Blur?

[russycarps]

From the constant Oasis bashing! haha. I dont Hate radiohead btw, i like a few of there songs and the Bends is great. But i do think they are ovverated.

ffs I knew you'd pick their worst album as your favourite!

[Bonehead> Clapton]

Pablo honey is there worst!

or the king of limbs..

Edited April 21, 2015 by Bonehead> Clapton

[russycarps]

Pablo honey is there worst!

or the king of limbs..

Pablo honey doesnt count, and the king of limbs is possibly their best live...

anyway, the blur thread is now turned in to a radiohead thread. My work here is done.

Now on to the foo fighters thread..

[Bonehead> Clapton]

Oasis > Radiohead...

[Bonehead> Clapton]

Shots fired...

[wozwebs]

New Blur album an absolute triumph, hoping for small club shows

[The Nal]

radiohead are the last "legendary" band that will be ranked alongside the greats of the 60s and 70s, no one since has come close to reaching that status.

etc etc

Coxon in career-best mode on the newie. Sublime album. V proud of them.

Really like I Broadcast and My Terracotta Heart. Other two not so much.

Is the album "available" yet?

Edit just saw its streaming on itunes. Fucking poxy. Ill explore alternative routes.

Edited April 21, 2015 by The Nal

[Bonehead> Clapton]

See i prefered Ong-Ong and lonesome street! reminded me of old blur!

[bennyhana22]

Oasis > Radiohead...

Obviously, not even you can genuinely mean that, B>C. We'll take that post as a cheeky little discussion starter.

Anyway, to be relatively brief, obviously Oasis are not better than Radiohead. You, and many I suppose, may like them more than Radiohead, but in terms of musical quality - songwriting, musicianship, lyrically, originality, diversity - it barely justifies begining the discussion.

There are many acts that I admire as excellent, musically, but personally do not particularly like. There are some acts that I like, but acknowledge as being musically a bit crap. But I am able to differentiate the various merits/limitations.

Save for an occasional later highlight, there's a reason why the received wisdom is that Noel wrote (depending on your point of view) between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 good records. And that's because it's true. Despite some early crackers, he ran out of songs very early. Shame, as that brief flame burned very brightly for a while...

Ben

Edited April 21, 2015 by bennyhana22

[stuartbert two hats]

Obviously, not even you can genuinely mean that, B>C. We'll take that post as a cheeky little discussion starter.

Anyway, to be relatively brief, obviously Oasis are not better than Radiohead. You, and many I suppose, may like them more than Radiohead, but in terms of musical quality - songwriting, musicianship, lyrically, originality, diversity - it barely justifies begining the discussion.

There are many acts that I admire as excellent, musically, but personally do not particularly like. There are some acts that I like, but acknowledge as being musically a bit crap. But I am able to differentiate the various merits/limitations.

Save for an occasional later highlight, there's a reason why the received wisdom is that Noel wrote (depending on your point of view) between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 good records. And that's because it's true. Despite some early crackers, he ran out of songs very early. Shame, as that brief flame burned very brightly for a while...

Ben

Well it certainly seemed like it at the time, neither of those albums are ageing all that well now to be honest.

[The Nal]

Well it certainly seemed like it at the time, neither of those albums are ageing all that well now to be honest.

The same five chords get boring after twenty years.

[Badlands]

May I ask what age you are mate? Parklife aint perfect, but it is as close to a "defining" album as you can get.

I think your first question highlights Parklife of being 'of its time'. As a late 30's fella it's a massive part of my life growing up. I'm not sure it's stood the test of time compared to other albums of that era.

They're quite a diverse band but I must say I far prefer the slow melancholic songs from their cannon. Blue Jeans, Badhead, You're So Great, Best Days, Sweet Song etc.... lovely stuff.

[Bonehead> Clapton]

Obviously, not even you can genuinely mean that, B>C. We'll take that post as a cheeky little discussion starter.

