spice girls on Noel Gallagher
under...@my-dejanews.com
fans) give a shit for the spice girls, but I'd like to let you know that even
here in México we get to see such stupid things like the next comment from an
interview with the spice girls printed in a magazine called "eres" in spanish
or "you are":
Q: "Noel Gallagher said once than any group that uses a lot of production in
their shows do it because their music alone can't make a great concert".
A (I didn't care to know which one of those losers said this): "We use
production in our shows because we try to entertain everyone, from the 6
years-old kids to their parents--" (so their music is not enough to entertain
people... can't believe she doesn't get that fact) "-- and we sold more
tickets than oasis in our tour, so who's more popular? (LOL)"...
I'd like to finish this post with a comment from Steve Mackey, the Pulp bass
player, which I read in the same magazine but a rather different number: "I
met once the spice girls backstage, and I can tell you they're the most
unreal persons I've ever met... they acted like if I'd care they're famous"
any other comment of mine about this is a waste of time (yours and mine) and
bytes
T-----------------------------------¬
|born in america, but uk music rules| <-------except spice girls (tell me
L-----------------------------------J they're not british)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nick Cino
longer, and they will be around much longer. You got to remember, there
are no little teeny-bopper Oasis fans. You don't see little three year
olds jumping around to "Roll With It" do you? That's why the spice girls
are so popular, my 7 year old cousin listens to them. And it's not about
the music, it's about image, money, record sales, the tunes have nothing
distinct about them. Spice Girls are a novelty, they've only been around
2 years and they've already lost a member! Those commercial acts may be
the most popular now, but they won't be around much longer.
Cheers!
Nick
VILA
but.......
Ok so in two years the spice girls lost a member, but remember oasis lost a
member after the first album!
Nick Cino wrote in message <36320F...@sympatico.ca>...
AVENTURAZ
Oasis. The fact that Tony and Ginger aren't in the bands anymore doesn't
really qualify her statement.
Alin
Crispiest
>are no little teeny-bopper Oasis fans. You don't see little three year
>olds jumping around to "Roll With It" do you? That's why the spice girls
>are so popular, my 7 year old cousin listens to them
I know what you saying, but at the Oasis concert I went to(Chicago Jan17, 1998)
there was alot of little kids there with their parents. It was a little
annoying to me. I mean there was a group of young girls, about 12 years old,
in front of me who were just talking and not listening to the concert. In the
section I was sitting in it seemed like only me and a few other people were
really getting into the music.
Chris P.
"just a child with nothing to lose but my mind"
Acquiesce
see one of the greatest bands in the world, make sure you're STANDING
UP!!!The atmosphere's amazing.
See Ya,
Acquiesce.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The meaning of life is to BE HERE NOW."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remember, you've got a 50% chance, I'm either gonna like you, or I'm
not!!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're not arrogant-we just believe we're the best band in the world!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This voucher entitles you to one free slurpy at Moe’s Tavern.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fountainhead
Nick Cino wrote in message <36320F...@sympatico.ca>...
>I wouldn't care too much about that comment. Oasis have been around much
>are no little teeny-bopper Oasis fans.
how wrong do you want to be?
>You don't see little three year
>olds jumping around to "Roll With It" do you? That's why the spice girls
>are so popular, my 7 year old cousin listens to them.
and so do ten million other people - many of them a great deal older than
that!!
>And it's not about
>the music, it's about image, money, record sales, the tunes have nothing
>distinct about them.
then why have the spice girls sold millions of records all around the world?
if it was all image, and no sound, then they'd have bought the first record,
binned it, and never bought another.
>Spice Girls are a novelty, they've only been around
>2 years and they've already lost a member! Those commercial acts may be
>the most popular now, but they won't be around much longer.
it's bad enough when i hear rem & radiohead fans harping on about how crap
pop is - but this is alt.music.oasis!! i'm not saying that oasis are as
commercialised as the spice girls, but they are clearly just as hyped, and
to a great extent, just as 'pop'. What you're saying about the spice grils
is exactly the same as what was always said about take that, and they didn't
do all that badly (they went out at the very top and spawned two fairly
successful solo acts and one incredibly successful one).
who knows, maybe one of the spice girls (probably sporty) will 'do a robbie'
and start hanging around with oasis!!
f.
RoundMyWay
>and start hanging around with oasis!!
>
>f.
I thought Sporty hated Oasis....
Yer Mate,
maureen
"Is my happening too deafening for you?"--Noel Gallagher
Simon Moore
>>the music, it's about image, money, record sales, the tunes have nothing
>>distinct about them.
>
>then why have the spice girls sold millions of records all around the
world?
>if it was all image, and no sound, then they'd have bought the first
record,
>binned it, and never bought another.
>
No they wouldn't. Not if they like the image and are into it. Thats what
following an image is all about.
The reason they have sold millions of records around the world is that they
appeal to lowest common denominator, i.e thick people. And unfortunately,
the majority of people fall under that category.
Just because a lot of people buy or subscribe to something does not make it
worthy of artistic merit. The vast majority of people around the world do
not listen to Mozart regularly. Does that mean that Mozart is crap?
Try thinking for a change. I know its unfashionable, but give it a go.
RoundMyWay
the majority of the people who go are little kids who need at least one person
accompanying them. This chaperone may not like the group but has to sit
through the concert for their kids' sake...
Also, like Simon pointed out, just cause you purchase something doesn't mean
you like it...Have you enjoyed every movie you shelled out $7 for? Of course
not....
Plus, um, how is it that Geri is in charge of Breast Cancer awareness PR for
some organization when she smokes like a chimney?? She should start preparing
for her lung cancer awareness speeches soon :)
Yer Mate,
Maureen
AVENTURAZ
and was destined to stay on top for years to come. I think they were called
the New Kids on the Block. I had a crush on Joe, but hey, I was five.
Alin
Shabs
no use to their respective bands. Tony wasn't completely useless but the
"new" drummer is better and Ginger was completely useless.
Shabs.
Shabs
they aren't hyped too much in America either so Oasis wouldn't sell nearly
as much as the Spice Girls due to hype over here.
Shabs.
Sean Robinson
about excessive production by bands during concerts considering that he
(and the rest of Oasis) are very close friends with U2. Look at
Popmart. That was a tour that had a LOT of production, obviously. But
U2 (if anyone is a U2 fan as I am, he or she would understand), I do not
think, need to throw in such production to make their concerts so big,
bad, and beautiful. Plus, Oasis opened up for U2 during a part of their
PopMart tour! Anyone understand what I'm trying to get at? Hope so.
.Sean.
ps. If anyone disagrees about Oasis and U2 being very close friends, he
or she may want to pick up a copy of Propaganda issue #27. Read the "U2
and Oasis: Loving Each Other In San Francisco" article in there.
Beg...@my-dejanews.com
aven...@aol.com (AVENTURAZ) wrote:
> Remember a certain pop sensation a few years back that took the world by storm
> and was destined to stay on top for years to come. I think they were called
> the New Kids on the Block.
I was thinking the same thing. Didn't they make like $50 million one year, the
highest paid entertainers of that year, and now where are they? Well, besides
that one Kid that was in "Ransom", but I haven't heard from him since. Anyway,
the same thing will happen to the Spice Girls and (God willing, please!) all
these Boy Bands that are dominating the charts & MTV at the moment. Go away!!!
Beggar
Beg...@my-dejanews.com
"Simon Moore" <qd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> The reason they have sold millions of records around the world is that they
> appeal to lowest common denominator, i.e thick people.
I have to disagree here. I believe they've sold millions of records by
appealing to the teen market, which has been underestimated by the Suits
until now. I don't consider teenagers "thick people". They just haven't fully
matured into their musical tastes. That won't hit until, oh, 15 or so.
Beggar
...who used to be into Duran Duran back in da days.
Beg...@my-dejanews.com
You've got a good point there. American fans have to be honest and admit that
Oasis is not nearly as huge here as they are overseas, and I do think it's
because of less hype about them. Not that I'm expecting Oasis to have a one
hour special on UPN, but they do need to be promoted more here.
Beggar
RoundMyWay
They had just become friends during that performance, I think...Liam had never
even seen U2 play live before and had no idea what their show was like. I
dunno if that has anything to do with anything but it might :)
Yer Mate,
maureen
fountainhead
RoundMyWay wrote in message <19981025105814...@ng31.aol.com>...
>Okay, first, the reason that the Spice Girls are selling more tickets is
cause
>the majority of the people who go are little kids who need at least one
person
>accompanying them. This chaperone may not like the group but has to sit
>through the concert for their kids' sake...
maybe. but that doesn't really have much to do with anything. if somebody
young wants to buy a record they don't need their mother to buy one too.
>Also, like Simon pointed out, just cause you purchase something doesn't
mean
>you like it...Have you enjoyed every movie you shelled out $7 for? Of
course
>not....
that's a nothing analogy. you don't see a movie fifteen times a day on the
tv before you go to see it - but you probably will hear a record many times.
furthermore, if i see a film and don't like it i'll avoid that style of
movie, or that director, in the future. i won't keep going back. people
buy spice girls records again and again - so they must have liked the
previous one to make them want to buy the next.
f.
fountainhead
Simon Moore wrote in message <70vgp6$bp0$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>>>And it's not about
>>>the music, it's about image, money, record sales, the tunes have nothing
>>>distinct about them.
>>
>>then why have the spice girls sold millions of records all around the
>world?
>>if it was all image, and no sound, then they'd have bought the first
>record,
>>binned it, and never bought another.
>>
>
>No they wouldn't. Not if they like the image and are into it. Thats what
>following an image is all about.
utter shite.
millions of people love the spice girls and their songs - maybe a lot of
those people are 7 year old girls or tragic students, but what's wrong with
that? when i was seven i loved the beatles and simon & garfunkle (and i
still do) why was i right and them wrong?
>The reason they have sold millions of records around the world is that they
>appeal to lowest common denominator, i.e thick people. And unfortunately,
>the majority of people fall under that category.
i've been in pubs and clubs with hundreds of drunken fools bawling along
with oasis records - if that isn't the lowest common denominator then i
don't know what is.
>Just because a lot of people buy or subscribe to something does not make it
>worthy of artistic merit. The vast majority of people around the world do
>not listen to Mozart regularly. Does that mean that Mozart is crap?
i never said that. i didn't even say that the spice grils were worthy of
artistic merit. what i said was that so long as there are millions of
people gleaming some enjoyment from their records they have every right to
be successful.
>Try thinking for a change. I know its unfashionable, but give it a go.
i do lots of thinking thanks. that's why i've not let myself turn into some
kind of narrow-minded musical snob who is incapable of showing any respect
for other people and their musical preferences. i listen to many different
styles of music - some of which is very popular, some of which isn't. i
don't care how many other people like my music, nor why they like it. what
counts is that listening to it makes me feel good, and that is the same for
any fan of any group.
music is 100% subjective. you don't have to like somebody elses tastes, but
you do have to respect them.
f.
--
regular exercise at the gym (three days a week)
fountainhead
Slider wrote in message <363a4c18...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>When the timer read Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:06:37 -0000, "fountainhead"
><founta...@lineone.net> opened the wormhole back to Slider-Prime
>and said :
>
>:Nick Cino wrote in message <36320F...@sympatico.ca>...
>
>:>And it's not about
>:>the music, it's about image, money, record sales, the tunes have nothing
>:>distinct about them.
>:
>:then why have the spice girls sold millions of records all around the
world?
>:if it was all image, and no sound, then they'd have bought the first
record,
>:binned it, and never bought another.
>
>kids are easily exploited and so long as the music doesn't sound like
>so-called-posh spice singing on her own without any vocal adjustments
>then it will sell on marketing alone.
i think you should credit spice girls fans with a bit of intelligence.
they've put out songs with fantastic tunes, songs which are great to dance
to, and ballads that people remember and love. i could sing all the spice
girls singles - that's because of the tunes, not the marketing.
>It's that same with all crap pop bands.
so what makes a pop band crap?
>:it's bad enough when i hear rem & radiohead fans harping on about how crap
>:pop is - but this is alt.music.oasis!! i'm not saying that oasis are as
>:commercialised as the spice girls
>
>Oasis are not pop.
yes they are. ok, maybe they're pop-rock, but they are pop. their sound is
all about melody and listenability. don't forget that the beatles are the
greatest pop band ever.
>:is exactly the same as what was always said about take that, and they
didn't
>:do all that badly (they went out at the very top and spawned two fairly
>:successful solo acts and one incredibly successful one).
>
>Yeah, when they split up they ceased to be the false comercialized
>rubbish that they were in take that.
how can you say that? it's the same people with the same minds and the same
desire to entertain people. are you saying that robbie is ok now that he's
changed his style? why is 'angels' better than 'back for good'? why can i
dance to 'let me entertain you' but not to 'relight my fire'? do you think
that robbie is now 'indie' because he's got electric guitars in his songs?
most bands are commercialised these days - especially oasis. do you think
they'd be as popular as they are without all the hype? commercialisation
does not make a bad band - u2 have already been mentioned in this thread as
a good example of that.
do you really have a problem with marketing and image? or is it, perhaps,
that you think you're really cool and chart pop isn't?
f.
Crispiest
>see one of the greatest bands in the world, make sure you're STANDING
>UP!!!The atmosphere's amazing.
>
>See Ya,
>
>Acquiesce.
>
>
No I wasn't sitting. I was standing and jumping around. I shouldn't have said
sitting. I was on the second level on the side and the people up there didn't
seem to be that into it. The people on the floor were jumping around more. I
wish I was down there. Next time I will be no matter what.
Nick Cino
see nothing but fake when I see the Spice Girls. Yeah, maybe they do
have good tunes, but it's not genuine. Same goes for BSB and practically
every other manufactured act out there. Oasis, regardless of being pop
or not, are genuine. They write, and perform their own music. That to
me, is a good group. A group that is about THEIR OWN TUNES! The Beatles
were pop in the beginning, but they moved beyond it, they became a group
known for the songs they wrote.
Cheers!
Nick
under...@my-dejanews.com
"fountainhead" <founta...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >
> >:>And it's not about
> >:>the music, it's about image, money, record sales, the tunes have nothing
> >:>distinct about them.
> >:
> >:then why have the spice girls sold millions of records all around the
> world?
> >:if it was all image, and no sound, then they'd have bought the first
> record,
> >:binned it, and never bought another.
> >
> >No, it is about the marketing but the sound can't be terrible. The
> >kids are easily exploited and so long as the music doesn't sound like
> >so-called-posh spice singing on her own without any vocal adjustments
> >then it will sell on marketing alone.
>
> i think you should credit spice girls fans with a bit of intelligence.
> they've put out songs with fantastic tunes, songs which are great to dance
> to, and ballads that people remember and love. i could sing all the spice
> girls singles - that's because of the tunes, not the marketing.
>
if you say that spice girls put out songs with fantastic tunes then you're
forgetting the musicians and the composers; oasis are all that besides
performers, so there's no comparison (and please don't tell me that the girls
are composers... "girl power" is as old as my mother and the five of them
altogether including geri can't compose a song close enough to Noel's ones);
and songs that are great to dance and ballads that people remember and love
are better DONE (not just performed) by, let's say, beastie boys and air
supply (i don't know good dance music groups outside america, though)
> >It's that same with all crap pop bands.
>
> so what makes a pop band crap?
the fact that they were created ONLY to win $$$... here in México we call
that kind of groups plastic because the are borned because the producer wants
to earn cash and is not worried about music so they're more false than a fake
plastic tree... i don't give a pennie for a group that was created with
casting!
>
> >:it's bad enough when i hear rem & radiohead fans harping on about how crap
> >:pop is - but this is alt.music.oasis!! i'm not saying that oasis are as
> >:commercialised as the spice girls
> >
> >Oasis are not pop.
>
> yes they are. ok, maybe they're pop-rock, but they are pop. their sound is
> all about melody and listenability. don't forget that the beatles are the
> greatest pop band ever.
all songs are about melody and listenability, aren't they? and with the
beatles and oasis (with due respect to the proportion) you have learned how
majestic can pop be, if it is made by people who care about their own
music... and the composers of spice girls songs try to make them with the
most listenability possible, to make them reachable for the widest audience
possible, again just to win $$$
> >:is exactly the same as what was always said about take that, and they
> didn't
> >:do all that badly (they went out at the very top and spawned two fairly
> >:successful solo acts and one incredibly successful one).
> >
> >Yeah, when they split up they ceased to be the false comercialized
> >rubbish that they were in take that.
>
> how can you say that? it's the same people with the same minds and the same
> desire to entertain people. are you saying that robbie is ok now that he's
> changed his style? why is 'angels' better than 'back for good'? why can i
> dance to 'let me entertain you' but not to 'relight my fire'? do you think
> that robbie is now 'indie' because he's got electric guitars in his songs?
>
> most bands are commercialised these days - especially oasis. do you think
> they'd be as popular as they are without all the hype? commercialisation
> does not make a bad band - u2 have already been mentioned in this thread as
> a good example of that.
all the groups and solo performers out there want to earn cash, but what
splits oasis' kind of performers and fake plastic groups is that, in the end,
the first ones are $$$ + music, and the late ones just $$$
btw, what i wanted to show was how idiot the spice girls are: they say that
they use production in their shows cos they want to entertain people, just
what Noel said because the music of sg is not enough, and oasis really
entertained me just standing in the scenario and playing some of the best
songs of the decade, if not the century
T-----------------------------------¬
|born in america, but uk music rules|
L-----------------------------------J
under...@my-dejanews.com
Cre...@webtv.net (Sean Robinson) wrote:
> I personally find it very odd that Noel Gallagher said what he said
> about excessive production by bands during concerts considering that he
> (and the rest of Oasis) are very close friends with U2. Look at
> Popmart. That was a tour that had a LOT of production, obviously. But
> U2 (if anyone is a U2 fan as I am, he or she would understand), I do not
> think, need to throw in such production to make their concerts so big,
> bad, and beautiful. Plus, Oasis opened up for U2 during a part of their
> PopMart tour! Anyone understand what I'm trying to get at? Hope so.
>
> .Sean.
>
> ps. If anyone disagrees about Oasis and U2 being very close friends, he
> or she may want to pick up a copy of Propaganda issue #27. Read the "U2
> and Oasis: Loving Each Other In San Francisco" article in there.
>
>
i understand what you mean, specially since u2 was my favorite group before
oasis, and it seems perfect to me that they're pals (btw, it was logical than
u2 members drank more than oasis... the devil knows more cos he's old, not
cos he's the devil), but i think Noel criticized production in concerts when
it is made by groups that rely ONLY on production; u2 can make a great
concert without those giant screens and that stuff, but spice girls cannot...
i think that was what Noel meant.
