the new songs...
TheHeathenChemist
Stop The Clocks ("one of the best songs Ive ever written")
Don't Be Down ("for my baby girl")
The Magic Can't Be Right ("sounds like the rolling stones")
I Want To Live In A Dream In My Record Machine ("ten minutes long and big
and psychadelic with loads of guitar solos")
ta,
tHc
The Cat In The Hat
girl
Barnaby207
Ian Gooda
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021028145804...@mb-fw.aol.com...
ferris bueller
loads of guitar solos ... fretwank's just what they need
OASIS ARE TURNING IN TO QUEEN
KingCreole: how can you say no?
> oh god....another 10 minute song......whyyyyy?
damn right.. should be at least 30min
--
KingCreole @ www.mybigmouth.com
----
a serpent dances on the breaking back
tracks you down leaves you there again
----
ferris bueller
if it's a two song lp and the song's split up in to nine completely separate
parts then that suits us fine ...
Digsy Rigby
>I Want To Live In A Dream In My Record Machine ("ten minutes long and big
>and psychadelic with loads of guitar solos")
*Tsk* Not too crazy about any Noel song that exceeds 4-5 minutes. They tend to
be over produced and a bit bland. They just don't age too well in my opinion.
DYKWIM and CS are good examples.
------------------
*~ Yves ~*
Cookie Dude
post this:
> *Tsk* Not too crazy about any Noel song that exceeds 4-5 minutes.
> They tend to be over produced and a bit bland. They just don't age
> too well in my opinion. DYKWIM and CS are good examples.
For songs not aging well? Go and stand in the corner for at least a week
right now, young lady!
DYKWIM and CS are class, in fact all of BHN is cool and each song on that
album is about 3 days long
André
--
I know this because Tyler knows this
ferris bueller
> right now, young lady!
> DYKWIM and CS are class, in fact all of BHN is cool and each song on that
> album is about 3 days long
a lot of that album's shit, though, isn't it?
the girl in the dirty shirt's just the baddest song anyone's ever written.
owen morris! is the pluspoint of that lp for getting some sound on it, but
there's too much. thirty tracks of guitar my arse ...
jamiec补: prude
> a lot of that album's shit, though, isn't it?
> the girl in the dirty shirt's just the baddest song anyone's ever
> written.
>
> owen morris! is the pluspoint of that lp for getting some sound on
> it, but there's too much. thirty tracks of guitar my arse ...
owen morris totally fucked up any reputation he had with that album IMO.
as senior producer, he should have had the balls to step in and point
out it was getting silly at points, but he obviously didn't. plus
points are DYKWIM and DGA. MBM, SBM, FIO, BHN, AATW and ITBM are more
good than bad but still needing adjusting in places. the rest should
have been taken off and replaced.
ferris bueller
> owen morris totally fucked up any reputation he had with that album IMO.
> as senior producer, he should have had the balls to step in and point
> out it was getting silly at points, but he obviously didn't. plus
> points are DYKWIM and DGA. MBM, SBM, FIO, BHN, AATW and ITBM are more
> good than bad but still needing adjusting in places. the rest should
> have been taken off and replaced.
oasis must share the blame if they are to share in god's love, though, be
serious. i don't think he did a good job producing, but it's just that
there's an inkling of the (preferable to us ...) original oasis sound on
that lp. overrun by shit, yeh, but something that they've lost with either
spike or a self produced lp.
spinning on a bit ...
who would you want to produce this lp?
Digsy Rigby
>DYKWIM and CS are class, in fact all of BHN is cool and each song on that
>album is about 3 days long
***I'm just praying that you were only being sarcastic. I'm not going to get
into how over-produced BHN is because its been discussed to death. You have
your opinion and I have mine. The only proper songs on that album (in MY
opinion) are DGA and BHN. Its just the least listened to Oasis album in my
collection. =)
------------------
*~ Yves ~*
Darcy
produced Free All Angels from Ash.
I think Owen Morris didn't said much in Be Here Now.
"jamiec²¹: prude" <noemail=nos...@mail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:apkf94$2b4ot$1...@ID-35858.news.dfncis.de...
jamiec补: prude
> though, be serious. i don't think he did a good job producing, but
> it's just that there's an inkling of the (preferable to us ...)
> original oasis sound on that lp. overrun by shit, yeh, but something
> that they've lost with either spike or a self produced lp.
but there wasn't the songs on SOTSOG was there? personally i think
spike did a good job on SOTSOG although saying that, he done fuck all
really cos noel's demos are really similar in terms of production. as
for this album, i think it sounds great - can't find any obvious faults
apart from bits of hindu times and force of nature.
> spinning on a bit ...
> who would you want to produce this lp?
pete waterman.
Marblehead Johnson
from ferris bueller
Owen Morris, maybe someone cool like Marr, Squire, Weller etc
--
Me Band ==> www.dayglownet.co.uk
hero of the week: Lester3
AMO Fantasy Football League at
http://bbcfootball.fantasyleague.co.uk/friends/friends.asp?pin=107418
jamiec补: prude
>> spinning on a bit ...
