|
|
Post by sirmavers on Aug 18, 2009 16:51:33 GMT
Agree with the bands evolving, evolve all the hell you like, but when you actually put to much effort into changing a style that works then it goes all fucked up basically. But no harm if you change just naturally like, if it just happens when you are writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Aug 18, 2009 16:57:44 GMT
agree with that ant, if its forced then i think its abit silly but radioheads wasnt, they were unhappy before they changed, coldplays change has been quite good if still not outstanding and i think the arctics change was natural, whatever people say they are....
|
|
|
|
Post by sirmavers on Aug 18, 2009 17:15:28 GMT
From what I've heard, radiohead have never really gone through a bad phase of change, so it's obviously worked for them. Coldplay I really don't like, but like you say they've changed but they get along with the radio and the general public. Can't tell about Arctics though, not so sure whether it's an attempt to make something of themselves over the atlantic, and think that they've tried to hard to do so, not sure it's worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Aug 18, 2009 17:27:17 GMT
nah i think theyre just one of those bands that are not content with staying in one place musically. obviously i dunno if they have one eye on the states but im pretty confident i will be impressed with the album.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fergal on Aug 18, 2009 17:28:34 GMT
I don't think change is essential in being in a band, evolution not revolution is often a good policy. People who say Oasis haven't changed haven't listened hard enough, they've never been there to make music for beard stroking intellectuals, it's not meant to be interesting or difficult, it's just there. Agree with that or hate it if you will, you're welcome to, but they have evolved. Listen to Definately Maybe then listen to Dig Out Your Soul. Two very very different albums, very different set of influences and an almost entirely different set of musicians.
And fair enough not liking this music, if we all liked the same it'd be boring, but you can't call the Smiths nor the Stone Roses dull, particularly the Smiths, very exciting and very provocative. Even now Morrissey continues to excite many, ignite a reaction, upset and thrill a lot of people. And I love that.
And what is Britpop? You can't label the Roses, the Smiths or even Oasis as Britpop really, it was just a dodgy NME tag applied to soundalike identikit bands that followed/mocked great bands like Oasis, Blur and Pulp. Those 3 bands were independant from Britpop, they created it to an extent and then moved on, they were above it, and meant more than it. Britpop is a nothingy term that is too vague, dated and typically "lazy journalist" to humour.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirmavers on Aug 18, 2009 18:18:55 GMT
I have only listened to (and enjoyed alot) 'Definitely Maybe' 'What The Story (Morning Glory)' 'Be Here Now' and 'The Masterplan', and forgetting Masterplan, since it's B-sides from different eras, you can tell the difference between all 3, my basic opinion is that the 1st has a more classic rock n roll feel to it, second has alot more anthems, and probably the better radio friendly tunes, and the 3rd though a little more like the 1st is still very different in the sense that the songs are all relitively lengthy, the production is very very different aswell. Not listened to any other albums in there entirety, don't plan on doing so any time soon, maybe one day, but form the singles I've heard etc it's fair easy to tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Aug 18, 2009 20:51:05 GMT
i agree that britpop is a very lazy term ferg but any band you might label with that i seem to dislike, or induced to yawn by them. but alot of people say radiohead were britpop which is a joke so you know. pinch of salt n all that.
and id rather have music that was interesting? muse have just wrote a symphony? i think of the ones weve mentioned, roses are my fave but i wouldnt say the others either upset or thrill me? theyre just there. like wallpaper. ill never like oasis. i could see myself liking the smiths. i will never like ian browns solo work. maybe i would like morrisseys if i gave it a go. i will never like blur. ive heard enough and not been impressed by oasis, blur, ian brown solo, to know that i will never be a fan. oasis especially.
and the differences between all the oasis albums, yes there are some, but it all comes down to uninspiring guitar work, borrowed drum lines and frankly shit vocals. with the exception of the noel sung tracks. which i like more.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirmavers on Aug 18, 2009 21:04:59 GMT
agreed with Noels voice, Liams is alright but I lvoe Noels  |
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Aug 18, 2009 21:28:11 GMT
well im sure for oasis fans liams voice is one of the attractions but for me id love to snipe him. he gives the impression of caring to much what people think of him when hes on stage too. i know fergal will quote morrissey on me, but he doesnt perform, and noels a good songwriter but as a guitarist hes shy and looks like hes scared of hurting his guitar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fergal on Aug 18, 2009 21:46:11 GMT
1) Morrissey doesn't perform, you're right, but why should he? If you want to watch a performance, go to the Exchange Theatre and watch a play. If you want to watch music and someone putting their life and soul into playing onstage, then go watch Morrissey. He's no actor nor performer, only seals perform, and proudly.
2) What difference does how Noel Gallagher looks when he's playing guitar have on anything? If we're having a conversation about the music don't bring up about how Noel looks whilst playing guitar, does it really matter?
There's no point talking about music like you do in a matter-of-fact manner, it's opinions, and I'm glad yours differ to mine, but its not gospel
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Aug 18, 2009 21:55:36 GMT
i just said im sure liams voice is one of the attractions and said its me that thinks differently. there was no need for that comment. weve had conversations like this in the past fergal n you know my mind can be changed and that i respect your opinion.
and i didnt mean morrissey doesnt perform, i meant liam, sorry for misunderstanding, i actually think that morrissey is a good on stage performer. and i knew you would do the seals perform quote =p
and i think its makes a big difference, otherwise i surely would just listen to the album. i know you dont really believe in a stage show etc but noel on stage is hardly a sight to behold.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirmavers on Aug 18, 2009 22:13:01 GMT
Fergal well and truly on form today. Agree with every word you said, Noel could come on stage in a clown suit for all I care, still a top song writer aint he. And whats with the Morrissey bashing? From videos I've seen he looks like an ace performer on stage :/
|
|
|
|
Post by ste on Aug 18, 2009 22:57:23 GMT
I won't enjoy the next Courteeners album unless it includes a hologram of Danny Add belly dancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Aug 19, 2009 10:46:30 GMT
whose bashing morrissey lol i just went out of my way to say i thought he was a good performer. dont have a problem with him or the smiths really. just dont "get" oasis. the music bores me, with exception, and the live performance, to quote liam g, "if youve seen one, you've seen them all".
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean on Aug 19, 2009 12:16:47 GMT
I think the Enemy tried to hard to be a big stadium rock band with their 2nd. I'm all for evolving but only naturally, think that's why I've seen Tom Clarke saying there's going to be 'We'll Live and Die..' type anthems on the 3rd album. Even he realises it wasn't a natural progression.
|
|