Simon Moore
>i do lots of thinking thanks. that's why i've not let myself turn into
some
>kind of narrow-minded musical snob who is incapable of showing any respect
>for other people and their musical preferences. i listen to many different
>styles of music - some of which is very popular, some of which isn't. i
>don't care how many other people like my music, nor why they like it. what
>counts is that listening to it makes me feel good, and that is the same for
>any fan of any group.
>
>music is 100% subjective. you don't have to like somebody elses tastes,
but
>you do have to respect them.
>
>f.
Firstly, you have, I'm afraid, fallen into the same trap as all those other
people who trot out the old
"everyone is entitled to their own opinion" line. If you believe that
everyone is enititled to their own opinion, why are you getting so wound up
when I express mine?
Secondly, I never said that I have a problem with people liking the Spice
Girls. If people want to listen to mindless pop, or anything else (maybe
even the sound of two bricks being bashed together) and call that music,
then thats up to them. What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is not
worthy of any artistic merit. They may be making lots of money out of their
career, good luck to them. I have no problem with people being successful,
and I never said I did.
Thirdly, I did not say that teenagers were thick, there are very intelligent
teenagers around, just as there are very intelligent people of any other
agegroup around. I said that a large number of people are thick, that
includes teenagers, and people of any other age group. That is a fact of
life, and is the reason why most music, literature, TV and films have to
cater for that type of intellect, thereby making the biggest number of
sales.
Fourthly, your whole argument seems to centre around the assertion that the
more record sales an artist makes, the more musically worthy they are. And
this was exactly the reason that I cited Mozart as an example. More people
buy CDs/tapes/albums etc. of The Spice Girls than they do of Mozart, does
this mean that Mozart is less musically credible than the Spice Girls?
Fifthly, you say that you "don't care how many other people like my music,
nor why they like it". One wonders why on earth you ever visit this
newsgroup. And for someone who is clearly devoted to listening to everyone
elses opinion, you are not being very fair when you say "I don't care if
anyone else likes my music". Its a bit rich for someone who makes that
comment to slag me off for "not showing respect for other peoples musical
preferences".
Sixthly, having an appreciation of what is skillfully made music, and what
is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
does, however, make you musically aware.
And finally, you don't "have" to respect other people's tastes and opinions.
Surely, if I choose not to respect other people's tastes and opinions, isn't
doing so expressing my own opinion, to which I am, as you took great pains
to point out, entitled?
SM
Acquiesce
See Ya,
Acquiesce.
--
Andreas Paterson
>
> Secondly, I never said that I have a problem with people liking the Spice
> Girls. If people want to listen to mindless pop, or anything else (maybe
> even the sound of two bricks being bashed together) and call that music,
> then thats up to them. What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is not
> worthy of any artistic merit. They may be making lots of money out of their
> career, good luck to them. I have no problem with people being successful,
> and I never said I did.
This is not quite true, in your own interpretation they may not be
worthy of artistic merit, the Spice Girls music is actually quite well
written and not just mindless pop (I don't like it though). If you think
of the Spice Girls as the girls plus the numerous PR researchers,
marketing experts and songwriters (who apparently just tidy up the songs
after the girls have written them, perhaps adding little unimportant
details like music?), the Spice Girls have a large amount of talented
backing who are the real people behing their success.
> Sixthly, having an appreciation of what is skillfully made music, and what
> is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
> does, however, make you musically aware.
So, say a Sonic Youth fan came on this group and said that Oasis are a
boring uninspired band. And hid behind your argument that would make them
musically aware?
-- @..@
Andreas (----)
( >__< )
Simon Moore
Andreas Paterson wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> Secondly, I never said that I have a problem with people liking the Spice
>> Girls. If people want to listen to mindless pop, or anything else (maybe
>> even the sound of two bricks being bashed together) and call that music,
>> then thats up to them. What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is
not
>> worthy of any artistic merit. They may be making lots of money out of
their
>> career, good luck to them. I have no problem with people being
successful,
>> and I never said I did.
>
> This is not quite true, in your own interpretation they may not be
>worthy of artistic merit, the Spice Girls music is actually quite well
>written and not just mindless pop (I don't like it though). If you think
>of the Spice Girls as the girls plus the numerous PR researchers,
>marketing experts and songwriters (who apparently just tidy up the songs
>after the girls have written them, perhaps adding little unimportant
>details like music?), the Spice Girls have a large amount of talented
>backing who are the real people behing their success.
Exactly, so the real reason for the Spice Girls success is not their talent
but the talent of their record company. Now it is probably quite true that
Oasis
would not be as well known and hence as economically successful as they are
today
were it not for Creation Records' good marketing and promotion skills.
However,
I do not believe that the songs and the sound of Oasis on "Definately Maybe"
would be fundamentally different even if they had been signed to a small
back
alley record label with only two staff working for them. On the other hand,
if they
Spice Girls had been recording for such an outfit, they would have had to
rely on
their own skills only, and would not have had a cat in hells chance.
I believe that when most people talk about a band they mean "the band" i.e.
the musicians
and singers in it, not the people who work for their record company.
>> Sixthly, having an appreciation of what is skillfully made music, and
what
>> is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
>> does, however, make you musically aware.
>
>So, say a Sonic Youth fan came on this group and said that Oasis are a
>boring uninspired band. And hid behind your argument that would make them
>musically aware?
Why use the phrase "hid behind"?
Anyway, to answer your question: Yes. (Of course if he just said "Oasis are
shit and
Sonic Youth are much better" without stating cogent reasons for it, then he
would simply
be stating an opinion, to which he is entitled of course, but thats about
it.)
SM
Simon Moore
>matured into their musical tastes. That won't hit until, oh, 15 or so.
>
>Beggar
>...who used to be into Duran Duran back in da days.
>
I don't consider teenagers to be thick people, but I consider thick
teenagers to be thick people. Unfortunately, there are a far greater number
of thick people (of all age groups) than intelligent ones.
Why do you think that the biggest selling newspaper in Britain is "The Sun"?
fountainhead
Simon Moore wrote in message <714hc3$poe$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>
>>i do lots of thinking thanks. that's why i've not let myself turn into
>some
>>kind of narrow-minded musical snob who is incapable of showing any respect
>>for other people and their musical preferences. i listen to many
different
>>styles of music - some of which is very popular, some of which isn't. i
>>don't care how many other people like my music, nor why they like it.
what
>>counts is that listening to it makes me feel good, and that is the same
for
>>any fan of any group.
>>
>>music is 100% subjective. you don't have to like somebody elses tastes,
>>but you do have to respect them.
>Firstly, you have, I'm afraid, fallen into the same trap as all those other
>people who trot out the old "everyone is entitled to their own opinion"
line.
>If you believe that everyone is enititled to their own opinion, why are you
getting
>so wound up when I express mine?
just how many times do you want to miss the point?
i don't care a tot what you think of the spicies music, it's the fact that
you're being so stuck up about it all. everybody has the right to like and
dislike whatever they choose to - but i don't think that people have the
right to to claim that certain forms of music (generally 'their' sort) are
somehow superior.
>What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is not worthy of any artistic
merit.
but oasis' is? why? why is somebody that disagrees with you wrong? if you
want to express an opinion, that you don't like the spice girls, then that's
ok - but that statement goes way beyond that.
>Thirdly, I did not say that teenagers were thick, there are very
intelligent
>teenagers around, just as there are very intelligent people of any other
>agegroup around. I said that a large number of people are thick, that
>includes teenagers, and people of any other age group. That is a fact of
>life, and is the reason why most music, literature, TV and films have to
>cater for that type of intellect, thereby making the biggest number of
>sales.
so what about all the 'intelligent' people that like the spice girls? what
if more 'intelligent' people like the spice grils than like oasis? would
that mean that oasis' music was not worthy of artistic merit?
>Fourthly, your whole argument seems to centre around the assertion that the
>more record sales an artist makes, the more musically worthy they are.
you're not listening to me. i have never said anything of the sort. i have
never tried to 'rank' any artists in terms of how 'musically worthy' they
are, and i've certainly never correlated that with record sales. i believe
that anybody who is making music that people enjoy is as worthy as anybody
else doing the same.
>And for someone who is clearly devoted to listening to everyone
>elses opinion, you are not being very fair when you say "I don't care if
>anyone else likes my music".
i don't care if 99% of the people posting on this group think that radiohead
are depressing, that belle & sebastian are wussy, or that they've never even
heard of slint - what's wrong with that? if other people like these bands
then that's great, but i'm not going to lose any sleep if they dont. they
have every right not to like it, but i don't think they have any right to
say that it is 'unworthy of artistic merit'.
>Its a bit rich for someone who makes that
>comment to slag me off for "not showing respect for other peoples musical
>preferences".
why? are you saying that i'm not showing respect for other people's musical
preferences? please explain.
>Sixthly, having an appreciation of what is skillfully made music, and what
>is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
>does, however, make you musically aware.
i'm a clasically trained flautist, who is now playing in a lo-fi guitar
band, and i have a very large and varied record collection that spans about
500 years. i am musically aware. and i think you're talking rubbish.
the guy who sat down next to a piano (or whatever) and wrote 'wannabe' is no
worse than thom yorke sitting and writing 'street spirit' the former track
annoys me, the latter is, imo, the finest piece of music i own. if somebody
thinks the opposite then that's ok. you still haven't told me why such a
person is wrong.
>And finally, you don't "have" to respect other people's tastes and
opinions.
>Surely, if I choose not to respect other people's tastes and opinions,
isn't
>doing so expressing my own opinion, to which I am, as you took great pains
>to point out, entitled?
ok, so there are opinions, opinions on opinons, opinions on opinions on
opinions and much much more - but you seem to be running away from the issue
and clouding it in pseudo-philosophical linguistics (i just made that phrase
up). you have an subkective opinion (the spice girls are pap) but you're
turning that into an objective statement (the spice girls are unworthy of
artistic merit). I think that the latter is more than an opinion.
f.
fountainhead
Simon Moore wrote in message <715bv4$r1u$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>I believe that when most people talk about a band they mean "the band" i.e.
>the musicians
>and singers in it, not the people who work for their record company.
but does that matter? when it comes down to it, people buy the records
because they like the music. i don't care if a million marketing men try to
sell me a song. if i like the song then i'm happy.
>>> Sixthly, having an appreciation of what is skillfully made music, and
>>> what
>>> is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
>>> does, however, make you musically aware.
>>
>>So, say a Sonic Youth fan came on this group and said that Oasis are a
>>boring uninspired band. And hid behind your argument that would make them
>>musically aware?
>Anyway, to answer your question: Yes. (Of course if he just said "Oasis
are
>shit and Sonic Youth are much better" without stating cogent reasons for
it, then he
>would simply be stating an opinion, to which he is entitled of course, but
thats about
>it.)
let me get this straight.
if mr sonic youth believes that oasis are a boring uninspired band then he
is 'musically aware'? is that what you're saying? so if he then says that
makes oasis 'unworthy of artistic merit' then he must be right. you,
presumably disagree with him - therefore you must be wrong!! if i am
reading you're qualifying statement correctly, the fact that he has cogent
reasons for what he is saying elevates it above 'simply stating an opinion'.
consequently, mr sonic youth has, using you're methods, proved that oasis
are unworhty of artistic merit.
i'm confused
f.
fountainhead
under...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<713773$l66$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> i think you should credit spice girls fans with a bit of intelligence.
>> they've put out songs with fantastic tunes, songs which are great to
dance
>> to, and ballads that people remember and love. i could sing all the
spice
>> girls singles - that's because of the tunes, not the marketing.
>>
>
>if you say that spice girls put out songs with fantastic tunes then you're
>forgetting the musicians and the composers; oasis are all that besides
>performers, so there's no comparison
i'm not going to start another noel v liam thing here becase we've been
there and done that many times - but i wouldn't like oasis nearly as much
without liam, yet noel writes all the songs. i think that liam brings the
music alive and without him oasis wouldn't be as good. liam (along with
bones, guigsy and alan) does no more than the spice girls. i'm not
forgetting the people who write songs for the spice girls - they're doing a
grand job.
>> so what makes a pop band crap?
>
>the fact that they were created ONLY to win $$$... here in México we call
>that kind of groups plastic because the are borned because the producer
wants
>to earn cash and is not worried about music so they're more false than a
fake
>plastic tree... i don't give a pennie for a group that was created with
>casting!
so if oasis had been created like that and recorded exactly the same songs
you wouldn't care for them?
>> yes they are. ok, maybe they're pop-rock, but they are pop. their sound
is
>> all about melody and listenability. don't forget that the beatles are
the
>> greatest pop band ever.
>
>all songs are about melody and listenability, aren't they?
no.
>and with the
>beatles and oasis (with due respect to the proportion) you have learned how
>majestic can pop be, if it is made by people who care about their own
>music...
so what about mel b's number 1 collaboration with missy elliott? that was a
song that mel b really cared about - but was just as hyped and
commercialised as any spice girls song.
>and the composers of spice girls songs try to make them with the
>most listenability possible, to make them reachable for the widest audience
>possible, again just to win $$$
so what if they make money? they also make a lot of people happy.
>all the groups and solo performers out there want to earn cash, but what
>splits oasis' kind of performers and fake plastic groups is that, in the
end,
>the first ones are $$$ + music, and the late ones just $$$
so you think that oasis would carry on making records if nobody bought them?
>btw, what i wanted to show was how idiot the spice girls are: they say that
>they use production in their shows cos they want to entertain people, just
>what Noel said because the music of sg is not enough, and oasis really
>entertained me just standing in the scenario and playing some of the best
>songs of the decade, if not the century
radiohead & rem entertained me by playing songs i loved, the lights, effects
and movemenst added to the experience. christy moore entertained me by
sitting on a stool and playing a guitar. there's no right a wrong way to
perform live. nobody would go to the spice girls concerts if they didn't
like the music - the 'show' element just helps those people enjoy things
even more.
f.
fountainhead
Slider wrote in message <364b7447...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>When the timer read Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:02:41 -0000, "fountainhead"
>:i think you should credit spice girls fans with a bit of intelligence.
>:they've put out songs with fantastic tunes, songs which are great to dance
>:to, and ballads that people remember and love.
>
>I don't know one person who likes, let alone loves any spice girls
>songs.
well there are millions of them around the world.
>They don't have 'fantastic' tunes, they have average generic
>junk.
what's the difference between a spice girls tune and an oasis tune then?
when you strip them both down you end up with a great melody.
>I suspect your a spice girls fan which is why you're objecting
>so much.
not really.
>:i could sing all the spice
>:girls singles - that's because of the tunes, not the marketing.
>
>But without the marketing there wouldn't have been the music in the
>first place.
so what?
>:>It's that same with all crap pop bands.
>
>:so what makes a pop band crap?
>
>Not all pop bands, crap pop bands - ones that are just tools of the
>record companies who were put together by the record companies and who
>( usually ) don't play any instruments and don't write their songs.
so they'd be ok if the songwriters and instumentalists were part of the
band?
>I think the beatles were pop but Oasis aren't. Oasis are kinda
>indie-rock.
so the beatles (blokes with great tunes and guitars) are pop, but oasis
(blokes with guitars and great tunes) are indie-rock. please explain.
>:>Yeah, when they split up they ceased to be the false comercialized
>:>rubbish that they were in take that.
>:
>:how can you say that? it's the same people with the same minds and the
same
>:desire to entertain people.
>
>Desire to entertain people had absolutely *nothing* to do with take
>that. They auditioned for bits for the money.
yeah, they just hated the buzz of performing in front of thousands of
people. they detested the fact that their songs were loved by millions.
none of them ever wanted to be pop singers before take that.
>:are you saying that robbie is ok now that he's
>:changed his style?
>
>Yes. He's now left the falseness of the record-company-creation and
>become 'genuine'.
>:why is 'angels' better than 'back for good'?
>
>You only need to listen to them to get an answer to that :)
i have listened. what's the answer?
>:why can i
>:dance to 'let me entertain you' but not to 'relight my fire'?
>
>Relight my fire was never any good anyway :)
thousands of happy pop-loving clubbers would disagree.
>:most bands are commercialised these days - especially oasis.
>
>Only after BHN. There's a difference between commercialized as an in
>advertized, and commercialized like the spice girls with cheap crap
>being printed with their pics on whenever possible.
my local record shops sell a hell of a lot more oasis merchandise than spice
girls merchandise.
>:do you think they'd be as popular as they are without all the hype?
>
>Yes. Oasis didn't have the hype and commercialization when DM became
>the fastest selling debut album.
yes they did. it may not have been spice-girls-esque marketing hype, but
the oasis bandwagon was huge by the time DM came out. everybody knew that
they were 'the new beatles', but not everybody knew what they sounded like.
>I wouldn't compare U2 to the spice girls etc. Most of the
>commercialized bands ( boybands etc. ) are bad bands.
so why are u2 different?
>:do you really have a problem with marketing and image?
>
>Not at all. I'm majoring in marketing at university. What I don't
>like are all these pisspoor 'bands' who have been put together by the
>record companies for the sole reason of exploiting a market to make
>money.
and you're not even slighlt appeased by the fact that they make people feel
good?
>:or is it, perhaps,
>:that you think you're really cool and chart pop isn't?
>
>Chart pop is shite. The charts are absolute rubbish.
does that include the charts that have oasis at number 1?
>And yes, I am really cool :)
obviously :)
f/
Shabs
than the Spice Girls. Do you REALLY believe that? I will give you the fact
that Liam does what the Spice Girls do, but Liam sings well, while the Spice
Girls don't (live, not on the albums). The ones who play instruments in
Oasis are far more talented, and in fact, have talent for what they do. The
Spice Girls haven't the talent of being able to sing (I'll give you that
Sporty can hit high notes and is not tone deaf).
You also questioned if Oasis had been "manufactured", would the particular
fan you were talking to still like Oasis? This is a good point, but one
that one can critisize. Aerosmith, a decent rock group, doesn't write all
their songs. This means that there may not be a conformity of sound, making
them less of a band. Also, they cannot recieve as much credit and respect.
It is great to enjoy the music of a band who is real like Oasis; you
know that they will always be Oasis (the 70 or so songs officially released
are pretty much all "Oasis") and that they continue to have talent. So, if
I knew that Oasis was manufactured, I would not feel as much with their
music, and I would not respect thier ability as much. I may get bashed for
this, but it's true.
Also, I think the thing about using major production to enhance a
concert could be interpreted a number of ways. The Spice Girls' music could
not survive without the production, because their music is mindless pop. (I
admit, it's catchy, mindless pop and better than a lot of stuff out there.)