>> who would you want to produce this lp?
>
> Owen Morris
would be a bit of a backward step wouldn't it? might as well bring back
bonehead and guigsy whilst you're at it....
Carsten Frederiksen
> would be a bit of a backward step wouldn't it? might as well bring back
> bonehead and guigsy whilst you're at it....
not the worst idea i've heard of...
Carsten
--
Abundant dulcibus vitiis.
Marblehead Johnson
no, i dont think it would be a backward step, I would just like to see how
Owen would interpret the newer oasis songs. a backward step would be trying
to write songs about being working class and craving fame
Owen Morris or fat Boy Slim, who would you rather have?
jamiec补: prude
> not the worst idea i've heard of...
certainly the worst idea i've heard - especially live. know it isn't
about technical details and ability, but musically, they sound ace at
the minute...
jamiec补: prude
> no, i dont think it would be a backward step, I would just like to
> see how Owen would interpret the newer oasis songs. a backward step
> would be trying to write songs about being working class and craving
> fame
still wouldn't have him back though. he's had his turn and i'd like to
see someone different have a go. and the oasis sound today doesn't
really sound that different does it? nor do the songs.
> Owen Morris or fat Boy Slim, who would you rather have?
i'd rather hear them record directly into a dictaphone and release that
TBH. actualkly, i'd like to hear norman do a couple, just do see what
it'd sound like in a car crash curiosity type of way.
Carsten Frederiksen
i suppose they do. i'll just always miss guigs and bonehead because
they were guigs and bonehead. i don't care how fast they can play,
they did what they had to do just fine, i think. the two new vegetarians
are good but to me they aren't really oasis.
jamiec补: prude
> i suppose they do. i'll just always miss guigs and bonehead because
> they were guigs and bonehead. i don't care how fast they can play,
> they did what they had to do just fine, i think. the two new
> vegetarians are good but to me they aren't really oasis.
i think bringing in gem and andy was the best thing they ever done, to
be honest. not just cos they're better guitar players but cos they
offer more to the band. in terms of writing decent songs and having the
technical knowhow in the studio. plus they have better hair. and andy
is keeping the beard dream alive now that noel's betrayed it.
Carsten Frederiksen
yeah, like the wise old guy once said. all good things come to an end at
some point. good oasis songs from the past 3 years can be counted on one
hand, i think. even if you're missing a couple of fingers :)
jamiec补: prude
i'd fiercefully disagree with that. but, there we go...
ferris bueller
> i think bringing in gem and andy was the best thing they ever done, to
> be honest. not just cos they're better guitar players but cos they
> offer more to the band. in terms of writing decent songs and having the
> technical knowhow in the studio. plus they have better hair. and andy
> is keeping the beard dream alive now that noel's betrayed it.
uurgh ...
just urrgh jamie!
on a non-beardal note, i'm with captain c that bonehead and guigs are
bonehead and guigs - yeh, you can introduce people who fit in more or can
write good songs, but they just aren't bonehead an guigs!
an, yeh, technical ability's a gayer - is there much debate that the first
two oasis lps -sound- better than the last? is a serious q ...
ferris bueller
> TBH. actualkly, i'd like to hear norman do a couple, just do see what
> it'd sound like in a car crash curiosity type of way.
part of me's dying to say broudie, you know ...
and not at all cos of the coral. but for what he did on things like ocean
rain ...
not sure, though. i think they need a producer.
Mr.Psychosis
Carsten Frederiksen <rocknrollstarSCHLONG!@elvis.dk> wrote:
> i suppose they do. i'll just always miss guigs and bonehead because
> they were guigs and bonehead. i don't care how fast they can play,
> they did what they had to do just fine, i think. the two new vegetarians
> are good but to me they aren't really oasis.
Bring back Tony McCarroll. He IS Oasis.
Carsten Frederiksen
now we're cooking!
Mr.Psychosis
"ferris bueller" <i...@reason.to.be.happy> wrote:
> on a non-beardal note, i'm with captain c that bonehead and guigs are
> bonehead and guigs - yeh, you can introduce people who fit in more or can
> write good songs, but they just aren't bonehead an guigs!
And Alan's not Tony. Bring back Tony.
> an, yeh, technical ability's a gayer - is there much debate that the first
> two oasis lps -sound- better than the last? is a serious q ...
Yawn.
Mr.Psychosis
Carsten Frederiksen <rocknrollstarSCHLONG!@elvis.dk> wrote:
> yeah, like the wise old guy once said. all good things come to an end at
> some point. good oasis songs from the past 3 years can be counted on one
> hand, i think. even if you're missing a couple of fingers :)
It can be arranged, sunshine.
Carsten Frederiksen
arrange away, sailor.
ferris bueller
jamiec补: prude
> uurgh ...
> just urrgh jamie!
