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

[Coatigan]

Yes Cigarettes and Alcohol as well.
Nothing wrong with that if you like the songs.
Never got the Beatles songs they so called copied on Definitely Maybe.

I am never able to understand this. People that argue they are not 'essentially a beatles tribute band'. Granted, you did limit it to DM, and it is probably least evident on that. But it is still there.

 

[Tb1981]

I really do.

I find most songs on MG just so ‘poppy’ and basic, also overplayed. I struggle to listen to Wonderwall, She’s Electric and Champagne Supernova nowadays - they went full Pop which for me was a bit disappointing in hindsight , but can’t really blame them for cashing in.

Whereas Definitely Maybe and there B Sides there sound was more loud, raw, heavy, bit more indie and psychedelic (Columbia/Supersonic/Bring It On Down) but ultimately more authentic- which is understandable considering Noel was writing these songs growing up poor in a council estate - by the time Morning Glory come about he was sipping champagne with Tony Blair.

I think die hard Oasis fans would go with DM but general music fans would go with MG.

Also, even if not a fan of theirs - the ‘Supersonic’ documentary film on Netflix is a really good watch.

Morning Glory is one of the great 90s albums and is full of absolute classics that are still played today.
I just cannot get the 'full pop' statement, Its just a band moving to the next level with their second album, becoming more polished and also becoming huge in the process.

I am a big Oasis fan and i would have DM, MG and even BHN up there. They were the soundtrack to mine and many others youth. Maybe after that it all tailed off, but each of them albums is its own story from wanting it, to having it, to not knowing what to do with it.

As for sipping champagne with Blair....its a bit of a cheap shot and its also wrong as that was in 1997, Morning Glory was released 1995.
And sipping champagne with Blair was more to do with 'growing up poor in a council estate' during the Thatcher years than being unauthentic.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I really do.

I find most songs on MG just so ‘poppy’ and basic, also overplayed. I struggle to listen to Wonderwall, She’s Electric and Champagne Supernova nowadays - they went full Pop which for me was a bit disappointing in hindsight , but can’t really blame them for cashing in.

Whereas Definitely Maybe and there B Sides there sound was more loud, raw, heavy, bit more indie and psychedelic (Columbia/Supersonic/Bring It On Down) but ultimately more authentic- which is understandable considering Noel was writing these songs growing up poor in a council estate - by the time Morning Glory come about he was sipping champagne with Tony Blair.

I think die hard Oasis fans would go with DM but general music fans would go with MG.

Also, even if not a fan of theirs - the ‘Supersonic’ documentary film on Netflix is a really good watch.

Not being a fan, I can agree with this from the outside looking in.
I do actually get what you mean.
I will have more to say about the rawness and attitude later I’m sure.
But trying to be positive I would put your point down as a plus.
There’s much of their poppy anthems that we’ve all heard too much of, being constantly played on the radio still.

 

[Tb1981]

I am never able to understand this. People that argue they are not 'essentially a beatles tribute band'. Granted, you did limit it to DM, and it is probably least evident on that. But it is still there.

Clearly wear their musical influences on their sleeve and don't pretend to hide it.
You could spend hours trying to work out who all the trendy bands copy, but no one really cares.

How many records have T-Rex, The Beatles, Stone Roses etc sold off the back of Oasis introducing them to a younger audience.

Oasis are your typical band that the musical snobs loved until they became popular. Then they move on to another band in the hope they dont get big.

 

[bennyboy]

Morning Glory is one of the great 90s albums and is full of absolute classics that are still played today.
I just cannot get the 'full pop' statement, Its just a band moving to the next level with their second album, becoming more polished and also becoming huge in the process.

I am a big Oasis fan and i would have DM, MG and even BHN up there. They were the soundtrack to mine and many others youth. Maybe after that it all tailed off, but each of them albums is its own story from wanting it, to having it, to not knowing what to do with it.

As for sipping champagne with Blair....its a bit of a cheap shot and its also wrong as that was in 1997, Morning Glory was released 1995.
And sipping champagne with Blair was more to do with 'growing up poor in a council estate' during the Thatcher years than being unauthentic.

I imagine there will be a lot more cheap shots before Wednesday.lol.

 

[Coatigan]

Clearly wear their musical influences on their sleeve and don't pretend to hide it.
You could spend hours trying to work out who all the trendy bands copy, but no one really cares.

How many records have T-Rex, The Beatles, Stone Roses etc sold off the back of Oasis introducing them to a younger audience.

Yeah of course, and nothing wrong with that at all.

People arguing otherwise is what I don't really get.

Removed the last paragraph that I don’t agree with, but either way not really relevant to your main point.

 

[mancity111]

I’m guessing TE wasn’t well known enough or considered influential enough. Must confess that I have never really paid him much attention but I am aware of how highly people rate him.

Truth is there are / have been loads of very fine guitarists over the years, and technically there a “kids” these days that can shred like nobodies business; Rolling Stone have clearly looked beyond technical ability and factored in body of work, influence and originality.

I still think they have Chuck Berry way too high and excluding the guy who, among other things, wrote the riff that everyone played in guitar shops for years is perverse; he’s also the most exciting performer I’ve seen live, and I’ve seen plenty, including at least 19 of the 50 R/S came up with. They presumably included Tony Iommi because he is one of the great riff writers but left out the other…

Spot on all accounts OB1 albeit TE does have a great body of work including 3 years ( while mostly drunk as a skunk or high as a kite ) in Dragon and has played with some of those on the list and many other well known and not so well known artists.

Totally agree with you about Chuck Berry mind you and I could go through

Anybody familiar with MusicRadar cannot be not influenced by TE.

Session Musicians and guitarists in genres that are not so sexy will never get on RS despite influence ,longevity , skill , entertainment value on and off stage etc.

Why isn't Glen Campbell for example not listed in the top 50 and he has done it all including the sex , drugs, influence etc.

 

[threespires]

Good pick this @BlueHammer85, lots of interesting discussion already.

I'll play it once more to adhere to my own rules but then will wade in on some of the interesting themes already coming out. I will be making extensive reference to Sing Something Simple with Cliff Adams (not in a perjorative way). One that the FYCs will have to look up :-)

 

[mancity111]

List is a bit of a joke: they don’t even include Ritchie Blackmore.

Without adding and deleting names I would start by swapping number 50 with number 2.

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

Never really heard 'Beatles' on this album...however 'Slade' came thru loud and clear. Couple of albums later they were channeling their inner ' Kinks'.