Oasis' music can carry a concert without major production, and this is a
great feat. I'd think that major production of an Oasis concert would seem
cheesy.
Just my opinions.
Shabs.
Shabs
opinions can lead to interesting discussions (or threads with the technology
we're using). You are merely expressing that you disagree with another's
opinion as well, although you don't say it outright. We're all doing the
same thing here.
You are trying to prove Simon Moore wrong. And you said, "why is somebody
that disagrees with you wrong?" Simon Moore obviously would disagree with
you opinion, so does that make YOU wrong? Or him wrong? Or him right? Or
are you right? We all have interests in these "fights".
Shabs.
Shabs
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>what's the difference between a spice girls tune and an oasis tune then?
>when you strip them both down you end up with a great melody.
Are you sure about that? You have taken your general arguments to a point
where they are too general, and make no sense. Look at your words. "what's
the difference between a spice girls tune and an oasis tune then?" C'mon.
Give me a break.
Shabs.
Simon Moore
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
I'm not missing any point. I agree that everyone has the right to like and
dislike whatever they choose.
But I fundamentally disagree that music is 100% subjective. For example,
the band Radiohead are clearly very talented musicians and lyric writers
capable of playing with great skill and making very original music (fact),
but I don't like them (opinion). On the other hand, a band like The Sex
Pistols did not use a huge amount of musical or singing skill to come up
with their sound (fact), but I find them enjoyable (opinion). So I can
quite easily say that The Sex Pistols music is not worthy of much musical
artistic merit, even though I find the sound enjoyable. I fail to see what
is "stuck up" about that concept.
>>What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is not worthy of any artistic
>merit.
>
>but oasis' is? why? why is somebody that disagrees with you wrong? if
you
>want to express an opinion, that you don't like the spice girls, then
that's
>ok - but that statement goes way beyond that.
Basically because Oasis conceived their sound, music and lyrics themselves.
>>Thirdly, I did not say that teenagers were thick, there are very
>intelligent
>>teenagers around, just as there are very intelligent people of any other
>>agegroup around. I said that a large number of people are thick, that
>>includes teenagers, and people of any other age group. That is a fact of
>>life, and is the reason why most music, literature, TV and films have to
>>cater for that type of intellect, thereby making the biggest number of
>>sales.
>
>
>so what about all the 'intelligent' people that like the spice girls? what
>if more 'intelligent' people like the spice grils than like oasis? would
>that mean that oasis' music was not worthy of artistic merit?
Again you are confusing the concept of "liking" a type of music, with the
concept of recognising that a type of music is more worthy of musical merit
(i.e. because it is original, skillful, cleverly played, or put together in
an enlightening way). As I said before, there are lots of types of music
that I consider worthy of great musical and artistic merit, but which I
don't personally like (classical music, for example). And there are also
types of music which I consider to be unworthy of musical or artistic merit,
but which I still like.
Of course one of the things about the Spice Girls is that they were a whole
package (image, looks, songs) marketed to a teenage audiance.
>>Fourthly, your whole argument seems to centre around the assertion that
the
>>more record sales an artist makes, the more musically worthy they are.
>
>you're not listening to me. i have never said anything of the sort. i
have
>never tried to 'rank' any artists in terms of how 'musically worthy' they
>are, and i've certainly never correlated that with record sales. i believe
>that anybody who is making music that people enjoy is as worthy as anybody
>else doing the same.
Yes you did. You countered the original arguments about the musical
integrity of the Spice Girls
by saying that the Spice Girls have sold millions of records all over the
world.
>>And for someone who is clearly devoted to listening to everyone
>>elses opinion, you are not being very fair when you say "I don't care if
>>anyone else likes my music".
>
>i don't care if 99% of the people posting on this group think that
radiohead
>are depressing, that belle & sebastian are wussy, or that they've never
even
>heard of slint - what's wrong with that? if other people like these bands
>then that's great, but i'm not going to lose any sleep if they dont. they
>have every right not to like it, but i don't think they have any right to
>say that it is 'unworthy of artistic merit'.
>>Its a bit rich for someone who makes that
>>comment to slag me off for "not showing respect for other peoples musical
>>preferences".
>
>why? are you saying that i'm not showing respect for other people's
musical
>preferences? please explain.
Well, you've just said that you don't care about them. How can you respect
something that you don't care about?
>>Sixthly, having an appreciation of what is skillfully made music, and what
>>is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
>>does, however, make you musically aware.
>
>i'm a clasically trained flautist, who is now playing in a lo-fi guitar
>band, and i have a very large and varied record collection that spans about
>500 years. i am musically aware. and i think you're talking rubbish.
You may well be a brilliant musician for all I know, but I don't see what
that has to do with your inability to grasp the difference between fact and
opinion.
>the guy who sat down next to a piano (or whatever) and wrote 'wannabe' is
no
>worse than thom yorke sitting and writing 'street spirit' the former track
>annoys me, the latter is, imo, the finest piece of music i own. if
somebody
>thinks the opposite then that's ok. you still haven't told me why such a
>person is wrong.
So you would consider the music of Thom Yorke to be just as worthy of
musical merit as the sound I have on a cassette of me bashing on an old
cardboard box and whistling I tune that I just made up? I mean, I think it
sounds pretty good, but I didnt use much musical prowess to compose it!
>>And finally, you don't "have" to respect other people's tastes and
>opinions.
>>Surely, if I choose not to respect other people's tastes and opinions,
>isn't
>>doing so expressing my own opinion, to which I am, as you took great pains
>>to point out, entitled?
>
>
>ok, so there are opinions, opinions on opinons, opinions on opinions on
>opinions and much much more - but you seem to be running away from the
issue
>and clouding it in pseudo-philosophical linguistics (i just made that
phrase
>up). you have an subkective opinion (the spice girls are pap) but you're
>turning that into an objective statement (the spice girls are unworthy of
>artistic merit). I think that the latter is more than an opinion.
>
>f.
Nope. I'm not running away from anything, and I'm not clouding anything in
philosophical linguistics (sorry, there is nothing pseudo about it). Its
actually very simple. You are saying that music is 100% personal opinion.
I am saying that it is a combination of personal opinion and fact.
I don't believe Oasis to be the best band on earth, although they are OK. I
do however believe that music made by Oasis is more worthy of musical merit
than that made by the Spice Girls because Oasis did it themselves, whereas
the Spice Girls had a HUGE amount of musical help from their record company
people.
If you happen to like the Spice Girls, thats up to you. If you believe that
they are as musically competant as Oasis then you are wrong. Their record
company colleagues may well be - the girls themselves are not.
SM
Simon Moore
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
>
>>I believe that when most people talk about a band they mean "the band"
i.e.
>>the musicians
>>and singers in it, not the people who work for their record company.
>
>
>but does that matter? when it comes down to it, people buy the records
>because they like the music. i don't care if a million marketing men try
to
>sell me a song. if i like the song then i'm happy.
>
>>>> what
>>>> is mindless (but successful) pap, does not make you a musical snob. It
>>>> does, however, make you musically aware.
>>>
>>>boring uninspired band. And hid behind your argument that would make them
>>>musically aware?
>
>>Anyway, to answer your question: Yes. (Of course if he just said "Oasis
>are
>>shit and Sonic Youth are much better" without stating cogent reasons for
>it, then he
>>would simply be stating an opinion, to which he is entitled of course, but
>thats about
>>it.)
>
>
>let me get this straight.
>if mr sonic youth believes that oasis are a boring uninspired band then he
>is 'musically aware'? is that what you're saying? so if he then says that
>makes oasis 'unworthy of artistic merit' then he must be right. you,
>presumably disagree with him - therefore you must be wrong!! if i am
>reading you're qualifying statement correctly, the fact that he has cogent
>reasons for what he is saying elevates it above 'simply stating an
opinion'.
>consequently, mr sonic youth has, using you're methods, proved that oasis
>are unworhty of artistic merit.
>
>i'm confused
>
>f.
>
You are indeed.
If Mr.Sonic Youth says "Oasis are a boring uninspired band because they are
just following a traditional rock band style, and their lyrics are not even
very original, I mean "Tonight I'm a rock & roll star" thats not very
original is it? Sonic Youth have a very original style of music, and their
lyrics are more thought provoking"
Then I would reply "Yes, in many cases I would agree". But I would add
"however, I don't personally like the sound of Sonic Youth".
He wouldn't have "proved" anything, but he would have stated good reasons
why Oasis are less deserving of aritsic merit than Sonic Youth, and I think
I would probably agree with him. Sonic Youth are certainly more original.
Having said that, I dont personally enjoy their sound, and given the choice
of Sonic Youth or Oasis, I would pick the latter. Given the choice of the
Spice Girls and Oasis I would also pick the latter.
SM
under...@my-dejanews.com
"fountainhead" <founta...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> under...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <713773$l66$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <yZPY1.3920$nV5...@news-reader.bt.net>,
> > "fountainhead" <founta...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >> they've put out songs with fantastic tunes, songs which are great to
> dance
> spice
> >> girls singles - that's because of the tunes, not the marketing.
> >>
> >
> >forgetting the musicians and the composers; oasis are all that besides
> >performers, so there's no comparison
>
> i'm not going to start another noel v liam thing here becase we've been
> there and done that many times - but i wouldn't like oasis nearly as much
> without liam, yet noel writes all the songs. i think that liam brings the
> music alive and without him oasis wouldn't be as good. liam (along with
> bones, guigsy and alan) does no more than the spice girls. i'm not
> forgetting the people who write songs for the spice girls - they're doing a
> grand job.
like Shabs said, I just can't believe that you're comparing Whitey, Guigsy
and Bonehead with spice girls... they PLAY musical instruments, and the girls
just go out of breath (except for sporty) when they sing live; and about
Liam, if he's backed up by a composer like Noel and players like the rest of
the group I think that justifies the fact that he just sings.
> >> so what makes a pop band crap?
> >
> >the fact that they were created ONLY to win $$$... here in México we call
> >that kind of groups plastic because the are borned because the producer
> wants
> >to earn cash and is not worried about music so they're more false than a
> fake
> >plastic tree... i don't give a pennie for a group that was created with
> >casting!
>
> so if oasis had been created like that and recorded exactly the same songs
> you wouldn't care for them?
>
not as much as I do now, since like I've said I don't respect plastic groups.
> >> yes they are. ok, maybe they're pop-rock, but they are pop. their sound
> is
> >> all about melody and listenability. don't forget that the beatles are
> the
> >> greatest pop band ever.
> >
> >all songs are about melody and listenability, aren't they?
>
> no.
what an easy mood you're at. you just say no but never care to explain
why... and I think that even... well... I don't know, Pantera or groups like
that make melodies that have listenability, not for everyone but some find
them
> >and with the
> >beatles and oasis (with due respect to the proportion) you have learned how
> >majestic can pop be, if it is made by people who care about their own
> >music...
>
> so what about mel b's number 1 collaboration with missy elliott? that was a
> song that mel b really cared about - but was just as hyped and
> commercialised as any spice girls song.
that's ONE exception that confirms the rule
> >and the composers of spice girls songs try to make them with the
> >most listenability possible, to make them reachable for the widest audience
> >possible, again just to win $$$
>
> so what if they make money? they also make a lot of people happy.
for me it's ok, I prefer happy people than gothic youth with manson, but I
wouldn't let my kids buy spice girls records if they're older than 18 (then
they may be nothing but just a memory)
> >all the groups and solo performers out there want to earn cash, but what
> >splits oasis' kind of performers and fake plastic groups is that, in the
> end,
> >the first ones are $$$ + music, and the late ones just $$$
>
> so you think that oasis would carry on making records if nobody bought them?
please read first what I said: "the first ones are $$$ + music"
> >btw, what i wanted to show was how idiot the spice girls are: they say that
> >they use production in their shows cos they want to entertain people, just
> >what Noel said because the music of sg is not enough, and oasis really
> >entertained me just standing in the scenario and playing some of the best
> >songs of the decade, if not the century
>
> radiohead & rem entertained me by playing songs i loved, the lights, effects
> and movemenst added to the experience. christy moore entertained me by
> sitting on a stool and playing a guitar. there's no right a wrong way to
> perform live. nobody would go to the spice girls concerts if they didn't
> like the music - the 'show' element just helps those people enjoy things
> even more.
there is no comparison there, radiohead and rem would do a great concert
without production because they're not fake groups; it adds something more to
the show, but what separates true groups from spice girls and their kind is
the latter ones NEED production in their shows to make it great; true groups
don't.
fountainhead
Simon Moore & fountainhead argued thusly.....
>
>fountainhead wrote in message ...
>But I fundamentally disagree that music is 100% subjective. For example,
>the band Radiohead are clearly very talented musicians and lyric writers
>capable of playing with great skill and making very original music (fact),
how can that be a fact? what about all the people who think that they make
whiny generic toss? objectivity is a philosophical myth. It requires a
reasonable man, and everybody will see a different man being reasonable.
>The Sex Pistols music is not worthy of much musical
>artistic merit, even though I find the sound enjoyable. I fail to see what
>is "stuck up" about that concept.
there are those who will say that the raw energy and disregard for
convention shown by the sex pistols puts them amongst the great pioneers of
modern music.
>>>What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is not worthy of any artistic
merit.
>>
>>but oasis' is? why?
>
>Basically because Oasis conceived their sound, music and lyrics themselves.
oasis 'concieved' their sound? so they were the first band to play melodic
guitar based music?
yes, noel writes the music and the lyrics - but somebody does the same for
any band. the spice girls music is as original as oasis'.
>>so what about all the 'intelligent' people that like the spice girls?
what
>>if more 'intelligent' people like the spice grils than like oasis? would
>>that mean that oasis' music was not worthy of artistic merit?
>Again you are confusing the concept of "liking" a type of music, with the
>concept of recognising that a type of music is more worthy of musical merit
>(i.e. because it is original, skillful, cleverly played, or put together in
>an enlightening way). As I said before, there are lots of types of music
>that I consider worthy of great musical and artistic merit, but which I
>don't personally like (classical music, for example). And there are also
>types of music which I consider to be unworthy of musical or artistic
merit,
>but which I still like.
my point is that 'artistic merit' doesn't even enter into things because
it's wholly based on your opinion. i'm not fussed if you think that the
spice girls lack 'artistic merit' - but as long as you persist in trying to
proove it i will continue telling you you are wrong.
>>you're not listening to me. i have never said anything of the sort. i
have
>>never tried to 'rank' any artists in terms of how 'musically worthy' they
>>are, and i've certainly never correlated that with record sales. i
believe
>>that anybody who is making music that people enjoy is as worthy as anybody
>>else doing the same.
>Yes you did. You countered the original arguments about the musical
>integrity of the Spice Girls by saying that the Spice Girls have sold
millions
>of records all over the world.
i did not. what i said was that millions of people liked the spice girls -
so you should respect their right to do so without trying to imply that they
are somehow wanting in musical taste.
>
>>>And for someone who is clearly devoted to listening to everyone
>>>elses opinion, you are not being very fair when you say "I don't care if
>>>anyone else likes my music".
>>i don't care if 99% of the people posting on this group think that
radiohead
>>are depressing, that belle & sebastian are wussy, or that they've never
even
>>heard of slint - what's wrong with that? if other people like these bands
>>then that's great, but i'm not going to lose any sleep if they dont. they
>>have every right not to like it, but i don't think they have any right to
>>say that it is 'unworthy of artistic merit'.
>>are you saying that i'm not showing respect for other people's
>>musical preferences? please explain.
>Well, you've just said that you don't care about them. How can you respect
>something that you don't care about?
what i don't care about is the fact that they don't like the same things
that i like. i do care about their musical preferences - which i why i'm
hear arguing for their right to have them.
>You may well be a brilliant musician for all I know, but I don't see what
>that has to do with your inability to grasp the difference between fact and
>opinion.
i know the difference between fact and opinion - it is you that is trying to
objectify musical ability.
>So you would consider the music of Thom Yorke to be just as worthy of
>musical merit as the sound I have on a cassette of me bashing on an old
>cardboard box and whistling I tune that I just made up? I mean, I think it
>sounds pretty good, but I didnt use much musical prowess to compose it!
you're recording may be a work of genius (although i imagine john cage
thought of it first) music should not have rules. as far as i'm concerned
anything goes - it's down to the listener to decide just how far to go.
>Its actually very simple. You are saying that music is 100% personal
opinion.
>I am saying that it is a combination of personal opinion and fact.
i'd love to say that we could agree to disagree - but, for reasons noted
elsewhere in this post, i cannot.
>I don't believe Oasis to be the best band on earth, although they are OK.
I
>do however believe that music made by Oasis is more worthy of musical merit
>than that made by the Spice Girls because Oasis did it themselves, whereas
>the Spice Girls had a HUGE amount of musical help from their record company
>people.
another crucial diffference between us is that i don't care who is involved
in making the music. it is the music itself which matters.
>If you happen to like the Spice Girls, thats up to you. If you believe
that
>they are as musically competant as Oasis then you are wrong. Their record
>company colleagues may well be - the girls themselves are not.
so where do people like producers come into the equasion? would the beatles
have been as good without george martin? would ok computer have been as
powerful without nigel godrich? what about management? wasn't bernie
epstien an integral part of the beatles? how much do rem owe to bertis
downs and jefferson holt?
in the end all of these people are involved in taking the ideas of the
songwriters and performers and turning them into the music that we buy. the
spice girls may be 99% performance and 1% technicians - but the same can be
said of four members of oasis.
f.
fountainhead
Shabs wrote in message <718kuj$p7b$1...@flint.sentex.net>...
>Okay fountainhead, you say that Bonehead, Guigsy, Alan and Liam do no more
>than the Spice Girls. Do you REALLY believe that?
yes. with many groups it's very difficult to see who has actually written a
song (especially with groups like rem, blur and radiohead who accredit
songwriting to all group members), but there are lots of groups where it's
pretty obvious that one or two members do almost everything.
>The ones who play instruments in
>Oasis are far more talented, and in fact, have talent for what they do.
The
>Spice Girls haven't the talent of being able to sing (I'll give you that
>Sporty can hit high notes and is not tone deaf).
i've heard both oasis and the spice girls live performances - and each have
had their fair share of good and bad nights. there are many factors that
affect the ability of a singer to reproduce 'studio' performances in live
shows. take somebody like ian brown - opinion is divided on whether he is a
brilliant singer, or a dreadful one - but does the fact that he's a bit
dodgy live make the stone roses a bad group?