> on a non-beardal note, i'm with captain c that bonehead and guigs are
> bonehead and guigs - yeh, you can introduce people who fit in more or
> can write good songs, but they just aren't bonehead an guigs!
bonehead and guigs - session musicians. well they were really weren't
they? judging by the oasis books i read, they had approx 0% of input
into any of the songs oasis ever did. and live - they just done their
thing, adequately enough, but you couldn't say it revolved round
bonehead or guigs at any time could you?
> an, yeh, technical ability's a gayer - is there much debate that the
> first two oasis lps -sound- better than the last? is a serious q ...
not really on about anything sounding better but cos they know how the
studio works. take liam's songs for example, if he'd wanted to get them
demoed, he's have had to wait for noel to get his arse in gear and,
judging by listening to the radio 2 documentary, liam's for more keener
to get stud recorded than noel is. so, with andy and gem and with
johnny marr, liam went and done his own songs. or when noel bailed out
of the 2000 european tour - they still carried on without him. my point
is that oasis can still function as a band without having to wait for
noel to be ready. not for a minute suggesting they couldn't do it
without noel there permanently, cos it wouldn't be oasis without noel
there.
Mr.Psychosis
"ferris bueller" <i...@reason.to.be.happy> wrote:
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
> is a serious q ...
...uagmire? ...uaterback? ...uadrangle?
Barnaby207
bullshit man! that's my favorite track on the album. what's not to like? it's
got a good chord progression, a great melody, nice gritty love song
lyrics...not too sentimental, an excellent vocal from Liam...and as a bonus,
some groovy small faces-ish electric piano at the end.....
Snapper
news:apkhd7$bm9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > i think bringing in gem and andy was the best thing they ever done, to
> > be honest. not just cos they're better guitar players but cos they
> > offer more to the band. in terms of writing decent songs and having the
> > technical knowhow in the studio. plus they have better hair. and andy
> > is keeping the beard dream alive now that noel's betrayed it.
>
> uurgh ...
> just urrgh jamie!
> on a non-beardal note, i'm with captain c that bonehead and guigs are
> bonehead and guigs - yeh, you can introduce people who fit in more or can
> write good songs, but they just aren't bonehead an guigs!
it is true. they could be better than they were though, with bonehead and
guigs, but i just don't think they were arsed enough. out they step and in
step two guys who have been through many bands. technical ability and
experience isn't really a match for raw intent.
>
> an, yeh, technical ability's a gayer - is there much debate that the first
> two oasis lps -sound- better than the last? is a serious q ...
i think they're getting a bit conservative as they get older. the sound is
just all wrong! and some of the songs are there, perhaps more so than
standing, but it isn't as good because it doesn't sound right.
if you think my opinion has changed slightly, it probably has. i've been
debating this with a cup full of mould i found under my bed and i haven't
decided proper yet.
--
Snapper
--
Warning: Offending me may harm your nutsack
Snapper
news:apkgh5$2f7d8$1...@ID-35858.news.dfncis.de...
rough and raw would be good. remember how raw DM sounds? now days, there's
not nearly enough distortion and they're using rubbish amps.
jamiec补: prude
> rough and raw would be good. remember how raw DM sounds? now days,
> there's not nearly enough distortion and they're using rubbish amps.
only rough and raw cos they couldn't aford better equipment. it was
their first album on an independant album - they were never going to be
given a blank cheque and be told to "buw what you want". maybe they
should record it in a garage and be done with it.
ferris bueller
...uarterback, actually. get it right.
and if you're going to be captain credibility, then don't just dismiss my
legitimate conversational point!
which way'd you argue on whether the sound (not the songs, not the delivery,
nothing like that) of the first two lps is better than the last three?
ferris bueller
> i think they're getting a bit conservative as they get older. the sound is
> just all wrong! and some of the songs are there, perhaps more so than
> standing, but it isn't as good because it doesn't sound right.
agree on the sound being wrong. this last lp particularly, and be here now
...
too much lennon solo tribute on this one, and guitar knobbing instead of
tunes. it just seems like the original songs were built on something, a
riff or whatever, and the majority of these were written either as chord
after chord to_write_a_song ...
> if you think my opinion has changed slightly, it probably has. i've been
> debating this with a cup full of mould i found under my bed and i haven't
> decided proper yet.
gotcha.
gotcha.
m
ferris bueller
> only rough and raw cos they couldn't aford better equipment. it was
> their first album on an independant album - they were never going to be
> given a blank cheque and be told to "buw what you want". maybe they
> should record it in a garage and be done with it.
i'd go for that ...
there's more bad production than good production, and it ruined things like
the lennon lps ... double fantasy sound terrible on record, but listening to
the original acoustic demos of things like woman's completely different.
mavers is our reference point for this mail - i read an interview the other
week where he fished out a tape of him in front of a tape player playing
la's songs, to give to the interviewer. there's something you get from
that, part of the sound, that you don't get in a shiny studio environment
...
ferris bueller
uurrghhh ...
it's just bad ...
i'd quote the lyrics but it'd be the usenet equivalent of pissing myself.
just sums up bhn badness for me, all of it! don't like the sound.
what'd you think of the rest of the lp?
