Oasis

[russycarps]

karate kid for me

I fluffing love it

[jeffie]

Battle of Britain

[The Nal]

karate kid for me

I fluffing love it

[grumpyhack]

Yeah, i've always thought that. The age range when you are most open to devouring new things with extreme passion is 15-21, maybe even narrower. Out of interest, who is the band that means most to people and how old were you when you got into them? Not 'who is the greatest band ever?', but the one in your heart.

Mine is obviously Oasis, i was 16 when they hit me between the eyes. A friend at work says U2, he was 15. Another says Kraftwerk, in 75 he was about 15. Is this common?

[not worthy]

Be Here Now, thanks big Joe, you just reminded me of the name of one of the albums I bought listened to the first couple of tracks, got bored and haven't tried again since.

Just a thought, if many others did the same as me their sales couldve been massive. Anyone know any big sales number data that could support this?

[The Nal]

Be Here Now, thanks big Joe, you just reminded me of the name of one of the albums I bought listened to the first couple of tracks, got bored and haven't tried again since.

Just a thought, if many others did the same as me their sales couldve been massive. Anyone know any big sales number data that could support this?

[swede]

The Who for me, im 31 so wasnt around at their peak but just became obsessed with them due to my dad having the vinyls on constantly when I was younger. Songs that still stand the test of time with great sprit and meaning, between the ages of 14-18 I was totally obsessed with Quadrophenia and its still one of my favourite albums.

The Who IOW festival 2004 still remains the greatest live experience of my life.

Edited November 7, 2013 by swede

[grumpyhack]

And therefore Oasis are better than Tom Waits. Fact!

[LondonTom]

MacDonalds sell more burgers than local butchers who put together real burgers made of real meat. Does that make Big Macs better?

[sifi]

Big Joe has defended his position with style and panache defending his love for Oasis for many moons now. I tip my hat to him. He knows his music that much is obvious and whatever our own views are, we should commend him for being a fan of music.

Oasis are a bit basic and simple mind, but sometimes basic and simple are what you want.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Big Joe has defended his position with style and panache defending his love for Oasis for many moons now. I tip my hat to him. He knows his music that much is obvious and whatever our own views are, we should commend him for being a fan of music.

[big joe]

Seems to me he's been a bit sneery about things that aren't mainstream, mocking 'challenging' music and so on.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Didn't you say Low by Bowie was your favourite? You don't think that's challenging?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Any music that fundamentally rewrites previously adhered-to rules can seem challenging at the time, but as it moves the artform forward in some way it's often the most important music ever made. Without the developments made in the avant garde, music as a form would just be stagnant, retro-fixated and homogenous.

So I guess it's not so much about challenging the listener as challenging conventions or what were previously considered to be the norms.

[Guest]

Without wishing to be vague, i have no rules that i follow when deciding what music to like, it either sounds good or it doesn't. It is irrelevant whether something is mainstream. As for 'challenging' music, the phrase amuses and irritates me. I'm not entirely sure what it's suppose to mean. I find Yoko Ono challenging, Metal Machine Music challenging, Lulu by Metallica and Lou Reed challenging. In other words, shit. I can't think of any music i like that i would describe as challenging. Like i say, i'm not sure how it's supposed to challenge me. Dig it or don't.

However, i would be interested to hear albums people like that, when asked about, they would reach for the adjective 'challenging' first.

Edited November 8, 2013 by tonyblair

[Mardy]

Any music that fundamentally rewrites previously adhered-to rules can seem challenging at the time, but as it moves the artform forward in some way it's often the most important music ever made. Without the developments made in the avant garde, music as a form would just be stagnant, retro-fixated and homogenous.

So I guess it's not so much about challenging the listener as challenging conventions or what were previously considered to be the norms.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Lou Reed taking a right shoeing from the Oasis die-hards this week.

Edited November 8, 2013 by CaledonianGonzo

[CaledonianGonzo]

Absolutely, what Pirsig calls Static Good vs Dynamic Good. Both are neccesary

[Mardy]

Having not read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance I'll take yer word for it, squire. Might dig a bit deeper into this, though. It's fascinating stuff.

[big joe]

Didn't you say Low by Bowie was your favourite? You don't think that's challenging?

[Zoo Music Girl]

Yes, i think Low might be my favourite Bowie album. However, i've never thought of it as challenging, so to speak. Interesting, different, yes. Maybe i'm splitting hairs.

[big joe]

In many ways, I'm the same. I don't look for it to be challenging, some of it just is. And yes, there's good challenging and bad challenging.

One thing I discovered over the years is that some music that initially seemed challenging, rewarded me more. Hearing different things with each successive listen. Some of it for years.

Some of it I gave up on. Stockhausen for instance.

I also discoverd that some very basic human elements, like a performance that inspires, goes a long way

for me

[big joe]

I guess we might have different definitions of challenging then. I would definitely label that album as such, especially for the time. I love it, mind you, but the second side in particular is challenging in my opinion.

I like artists to push the boundaries anyway. Most of my favourite artists change and evolve their sound from album to album. I guess it just depends what you're into.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Yes, i know what you mean with regards to Low. Warszawa is odd isn't it?

It all comes down to the tunes. The Beatles and Bowie, to name but two, evolved successfully. Radiohead have evolved and changed for the worse (just my opinion), Oasis stayed the same and i thought they were brilliant. Some acts are just good at certain things. Damon Albarn gets praised for doing this, that and the other as if having your fingers in lots of pies gets you automatic kudos. I don't much like his pies though.

Noel Gallagher was interviewed by Simon Mayo a couple of years ago and Mayo was implying that one of his songs sounded like another - it did - or that he might do something different. Something like that, anyway. Noel replied with; "I haven't got some jazz funk odyssey that i'm sitting on. This is me at the limits of my powers!". Maybe he has secretly demoed all kinds of weird stuff, listened to it and thought 'This is awful, i'll stick to what i'm good at'. I can't remember what my point was now.

I guess i'm just saying i'm not fussed whether bands push the boundaries or not. If they do though, good on em.

[Mardy]

I've been thinking about this during the week. I tell you what, the thing about Oasis is they are firmly of their time. No-one in 30 years is going to get excited about rediscovering them. I can understand they mean a lot to you if you discovered them at the right age etc, but I'm not convinced there's any longevity there.

In 30 years time, they'll be viewed as people now view Mud, or the Sweet, or Slade. A slightly baffling phenomenon than grandparents like.