>You also questioned if Oasis had been "manufactured", would the particular
>fan you were talking to still like Oasis? This is a good point, but one
>that one can critisize. Aerosmith, a decent rock group, doesn't write all
>their songs. This means that there may not be a conformity of sound,
making
>them less of a band. Also, they cannot recieve as much credit and respect.
why not? the idea that a band cannot sing songs written by somebody else is
absurd. not all songwriters are capable of being performers - that can't be
allowed to prevent good songs being heard.
>if I knew that Oasis was manufactured, I would not feel as much with their
>music, and I would not respect thier ability as much. I may get bashed for
>this, but it's true.
then you would be missing out on something. i know we can't help the way we
feel about a band, but i think it's wrong to judge a band on anything other
than their music. people who don't like oasis because they don't like liam
gallagher's attitude are rightly lambasted for that - but you are doing
exactly the same thing.
> Also, I think the thing about using major production to enhance a
>concert could be interpreted a number of ways. The Spice Girls' music
could
>not survive without the production, because their music is mindless pop.
their 'mindless pop' can affect people just as much as any oasis song. the
reaction to 'wannabe' in a 'poppy' club is just as manic as the reaction to
'supersonic' in an indie club. the spice girls like to make their concerts
visually, as well as audably, enjoyable - and that has to be a good thing if
it helps people to have a good time. on the other hand, there are many
'pop' performers who just stand still and do their stuff - yet people still
flock along to the shows in their thousands just to hear the songs and
actually see the singer/s.
>I'd think that major production of an Oasis concert would seem cheesy.
so what about the grandoise sets and flashing lights at some oasis shows?
there's more to 'production' than dancing about a bit. i'll agree that
oasis would be just as good standing on a bare stage - but there are a lot
of people who are put off by the lack of any discernable action at oasis
concerts.
f.
fountainhead
under...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>like Shabs said, I just can't believe that you're comparing Whitey, Guigsy
>and Bonehead with spice girls... they PLAY musical instruments, and the
girls
>just go out of breath (except for sporty) when they sing live;
the oasis lads play, the spice girls sing. are you saying that vocals count
less than instruments? anybody can learn to play an instrument, learning to
sing is a different matter.
>and about
>Liam, if he's backed up by a composer like Noel and players like the rest
of
>the group I think that justifies the fact that he just sings.
so what about the composers and musicians of spice girls songs. the only
difference is that the oasis musicians are part of oasis. it doesn't affect
the songs.
>>>all songs are about melody and listenability, aren't they?
>>
>> no.
>
>what an easy mood you're at. you just say no but never care to explain
>why... and I think that even... well... I don't know, Pantera or groups
like
>that make melodies that have listenability, not for everyone but some find
>them
what about dance music? a lot of it is repetetive and tuneless - it's
designed solely for dancing to. it's not designed to be listened to, and it
doesn't have any melody. furthermore, have you actually heard john cage's
3:33 (or whatever it was) - because i haven't!!
>I wouldn't let my kids buy spice girls records if they're older than 18
(then
>they may be nothing but just a memory)
i trust you're joking.
>> >all the groups and solo performers out there want to earn cash, but what
>> >splits oasis' kind of performers and fake plastic groups is that, in the
>> >end, the first ones are $$$ + music, and the late ones just $$$
>>
>> so you think that oasis would carry on making records if nobody bought
them?
>
>please read first what I said: "the first ones are $$$ + music"
i did read it. now answer my question.
>there is no comparison there, radiohead and rem would do a great concert
>without production because they're not fake groups; it adds something more
to
>the show, but what separates true groups from spice girls and their kind is
>the latter ones NEED production in their shows to make it great; true
groups
>don't.
what about celine dion who just stands there and trots out her stuff without
so much as a shuffle...... to thousands of delighted punters?
f.
fountainhead
Slider wrote in message <3639bf8...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>:what's the difference between a spice girls tune and an oasis tune then?
>:when you strip them both down you end up with a great melody.
>
>Oasis created theirs. The spice girls had someone else create theirs
that's not a difference between the melodies. beside's, oasis don't create
anything - noel creates and oasis perform.
>:>But without the marketing there wouldn't have been the music in the
>:>first place.
>
>:so what?
>
>So they were made popular by the marketeers.
do you think that oasis' first single was silently passed on to record shops
and radio stations without anybody saying 'this is great'?
>:so they'd be ok if the songwriters and instumentalists were part of the
>:band?
>
>Well it would hardly be the spice girls if their team of 10 writers
>and all the session musicians used were included.
why? it would sound the same. when geri left it was still 'the spice
girls' what's wrong with bringing in a few extras?
>:>I think the beatles were pop but Oasis aren't. Oasis are kinda
>:>indie-rock.
>
>:so the beatles (blokes with great tunes and guitars) are pop, but oasis
>:(blokes with guitars and great tunes) are indie-rock. please explain.
>
>Indie doesn't just mean that a band uses guitars. The beatles were
>effectively a boyband marketed as pop.
so oasis were like a male 60's spice girls then? they must have been crap!!
>:>Desire to entertain people had absolutely *nothing* to do with take
>:>that. They auditioned for bits for the money.
>
>:yeah, they just hated the buzz of performing in front of thousands of
>:people. they detested the fact that their songs were loved by millions.
>:none of them ever wanted to be pop singers before take that.
>
>Actually half of them didn't. I said when they auditioned. No doubt
>they liked having the fans.
no they didn't want to be singers. they all piled into some room looking
for the toilets and hey-presto they'd joined take that. can't people have
more than one ambition? don't you think that liam and noel aspired towards
other things as well as rock-stardom? if they were both playing footy for
man city do you think they'd be saying 'well i only ever really wanted to be
in a rock band'?
>>thousands of happy pop-loving clubbers would disagree.
>
>Thousands of happy pop-loving clubbers are high at the time :)
yes they're having a good time. they've sunk a few bevvies and they're
dancing to music which they think sounds great. that is no different to any
indie club or oasis gig.
>:my local record shops sell a hell of a lot more oasis merchandise than
spice
>:girls merchandise.
>
>Cd's don't count :)
>I'm not sure what merchandise you mean, but I doubt if the record
>stores sell pen cases etc. which the spice girls are all over.
no, but there are t-shirts, books, posters, calendars, mugs etc etc.
>You couldn't buy dozens of oasis t-shirts, oasis books, oasis stickers
>etc. when DM came out.
no - but nor could you open up a magazine without seeing 'the best band in
the world' sneering back at you. there's more to hype than pencil cases.
besides, the real explosion of spice girls marketing came after they had
become a very successful band. did you see b*witched dolls in the shop
before their first single? all that will follow if the music takes them to
spice-like proportions.
f.
Simon Moore
-BEN wrote in message <363891...@hotmail.com>...
>Simon Moore wrote:
>>If Mr.Sonic Youth says "Oasis are a boring uninspired band because they
>>are just following a traditional rock band style, and their lyrics are
>>not even very original, I mean "Tonight I'm a rock & roll star" thats
>>not very original is it? Sonic Youth have a very original style of
>>music, and their lyrics are more thought provoking"
>>
>>Then I would reply "Yes, in many cases I would agree". But I would add
>>"however, I don't personally like the sound of Sonic Youth".
>
>FUCK OFF!!!!". ;)
>
>-BEN
.....yes, or you could also say that :-)
-BEN
Simon Moore
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
>Simon Moore & fountainhead argued thusly.....
>>
>>fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
>
>>But I fundamentally disagree that music is 100% subjective. For example,
>>the band Radiohead are clearly very talented musicians and lyric writers
>>capable of playing with great skill and making very original music (fact),
>
>how can that be a fact? what about all the people who think that they make
>whiny generic toss? objectivity is a philosophical myth. It requires a
>reasonable man, and everybody will see a different man being reasonable.
It is quite easy to see how this is a fact. Its a fact that they are
capable of playing with great skill because someone who is not as musically
accomplished (me for example, or maybe an amatuer rock band who play in
pubs) would not be able to play the music from "OK Computer" the way that
Radiohead do. It is also a fact that Radiohead have an original sound,
simply because bands who have gone before them do not sound that way. If
people think their music is "whiny generic toss" then thats their opinion.
I could say that the music of Bach is "boring old fashioned toss", but I
still recognise Bach's skill and genius in composing it, and the skill and
musical prowess of the guy who is playing it now.
If objectivity is a philosophical myth, then nobody would ever need to learn
how to play a musical instrument. I could pick up a clarinet, and bang a
box with it saying "look, I'm playing this clarinet". If anyone challenged
me, saying "no, you dont do it like that, you have to blow into it" then,
according to you I could reply "No - thats just your opinion. Music doesn't
have rules and I like to play it this way". When you were trained in
playing the flute you played it a certain way, which I'm sure you will
agree, is the correct way. That did not require a "reasonable man", that
simply required you to regard the playing of the instrument in an objective
manner.
>>The Sex Pistols music is not worthy of much musical
>>artistic merit, even though I find the sound enjoyable. I fail to see
what
>>is "stuck up" about that concept.
>
>
>there are those who will say that the raw energy and disregard for
>convention shown by the sex pistols puts them amongst the great pioneers of
>modern music.
Thats true, but their disregard for convention does not really come from
their music. The Sex Pistols' music is basically 3 chord rock and roll, and
they were, in any case, basically copying bands like The Stooges who were
around in the late 60's. Their disregard for convention is mostly centred
around their image, and the way that Malcolm McClaren "packaged" them.
Aside from the fact that their records were produced to sound loud and
raucous, and John Lydon's sneery voice (which admittedly is original), their
music per se is pretty standard. Anyone who can strum 3 chords on a guitar
and shout can play Pistols songs. But for all of that my personal opinion
is that I like the sound they make.
>>>>What I said was that the Spice Girl's music is not worthy of any
artistic
>merit.
>>>
>>>but oasis' is? why?
>>
>>Basically because Oasis conceived their sound, music and lyrics
themselves.
>
>
>oasis 'concieved' their sound? so they were the first band to play melodic
>guitar based music?
>yes, noel writes the music and the lyrics - but somebody does the same for
>any band. the spice girls music is as original as oasis'.
When Oasis first arrived on the scene ca.1994 I don't remember any other
bands sounding like them (admittedly now there are several bands who strive
to copy them, Embrace for one). The particular sound that the members of
Oasis made was quite distinct from any other band in terms of the styling of
the guitar solos, the "wall of sound" rhythm guitar sections, and the
combination of Liam's whiny voice and Noel's more melodic one. The Spice
Girl's music is not original. There have been large numbers of songs and
pieces of music released in recent years that are very very similar to those
released by the Spice Girls. For example "Stop Right Now" (or whatever it
was called) is a virtual copy of several songs by Bananarama, and "Spice Up
Your Life" could just as easily be by Gloria Estafan.
>>>so what about all the 'intelligent' people that like the spice girls?
>what
>>>if more 'intelligent' people like the spice grils than like oasis? would
>>>that mean that oasis' music was not worthy of artistic merit?
>
>>Again you are confusing the concept of "liking" a type of music, with the
>>concept of recognising that a type of music is more worthy of musical
merit
>>(i.e. because it is original, skillful, cleverly played, or put together
in
>>an enlightening way). As I said before, there are lots of types of music
>>that I consider worthy of great musical and artistic merit, but which I
>>don't personally like (classical music, for example). And there are also
>>types of music which I consider to be unworthy of musical or artistic
>merit,
>>but which I still like.
>
>
>my point is that 'artistic merit' doesn't even enter into things because
>it's wholly based on your opinion. i'm not fussed if you think that the
>spice girls lack 'artistic merit' - but as long as you persist in trying to
>proove it i will continue telling you you are wrong.
So if I can just about play a guitar and I bash out 3 chords that makes me
as worthy of artistic merit as Jimmy Page or Brian May does it? One wonders
why you ever bothered to be trained as a flautist. Why bother with all that
training when artistic merit is nothing more than opinion? Surely you could
just do a few hours practise, and say "that will do - I'm a brilliant
flautist in my opinion!"
>>>you're not listening to me. i have never said anything of the sort. i
>have
>>>never tried to 'rank' any artists in terms of how 'musically worthy' they
>>>are, and i've certainly never correlated that with record sales. i
>believe
>>>that anybody who is making music that people enjoy is as worthy as
anybody
>>>else doing the same.
>
>>Yes you did. You countered the original arguments about the musical
>>integrity of the Spice Girls by saying that the Spice Girls have sold
>millions
>>of records all over the world.
>
>i did not. what i said was that millions of people liked the spice girls -
>so you should respect their right to do so without trying to imply that
they
>are somehow wanting in musical taste.
They can "like" whatever they wish. I have quite a number of CD's in my
collection which contain music that I would regard as having no artistic or
musical merit whatsoever. But I still like the sound, and I enjoy playing
them.
>>>>And for someone who is clearly devoted to listening to everyone
>>>>elses opinion, you are not being very fair when you say "I don't care if
>>>>anyone else likes my music".
>
>
>>>i don't care if 99% of the people posting on this group think that
>radiohead
>>>are depressing, that belle & sebastian are wussy, or that they've never
>even
>>>heard of slint - what's wrong with that? if other people like these
bands
>>>then that's great, but i'm not going to lose any sleep if they dont.
they
>>>have every right not to like it, but i don't think they have any right to
>>>say that it is 'unworthy of artistic merit'.
>>>are you saying that i'm not showing respect for other people's
>>>musical preferences? please explain.
>
>>Well, you've just said that you don't care about them. How can you
respect
>>something that you don't care about?
>
>
>what i don't care about is the fact that they don't like the same things
>that i like. i do care about their musical preferences - which i why i'm
>hear arguing for their right to have them.
They can have them. I have no problem whatsoever with people liking the
sound of any music they care to mention. But, as I have said umpteen times,
you can quite easily like something that is musically inept, and in just the
same way you can dislike something that is musically extremely worthy.
>>You may well be a brilliant musician for all I know, but I don't see what
>>that has to do with your inability to grasp the difference between fact
and
>>opinion.
>
>i know the difference between fact and opinion - it is you that is trying
to
>objectify musical ability.
Not just me. I would say that every single music teacher in the world does
that. Are you saying that they are all talking crap?
>>So you would consider the music of Thom Yorke to be just as worthy of
>>musical merit as the sound I have on a cassette of me bashing on an old
>>cardboard box and whistling I tune that I just made up? I mean, I think
it
>>sounds pretty good, but I didnt use much musical prowess to compose it!
>
>
>you're recording may be a work of genius (although i imagine john cage
>thought of it first) music should not have rules. as far as i'm concerned
>anything goes - it's down to the listener to decide just how far to go.
Its down to the listener to say "yes I like it" or "no I dont like it". And
I agree that music does not have to have rules, however, I don't think its
too much beyond most people's grasp to understand when skill, originality,
artistic prowess and genius have played a part, and when they have not.
George Martin added some finesse to the Beatles, but I don't believe they
would have been fundamentally different without him. I have seen Radiohead
doing tracks from OK Computer live and they didnt come across as
fundamentally different from on the CD. Brian Epstein (I don't know Bernie)
had nothing to do with the Beatles music, he was basically involved in
negotiating and management. Having never heard REM except on CD I cannot
comment on them.
>in the end all of these people are involved in taking the ideas of the
>songwriters and performers and turning them into the music that we buy.
the
>spice girls may be 99% performance and 1% technicians - but the same can be
>said of four members of oasis.
>
>f.
Without wishing to sound like a massive Oasis fan (I do like them but I am
not crazy about them), that is complete and utter rubbish. What do the Spice
Girls actually do? Well, they write the IDEAS for the lyrics (not the
lyrics themselves), and they sing the songs. That is all. In the case of
Oasis, Noel writes the music and the lyrics, all of the band members play
the instruments and do backing vocals to either Liam or Noel, Noel also
comes up with the arrangements, and all the members of the band are either
involved with the final production, or do the production themselves.
It is quite clear that you have some very extreme problem with the idea that
not everything comes down to personal opinion. You also seem to have an
idea that I want to prevent people from having their own opinions. Perhaps
I should make some things perfectly clear:
1: I have no problem with people having their own opinions.
2: I have no problem with people liking or listening to whatever music they
choose.
3: I have no desire to try to change the music that people are listening to,
or to "convert" them into liking what you could call "my type of music"
(whatever that means).
However, I do believe that there is an objectivity regarding what
constitutes original, well (or skillfully) played music, or musical ability,
all of which can be bracketed together as "musical (or artistic) merit".
I agree entirely that one can produce music in anyway one chooses and that
one should not have to "follow rules", but that does not detract from that
stated in the foregoing paragraph.
I also believe that just because you like something, that does not mean you
should refuse to accept that it may be musically lacking in merit (defined
as above).
In some ways, its a bit like eating a Big Mac. You know it's crap unhealthy
food, but you still like it!
SM
phikap176
the discussion is about people liking certain music.
I think the spice girls do what they do well. Remember though, they
are a creation. They all had to audition and have a certain look. I
think they even had to take singing lessens. This shows that they
aren't really running their own show. Many of their songs can be
viewed as cheesy. Yet they are very cool, I suppose for young teens.
It isn't really about the music with them as it is with Oasis,
Radiohead (who I also don't like). I see the Spice Girls as excellent
performers (I don't like them but they are talentend performers). I
view Oasis as talented musicians. Oasis act is more on musical merit
alone. If the Spice Girls weren't the spice girls and they were just
another band that was trying to make it on its own they wouldn't have
been succuesful.
The Spice Girls to me are a fad. Geri leaving was the best thing that
ever happened to them because it regave them popularity when people
were started getting tired of them.
Noel might have been wrong to say that bands who use production during
concerts can't entertain solely on music. It is different with the
Spice Girls because they are all about production, stage acts, and
canned hype.
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
Acquiesce
talented band. A band is a group of MUSICIANS who create their own music
and lyrics. PERFORMERS are a bunch of people who sing other people's
music with some shitty melodic tune made from a synthesizer on top of
it. You decide which band, Oasis or The Spice Girls, are the performers.
See Ya,
Acquiesce.
--
Acquiesce
> the oasis lads play, the spice girls sing. are you saying that vocals count
> less than instruments? anybody can learn to play an instrument, learning to
> sing is a different matter.
That maybe true, but how many people can actually claim to play a
musical instrument WELL? I would hazard a guess that 90% of the
population of England could be trained to sing correctly, it's just that
about 90% of that 90% can't be arsed to learn the proper methods.
See Ya,
Acquiesce.
Simon Moore
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
>
>>like Shabs said, I just can't believe that you're comparing Whitey, Guigsy
>>and Bonehead with spice girls... they PLAY musical instruments, and the
>girls
>>just go out of breath (except for sporty) when they sing live;
>
count
>less than instruments? anybody can learn to play an instrument, learning
to
>sing is a different matter.