Marblehead Johnson
>> i think they're getting a bit conservative as they get older. the
>> sound is just all wrong! and some of the songs are there, perhaps
>> more so than standing, but it isn't as good because it doesn't sound
>> right.
>
> agree on the sound being wrong. this last lp particularly, and be
> here now ...
> too much lennon solo tribute on this one,
agree on that, except I quite like Lennon tribute style, more so than DM or
SOTSOG
>and guitar knobbing instead
rubbish, theres far more guitar nobbing on DM then HC
> of tunes. it just seems like the original songs were built on
> something, a riff or whatever, and the majority of these were written
> either as chord after chord to_write_a_song ...
again, i tthink you are wrong. Most of the first two albums (all?) are just
chordy chordy chordy verse chorus middle 8 blah de blah de blah. I think
the new album has songs built on just a riff or whatever
>
>> if you think my opinion has changed slightly, it probably has. i've
>> been debating this with a cup full of mould i found under my bed and
>> i haven't decided proper yet.
>
> gotcha.
>
> gotcha.
> m
Marblehead Johnson
from ferris bueller
>> i think bringing in gem and andy was the best thing they ever done,
DM sounds absolutely horrid, I can hardly stand that album anymore, had it
on yesterday. bar married With Children and Live Forever i think the sound
is horrible.
Morning Glory sounds absolutely gorgeous, except Roll With It which sounds
awkward
BHN sounds Ok, few too many overdubs and a bit long but the sound is not
tooooo bad
SOTSOG, as horrible as DM, maybe a little horribler. the choir noises, the
keyboards, the nasty guitar sounds, the vocals eeeeeuuuuugggghhhhh
HC is much better, comes second to MG in terms of sound. The guitars sound
nice, everythings nicely mixed (except FON and AITM) and the bloody choirs
not there. Quite like the Lennon Delay vocals thing, in moderation
ferris bueller
i think there's a definite guitar sound on definitely maybe, is fucking
waves between noel and bonehead, it sounds magic, but on this one there's
too many bits like that plucky stretched bit in little by little. it all
sounds arkward and deliberate to me.
noel's lyrics, too ...
aren't as keen on them on this lp. little by little again a bit of an
obvious example, not just the first two lines, the lot. i think he used to
be naturally pretty poetic (fade away, spaceman, columbia, take me away)
> again, i tthink you are wrong. Most of the first two albums (all?) are
just
> chordy chordy chordy verse chorus middle 8 blah de blah de blah. I think
> the new album has songs built on just a riff or whatever
think the case in point is tht vs, say, something like supersonic, really.
donno. maybe it's just me gaying it up and preferring the old stuff.
opinions can't really be vigorously grilled, i just like stuff or don't like
it.
> hero of the week: Lester3
by the way, his name's matt lester, yeh? and he lives in leicester?
m
Marblehead Johnson
from ferris bueller
>> rubbish, theres far more guitar nobbing on DM then HC
>
> i think there's a definite guitar sound on definitely maybe, is
> fucking waves between noel and bonehead, it sounds magic, but on this
> one there's too many bits like that plucky stretched bit in little by
> little. it all sounds arkward and deliberate to me.
>
> noel's lyrics, too ...
> aren't as keen on them on this lp. little by little again a bit of an
> obvious example, not just the first two lines, the lot. i think he
> used to be naturally pretty poetic (fade away, spaceman, columbia,
> take me away)
>
>> again, i tthink you are wrong. Most of the first two albums (all?)
>> are just chordy chordy chordy verse chorus middle 8 blah de blah de
>> blah. I think the new album has songs built on just a riff or
>> whatever
>
> think the case in point is tht vs, say, something like supersonic,
well its funny you use that example considering THT was according to Noel
the first time he had written a song around a riff!
> really. donno. maybe it's just me gaying it up and preferring the
> old stuff. opinions can't really be vigorously grilled, i just like
> stuff or don't like it.
>
I will grill to my hearts desire young man
>> hero of the week: Lester3
>
> by the way, his name's matt lester, yeh? and he lives in leicester?
aye
>
> m
--
Me Band ==> www.dayglownet.co.uk
hero of the week: Lester3
AMO Fantasy Football League at
http://bbcfootball.fantasyleague.co.uk/friends/friends.asp?pin=107418
Frankie Boots
In article <20021028163953...@mb-ft.aol.com>, Digsy Rigby
<digsyr...@aol.com4me> wrote:
> THC Wrote:
> >I Want To Live In A Dream In My Record Machine ("ten minutes long and big
> >and psychadelic with loads of guitar solos")
>
> *Tsk* Not too crazy about any Noel song that exceeds 4-5 minutes. They tend to
> be over produced and a bit bland. They just don't age too well in my opinion.