Anyway, to be relatively brief, obviously Oasis are not better than Radiohead. You, and many I suppose, may like them more than Radiohead, but in terms of musical quality - songwriting, musicianship, lyrically, originality, diversity - it barely justifies begining the discussion.

There are many acts that I admire as excellent, musically, but personally do not particularly like. There are some acts that I like, but acknowledge as being musically a bit crap. But I am able to differentiate the various merits/limitations.

Save for an occasional later highlight, there's a reason why the received wisdom is that Noel wrote (depending on your point of view) between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 good records. And that's because it's true. Despite some early crackers, he ran out of songs very early. Shame, as that brief flame burned very brightly for a while...

Ben

I personally do mean it yea, and it was a cheeky little discussion starter aimed at Russy! but he hasnt bit! I can fully appreciate Radiohead are better musicans, more diverse and experimental.

But Oasis are adored by millions beacuse of there anthems and there 2 classic albums, they took on the world between 94 and 97. Radiohead nor any other band since would reach the heights oasis did! and yea there later albums did lul, but they did pick up form again on dont believe the truth and dig out your soul. Im going to glasto in a group of nearly 40 people (Somehow!) and at least half if not more would absolutley kill for oasis! they are still that relevent!

There just seems to be this snobiness for a lot of radiohead fans, i have mates that do the same!

[admscott]

May I ask what age you are mate? Parklife aint perfect, but it is as close to a "defining" album as you can get.

I'm 26. I grew up with the record as my mum played it and i have known it inside out since i was a wee lad. But surely a defining album would stand the test of time and age shouldn't be a barrier?

I think we have different ideas of what 'defining' is though. I don't think Parklife defines Blur as a band. They are more than Parklife. I think a defining album should be a good introduction to a band. OK Computer. Dark Side of the Moon. Bangerz. All seminal.

[Badlands]

I personally do mean it yea, and it was a cheeky little discussion starter aimed at Russy! but he hasnt bit! I can fully appreciate Radiohead are better musicans, more diverse and experimental.

But Oasis are adored by millions beacuse of there anthems and there 2 classic albums, they took on the world between 94 and 97. Radiohead nor any other band since would reach the heights oasis did! and yea there later albums did lul, but they did pick up form again on dont believe the truth and dig out your soul. Im going to glasto in a group of nearly 40 people (Somehow!) and at least half if not more would absolutley kill for oasis! they are still that relevent!

There just seems to be this snobiness for a lot of radiohead fans, i have mates that do the same!

I grew up absolutely loving Oasis in the 90's but it puzzles me how anyone under the age of 25 would be interested in seeing them reform.

If you compare Radioheads albums to Oasis' there's only one winner. Noels utter ignorance towards evolving their sound, combined with having to lump in Liam and Gem songs meant a rather dull discography.Standing on the Shoulders/Heathen Chemistry/Dig Out Your Soul are real stinkers.

[The Placid Casual]

I grew up absolutely loving Oasis in the 90's but it puzzles me how anyone under the age of 25 would be interested in seeing them reform.

If you compare Radioheads albums to Oasis' there's only one winner. Noels utter ignorance towards evolving their sound, combined with having to lump in Liam and Gem songs meant a rather dull discography.Standing on the Shoulders/Heathen Chemistry/Dig Out Your Soul are real stinkers.

I thought Dig Out Your Soul was fairly decent and is their best album since Morning Glory. That's all opinion though.

[bennyhana22]

I personally do mean it yea, and it was a cheeky little discussion starter aimed at Russy! but he hasnt bit! I can fully appreciate Radiohead are better musicans, more diverse and experimental.

But Oasis are adored by millions beacuse of there anthems and there 2 classic albums, they took on the world between 94 and 97. Radiohead nor any other band since would reach the heights oasis did! and yea there later albums did lul, but they did pick up form again on dont believe the truth and dig out your soul. Im going to glasto in a group of nearly 40 people (Somehow!) and at least half if not more would absolutley kill for oasis! they are still that relevent!