Anybody can LEARN to play an instrument, true. At the end of the day, can
they be taught to play it well?
If "playing it well" means nothing, then why the hell learn to play at all?
>>and about
>>Liam, if he's backed up by a composer like Noel and players like the rest
>of
>>the group I think that justifies the fact that he just sings.
>
>
>so what about the composers and musicians of spice girls songs. the only
>difference is that the oasis musicians are part of oasis. it doesn't
affect
>the songs.
The kids who buy Spice Girls records think that the girls themselves ARE the
Spice Girls. They think that the girls are the be all and end all. But
they are not, as we have said before, there are loads of backroom people
involved. This is not the case with Oasis.
>>>>all songs are about melody and listenability, aren't they?
>>>
>>> no.
>>
>>what an easy mood you're at. you just say no but never care to explain
>>why... and I think that even... well... I don't know, Pantera or groups
>like
>>that make melodies that have listenability, not for everyone but some find
>>them
>
>
>what about dance music? a lot of it is repetetive and tuneless - it's
>designed solely for dancing to. it's not designed to be listened to, and
it
>doesn't have any melody. furthermore, have you actually heard john cage's
>3:33 (or whatever it was) - because i haven't!!
All rock music is repetitive in the sense that it is based around "verse
chorus verse chorus". And in any case, I find a lot of dance music
extremely listenable. "Born Slippy" by Underworld is something I listen to
very often. I can't say I have ever found it lacking, or found that I would
only enjoy it if I was dancing to it.
John Cage's 3:33 (the silent track) is obviously complete bollocks. I know
it may be extremely arty to say "oh look I have composed a piece of music
that is just silence", but lets get real here. Its a bit like a sculptor
showing you a piece of empty space and saying "Look, its my new sculpture".
Pretentious rubbish.
>>I wouldn't let my kids buy spice girls records if they're older than 18
>(then
>>they may be nothing but just a memory)
>
>
>i trust you're joking.
If I had kids who wanted to buy Spice Girls records, then (a) I would think
"hmmm...I can't remember giving them that lobotomy", and (b) seriously
though, if they saved up their pocket money and bought them, then thats up
to them. If they insisted that I listened to them I would probably turn the
Spice Girls CD's into ornametal ashtrays which is all they are fucking good
for.
>>> >all the groups and solo performers out there want to earn cash, but
what
>>> >splits oasis' kind of performers and fake plastic groups is that, in
the
>>> >end, the first ones are $$$ + music, and the late ones just $$$
>>>
>>> so you think that oasis would carry on making records if nobody bought
>them?
Probably not, but they would very likely carry on writing songs and playing
them on an amatuer basis. After all, that is what Oasis were doing before
they hit the big time.
>>please read first what I said: "the first ones are $$$ + music"
>
>i did read it. now answer my question.
Raises a handbag up to his chin and says "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!"
>>there is no comparison there, radiohead and rem would do a great concert
>>without production because they're not fake groups; it adds something more
>to
>>the show, but what separates true groups from spice girls and their kind
is
>>the latter ones NEED production in their shows to make it great; true
>groups
>>don't.
>
>
>what about celine dion who just stands there and trots out her stuff
without
>so much as a shuffle...... to thousands of delighted punters?
I own a table lamp with more talent than Celine Dion.
This is, of course, all written after a session at the pub, afterwhich I am
pissed off with trying to be reasonable and gritting my teeth trying to be
polite. "You always get the truth from drunk people and children" so the
saying goes, and at 33 I am too fucking old to be called a child, although
if you think I am one, I shall take it as a compliment.
SM
fountainhead
phikap176 wrote in message ...
>I think fountainhead is missing a simple point here. I don't think
>the discussion is about people liking certain music.
the point, as far as i'm concerned, is that simon is argueing (eloquently,
but misguidedly) that certain music is objectively superior than certain
other music.
f.
fountainhead
Simon Moore & fountainhead continued their streetside brawl like
this........
>>>But I fundamentally disagree that music is 100% subjective. For example,
>>>the band Radiohead are clearly very talented musicians and lyric writers
>>>capable of playing with great skill and making very original music
(fact),
>>
>>how can that be a fact? what about all the people who think that they
make
>>whiny generic toss? objectivity is a philosophical myth. It requires a
>>reasonable man, and everybody will see a different man being reasonable.
>
>It is quite easy to see how this is a fact. Its a fact that they are
>capable of playing with great skill because someone who is not as musically
>accomplished (me for example, or maybe an amatuer rock band who play in
>pubs) would not be able to play the music from "OK Computer" the way that
>Radiohead do. It is also a fact that Radiohead have an original sound,
>simply because bands who have gone before them do not sound that way. If
>people think their music is "whiny generic toss" then thats their opinion.
<hypothetical>
i think that radiohead are utter toss. i think that their music is dull and
uninspiring. i think that thom yorke whines (badly) rather than sings. i
think that the drumming is basic and dull. i think that the rest of the
instruments are played, at best, competently. i don't think they ever have,
or ever will, contribute anything useful to the music world. in my eyes
these are facts. prove me wrong. prove that your facts are right and mine
are wrong.
</hypothetical>
>I could say that the music of Bach is "boring old fashioned toss", but I
>still recognise Bach's skill and genius in composing it, and the skill and
>musical prowess of the guy who is playing it now.
so why don't you recognise the skill and genius of the person who wrote
'wannabe' and the musical prowess of the girls who are singing it?
>If objectivity is a philosophical myth, then nobody would ever need to
learn
>how to play a musical instrument. I could pick up a clarinet, and bang a
>box with it saying "look, I'm playing this clarinet". If anyone challenged
>me, saying "no, you dont do it like that, you have to blow into it" then,
>according to you I could reply "No - thats just your opinion. Music
doesn't
>have rules and I like to play it this way".
correct - and having started playing the clarinet recently, i'm inclined to
feel that your way might be better.
>When you were trained in
>playing the flute you played it a certain way, which I'm sure you will
>agree, is the correct way.
it was the correct way for me, because i wanted to play tunes on it - and
it's pretty tough to master a Leclair sonata without blowing into the thing.
i now play it somewhat differently because i'm playing different music. my
old flute teacher would kill me if she heard some of the sounds i've made
recently. she'd say i was doing it wrong, and i'd say that i was only doing
it wrong in her opinion.
>>there are those who will say that the raw energy and disregard for
>>convention shown by the sex pistols puts them amongst the great pioneers
of
>>modern music.
>
>Thats true, but their disregard for convention does not really come from
>their music. The Sex Pistols' music is basically 3 chord rock and roll, and
>they were, in any case, basically copying bands like The Stooges who were
>around in the late 60's. Their disregard for convention is mostly centred
>around their image, and the way that Malcolm McClaren "packaged" them.
>Aside from the fact that their records were produced to sound loud and
>raucous, and John Lydon's sneery voice (which admittedly is original),
their
>music per se is pretty standard. Anyone who can strum 3 chords on a guitar
>and shout can play Pistols songs. But for all of that my personal opinion
>is that I like the sound they make.
so why are their records often said to be amongst the most important of the
last 20 years? that image means nothing when the music is played.
>>oasis 'concieved' their sound? so they were the first band to play
melodic
>>guitar based music?
>>yes, noel writes the music and the lyrics - but somebody does the same for
>>any band. the spice girls music is as original as oasis'.
>
>When Oasis first arrived on the scene ca.1994 I don't remember any other
>bands sounding like them (admittedly now there are several bands who strive
>to copy them, Embrace for one).
it's prety obvious that noel had spent a hell of a lot of time listening to
the likes of the beatles, t-rex and the sex pistols. oasis were always
good - but never really original.
>>my point is that 'artistic merit' doesn't even enter into things because
>>it's wholly based on your opinion. i'm not fussed if you think that the
>>spice girls lack 'artistic merit' - but as long as you persist in trying
to
>>proove it i will continue telling you you are wrong.
>
>So if I can just about play a guitar and I bash out 3 chords that makes me
>as worthy of artistic merit as Jimmy Page or Brian May does it?
if you, or anybody else, thinks that the sounds you're making are better
than the sounds made by messers page and may, nobody can prove them wrong.
i think that the intro to 'street spirit' - which even i can play on a
guitar - is a million times better than any complicated and elaborate guitar
solo i've heard. however, your view would suggest that it was far less
'worthy'.
>One wonders
>why you ever bothered to be trained as a flautist. Why bother with all
that
>training when artistic merit is nothing more than opinion? Surely you
could
>just do a few hours practise, and say "that will do - I'm a brilliant
>flautist in my opinion!"
well 'in my opinion' i wouldn't have been a brilliant flautist - which is
why i spent many years learning. if the random blowing and screaching style
that i now adopt occasionally works in a song, then it is as 'worthy' as any
great classical piece i've played.
>They can "like" whatever they wish. I have quite a number of CD's in my
>collection which contain music that I would regard as having no artistic or
>musical merit whatsoever. But I still like the sound, and I enjoy playing
>them.
if you like the sound then you must recognise the atistry that went into
it - otherwise how can you distinguish it from the recording of me banging a
shoe against a radioator and shouting 'yidiaho' that i'm preparing for you?
>>what i don't care about is the fact that they don't like the same things
>>that i like. i do care about their musical preferences - which i why i'm
>>hear arguing for their right to have them.
>
>They can have them. I have no problem whatsoever with people liking the
>sound of any music they care to mention. But, as I have said umpteen
times,
>you can quite easily like something that is musically inept, and in just
the
>same way you can dislike something that is musically extremely worthy.
i know you're happy with people liking anything they like - but you're still
hell bent on saying that some music is objectively inferior. if you think
that something i listen to is crap, then i don't mind. if you say that it
is crap (fact) then i do.
>>i know the difference between fact and opinion - it is you that is trying
>>to objectify musical ability.
>
>Not just me.
<background stuff - feel free to ignore>
my dismissal of the concept of 'objectivity' originated from various
discussions i had about legal philosophy at university. there is a theory
that there are certain fundamental 'goods' in this world that are
objectively justified (such as it being wrong to kill someone) but, whilst
it is an attractive theory, it's wholly wrong. nothing can be objectively
justified or proven. you might argue that any 'resonable man' would say
that hitler was a bad person, and that mother theresa was a good person -
but what about gerry adams? margaret thatcher? princess diana? i could
say that all three are good, or all three are bad - neither would be truly
unreasonable.
the point of my saying this is that it is impossible to draw a line at any
point between mother theresa and hitler were one can 'objectively' judge
people. there is no reasonable man, hence nothing can be proven
'objectively'
</background stuff - you can start reading again>
>I would say that every single music teacher in the world does
>that. Are you saying that they are all talking crap?
yes. and i told mine they were talking crap on numerous occasions.
>>you're recording may be a work of genius (although i imagine john cage
>>thought of it first) music should not have rules. as far as i'm
concerned
>>anything goes - it's down to the listener to decide just how far to go.
>
>Its down to the listener to say "yes I like it" or "no I dont like it".
And
>I agree that music does not have to have rules, however, I don't think its
>too much beyond most people's grasp to understand when skill, originality,
>artistic prowess and genius have played a part, and when they have not.
but it's your interpretation of skill etc. who are you to say that what
noel gallagher does involves great skill, yet what john cage did simply
required a pretensious lunatic with a piano?
>>so where do people like producers come into the equasion? would the
beatles
>>have been as good without george martin? would ok computer have been as
>>powerful without nigel godrich? what about management? wasn't bernie
>>epstien an integral part of the beatles? how much do rem owe to bertis
>>downs and jefferson holt?
>
>George Martin added some finesse to the Beatles, but I don't believe they
>would have been fundamentally different without him. I have seen Radiohead
>doing tracks from OK Computer live and they didnt come across as
>fundamentally different from on the CD. Brian Epstein (I don't know
Bernie)
>had nothing to do with the Beatles music, he was basically involved in
>negotiating and management. Having never heard REM except on CD I cannot
>comment on them.
you don't seem to think that cd's matter. for me, the recording is far more
important than the live show - as i hear the recordings every day. we don't
know how much effect these people have on the sound of the respective bands.
>
>>in the end all of these people are involved in taking the ideas of the
>>songwriters and performers and turning them into the music that we buy.
the
>>spice girls may be 99% performance and 1% technicians - but the same can
be
>>said of four members of oasis.
>Without wishing to sound like a massive Oasis fan (I do like them but I am
>not crazy about them), that is complete and utter rubbish. What do the
Spice
>Girls actually do? Well, they write the IDEAS for the lyrics (not the
>lyrics themselves), and they sing the songs. That is all. In the case of
>Oasis, Noel writes the music and the lyrics, all of the band members play
>the instruments and do backing vocals to either Liam or Noel, Noel also
>comes up with the arrangements, and all the members of the band are either
>involved with the final production, or do the production themselves.
and what is the difference between that and what the spice girls do? all
the rest of the lads are doing is what noel tells them to do - which is
exactly what the spice girls do.
>However, I do believe that there is an objectivity regarding what
>constitutes original, well (or skillfully) played music, or musical
ability,
>all of which can be bracketed together as "musical (or artistic) merit".
>
>I agree entirely that one can produce music in anyway one chooses and that
>one should not have to "follow rules", but that does not detract from that
>stated in the foregoing paragraph.
i think it does. you seem to say that it's ok to veer away from
convention - but if you do so you are (or may be) inferior to those who do
not. your view would suggest that arab strap are musically inferior to
sleeper. i have real trouble with that idea.
>I also believe that just because you like something, that does not mean you
>should refuse to accept that it may be musically lacking in merit (defined
>as above).
the brackets at the end of that sentence sum up the flaw in your arguement
better than i ever could. where does your definition of artictic merit come
from? it is clearly different from mine. you are saying that my definition
of artistic merit is subjective, but your definition is objective. why?
why am i being unreasonable?
f.
Simon Moore
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
Most of your facts stated in the above paragraph are correct. "They are
utter toss", I assume is just a slang way of saying "I dont like them" and
is hence your opinion. Whilst Radiohead's music is cleverly written and
difficult to play, it certainly comes over as dull. "Uninspiring" is your
opinion. Some people might find dull droning depressing music inspires
them, who knows? Their drumming is pretty basic (which is in sharp contrast
to the other instruments that they use. They play their instruments
competantly, correct. And no, they haven't contributed anything useful to
the music world. The use of dull dirge-like music has already been
championed by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd in the early 70's. I can't say they
never will, because I can't see into the future. The main reason that
people are so mad about Radiohead is generally because (a) the music press
says they are wonderful, and (b) most of the people who love Radiohead did
not experience the dull drones of Mr.Waters and similar bands the first time
round.
>>I could say that the music of Bach is "boring old fashioned toss", but I
>>still recognise Bach's skill and genius in composing it, and the skill and
>>musical prowess of the guy who is playing it now.
>
>
>so why don't you recognise the skill and genius of the person who wrote
>'wannabe' and the musical prowess of the girls who are singing it?
Becuase Wannabe did not require skill or genius to compose. Its a very
simple piece based around a basic 3 chord dance tune with some
pseudo-rapping added on top. The girls who sing it cannot actually sing
well at all. I heard the Spice Girls doing "Wannabe" live on a TV show a
couple of years ago and they couldn't even sing the right notes or do the
harmonies. However, when I have seen Oasis live the sound is no different
to that on their recorded work.
>>If objectivity is a philosophical myth, then nobody would ever need to
>learn
>>how to play a musical instrument. I could pick up a clarinet, and bang a
>>box with it saying "look, I'm playing this clarinet". If anyone
challenged
>>me, saying "no, you dont do it like that, you have to blow into it" then,
>>according to you I could reply "No - thats just your opinion. Music
>doesn't
>>have rules and I like to play it this way".
>
>correct - and having started playing the clarinet recently, i'm inclined to
>feel that your way might be better.
Why don't you do that then? Why did you even start playing it in the usual
way?
>>When you were trained in
>>playing the flute you played it a certain way, which I'm sure you will
>>agree, is the correct way.
>
>it was the correct way for me, because i wanted to play tunes on it
Well, according to you, you could have used it to hit a xylophone! You have
just said "It was the correct way for me because I wanted to play tunes on
it" thereby stating that there IS in fact one correct way to use the item in
order to play tunes/music. Therefore this did NOT come down to your or
anyone elses opinion.
Probably because of the way they influenced rock music. Before the Pistols
a lot of people who had a yearning to be in a band wouldn't have formed one
because they felt they were not as good at playing their instruments as the
"big" names in rock. But having heard the Pistols (who were not
particularly musically talented) making an enjoyable racket they started a
band of their own. That is exactly why bands like Simple Minds, U2 and even
Simply Red (so he says) started out originally.
Whilst it's true that the image means nothing when the music is played, it
is, however true that anyone who bought a Sex Pistols record would have
known about their image (it's unlikely that many people would have bought
"Anarchy In The UK" expecting it to sound similar to Genesis!
>>>oasis 'concieved' their sound? so they were the first band to play
>melodic
>>>guitar based music?
>>>yes, noel writes the music and the lyrics - but somebody does the same
for
>>>any band. the spice girls music is as original as oasis'.
>>
>>When Oasis first arrived on the scene ca.1994 I don't remember any other
>>bands sounding like them (admittedly now there are several bands who
strive
>>to copy them, Embrace for one).
>
>it's prety obvious that noel had spent a hell of a lot of time listening to
>the likes of the beatles, t-rex and the sex pistols. oasis were always
>good - but never really original.
He may well have been influenced by those bands (although, personally, I
could never see any similarity between the Beatles and Oasis until it was
pointed out in the music press), but the way that Oasis put the songs
together was definately original. The first time I saw Oasis was at
Glastonbury in 1994 (having never even heard their name prior to that day),
and my reaction to them at that time was that they did sound quite different
from other bands who were popular at that time.
>>>my point is that 'artistic merit' doesn't even enter into things because
>>>it's wholly based on your opinion. i'm not fussed if you think that the
>>>spice girls lack 'artistic merit' - but as long as you persist in trying
>to
>>>proove it i will continue telling you you are wrong.
>>
>>So if I can just about play a guitar and I bash out 3 chords that makes me
>>as worthy of artistic merit as Jimmy Page or Brian May does it?
>
>if you, or anybody else, thinks that the sounds you're making are better
>than the sounds made by messers page and may, nobody can prove them wrong.
>i think that the intro to 'street spirit' - which even i can play on a
>guitar - is a million times better than any complicated and elaborate
guitar
>solo i've heard. however, your view would suggest that it was far less
>'worthy'.