> DYKWIM and CS are good examples.
>
> ------------------
> *~ Yves ~*
Snapper
i'm all for low quality production though. it shows where the good and bad
songs are at least, no one can then be jaded by fancy studio work.
a pearl drum kit, a couple epiphone les pauls and some cheapo marshall amps
would be the don. instead of using amps no one has ever bloody heard of.
what the fuck is a clarke tyger anyway?
Barnaby207
tunes. it just seems like the original songs were built on something, a
riff or whatever, and the majority of these were written either as chord
after chord to_write_a_song ...>>
I agree......they seem much less tune based than they used to. though i'm not
sure what you mean about the "chord after chord" bit.....Noel has always
written chord progressions first, then a melody, then lyrics
Barnaby207
I quite like BHN apart from magic pie......It's my second favorite album behind
DM. Maybe it's because I love layered guitars that I dig the
production.......also could be because I'm a big Phil Spector fan, and I'm
really into to a massive, powerful wall of sound. I don't really like subtle
music.....and production, let's put it that way. I'm bothered by the length of
a few tracks....but not to the point that it ruins the album. I loved the
album ever since I first bought it....and it stayed in my stereo for about 3
straight months. I loved it because it was a proper rock album, with songs
that flowed together perfectly and cohesively....it didn't feel like 5 singles
with some filler like MG did....and I knew it would alienate a lot of the pop
fans of Morning Glory....which to me sounds very glossy, and polished....I
can't stand the production on that. Whereas Be Here Now may sound
massive.....but it's also still pretty sloppy, and raw......which keeps it a
rock n' roll album.
Barnaby207
not nearly enough distortion and they're using rubbish amps.>>
that's not quite true......songs like force of nature, hung in a bad place,
hindu times, better man etc....uses just as much, or more distortion than there
is on DM. The guitar sounds are thicker and heavier now......proper beefy rock
tones. Definitely Maybe had rather trebley, jangly guitar work....a bit like
the La's or the Roses......listen closely, it's really not that heavy....and
the guitars aren't even mixed that high.....they're sort of just chiming away
in the background. Anyway, Be Here Now has their most rock n' roll guitar
work...
Strange Thing
> ferris bueller, proud owner of 179 cardigans, said:
> > oasis must share the blame if they are to share in god's love,
> > though, be serious. i don't think he did a good job producing, but
> > it's just that there's an inkling of the (preferable to us ...)
> > original oasis sound on that lp. overrun by shit, yeh, but something
> > that they've lost with either spike or a self produced lp.
>
>
they should get leckie......be nice to hear a leckie produced oasis record,
don;t you think?
Strange Thing
>
> DM sounds absolutely horrid, I can hardly stand that album anymore, had it
> on yesterday. bar married With Children and Live Forever i think the
sound
> is horrible.
>
it's badly prodcued, liam doesn't sound that good, songs are good tho.....
> Morning Glory sounds absolutely gorgeous, except Roll With It which sounds
> awkward
>
agreed, but liams vocal on roll with it is one of my fave liam vocals ever
> BHN sounds Ok, few too many overdubs and a bit long but the sound is not
> tooooo bad
its fat and tired
>
> SOTSOG, as horrible as DM, maybe a little horribler. the choir noises,
the
> keyboards, the nasty guitar sounds, the vocals eeeeeuuuuugggghhhhh
>
yep, probably worse than dm, clunky....
> HC is much better, comes second to MG in terms of sound. The guitars
sound
> nice, everythings nicely mixed (except FON and AITM) and the bloody choirs
> not there. Quite like the Lennon Delay vocals thing, in moderation
>
>
its very dull tho?
Strange Thing
yep, bring it on down would sound shite if done now......
Strange Thing
"ferris bueller" <i...@reason.to.be.happy> wrote in message
always thought you liked that song? i think its shite, really bad, one of
the worst songs they've done, its lifeless and long
KingCreole: how can you say no?
> its very dull tho?
>
god gave you ears to avoid such sneers, babe
--
KingCreole @ www.mybigmouth.com
----
a serpent dances on the breaking back
tracks you down leaves you there again
----
KingCreole: how can you say no?
your life is creeping up behind, it just won't let you go
fucking genius
Ghost Dancer
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021029162452...@mb-mh.aol.com...
agree 100%. its the big fuck-off sound and noise of it that gets me
everytime. offensive and in-yer-face. apart from magic pie and AATW reprise,
think everything on it is a gem. nothing better than sitting in the car,
blaring out my big mouth, IHITIK, and its getin better man.
Cookie Dude
post this:
>> For songs not aging well? Go and stand in the corner for at least a
>> week right now, young lady!
>> DYKWIM and CS are class, in fact all of BHN is cool and each song on
>> that album is about 3 days long
>
> a lot of that album's shit, though, isn't it?