There just seems to be this snobiness for a lot of radiohead fans, i have mates that do the same!

Yes, but you are, as is so ofetn the case in such discussions, to some degree equating popularity with quality. I trust that that needs no further examination than to observe that the most popular band in the world at the moment is One Direction...

It's impossible not to sound snobbish with the following remark. It is a relatively consistent truth that the most popular music is that which is simple, immediate and 'unchallenging' to the listener. It is these qualities that mean that it appeals very quickly, especially to the more casual listener. This is what ofet produces mass appeal. More complex, less immediate, 'challenging' music often takes much more investment form the listener to realise its beauty. However, it tends to be the music that stays longest with many people.

That's not to say that simple can't be extraordinary - it's the hardest thing to do, to write a simple, 3 minute pop song of truly great quality and when it's done, it's amazing.

The enduring love for Oasis is very similar to that of the Stone Roses - bound up as much in nostalgia for a time, place, stage in life as for the sheer quality of the music. I was there. I was at Knebworth, Murrayfield, Sheffield Arena, Heaton Park. But the way that the band became almost a pastiche of itself, writing poorer and poorer material to the point where you actually wished for them to peddle out Wonderwall AGAIN, means that they will now forever remain a former band to me and I dearly hope they never reform. Partly because regardless of reality, everyone will say it is amazing. And chances of that are negligible.

Still get a buzz when I hear the chords of 'Columbia' start up, mind...

Ben

[home to you]

I'm with Wessex there, dig Out Your Soul was quite good

[Bonehead> Clapton]

I grew up absolutely loving Oasis in the 90's but it puzzles me how anyone under the age of 25 would be interested in seeing them reform.

If you compare Radioheads albums to Oasis' there's only one winner. Noels utter ignorance towards evolving their sound, combined with having to lump in Liam and Gem songs meant a rather dull discography.Standing on the Shoulders/Heathen Chemistry/Dig Out Your Soul are real stinkers.

Same as the Roses man, and Fleetwood mac. these bands have a legacy and younger audiences listen to em! Noel defintley experimneting a bit more on chasing yesterday and Beady eye did with Dave Sitek. so a new album could be a bit more experimental. I agree but id take out dig out your soul as that was a retunr to form IMO! even on heathen chemisty and shoulder of giants, with all the poor tracks, you had stand out songs, like Gas panic, Hindu Times etc

[The Placid Casual]

I think Definitely Maybe is a defining album, but everything else since is far from that standard. A lot on here will disagree with that (perhaps even surprised with it) and that's fine. I'm a huge fan of their debut.

[russycarps]

I liked fucking in the bushes, whatever album that was on. Seemed a bit different at least.

Lyla was my most hated song. Dull, plodding, shite.

[The Placid Casual]

I liked fucking in the bushes, whatever album that was on. Seemed a bit different at least.

Standing on the Shoulders of the Giants. A gem from a poor album.

[Bonehead> Clapton]

Standing on the Shoulders of the Giants. A gem from a poor album.

Yep! that and Gas panic! noels best lyrics 2000+

And i do like Go let it out aswell!

Edited April 21, 2015 by Bonehead> Clapton

[bennyhana22]

I liked fucking in the bushes, whatever album that was on. Seemed a bit different at least.

Lyla was my most hated song. Dull, plodding, shite.

And a massive hit, and played to death live.

Absolutely dreadful.

By this point, the blindly devoted (understandably, given their visual impairment, I guess) truly could not see that the Emperor was in the buff.

Ben

[Bonehead> Clapton]

And a massive hit, and played to death live.

Absolutely dreadful.

By this point, the blindly devoted (understandably, given their visual impairment, I guess) truly could not see that the Emperor was in the buff.

Ben

Noel said it wasnt gonna be the album, and when they played it live was surprised at how the crowd loved it! singalong number isnt it! i dont mind it, but far from my fave. Best bit is the outro for me