But "the sounds are better" simply implies that you have a personal liking
for them, which is something that I have said time and again is not the
point about which I am arguing. I personally prefer the sound made by Marc
Riley on the early Fall albums to the sounds made by Jimmy Page on "Stairway
to Heaven", but I still acknowledge that Mr.Page was more musically skilled
than Mr.Riley in doing it.
>>One wonders
>>why you ever bothered to be trained as a flautist. Why bother with all
>that
>>training when artistic merit is nothing more than opinion? Surely you
>could
>>just do a few hours practise, and say "that will do - I'm a brilliant
>>flautist in my opinion!"
>well 'in my opinion' i wouldn't have been a brilliant flautist - which is
>why i spent many years learning. if the random blowing and screaching
style
>that i now adopt occasionally works in a song, then it is as 'worthy' as
any
>great classical piece i've played.
Yes, but you wouldn't have been able to play those great classical pieces if
you had not been trained, and in being trained you must have had to reach a
certain standard, and this standard must have been objectively defined and
not governed by opinion.
>>They can "like" whatever they wish. I have quite a number of CD's in my
>>collection which contain music that I would regard as having no artistic
or
>>musical merit whatsoever. But I still like the sound, and I enjoy playing
>>them.
>if you like the sound then you must recognise the atistry that went into
>it - otherwise how can you distinguish it from the recording of me banging
a
>shoe against a radioator and shouting 'yidiaho' that i'm preparing for you?
Because "liking" something is purely personal opinion. I may like the shoe
and radiator song, or I may think it's shit. Both of these statements would
be opinions. It is a fact that it didnt take you much skill and effort to
come up with the song. I like "The House The Man Built" by Conflict, but I
am quite happy to say that, although I like it, there is no artistry or
skill involved it in.
>>>what i don't care about is the fact that they don't like the same things
>>>that i like. i do care about their musical preferences - which i why i'm
>>>hear arguing for their right to have them.
>>
>>They can have them. I have no problem whatsoever with people liking the
>>sound of any music they care to mention. But, as I have said umpteen
>times,
>>you can quite easily like something that is musically inept, and in just
>the
>>same way you can dislike something that is musically extremely worthy.
>
>i know you're happy with people liking anything they like - but you're
still
>hell bent on saying that some music is objectively inferior. if you think
>that something i listen to is crap, then i don't mind. if you say that it
>is crap (fact) then i do.
But as far as you're concerned, the end result is the same. i.e. I think you
listen to crap music.
I don't really see what your big problem is. I listen to some crap music
myself, the difference is, although I enjoy it I have no problem with saying
"....but I recognise that, musically, its crap".
>>>i know the difference between fact and opinion - it is you that is trying
>>>to objectify musical ability.
I'm not sure you do.
>>Not just me.
>
><background stuff - feel free to ignore>
>my dismissal of the concept of 'objectivity' originated from various
>discussions i had about legal philosophy at university. there is a theory
>that there are certain fundamental 'goods' in this world that are
>objectively justified (such as it being wrong to kill someone) but, whilst
>it is an attractive theory, it's wholly wrong. nothing can be objectively
>justified or proven. you might argue that any 'resonable man' would say
>that hitler was a bad person, and that mother theresa was a good person -
>but what about gerry adams? margaret thatcher? princess diana? i could
>say that all three are good, or all three are bad - neither would be truly
>unreasonable.
>
>the point of my saying this is that it is impossible to draw a line at any
>point between mother theresa and hitler were one can 'objectively' judge
>people. there is no reasonable man, hence nothing can be proven
>'objectively'
There is a large difference between concepts like morality and a concept
like recognising musical skill and ability. I agree fully that "it is wrong
to kill people" is simply a statement of what most people would think, and
not a universal truth. But recognising musical skill and effort is no
different to recognising any other type of skill and effort.
></background stuff - you can start reading again>
>
>>I would say that every single music teacher in the world does
>>that. Are you saying that they are all talking crap?
>yes. and i told mine they were talking crap on numerous occasions.
>>>you're recording may be a work of genius (although i imagine john cage
>>>thought of it first) music should not have rules. as far as i'm
>concerned
>>>anything goes - it's down to the listener to decide just how far to go.
>>
>>Its down to the listener to say "yes I like it" or "no I dont like it".
>And
>>I agree that music does not have to have rules, however, I don't think its
>>too much beyond most people's grasp to understand when skill, originality,
>>artistic prowess and genius have played a part, and when they have not.
>
>but it's your interpretation of skill etc. who are you to say that what
>noel gallagher does involves great skill, yet what john cage did simply
>required a pretensious lunatic with a piano?
No I'm saying that what Noel Gallagher does involves greater skill than what
the four members of the Spice Girls do.
>>>so where do people like producers come into the equasion? would the
>beatles
>>>have been as good without george martin? would ok computer have been as
>>>powerful without nigel godrich? what about management? wasn't bernie
>>>epstien an integral part of the beatles? how much do rem owe to bertis
>>>downs and jefferson holt?
>>
>>George Martin added some finesse to the Beatles, but I don't believe they
>>would have been fundamentally different without him. I have seen
Radiohead
>>doing tracks from OK Computer live and they didnt come across as
>>fundamentally different from on the CD. Brian Epstein (I don't know
>Bernie)
>>had nothing to do with the Beatles music, he was basically involved in
>>negotiating and management. Having never heard REM except on CD I cannot
>>comment on them.
>
>you don't seem to think that cd's matter. for me, the recording is far
more
>important than the live show - as i hear the recordings every day. we
don't
>know how much effect these people have on the sound of the respective
bands.
Rubbish, I never said CDs didn't matter. What I said was: if you listen to
a band live, and their sound is not significantly different from their
recorded sound then it is unlikely that producers etc. have a great effect
on the band.
>>>in the end all of these people are involved in taking the ideas of the
>>>songwriters and performers and turning them into the music that we buy.
>the
>>>spice girls may be 99% performance and 1% technicians - but the same can
>be
>>>said of four members of oasis.
>
>
>>Without wishing to sound like a massive Oasis fan (I do like them but I am
>>not crazy about them), that is complete and utter rubbish. What do the
>Spice
>>Girls actually do? Well, they write the IDEAS for the lyrics (not the
>>lyrics themselves), and they sing the songs. That is all. In the case
of
>>Oasis, Noel writes the music and the lyrics, all of the band members play
>>the instruments and do backing vocals to either Liam or Noel, Noel also
>>comes up with the arrangements, and all the members of the band are either
>>involved with the final production, or do the production themselves.
>
>
>and what is the difference between that and what the spice girls do? all
>the rest of the lads are doing is what noel tells them to do - which is
>exactly what the spice girls do.
Good grief! I have just told you what the difference is: Re-read the
above, I can't be bothered to type it all out again.
>>However, I do believe that there is an objectivity regarding what
>>constitutes original, well (or skillfully) played music, or musical
>ability,
>>all of which can be bracketed together as "musical (or artistic) merit".
>>
>>I agree entirely that one can produce music in anyway one chooses and that
>>one should not have to "follow rules", but that does not detract from that
>>stated in the foregoing paragraph.
>
>i think it does. you seem to say that it's ok to veer away from
>convention - but if you do so you are (or may be) inferior to those who do
>not.
No, I never said that.
your view would suggest that arab strap are musically inferior to
>sleeper. i have real trouble with that idea.
They are. Sleeper are more musically talented but I don't find them very
interesting. Arab Strap are definately less talented than Sleeper, but
given the choice of the two bands I would choose Arab Strap.
>>I also believe that just because you like something, that does not mean
you
>>should refuse to accept that it may be musically lacking in merit (defined
>>as above).
>the brackets at the end of that sentence sum up the flaw in your arguement
>better than i ever could. where does your definition of artictic merit
come
>from? it is clearly different from mine. you are saying that my
definition
>of artistic merit is subjective, but your definition is objective. why?
Actually the brackets were simply there in anticipation of you saying "what
does "merit" mean?".
Your view seems to be that it doesn't matter how skillfull or artistic you
are, as long as somebody likes the sound you make. Fundamentally I have no
problem with this; I thought that the pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery
looked quite good. But I also recognise that a sculptor like Henry Moore
had a lot more artistic talent than the guy who arranged the bricks.
Similarly in music, I find "Born Slippy" by Underworld is no less enjoyable
than "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" by Pink Floyd, but I recognise that the
latter involved a lot more skill and effort to achieve it.
If your theory is correct then there is no point in learning to play an
instrument "properly" because "properly" doesnt exist; it is just someone's
opinion. If one extends this theory further you may as well say "there is
no point in playing an instrument at all - lets just have CD's with silence
on (like that John Cage thing)" and if anyone claimed "hang on - this is
crap, its just silence" you could reply "just it may be just silence but
thinking that idea up took just as much artistry as the guy who wrote "Dark
Side of The Moon". "
SM
fountainhead
Simon Moore wrote in message <71f4sq$btr$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>><hypothetical>
>>i think that radiohead are utter toss. i think that their music is dull
and
>>uninspiring. i think that thom yorke whines (badly) rather than sings. i
>>think that the drumming is basic and dull. i think that the rest of the
>>instruments are played, at best, competently. i don't think they ever
have,
>>or ever will, contribute anything useful to the music world. in my eyes
>>these are facts. prove me wrong. prove that your facts are right and
mine
>>are wrong.
>></hypothetical>
>Most of your facts stated in the above paragraph are correct. "They are
>utter toss", I assume is just a slang way of saying "I dont like them" and
>is hence your opinion. Whilst Radiohead's music is cleverly written and
>difficult to play, it certainly comes over as dull. "Uninspiring" is your
>opinion. Some people might find dull droning depressing music inspires
>them, who knows? Their drumming is pretty basic (which is in sharp
contrast
>to the other instruments that they use. They play their instruments
>competantly, correct. And no, they haven't contributed anything useful to
>the music world. The use of dull dirge-like music has already been
>championed by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd in the early 70's.
<hypothetical 2>
i think that radiohead are the finest rock band there has ever been. their
music is a fascinating combination of power, emotion and creativity. no
band has ever mixed their intelligence and eloquence with such awe-inspiring
instrumentals. thmo yorke is a brilliant and unique vocallist, and the rest
of the band play their instruments superbly. these are the facts as i see
them. why are they wrong?
</hyopthetical 2>
>>>I could say that the music of Bach is "boring old fashioned toss", but I
>>>still recognise Bach's skill and genius in composing it, and the skill
and
>>>musical prowess of the guy who is playing it now.
>>
>>so why don't you recognise the skill and genius of the person who wrote
>>'wannabe' and the musical prowess of the girls who are singing it?
>
>Becuase Wannabe did not require skill or genius to compose. Its a very
>simple piece based around a basic 3 chord dance tune with some
>pseudo-rapping added on top.
but millions of people love it. it turned the spice girls from unknown
hopefulls into one of the biggest bands in the world. how can you say that
there is no skill and genius involved? do you think that you can write
music that has that effect?
>>I could pick up a clarinet, and bang a
>>>box with it saying "look, I'm playing this clarinet". If anyone
challenged
>>>me, saying "no, you dont do it like that, you have to blow into it" then,
>>>according to you I could reply "No - thats just your opinion. Music
>>doesn't have rules and I like to play it this way".
>>
>>correct - and having started playing the clarinet recently, i'm inclined
to
>>feel that your way might be better.
>
>Why don't you do that then?
because i don't want to play it like that.
>>>When you were trained in
>>>playing the flute you played it a certain way, which I'm sure you will
>>>agree, is the correct way.
>>
>>it was the correct way for me, because i wanted to play tunes on it
>
>Well, according to you, you could have used it to hit a xylophone! You
have
>just said "It was the correct way for me because I wanted to play tunes on
>it" thereby stating that there IS in fact one correct way to use the item
in
>order to play tunes/music. Therefore this did NOT come down to your or
>anyone elses opinion.
in my opinion the flute sounds best when it is played 'traditionally'.
>>so why are their records often said to be amongst the most important of
the
>>last 20 years? that image means nothing when the music is played.
>
>Probably because of the way they influenced rock music.
exactly. are you saying that there is no skill invloved in changing the way
that people look at music?
>But "the sounds are better" simply implies that you have a personal liking
>for them, which is something that I have said time and again is not the
>point about which I am arguing. I personally prefer the sound made by Marc
>Riley on the early Fall albums to the sounds made by Jimmy Page on
"Stairway
>to Heaven", but I still acknowledge that Mr.Page was more musically skilled
>than Mr.Riley in doing it.
so does that make the fall less worthy of merit than those of led zepplin?
are you saying that music can be objectively judged my how difficult it is
to play? that makes wonderwall a pretty poor song - and i doubt anybody
here thinks that. if you think that wonderwall is objectively inferior to
anything more complex, then you are probably calling 95% of the people on
this newsgroup unreasonable.
>>>They can "like" whatever they wish. I have quite a number of CD's in my
>>>collection which contain music that I would regard as having no artistic
or
>>>musical merit whatsoever. But I still like the sound, and I enjoy
playing
>>>them.
>
>>if you like the sound then you must recognise the atistry that went into
>>it - otherwise how can you distinguish it from the recording of me banging
>>a shoe against a radioator and shouting 'yidiaho' that i'm preparing for
you?
>
>Because "liking" something is purely personal opinion. I may like the shoe
>and radiator song, or I may think it's shit.
you'll love it, but you can't hear it yet because i'm holding back to go
for christmas no.1.
>But as far as you're concerned, the end result is the same. i.e. I think
you
>listen to crap music.
>I don't really see what your big problem is. I listen to some crap music
>myself, the difference is, although I enjoy it I have no problem with
saying
>"....but I recognise that, musically, its crap".
but it's always going to be your definition of crap. at what point does my
shoe song stop being crap and start being good? what if my shoe song
progresses and becomes a complex layering of rhythm? what if i add a flute
part? what if i develop a melody for the vocal? at some point it must reach
a stage where you will believe it to be musically worthy - how do you
measure that? are you saying that the point where i add one more complexity
(i'm thinking about trilling a high e) will suddenly elevate the song from
subjective quality to objective quality?
>>the point of my saying this is that it is impossible to draw a line at any
>>point between mother theresa and hitler were one can 'objectively' judge
>>people. there is no reasonable man, hence nothing can be proven
>>'objectively'
>
>There is a large difference between concepts like morality and a concept
>like recognising musical skill and ability.
you're right - but the point is that objectivity is a fiction, wherever it
is applied. nobody is reasonable!!
>I agree fully that "it is wrong
>to kill people" is simply a statement of what most people would think, and
>not a universal truth. But recognising musical skill and effort is no
>different to recognising any other type of skill and effort.
so if i say that killing people is a good, that's ok - but if i say that
there is a great deal of skill involved in making a spice girls record i am
unreasonable. i have real trouble with that.
>>but it's your interpretation of skill etc. who are you to say that what
>>noel gallagher does involves great skill, yet what john cage did simply
>>required a pretensious lunatic with a piano?
>
>No I'm saying that what Noel Gallagher does involves greater skill than
what
>the four members of the Spice Girls do.
and you can say that if you wish. but that doesn't answer my question. you
are forming objective standards which i fundamentally disagree with. i
don't see what gives you the right to do that. i think that the only thing
that matters in music is whether or not people enjoy the sound of it - the
ability to entertain people is all the skill you need to be a worthy
musician.
>>>Without wishing to sound like a massive Oasis fan (I do like them but I
am
>>>not crazy about them), that is complete and utter rubbish. What do the
>>Spice
>>>Girls actually do? Well, they write the IDEAS for the lyrics (not the
>>>lyrics themselves), and they sing the songs. That is all. In the case
>of
>>>Oasis, Noel writes the music and the lyrics, all of the band members play
>>>the instruments and do backing vocals to either Liam or Noel, Noel also
>>>comes up with the arrangements, and all the members of the band are
either
>>>involved with the final production, or do the production themselves.
>>
>>and what is the difference between that and what the spice girls do? all
>>the rest of the lads are doing is what noel tells them to do - which is
>>exactly what the spice girls do.
>
>Good grief! I have just told you what the difference is: Re-read the
>above, I can't be bothered to type it all out again.
sorry if i'm missing something huge here - but what, precisely, are the
other members of oasis doing that the spice girls aren't?
> >your view would suggest that arab strap are musically inferior to
>>sleeper. i have real trouble with that idea.
>
>They are. Sleeper are more musically talented but I don't find them very
>interesting. Arab Strap are definately less talented than Sleeper, but
>given the choice of the two bands I would choose Arab Strap.
so you think that the tedious generic indie toss of sleeper is objectively
superior to original and creative music of arab strap? why? don't you
think that a great deal of skill goes into arab strap's music? do you think
they just throw a few guitars around and feed adian moffatt beers until he
starts talking shite again?
>If your theory is correct then there is no point in learning to play an
>instrument "properly" because "properly" doesnt exist; it is just someone's
>opinion.
that doesn't mean that there's no point in doing it. don't forget that
you've conceeded that there is no objective proof that killing somebody is
wrong - does that mean that we should abolish the laws against murder
because 'it's only opinion'?
>If one extends this theory further you may as well say "there is
>no point in playing an instrument at all - lets just have CD's with silence
>on (like that John Cage thing)" and if anyone claimed "hang on - this is
>crap, its just silence" you could reply "just it may be just silence but
>thinking that idea up took just as much artistry as the guy who wrote "Dark
>Side of The Moon". "
the silence is an extreme example - and if somoebody believes that the
concept of it makes it more worthy than pink floyd, then who are we to tell
them they're wrong?
if we're to have this objective standard of skill - then it requires a line
to be drawn somewhere. the only person who can draw that line is our
'reasonable man' (who doesn't exist). what if i think that it takes great
skill to play wonderwall on the guitar, but you think it's easy to play?
which one of us is right?
when it comes down to it you are trying to draw this line, and it is wholly
subjective.
f.
fountainhead
Simon Moore wrote in message <71djec$gi3$2...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>John Cage's 3:33 (the silent track) is obviously complete bollocks. I know
>it may be extremely arty to say "oh look I have composed a piece of music
>that is just silence", but lets get real here. Its a bit like a sculptor
>showing you a piece of empty space and saying "Look, its my new sculpture".
>Pretentious rubbish.
two years ago i would have agreed with you - but if you see the 'piece' as a
concept then you may see why people think it's such a good piece of art. it
makes people think, even if it's only 'what the hell is this guy trying to
do', then it's achieved something.
i don't think that 3.33 is a brilliant work - and i don't think it qualifies
as music - but i don't think it's unreasonable for somebody to hail it as a
masterpiece.