> the girl in the dirty shirt's just the baddest song anyone's ever
> written.
naah! The one thing I'll say about BHN is that it doesn't have a stand out
track a la Live forever or Supersonic, which in my weird logic also works in
its favour. Cos really, whatever track you put next to something like Live
forever, it's gonna sound shit, isn't it? It's a theory of mine, that if
Shakermaker and Up in the sky were not the tracks before and after Live
forever, people might rate them higher.
I think the quality of the songs on BHN is constant throughout and there's
not a single track on this album that I consider shit, in fact TGITDS was
one of my early favourites, along with IHITIK. But each to his own or
however that saying goes
> thirty tracks of guitar my arse ...
The only track that does take it too far IMO is IGBM. That track should have
been no longer than 4 mins. Everything else is fine by me.
André
--
I know this because Tyler knows this
Darcy
"Strange Thing" <iwannabea...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:apn03k$ba0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "jamiec²¹: prude" <noemail=nos...@mail.com> wrote in message
MeMeMe
> some point. good oasis songs from the past 3 years can be counted on one
> hand, i think. even if you're missing a couple of fingers :)
I don't get it. You're not the first person I've heard say this.
3 years is a long time to be listening to a band that's only done 3 decent
songs (In YOUR opinion). So why are you still here? To bring everyone else
down?
Go away!
jamiec补: prude
> Cos really, whatever track you put
> next to something like Live forever, it's gonna sound shit, isn't it?
why bother then? they should quit right now shouldn't they? what's the
point, otherwise? are we going to work out a ranking system to decide
what songs are better than others?
Carsten Frederiksen
>
> I don't get it. You're not the first person I've heard say this.
>
> 3 years is a long time to be listening to a band that's only done 3 decent
> songs (In YOUR opinion). So why are you still here? To bring everyone else
> down?
>
> Go away!
yeah exactly, you don't get it. people can have an opinion about things,
sometimes it's different from yours. it's perfectly legal. if i bring you down
by stating mine then i'm really terribly sorry. it's just my opinion.
if you can't handle it then perhaps you're the one who should consider going
away. i certainly won't. i know an awful lot of good people in here that i
enjoy talking to, even if we don't agree on everything.
Carsten
--
Abundant dulcibus vitiis.
Mr.Psychosis
"ferris bueller" <i...@reason.to.be.happy> wrote:
> > ...uagmire? ...uaterback? ...uadrangle?
>
> ...uarterback, actually. get it right.
You're entering a world of pain.
> and if you're going to be captain credibility, then don't just dismiss my
> legitimate conversational point!
But it's been the same bloody point for the last 18 months, just tarted
up a bit to suit different threads. It's now beyond boring and entering
the realms of an Andrew Lloyd Webber theme night on BBC 2.
> which way'd you argue on whether the sound (not the songs, not the delivery,
> nothing like that) of the first two lps is better than the last three?
I wouldn't. All five lps sound different, cos they were recorded at
different times under different circumstances. If HC sounded like DM,
Oasis would be fakes. Is that what you want?
MeMeMe
> sometimes it's different from yours. it's perfectly legal. if i bring you
down
> by stating mine then i'm really terribly sorry. it's just my opinion.
> if you can't handle it then perhaps you're the one who should consider
going
> away. i certainly won't. i know an awful lot of good people in here that i
> enjoy talking to, even if we don't agree on everything.
Having an opinion isn't the issue was trying your raise. It's that you've
held your opinion for 3 years, and still you come here.
3 years is a bloody long time. The words "sad" and "troll" spring to mind.
Carsten Frederiksen
hahaha, oh shush kiddo. read it againand use your brain this time. besides
nobody wants you to read my posts. luckily there are people in here capable
of having a discussion with others who don't share their exact opinion. you
just seem to like being hostile towards everybody so the word "insignificant"
spring to mind. there's nothing like a good insult, but try to be original
if you really feel you have to do it.
xxx
Snapper
MeMeMe <aw...@play.com> wrote in message
news:103596784...@iris.uk.clara.net...
> > yeah exactly, you don't get it. people can have an opinion about things,
> > sometimes it's different from yours. it's perfectly legal. if i bring
you
> down
> > by stating mine then i'm really terribly sorry. it's just my opinion.
> > if you can't handle it then perhaps you're the one who should consider
> going
> > away. i certainly won't. i know an awful lot of good people in here that
i
> > enjoy talking to, even if we don't agree on everything.
>
> Having an opinion isn't the issue was trying your raise. It's that you've
> held your opinion for 3 years, and still you come here.
>
he still likes oasis, albeit only a couple of songs! maybe he still wants to
know what they're up to?
> 3 years is a bloody long time. The words "sad" and "troll" spring to mind.
tool.
carsten is a dude and a handsome one to boot.
Snapper
in message news:7DDv9.1872$1f1.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Strange Thing be-bopped news:apn0c9$q0$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > its very dull tho?
> >
>
> god gave you ears to avoid such sneers, babe
>
alex, you should write songs! i mean, good ones!
