Oasis announcing they're getting back together for some UK tour dates has reignited the whole debate about how good they were. I've liked them since first hearing this... ...and, as we know, the measure of a band is their live performance, and when I saw them (19 years ago) they were fantastic. Oasis Concert Setlist at Shoreline Amphitheatre, Mountain View on September 11, 2005 | setlist.fm They shared a bill with Jet and Kasabian. We had some great seats for that one, Jet opened with this... ...anyway, Oasis are polarizing, probably because the brothers feuding became tedious and they pissed away their success. In their day though, they were great fun live.
A friend I've since lost touch with is a Manchester native; he was at a show Oasis played back home in Manchester at their height; sounded like an amazing experience. I always compared them to the Black Crowes--derivative as hell, but at their best made some great ear candy.
Far be it from me to yuck somebody's yum but, I mean, come on, let's be honest here, there aren't a lot of bands out there more tiresome than Oasis.
They were lightweights who behaved as if they had enough substance to make the shenanigans worth putting up with.
You're 100% right insofar as it's true that Minnesota United fans are a complete non-entity unworthy of wasting internet bits. What I mean is that they decided that, in the interest of cosplaying very serious English football punters, they needed a team anthem. And out of the millions of options available they chose the very worst dreck by the very worst band out there. And then made us listen to it.
I think I once made a joke here about how the scientific method allows us to change our opinions based on repeatable experimentation and that I'd come to recognize that Blur was better than Oasis. Funny stuff.
There are a few Blur songs I like better than anything Oasis put out, but Blur also put out a lot of shit. I really don't listen to either of them except Song 2 for kicks.
Oasis is fun. That's it. It's not meant for being a virtuoso on guitar or for talking about the nuances of sound. It's just fun, play it when doing something or just hanging out on a lake with your friends music. Or in my case, just fun, pull up the guitar and play a little bit. I don't know Wonderwall, but I love playing songs like Underneath the Sky or Slide Away. Anyway, their first two albums, a good chunk of their b-sides and the Masterplan are brilliant. I hear the first song in my head a lot when I'm in the middle of nowhere rock climbing or hiking. Live Forever is brilliant, and it's been a nice pick me up. And at times, it's fun to play on guitar. It's cathartic.
I think there's two Blur songs I like and it's Parklife and Tracy Jacks. Damon Albarn got lucky with Gorillaz.
Now that you mention it, I can see that. I can’t remember Merle’s real name, but he’s actually a trained economist and financial advisor who occasionally dabbles, a la mathematician Tom Lehrer, in satire.
What qualifies that you think I'd know? Britsoul was/is cool as hell, overall, but you're talking about pop. Why do they call it Britpop? Most nonjazz noncountry good rock is going to be British. Seems Yankpop or Yankrock would be the outlier, because we trail them in both quality and popularity. I can't even point to any theory-based things that made them better at it, but they are. I have also recently heard the term "Afropop". I'll eventually look into it on my own without asking here. But for the pop, I do want some starting point.
It’s a mid-90’s sound, exemplified by Oasis, Blur, and Pulp in particular. More a marketing term than anything else, it’s just a flavor of British pop rock that was popular around that time.
Sorry, my mouse is double-clicking, so if you got three or four alerts for the same post, it's my fault.