>I own a table lamp with more talent than Celine Dion.
me too - and my lamp doesn't work. but if people like celine dion (or,
indeed, my broken lamp) then that's fine and dandy as far as i'm concerned.
f.
under...@my-dejanews.com
shut up:
> under...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>
> >like Shabs said, I just can't believe that you're comparing Whitey, Guigsy
> >and Bonehead with spice girls... they PLAY musical instruments, and the
> girls
> >just go out of breath (except for sporty) when they sing live;
>
> less than instruments? anybody can learn to play an instrument, learning to
> sing is a different matter.
1. everybody who can speak can sing (quality is another matter)
2. learning to play an instrument is not that easy
3. singing with quality is difficult, but don't tell me spice girls sing with
quality
> >and about
> >Liam, if he's backed up by a composer like Noel and players like the rest
> of
> >the group I think that justifies the fact that he just sings.
>
> so what about the composers and musicians of spice girls songs. the only
> difference is that the oasis musicians are part of oasis. it doesn't affect
> the songs.
yep, they're more worthy because all of the song is made by the performers
> >>>all songs are about melody and listenability, aren't they?
> >>
> >> no.
> >
> >what an easy mood you're at. you just say no but never care to explain
> >why... and I think that even... well... I don't know, Pantera or groups
> like
> >that make melodies that have listenability, not for everyone but some find
> >them
>
> what about dance music? a lot of it is repetetive and tuneless - it's
> designed solely for dancing to. it's not designed to be listened to, and it
> doesn't have any melody. furthermore, have you actually heard john cage's
> 3:33 (or whatever it was) - because i haven't!!
i have many friends that love to LISTEN dance music, not just dancing it
> >I wouldn't let my kids buy spice girls records if they're older than 18
> (then
> >they may be nothing but just a memory)
>
> i trust you're joking.
don't trust me then
> >> >all the groups and solo performers out there want to earn cash, but what
> >> >splits oasis' kind of performers and fake plastic groups is that, in the
> >> >end, the first ones are $$$ + music, and the late ones just $$$
> >>
> >> so you think that oasis would carry on making records if nobody bought
> them?
> >
> >please read first what I said: "the first ones are $$$ + music"
>
> i did read it. now answer my question.
you saw it but didn't read it and then didn't get my point, so no need to
answer
> >there is no comparison there, radiohead and rem would do a great concert
> >without production because they're not fake groups; it adds something more
> to
> >the show, but what separates true groups from spice girls and their kind is
> >the latter ones NEED production in their shows to make it great; true
> groups
> >don't.
>
> what about celine dion who just stands there and trots out her stuff without
> so much as a shuffle...... to thousands of delighted punters?
great; I'm talking about spice girls and real groups and then you come up with
something different; won't answer to you again because that, and in the end
you're not a spice girls fan so why you're sweating out for them?
Simon Moore
for an Oasis newsgroup.
I find your viewpoint very interesting, but having given it great thought I
still find my reasoning pretty sound, and you obviously find yours pretty
sound too. There is obviously no way that either of us is going to change
our stance, so I would suggest that if you wish to persue this any further
we do it by e-mail. I'm sure the people who come onto this newsgroup to
read about Oasis are thoroughly bored by our interchanges by now.
Your ability to use philosophical concepts in your arguments and your use of
analogies is extremely good, and even though I don't agree with you I
enjoyed the mental workout!
SM
phikap176
> the oasis lads play, the spice girls sing. are you saying that
vocals count
> less than instruments? anybody can learn to play an instrument,
learning to
> sing is a different matter.
Oasis plays and sings.
I don't see what you're saying fountainhead. It's your right to like
the Spice Girls. Why are you so defensive about it though? I don't
like the Spice Girls, doesn't mean I can't understand that other people
do.
fountainhead
Slider wrote in message <363d4106...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>I think your missing the point here. If the song writers and
>musicians had equal billing as the four girls then it would be a
>completely different set up than there just being the four spice
>girls. The sound hasn't got anythign to do with it. Those 'extras'
>are the ones with the talent.! :)
but it wouldn't change the music (which, i presume, is what people have a
problem with)
>:so oasis were like a male 60's spice girls then? they must have been
crap!!
>
>Eh.? That one doesn't even make sense.!
it does if you don't snip the bit before it ;-)
>:no they didn't want to be singers. they all piled into some room looking
>:for the toilets and hey-presto they'd joined take that. can't people have
>:more than one ambition?
>
>Read some of the previous posts. Half of take that only went to the
>audition for a laugh. They didn't set out to be singers ( with the
>exception of two of them )
if they didn't want to do it then they wouldn't have gone to the auditions.
just because they didn't dream about it all their lives it doesn't mean they
never wanted to do it.
>:yes they're having a good time. they've sunk a few bevvies and they're
>:dancing to music which they think sounds great. that is no different to
any
>:indie club or oasis gig.
>
>Erm... yeah...
if you're disagreeing then kindly explain why.
>:no - but nor could you open up a magazine without seeing 'the best band in
>:the world' sneering back at you.
>
>This is just the journo's and magazines covering the best band in the
>world.
oh. so it's not hype then - because oasis really were the best band in the
world before they'd released anything.
>:there's more to hype than pencil cases.
>:besides, the real explosion of spice girls marketing came after they had
>:become a very successful band. did you see b*witched dolls in the shop
>:before their first single? all that will follow if the music takes them
to
>:spice-like proportions.
>
>Yeah, but without the marketing they wouldn't exist.
but the marketing does exist - and it shouldn't detract from the music.
the whole thing i'm trying to get across to people is that only the music
actually matters. i don't give a toss about the spice girls. if they quit
tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. however, they have every
right to make their music and be free from indie snobs (and, let's be
honest, do oasis fans really have nything to be snobbish about??) who think
what they're doing is inferior to what oasis are doing. it isn't.
f.
fountainhead
under...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> what about dance music? a lot of it is repetetive and tuneless - it's
>> designed solely for dancing to. it's not designed to be listened to, and
it
>> doesn't have any melody. furthermore, have you actually heard john
cage's
>> 3:33 (or whatever it was) - because i haven't!!
>
>i have many friends that love to LISTEN dance music, not just dancing it
there is a hell of a lot of dance music out there. maybe some people do
listen to all of it - but most of the serious dance enthusiasts i know
prefer to leave it in the clubs. it's pretty clear that the composers of a
lot of dance music don't intend for it to be listened to - that's why it's
only sold in very limited quantities to dj's.
>> >please read first what I said: "the first ones are $$$ + music"
>>
>> i did read it. now answer my question.
>
>you saw it but didn't read it and then didn't get my point, so no need to
>answer
i'm saying that oasis want the money too. you might say that the music is
more important to them - but you can't have one without the other. oasis
would not make records if nobody bought them. they would not play gigs if
nobody turned up. when they started off it was because they wanted to be
famous - and make money 0 they are carrying on because they like what they
are doing - and they make money. the spice girls could quit now, and each
one of them would be a multi millionaire - but they haven't quit, so they
must be enjoying what they are doing.
if noel sacked the rest of the band becase he thought he could make more
money on his own (not a completely absurd idea) would that make his music
less worthy?
>>>there is no comparison there, radiohead and rem would do a great concert
>>>without production because they're not fake groups; it adds something
more to
>>>the show, but what separates true groups from spice girls and their kind
is
>>>the latter ones NEED production in their shows to make it great; true
>>>groups don't.
>>
>> what about celine dion who just stands there and trots out her stuff
without
>> so much as a shuffle...... to thousands of delighted punters?
>
>great; I'm talking about spice girls and real groups and then you come up
with
>something different; won't answer to you again because that, and in the end
maybe you're not answering me because you don't have an answer. you say
that these pop acts need big production to 'carry' the music - and i've
given you an example where it clearly doesn't.
>you're not a spice girls fan so why you're sweating out for them?
because i'm so sick of indie/alternative fans who think that what they
listen to is superior to chart pop.
f.
Shabs
>
>>Okay fountainhead, you say that Bonehead, Guigsy, Alan and Liam do no more
>>than the Spice Girls. Do you REALLY believe that?
>
>yes. with many groups it's very difficult to see who has actually written
a
>song (especially with groups like rem, blur and radiohead who accredit
>songwriting to all group members), but there are lots of groups where it's
>pretty obvious that one or two members do almost everything.
Two Spice Girls could do the same job as all four/five (depending on the
time period); I could see Sporty and Baby doing everything. If you took out
any of the members of Oasis, you wouldn't have Oasis' sound.
>>The ones who play instruments in
>>Oasis are far more talented, and in fact, have talent for what they do.
>The
>>Spice Girls haven't the talent of being able to sing (I'll give you that
>>Sporty can hit high notes and is not tone deaf).
>
>i've heard both oasis and the spice girls live performances - and each have
>had their fair share of good and bad nights. there are many factors that
>affect the ability of a singer to reproduce 'studio' performances in live
>shows. take somebody like ian brown - opinion is divided on whether he is
a
>brilliant singer, or a dreadful one - but does the fact that he's a bit
>dodgy live make the stone roses a bad group?
I can't argue you there, 'cause I lost your point within your response, I
don't know who Ian Brown is.
I still hold my first comment.
>>Aerosmith, a decent rock group, doesn't write all
>>their songs. This means that there may not be a conformity of sound,
>making
>>them less of a band. Also, they cannot recieve as much credit and
respect.
>
>
>why not? the idea that a band cannot sing songs written by somebody else
is
>absurd. not all songwriters are capable of being performers - that can't
be
>allowed to prevent good songs being heard.
I don't respect Aerosmith as much as other rock bands ie Oasis, Bon Jovi
because the emotion isn't all genuine. I know that the members of my two
favorite bands (mentioned above) mean what they say, so I respect that. How
can you feel emotion you know is fake? That's like accepting an apology
when you know the person isn't sorry.
>>if I knew that Oasis was manufactured, I would not feel as much with their
>>music, and I would not respect thier ability as much. I may get bashed
for
>>this, but it's true.
>
>
>then you would be missing out on something. i know we can't help the way
we
>feel about a band, but i think it's wrong to judge a band on anything other
>than their music. people who don't like oasis because they don't like liam
>gallagher's attitude are rightly lambasted for that - but you are doing
>exactly the same thing.
Not EXACTLY the same thing. The thing with being manufactured is that the
emotion is not genuine, as I mentioned above. If the music is manufactured,
the words said were never meant by anyone. However, if the person who wrote
the music/lyrics really meant what they said and took credit for it, the
emotion would be genuine. The Spice Girls claim to write their own music,
and so the people behind them actually doing it don't care for credit and
are writing meaningless music.
>their 'mindless pop' can affect people just as much as any oasis song. the
>reaction to 'wannabe' in a 'poppy' club is just as manic as the reaction to
>'supersonic' in an indie club. the spice girls like to make their concerts
>visually, as well as audably, enjoyable - and that has to be a good thing
if
>it helps people to have a good time. on the other hand, there are many
>'pop' performers who just stand still and do their stuff - yet people still
>flock along to the shows in their thousands just to hear the songs and
>actually see the singer/s.
Okay.
>>I'd think that major production of an Oasis concert would seem cheesy.
>
>so what about the grandoise sets and flashing lights at some oasis shows?
>there's more to 'production' than dancing about a bit. i'll agree that
>oasis would be just as good standing on a bare stage - but there are a lot
>of people who are put off by the lack of any discernable action at oasis
>concerts.
The "grandoise sets and flashing lights" aren't necessary. I only want to
be able to see the band and hear the melodies created in front of your eyes,
'cause that's the opportunity you're getting at a concert which you don't
get listening to CDs.
>f.
>
>
Shabs.
Shabs
fountainhead wrote in message <0jN_1.5220$X41...@news-reader.bt.net>...
>
>Slider wrote in message <363d4106...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>
>>I think your missing the point here. If the song writers and
>>musicians had equal billing as the four girls then it would be a
>>completely different set up than there just being the four spice
>>girls. The sound hasn't got anythign to do with it. Those 'extras'
>>are the ones with the talent.! :)
>
>
>but it wouldn't change the music (which, i presume, is what people have a
>problem with)
I know you will kill me if you read this post, f., but here we go. :-) The
music itself isn't what people have a problem with from what I see. It's
the claiming to write their own music, the claiming to mean their lyrics,
the lack of any sort of talent when performing, the marketing of everything
except their music, and the omission of giving credit where credit is due:
to the ACTUAL writers. Plus, some of their music does actually suck, from
what I've heard.
Shabs.
Shabs
Simon Moore wrote in message <71fjdd$p6e$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
>I think we have reached a stage in this argument where it is way off-topic
>for an Oasis newsgroup.
C'mon! Keep it going! It's better reading than the newspaper!
Shabs (someone who has seen almost all of your bloody brawl).
Shabs
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>>time period); I could see Sporty and Baby doing everything. If you took
>out
>>any of the members of Oasis, you wouldn't have Oasis' sound.
>
>
>sections? what about all the multi-layering on bhn (which noel could
easily
>have done himself. if we give the spicies the benefit of the doubt and
>assume that they all can, and do, sing - then taking one away would change
>the music because it would take away a layer of harmony, or a certain style
>of voice.
I've impressed myself. I got a "fair enough" out of you!
I don't give the Spices the benefit of the doubt. I mean, they needed
backup singers on Letterman. I guess that'd show that they can't create
their harmony themselves.
>>I can't argue you there, 'cause I lost your point within your response, I
>>don't know who Ian Brown is.
>
>
>really? are you joking? blummin eck!! lead singer of the stone roses?
>if you've not heard them then go listen.
Remember, I'm Canadian. I'm assuming that this Ian Brown's big in the UK.
Well, your opinions usually seem to be relatively sound, I'll take a listen.
>>I don't respect Aerosmith as much as other rock bands ie Oasis, Bon Jovi
>>because the emotion isn't all genuine. I know that the members of my two
>>favorite bands (mentioned above) mean what they say, so I respect that.
>How
>>can you feel emotion you know is fake? That's like accepting an apology
>>when you know the person isn't sorry.
>
>ok, i know what you mean, and if you feel like that then nothing will
change
>it. i'm interested to know how you feel about the oasis lyrics that
patently
>don't mean anything. noel isn't scared to admit that half of his lyrics
are
>only there because they rhyme - doesn't that distract from the 'emotion'?
There's nothing wrong with rhyming lyrics. I'll admit that I'm not too
deep, and so I don't need deep lyrics (you might). I appreciate it that the
lyrics are from Noel's pen (or from Lennon's, whatever :-). You're right,
it would distract from the emotion a little. I appreciate the music more
than the lyrics though.
I just disagree with stuff like Aerosmith's new unemotional sappy crap (I
don't want to miss a thing).
>>The "grandoise sets and flashing lights" aren't necessary. I only want to
>>be able to see the band and hear the melodies created in front of your
>eyes,
>>'cause that's the opportunity you're getting at a concert which you don't
>>get listening to CDs.
>
>
>which is fine. but remember that many spice girls fans might feel the same
>way - just as many oasis fans would like to see all the fancy stuff. it's
>all about what makes you, as an individual, enjoy yourself the most. i
>think it's a bit unfair to say that certain acts 'need' all the showy stuff
>because their music isn't good enough.
I'll give you that argument.
>f.
>--
>everybody hate's a drunk
Unless the drunks are Oasis performing C&A :-)
fountainhead
Shabs wrote in message <71ggi0$ij6$1...@flint.sentex.net>...
>fountainhead wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Okay fountainhead, you say that Bonehead, Guigsy, Alan and Liam do no
more
>>>than the Spice Girls. Do you REALLY believe that?
>>
>>yes. with many groups it's very difficult to see who has actually written
>a
>>song (especially with groups like rem, blur and radiohead who accredit
>>songwriting to all group members), but there are lots of groups where it's
>>pretty obvious that one or two members do almost everything.
>
>time period); I could see Sporty and Baby doing everything. If you took
out
>any of the members of Oasis, you wouldn't have Oasis' sound.
fair enough - but what about the songs where they use string and brass
sections? what about all the multi-layering on bhn (which noel could easily
have done himself. if we give the spicies the benefit of the doubt and
assume that they all can, and do, sing - then taking one away would change
the music because it would take away a layer of harmony, or a certain style
of voice.
>>i've heard both oasis and the spice girls live performances - and each
have
>>had their fair share of good and bad nights. there are many factors that
>>affect the ability of a singer to reproduce 'studio' performances in live
>>shows. take somebody like ian brown - opinion is divided on whether he is
>a
>>brilliant singer, or a dreadful one - but does the fact that he's a bit
>>dodgy live make the stone roses a bad group?
>
>
>I can't argue you there, 'cause I lost your point within your response, I
>don't know who Ian Brown is.
really? are you joking? blummin eck!! lead singer of the stone roses?
if you've not heard them then go listen.
>I don't respect Aerosmith as much as other rock bands ie Oasis, Bon Jovi
>because the emotion isn't all genuine. I know that the members of my two
>favorite bands (mentioned above) mean what they say, so I respect that.
How
>can you feel emotion you know is fake? That's like accepting an apology
>when you know the person isn't sorry.
ok, i know what you mean, and if you feel like that then nothing will change
it. i'm interested to know how you feel about the oasis lyrics that patently
don't mean anything. noel isn't scared to admit that half of his lyrics are
only there because they rhyme - doesn't that distract from the 'emotion'?
>>>I'd think that major production of an Oasis concert would seem cheesy.
>>
>>so what about the grandoise sets and flashing lights at some oasis shows?
>>there's more to 'production' than dancing about a bit. i'll agree that
>>oasis would be just as good standing on a bare stage - but there are a lot
>>of people who are put off by the lack of any discernable action at oasis
>>concerts.
>
>The "grandoise sets and flashing lights" aren't necessary. I only want to
>be able to see the band and hear the melodies created in front of your
eyes,
>'cause that's the opportunity you're getting at a concert which you don't
>get listening to CDs.
which is fine. but remember that many spice girls fans might feel the same
way - just as many oasis fans would like to see all the fancy stuff. it's
all about what makes you, as an individual, enjoy yourself the most. i
think it's a bit unfair to say that certain acts 'need' all the showy stuff
because their music isn't good enough.
f.
--
everybody hate's a drunk
fountainhead
Shabs wrote in message <71gkjs$2m1$1...@flint.sentex.net>...
>I know you will kill me if you read this post, f., but here we go. :-)
i'm ready for ya (and i have a big gun just in case)
>The music itself isn't what people have a problem with from what I see.
