. With justification too.

 

[Bill Walker]

Top write up as usual @FogBlueInSanFran.


Not on this album but something like Champagne Supernova - look at the lyrics, mean absolutely nothing. Belt them out to an avid crowd and they appear to take on a meaning along the lines of a Bohemian Rhapsody or Whilst my guitar gently weaps etc al.

Is that the original version by William Shakespeare ? ;)

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Pop band/rock band. Please explain what you see as the difference.

A pop band starts off wanting to be popular. A rock band just plays and maybe gets popular.

I’m of the belief that some artists (like athletes) are motivated more by fame and money and ambition, and some more by the simple joy of playing, creating or crafting a message expressed through their art.

In general I respect the motivation of the latter artists more, but that doesn’t mean I don’t love a LOT of what’s created in the primary pursuit of money and fame. The best is when the two come together.

And plenty of artists waft between the two camps, either moving from one to the other or even going back and forth several times. Some, like Kurt Cobain, can’t handle the battle between the two and self-destruct. Others just become shite.

I’ll leave it to those of you who know Oasis better than I to decide how their journey has evolved but there isn’t much question how it started — DM was made for arenas — obviously, right? Just listen to it! — and Noel joined Rain/Oasis assuming he’d drive the band to commercialism.

I should also note that I hear plenty of influences from great bands in Oasis (less Beatles, almost more Who) but that their sound is still their own, timing notwithstanding, and that counts for something.

I don’t think they’re overrated, and I’m of no view on the joy or drawbacks of the scene/craze they created. I think their best songs sound fucking great. Whether they ARE fucking great — well, I’m not quite as convinced there.