;-p
--
Snapper
--
Warning: Offending me may harm your nutsack
Snapper
news:apn7ah$380fq$1...@ID-35858.news.dfncis.de...
> are we going to work out a ranking system to decide
> what songs are better than others?
>
>
we have one, it's called the charts!
Andrew
_______
Andrew
"Snapper" <snappe...@beeris.foamy.com> wrote in message
news:dnPv9.1615$db5....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Snapper
news:3dbfcb2d$0$20540$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Nah, that just shows what SINGLES are popular with KIDS really, doesn't
it?
'twas sarcasm.
Cookie Dude
post this:
> ***I'm just praying that you were only being sarcastic. I'm not going
> to get into how over-produced BHN is because its been discussed to
> death. You have your opinion and I have mine. The only proper songs
> on that album (in MY opinion) are DGA and BHN. Its just the least
> listened to Oasis album in my collection. =)
I'm not being sarcastic, BHN is battling with MG for third favourite Oasis
album for me (1. DM, 2. The Masterplan) - but as you said, it's a matter of
opinion and taste, and these are known to differ
KingCreole: how can you say no?
news:gkPv9.1605$db5....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> KingCreole: how can you say no? <al...@mySPAMTRAPPED-HEREbigmouth.com>
> wrote in message
> news:7DDv9.1872$1f1.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> Strange Thing be-bopped news:apn0c9$q0$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>
>>> its very dull tho?
>>>
>>
>> god gave you ears to avoid such sneers, babe
>>
>
> alex, you should write songs! i mean, good ones!
>
> ;-p
>
> --
> Snapper
>
>> --
>> KingCreole @ www.mybigmouth.com
>> ----
>> a serpent dances on the breaking back
>> tracks you down leaves you there again
>> ----
you think? :D
Cookie Dude
to post this:
> Cookie Dude, proud owner of 179 cardigans, said:
why are you always so petty, when someone only hints at a negative opinion
towards Oasis? Relax a bit for christ's sake! All I was saying, is that I
think Up in the sky comes off so bad with a lot of fans because it's the
track after Live forever on the album. So while it is not too bad a song
(imo), people might rate it lower, simply because it's next to the song that
has been voted "best Oasis song of all times" on a few occasions.
I wasn't saying they should stop making music, because they can't write
another Live forever (they probably can), I was saying that the arrangement
of the tracklistings might play into how people perceive the songs - another
example: Morning Glory sounds so much better when you just had to sit
through She's electric. Get my point now?
jamiec补: prude
> why are you always so petty, when someone only hints at a negative
> opinion towards Oasis? Relax a bit for christ's sake! All I was
> saying, is that I think Up in the sky comes off so bad with a lot of
> fans because it's the track after Live forever on the album. So while
> it is not too bad a song (imo), people might rate it lower, simply
> because it's next to the song that has been voted "best Oasis song of
> all times" on a few occasions. I wasn't saying they should stop
> making music, because they can't write another Live forever (they
> probably can), I was saying that the arrangement of the tracklistings
> might play into how people perceive the songs - another example:
> Morning Glory sounds so much better when you just had to sit through
> She's electric. Get my point now?
it's wank reasons that annoy me. like "well the songs are alright but
they're not as good as cigarettes & alcohol are they?". now some people
might think they are perfectly fine reasons but i don't. and i'll
respond to that - typically in a very sarcastic tone like my earlier
reply.
ferris bueller
he's doing the new shack, you know ...
and just did the crescent as a freebie. think it's too late for a leckie
oasis record.
Cookie Dude
to post this:
> it's wank reasons that annoy me. like "well the songs are alright but
> they're not as good as cigarettes & alcohol are they?". now some
> people might think they are perfectly fine reasons but i don't. and
> i'll respond to that - typically in a very sarcastic tone like my
> earlier reply.
But I wasn't saying something like that at all, is that really so hard to
comprehend?`
ferris bueller
> up a bit to suit different threads. It's now beyond boring and entering
> the realms of an Andrew Lloyd Webber theme night on BBC 2.
oh shush ...
i was asking if anyone thought the last three oasis lps sound better than
the first two. not to prove that MY OPINION IS RIGHT, but out of curiosity.
are you going to answer it? if not, then shush!
> I wouldn't. All five lps sound different, cos they were recorded at
> different times under different circumstances. If HC sounded like DM,
> Oasis would be fakes. Is that what you want?
gay off.
it keeps cropping up in your post that i want definitely maybe again - i
don't, i've got it, i want something good. i'm just complaining about the
badness of it, i've enough rants stating that -it doesn't matter what kind
of music it is, if it's good it's good- to corroborate that. they can go
disco if they want, if it's good it's good, if it's bad it's bad.
ferris bueller
> the first time he had written a song around a riff!
yeh, i know ;)
i was comparing the two as two songs written with proper guitar parts. i'm
not sure what i was trying to prove.