It's
>the claiming to write their own music, the claiming to mean their lyrics,
>the lack of any sort of talent when performing, the marketing of everything
>except their music, and the omission of giving credit where credit is due:
>to the ACTUAL writers.
you're right to an extent - a lot of people don't like the makeup and the
'ethic' of the spice girls - but my point is that none of that matters (or
at least none of it should).
there are people having a go at the music too however. the crux of the
discussion between simon and myself is that he, and many others, believe
that their music is objectively inferior to that of 'real bands' like oasis.
some of what you said above is simply wrong. i don't think the spice girls
have ever calimed to have written all their songs. they say they help with
the lyrics, and i'm sure they do. if people believe anything else then
that's down to their ignorance. credit is given to the real songwriters
because their names are listed in the record sleeves and they pick up tidy
royalty cheques.
nor can you say that they market everything 'except' their music. they are
a pop band, and that is what everybody knows them as. they make far more
money from music than from everything else. if they're filling their
wallets with cash from sponsorship and advertising it's because the
sponosors and advertisers want to be associated with the spice girls.... who
are a very successful pop band!! if they stopped making music then
everything else would stop too, so it 'must be the music'.
f.
Shabs
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
>It's
>>the claiming to write their own music, the claiming to mean their lyrics,
>>the lack of any sort of talent when performing, the marketing of
everything
>>except their music, and the omission of giving credit where credit is due:
>>to the ACTUAL writers.
>there are people having a go at the music too however. the crux of the
>discussion between simon and myself is that he, and many others, believe
>that their music is objectively inferior to that of 'real bands' like
oasis.
If I was going to argue about 'real' and 'fake' bands, I wouldn't
necessarily use the Spice Girls. <sarcasm> lol
>some of what you said above is simply wrong.
Oh... Well, I have seen on the tube them saying that they write their own
music (many
places, including talking to Canada's equivalent to MTV, Much Music; I guess
I shouldn't believe everything I hear). I assumed they knew what they were
talking about. I didn't know that they gave credit on the album sleeves.
Sorry. Well, I guess i have 'less' against the Spice Girls now.
>nor can you say that they market everything 'except' their music. they are
>a pop band, and that is what everybody knows them as. they make far more
>money from music than from everything else. if they're filling their
>wallets with cash from sponsorship and advertising it's because the
>sponosors and advertisers want to be associated with the spice girls....
who
>are a very successful pop band!! if they stopped making music then
>everything else would stop too, so it 'must be the music'.
>
>f.
Hmmmm... The everythign 'except' their music was an embellishment. I
thought that'd be picked up. Whatever. I am overmatched. I just can't
seem to agree with the 'must be the music' bit of yours. I think it 'must
be the brilliant marketers' 'cause the Spices aren't all that great
musically. They're good, not great.
Shabs.
fountainhead
Simon Moore wrote in message
>I think we have reached a stage in this argument where it is way off-topic
>for an Oasis newsgroup.
>I find your viewpoint very interesting, but having given it great thought I
>still find my reasoning pretty sound, and you obviously find yours pretty
>sound too. There is obviously no way that either of us is going to change
>our stance, so I would suggest that if you wish to persue this any further
>we do it by e-mail. I'm sure the people who come onto this newsgroup to
>read about Oasis are thoroughly bored by our interchanges by now.
you may be right - which is a shame because people might learn something by
reading something a little more sophisticated that 'blur sux' - mind you, we
have had one message of support!!
>Your ability to use philosophical concepts in your arguments and your use
of
>analogies is extremely good, and even though I don't agree with you I
>enjoyed the mental workout!
i've been having a great time - i've 'done' this debate many times before,
and nobody has been as persistent and articulate as you. i've thought about
a lot of what you've said - and if you're arguements about 'skill' didn't
involve the 'drawing of lines' then i might accept them (though i still
wouldn't agree ;-)
i'd like to keep this going for a while longer - and i'd really like to hear
your responses to some of the questions i asked in my last post.
i don't see anything wrong with keeping this 'in public' - but if you'd
rather take it to e-mail then that's fine. i've cc's this message to your
email - so you can reply to whichever you choose.
cheers.
f.
everybody hates a drunk
fountainhead
Shabs wrote in message <71gmuu$j7$1...@flint.sentex.net>...
>>fair enough - but what about the songs where they use string and brass
>>sections? what about all the multi-layering on bhn (which noel could
>easily
>>have done himself. if we give the spicies the benefit of the doubt and
>>assume that they all can, and do, sing - then taking one away would change
>>the music because it would take away a layer of harmony, or a certain
style
>>of voice.
>
>I've impressed myself. I got a "fair enough" out of you!
your certificate is in the post ;-)
>>>I can't argue you there, 'cause I lost your point within your response, I
>>>don't know who Ian Brown is.
>>
>>really? are you joking? blummin eck!! lead singer of the stone roses?
>>if you've not heard them then go listen.
>
>Remember, I'm Canadian. I'm assuming that this Ian Brown's big in the UK.
>Well, your opinions usually seem to be relatively sound, I'll take a
listen.
definitely. seek out the eponoymously titled record (i really like the
second album - 'second coming' - but a lot of people don't)
they are the band that oasis 'took the torch' from. and they were
brilliant. 'waterfall' has a melody as good as any noel song (that comment
was not meant to be confrontational btw) and 'fools god' is one of the
finest records ever made. don't be put off if you hear that john squire
(stone roses guitarist) is the creative force behind 'the seahorses' (if
you've heard them!!)
the stone roses are manchester's original indie stars.
f.
>
>
>
>>>I don't respect Aerosmith as much as other rock bands ie Oasis, Bon Jovi
>>>because the emotion isn't all genuine. I know that the members of my two
>>>favorite bands (mentioned above) mean what they say, so I respect that.
>>How
>>>can you feel emotion you know is fake? That's like accepting an apology
>>>when you know the person isn't sorry.
>>
>>ok, i know what you mean, and if you feel like that then nothing will
>change
>>it. i'm interested to know how you feel about the oasis lyrics that
>patently
>>don't mean anything. noel isn't scared to admit that half of his lyrics
>are
>>only there because they rhyme - doesn't that distract from the 'emotion'?
>
>
>There's nothing wrong with rhyming lyrics. I'll admit that I'm not too
>deep, and so I don't need deep lyrics (you might). I appreciate it that
the
>lyrics are from Noel's pen (or from Lennon's, whatever :-). You're right,
>it would distract from the emotion a little. I appreciate the music more
>than the lyrics though.
>
>I just disagree with stuff like Aerosmith's new unemotional sappy crap (I
>don't want to miss a thing).
>
>>>The "grandoise sets and flashing lights" aren't necessary. I only want
to
>>>be able to see the band and hear the melodies created in front of your
>>eyes,
>>>'cause that's the opportunity you're getting at a concert which you don't
>>>get listening to CDs.
>>
>>
>>which is fine. but remember that many spice girls fans might feel the
same
>>way - just as many oasis fans would like to see all the fancy stuff. it's
>>all about what makes you, as an individual, enjoy yourself the most. i
>>think it's a bit unfair to say that certain acts 'need' all the showy
stuff
>>because their music isn't good enough.
>
>
>I'll give you that argument.
>
>>f.
>>--
>>everybody hate's a drunk
>
fountainhead
Slider wrote in message <363ff916...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>:>:yes they're having a good time. they've sunk a few bevvies and they're
>:>:dancing to music which they think sounds great. that is no different to
>:>:any indie club or oasis gig.
>
>:>Erm... yeah...
>
>:if you're disagreeing then kindly explain why.
>
>The indie club yeah, but not the oasis gig. At clubs people aren't
>there to see anything but at gigs people are there to see the band.
aren't they there to hear the band? i'm not saying that clubs and gigs are
the same - but surely you go to a gig because you like the music, and hence
you want to see the band play it live.
>:oh. so it's not hype then - because oasis really were the best band in
the
>:world before they'd released anything.
>
>What I mean is that this is the way the music mags work, just look at
>the Q awards with the manics getting the award for being the 'best
>band in the world'. It wasn't record company created hype.
no. it was the 'q' readership just showing how clueless they are.
>Doing a different type of music isn't inferior but the spice girls as
>a unit are inferior to all real bands simply because they are just
>there because the record company chose it.
ok. enough of me trying to use intelligent arguements because, unlike
people like simon and shabs, you're far too far up your own indie arse to
even entertain the thought that all bands are as worthy as oasis.
there is nothing remotely inferior about the spice girls. they are there
because millions and millions of people really like their music. who gives
a flying fuck how much marketing goes into things? it doesn't mean shit
when the music is played. stop being so ignorant and accept the fact that
everybody who buys a record has as much right to do so as you. don't harp
on about a band being inferior just because you don't like them or their
methods. you are nobody. you are the kind of music fan that i don't have
any respect for because you are narrow minded and proud of it. grow up.
come and live in the world where people can listen to whatever makes them
happy, without arseholes putting themselves and their opinons on some kind
of pedastal because they like bands who used to play guitars in the garage.
do you really think that oasis are at the pinacle of musical integrity?
everything they do is hyped all the way up to the sky and back - the
difference between them and the spice girls is that the spice girls are
promoting their records and merchendise - whilst oasis just hype up the fact
that they take lots of drugs and swear at people a lot. there were just as
many marketing boffos thinking up what each band would say in the 'oasis v
blur' war as there have been for any spice girls record. you're just to
dumb to figure it out.
get a life.
Shabs
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>i don't see anything wrong with keeping this 'in public'
Keep it in public!!!
Shabs.
Andreas Paterson
> ok. enough of me trying to use intelligent arguements because, unlike
> people like simon and shabs, you're far too far up your own indie arse to
> even entertain the thought that all bands are as worthy as oasis.
>
>
> do you really think that oasis are at the pinacle of musical integrity?
> everything they do is hyped all the way up to the sky and back - the
> difference between them and the spice girls is that the spice girls are
> promoting their records and merchendise - whilst oasis just hype up the fact
> that they take lots of drugs and swear at people a lot. there were just as
> many marketing boffos thinking up what each band would say in the 'oasis v
> blur' war as there have been for any spice girls record. you're just to
> dumb to figure it out.
I like this argument, it seems like this argument is indeed the
right one, the idea that no band can be said to be objectively superior
to another seems logical. But I do find it a difficult idea to swallow.
Perhaps I just find it unfair that the likes of the Spice Girls and
Billie can get to No.1, sell lots of records and makes lots of money
while talented bands like Belle & Sebastian, Mogwai and Arab Strap get
nowhere.
Obviously Oasis don't really count as they have made more money
than the Spice Girls because of the fact they write their own songs.
However some bands who write non populist music clearly can't be writing
it with the intention of making (much) money, therefore they only have
their principles. Of course if you can't consider their music objectively
superior to any other music the principles that these bands hold dear
really just count for nothing. Therefore you could say that all bands
should make music that is commercial and make lots of money because the
music is still not considered any less worthy because of it. Somehow that
doesn't seem quite right.
-- @..@
Andreas (----)
( >__< )
fountainhead
Andreas Paterson wrote in message ...
> I like this argument, it seems like this argument is indeed the
>right one, the idea that no band can be said to be objectively superior
>to another seems logical. But I do find it a difficult idea to swallow.
>Perhaps I just find it unfair that the likes of the Spice Girls and
>Billie can get to No.1, sell lots of records and makes lots of money
>while talented bands like Belle & Sebastian, Mogwai and Arab Strap get
>nowhere.
it's just something that we live with. isn't the fact that you and i enjoy
these bands enough? there will always be people to say that they're
weired - and there's not a lot we can do about it. i'll promote bands that
i like wherever i go (whether people care or not) we just have to keep
spreading the word.
> Obviously Oasis don't really count as they have made more money
>than the Spice Girls because of the fact they write their own songs.
>However some bands who write non populist music clearly can't be writing
>it with the intention of making (much) money, therefore they only have
>their principles. Of course if you can't consider their music objectively
>superior to any other music the principles that these bands hold dear
>really just count for nothing. Therefore you could say that all bands
>should make music that is commercial and make lots of money because the
>music is still not considered any less worthy because of it. Somehow that
>doesn't seem quite right.
i just think that bands should make music for whatever reason they like. if
it's to make money that's ok, if it's because they love making music then
that's ok too. if people want to hear the music then there's no problem.
arab strap fans don't have to buy spice girls records - and vice versa.
fountainhead
Slider wrote in message <36585287...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>:ok. enough of me trying to use intelligent arguements because, unlike
>:people like simon and shabs, you're far too far up your own indie arse to
>:even entertain the thought that all bands are as worthy as oasis.
>
>I *don't* think there are any bands at all that are as worthy as oasis
>as I think Oasis are so far ahead of everything else ( with the
>exception of the Roses ) but thats not the issue. And since when did
>you begin start using intelligent arguements.? :)
ages ago. did you only learn to read yesterday?
>And 'too far up your own indie arse' LoL :)
lol? your laugh sounds a bit muffled to me.
>:there is nothing remotely inferior about the spice girls.
>
>Oh yes there is.
well there's your intelligent arguement anyway. cheers.
>:they are there
>:because millions and millions of people really like their music.
>
>And 93% of them are under 12 who have been suckered into the marketing
>hype.
i listened to the beatles when i was 12 'because of the hype'.
>:who gives
>:a flying fuck how much marketing goes into things?
>
>Agree or disagree - if the spice girls had 0 marketing or promotion
>( so none of that 'girl power' crap, no sweets no nothing - just the
>cd's ) do you think that they'd have sold anywhere near as many
>records as they have done.?
no. and lots of people would have missed out on songs that they like. it's
a means to an end. do you think oasis would have sold all those songs if
they'd released them without telling anybody?
>:don't harp
>:on about a band being inferior just because you don't like them or their
>:methods.
>
>I don't like a lot of bands but I don't class them as inferior. Worse
>than Oasis yes, but not inferior. The only 'bands' that I do say are
>inferior are manufactured bands like the spice girls. You can't seem
>to accept that.
i'd gladly accept it if it weren't so wrong.
>:you are nobody.
>
>I think I am mate. You don't know the first thing about who or what
>I am so don't start spouting that shite when you clearly don't have a
>clue what you're talking about. And I explain no further.
i don't actually care a jot about you. and i'll say again that you are a
nobody. what you say is not law. you have no more right to decide what is
good and bad than anybody else. do you really think that you matter more
than those millions of 12-year-old spice girls fans?
>:you are the kind of music fan that i don't have
>:any respect for because you are narrow minded and proud of it.
>
>Wait... nope, couldn't care less if you respect me or not. And if you
>think that I'm narrow minded then 90% of the people you meet must seem
>to be positively clostraphobic,
>
>BTW - Narrow minded doesn't mean 'has different opinion to yourself'.
no. it means that you're completely unreceptive and intolerant. it means
that you can't see further than the end of your own nose. it means that you
cannot comprehend the fact that so many people (of sound mind) like the
spice girls more than they like oasis.
>:come and live in the world where people can listen to whatever makes them
>:happy,
>
>Again, when did I ever say that people couldn't listen to what they
>wanted to.?
don't make points like that in the middle of my sentence because you're to
gutless to respond to the whole thing.
>:without arseholes putting themselves and their opinons on some kind
>:of pedastal because they like bands who used to play guitars in the
garage.
>
>Or arseholes who can't understand someone elses viewpoints.
i understand perfectly well. you don't seem to understand that 'viewpoints'
or merely that. they are not facts.
>:do you really think that oasis are at the pinacle of musical integrity?
>:everything they do is hyped all the way up to the sky and back
>
>I can't see the point of carrying this on as I see no sign of you
>actually taking in, much less comprehending, what I'm saying.
well duh. i understand exactly what you're saying, i just wish you have a
reason why.
>Every band signed to a label is marketed.
>Oasis = real. spice girls = artificially created entity designed to
>separate <12 year olds from thir pocket money.
hmm. what about the >12 year olds who buy the songs?
>:the
>:difference between them and the spice girls is that the spice girls are
>:promoting their records and merchendise - whilst oasis just hype up the
fact
>:that they take lots of drugs and swear at people a lot.
>
>The spice girls are promoting a false image dreamed up by the record
>company to exploit the kids. Oasis tell it for what it is.
indeed. how dare the spice girls set a good example. now where's that
version of 'red riding hood' where granny was a crack dealer? i must go and
tell it 'like it is' to some five year old.
>:there were just as
>:many marketing boffos thinking up what each band would say in the 'oasis v
>:blur' war as there have been for any spice girls record.
>
>No there wasn't. Most of the Oasis - blur thing was media generated
>and although it was all a scam oasis didn't have a dozen drones in the
>backgroung creating their image.
..... meanwhile in the backroom at creation records....
oasis man> yeah, we'll get noel to say that blur sound like chaz n dave
blur man> great plan, then we'll get damon to say somthing about 'quoasis'
oasis man> brilliant - that'll make a great t-shirt slogan
blur man> i hear that sales are up!!
geddit?
Simon Moore
fountainhead wrote in message ...
>i don't see anything wrong with keeping this 'in public' - but if you'd
>rather take it to e-mail then that's fine. i've cc's this message to your
>email - so you can reply to whichever you choose.
>
>cheers.
>
>f.
>everybody hates a drunk
For some reason your message has not come through on my e-mail.
I don't know why that is, maybe your news-reader is not displaying my e-mail
address
properly. In any case it is: qd...@dial.pipex.com or
smo...@dial.pipex.com
take your pick!
I'd rather continue by e-mail; I am not bothering with alt.music.oasis
anymore because to be honest there isn't much of any interest in there.
Saying "Liam's good isn't he?" and "They really are the most amazing band
of all
time" gets a little tedious after a while!
Can you try my e-mail again (just so I can at least be sure of what YOUR
e-mail
address is?).
cheers
SM
Andreas Paterson
> fountainhead wrote in message ...
>
>
>
> Shabs.
I completely and utterly second this, I'm kind of hovering between the
two views at the moment and would like to see how it finishes. I consider
the thread a really interesing debate. And one of the few threads on any
newsgroup worth reading.
Simon Moore
>>The spice girls are promoting a false image dreamed up by the record
>>company to exploit the kids. Oasis tell it for what it is.
>
>
>indeed. how dare the spice girls set a good example. now where's that
>version of 'red riding hood' where granny was a crack dealer? i must go
and
>tell it 'like it is' to some five year old.
>
Thats a bit of a false analogy really, because the Red Riding Hood story was
not about crack dealers in the first place. Promoting a false image, and
changing an existing concept with a new image is not quite the same thing.
The Spice Girls are setting a good example?
Hmmmm....I must have missed that one.
Why, exactly, is what they are doing setting a "good example"?
More to the point, what is a "good example"?