WHAT?
Radiohead pwns OasisThis Message Edited On 11.09.08
|
| |
amusing.
|
| |
electronics on In Rainbows - 15 Step and the last 30 seconds of Videotape.
hmm...
|
| |
lol i didn't know people still cared about oasis.
|
| |
Not as bad as the Cream - Zeppelin one, atleast.
|
| |
radiohead is difficult!
|
| |
Why does this stuff make news and the more important articles I submit never do?
|
| |
Amnesiac and Kid A are the only two Radiohead albums that really sound similar at all, and that's pretty much a given since they were recorded in the same sessions. How is Hail To The Thief similar to Kid A? It uses electronics sometimes? And In Rainbows... calling that similar to Kid A is just stupid.
And Oasis aren't exactly one to criticize on the 'not evolving' front, either.
|
| |
this perspective lends a lot to our recent understanding of why oasis blows ass
|
| |
Pot calling the kettle black.
|
| |
difficult electronic records
oasis sucks
|
| |
both bands suck
|
| |
Seriously, this is coming from a guy who's band has churned out the same stupid boring mainstream radio hugging 4 minuite pop 'anthems' album for the last 10 years.
Pot
Kettle
Black.
|
| |
Why does everyone think Oasis is a Radiohead clone?
Theyre a Beatles clone if anything.
|
| |
"Correct me if I'm wrong; they've been making the same record since 'Kid A', have they not?"
Yes, you are fucking wrong.
Oasis sucks. It's a band that's been making the same Rolling Stones and Beatles ripoffs over and over again. And worse every time. Radiohead is far more superior than Oasis. Seems like Noel is kind of jealous.This Message Edited On 11.09.08
|
| |
Oasis are utter shite. Noel has got it the wrong way around... How I despise that man...
|
| |
haha is being a 'rockstar' not about being arrogant any more? i reckon its good to see :D
|
| |
I'd rather listen to "What's the story morning glory?" than "Kid A"
|
| |
Not as bad as the Cream - Zeppelin one, atleast.
For the sake of devil's advocate, Jack Bruce has one thing backing up his bravado that Noel Gallagher doesn't: talent.
|
| |
Noel Gallagher has bags of talent he's just an asshole.
|
| |
I don't know what's more hilarious: that people are getting mad about this or that people think the pot and kettle metaphor applies. neither are hilarious and one is ironic, you diva
|
| |
"The biggest criticism that the music press have against us [Oasis] is that we're not Radiohead."
It's because the music press is too polite to say they suck.
|
| |
Noel Gallagher has bags of talent he's just an asshole.
Really? He should use it to write a song that doesn't punch my ears in their balls.
|
| |
Oh, Gallagher, you talentless wretch.
Come see how highly we value your opinions here!
|
| |
True Steerpike, true.
|
| |
"Correct me if I'm wrong; they've been making the same record since 'Kid A', have they not?"
very well. You are wrong, Noel Gallagher. Very wrong.
|
| |
Jesus fucking Christ, people. The Kid A thing was mostly untrue (although I can't recall a Radiohead song since OK Computer that I sing along with for its duration), but do you expect him to say that he and his band are talentless, make bad music and wish they were Radiohead? He might be a dick, but nothing he said here is outrageous. And I'd still rather listen to new Oasis than anything currently in the top 40.
|
| |
blllah blah blaaaaah blaahhh blah blahhh
|
| |
but do you expect him to say that he and his band are talentless, make bad music and wish they were Radiohead?
That would be hilarious, actually.
|
| |
i like how the second sentence in radioheads description on this site is "Actually, they have no true definable sound, as it changes from album to album."
|
| |
Pot
Kettle
Black.
|
| |
i thought they(radiohead) stopped using guitars after ok computer
|
| |
haha for serious?
Oasis *was* great at what they do and Radiohead sure as shit hasn't made the same record since 'Kid A'
Oasis thought, has made the same record since 'Definitely, Maybe'
But ya know -- Noel is an asshat, and he's made a pretty good career (and like 2 1/2 awesome records) as one.
Whatever, he's just pissed that another seminal band (yay blur!) has eclipsed them once again as Britain's brightest musical export.
|
| |
as far as i am concerned:
OASIS: whats the story (the only thing that ever happened in their career)
RADIOHEAD: Keeps pumping out mentionable albums
the Gallagher's need to keep their mouth shut and keep it down on their blog.
|
| |
oasis suck
and why would they say the kid A comment when its blatantly false.
|
| |
Oasis are better than Radiohead.
|
| |
one can "take it" in the d*ckhole?
|
| |
i think the difference between KID A and Definitely Maybe (and i'm fan of both albums) is that of course Kid A is difficult to hear,
it took me several plays until i started to get into it, but then, some day, randomly i listened and fall in love with "Motion Picture
Soundtrack", wich is the last song on KID A, i listen to that song several times a week, i love to fall asleep while hearing KID
A.
Def. Maybe doesnt give you such experience, i'm fucking sick, gonna throw up if i listen 1 more time Rock N Roll Star, or even
Married With Children.
I'am (was) an Oasis fan, and I'm a Radiohead fan, and the 2nd one is far better, even their B-Sides are better than Oasis studio
albums, just listen to "The Trickster", "Last Flowers to the Hospital" or even "Palo Alto", just to name a few.This Message Edited On 11.11.08
|
| |
Right on. Oasis is good, I guess, if you consider "good" to mean being proficient in being an egotistical, self-worshiping and overrated British band taking advantage of the fact that they're from the same country as GREAT bands (i.e. the Beatles, Radiohead). Bottom line is, Oasis is an okay band. But bands that have more musical integrity and talent are bound to take their work more seriously, and consequently, be much better. There really isn't much going on in Oasis's music, whereas (and I guess you can call me biased) Radiohead's music and lyrics are much more thought-out, taken much more seriously, and just because you can't necessarily 'sing along' to all of their songs does not mean the music isn't good. Shit, what about instrumental music? Classical? Electronica? 'Nuff said.
I like Oasis and I like Radiohead, but fuck Noel Gallagher and fuck everyone else who thinks a few catchy guitar riffs and a British accent and an over-inflated ego is all it takes to make good music.
|
| |
I think Radiohead is just awful so this is funny. He also said this in an interview with Blender a few months ago.
|
| |
First of all, everyone posting here has to get their heads out of their asses and realize something
I think Noel UNDERSTANDS that he writes mainstream music. I think he gets it, that his music isn't really all that 'out there' or 'different' or innovative- I don't think he's trying to be any of those things.
I think he's trying to just write a good song and put it on a record
and you know what, he doesn't do a bad job at all
Radiohead on the other hand.... OK, basically, they're an amazing band. they are constantly innovating (though not so much, I reckon, as some people might like to think...) and their music is more than catchy. BUT they're not the end all be all of alternative music, and in fact I thought In Rainbows was one of their worst albums to date, and Pablo Honey remains one of my favorites of theirs
Pablo Honey, which is basically comparable to Oasis as what the Frames are to a band like U2... a more alternative, still accessible, and better band, but still comparable
Using 5/4 in a couple of songs and some glitchy beats or eclectic vocals, however, doesn't make you any sort of authority on the evolution of modern music.
check out 65daysofstatic for god's sake, or Tristeza
|
| |