> I will grill to my hearts desire young man
go for it.
> >> hero of the week: Lester3
> >
> > by the way, his name's matt lester, yeh? and he lives in leicester?
>
> aye
hahahahaha ;)
m
ferris bueller
> it's badly prodcued, liam doesn't sound that good, songs are good tho.....
go and put slide away on.
ferris bueller
> the worst songs they've done, its lifeless and long
never liked that song. have constantly whinged about it though, if that's
of any consolation.
ferris bueller
> forever, it's gonna sound shit, isn't it? It's a theory of mine, that if
> Shakermaker and Up in the sky were not the tracks before and after Live
> forever, people might rate them higher.
freakishly right!
yeh!
isolated listening, particularly of shakermaker as a single, and of up in
the sky goes for that. both top tunes in my book. available at ...
m
ferris bueller
> they're not as good as cigarettes & alcohol are they?". now some people
> might think they are perfectly fine reasons but i don't. and i'll
> respond to that - typically in a very sarcastic tone like my earlier
> reply.
oh, YEH, cos sarcasm's REALLY FUNNY ...
was rambling on about this to a mate last night after seeing one of those
dress up common room grungy-guitar bands that try and be a bit bluesy ...
i don't really dig comparisons, but i think that putting a fast guitar based
tune like hung in a bad place or full on against a fast guitar based tune
like headshrinker or fade away is pretty worthwhile, just cos it's - well,
this one's better than that one!, or whatever you think.
jamiec补: prude
> go and put slide away on.
that's it! forget all these fancy dan producer names - let's get dave
bachelor back!
jamiec补: prude
> i don't really dig comparisons, but i think that putting a fast
> guitar based tune like hung in a bad place or full on against a fast
> guitar based tune like headshrinker or fade away is pretty
> worthwhile, just cos it's - well, this one's better than that one!,
> or whatever you think.
yeah, but what i'm saying is that HIABP isn't made any better or worse
by anything that headshrinker has. i believe that each and every song
should be judged on it's own merits and not be weighed down by pointless
comparisons.
jamiec补: prude
> hard to comprehend?`
well i thought you was. if you wasn't then fair enough and soz.
Cookie Dude
post this:
>> forever, it's gonna sound shit, isn't it? It's a theory of mine,
Heh, thanks. I hope Jamie finally understands what I was on about too. I
wasn't comparing any songs with the above statement, just trying to say why
I think people often rate Shakermaker and Up in the sky as bad songs. While
I don't think they are great, I like to listen to them every once in a
while.
ferris bueller
> bachelor back!
defo!
might have been bizarrely done and unenjoyable but it came out alright
enough ...
ferris bueller
> by anything that headshrinker has. i believe that each and every song
> should be judged on it's own merits and not be weighed down by pointless
> comparisons.
yeh - more than see your point matey. all this on our side just comes from
frustration because i don't think they've done themselves justice. fuck
knows though, it's just me moaning.
ferris bueller
> wasn't comparing any songs with the above statement, just trying to say
why
> I think people often rate Shakermaker and Up in the sky as bad songs.
While
> I don't think they are great, I like to listen to them every once in a
> while.
i just don't understand anyone thinking they're not great - the sound of
shakermaker, guitars on it, and the vocal of up in the sky particularly.
might put it on in fact.
MeMeMe
mind.
>
> tool.
>
> carsten is a dude and a handsome one to boot.
Hey, I never said he was ugly! :-P
KingCreole: how can you say no?
> it's just me moaning.
i hadn't noticed ;)
Carsten Frederiksen
> he still likes oasis, albeit only a couple of songs! maybe he still wants to
> know what they're up to?
yep, love oasis with a passion. just haven't heard anything good from them
in a while.
> tool.
>
> carsten is a dude and a handsome one to boot.
thank you.
i'll transfer the money soon :)
Carsten
--
Abundant dulcibus vitiis.
KingCreole: how can you say no?
> Snapper wrote:
>
>> he still likes oasis, albeit only a couple of songs! maybe he still
>> wants to know what they're up to?
>
> yep, love oasis with a passion. just haven't heard anything good from
> them in a while.
download heathen chemistry then :P
Carsten Frederiksen
> Carsten Frederiksen be-bopped news:3DC05FCB...@elvis.dk:
>
>
>>Snapper wrote:
>>
>>
>>>he still likes oasis, albeit only a couple of songs! maybe he still
>>>wants to know what they're up to?
>>
>>yep, love oasis with a passion. just haven't heard anything good from
>>them in a while.
>
>
> download heathen chemistry then :P
yeah, well i've really really really given HC many chances until now but it
just won't catch on. so for now it's doing well gathering dust :)
KingCreole: how can you say no?
Mr.Psychosis
"ferris bueller" <i...@reason.to.be.happy> wrote:
> > But it's been the same bloody point for the last 18 months, just tarted
> > up a bit to suit different threads. It's now beyond boring and entering
> > the realms of an Andrew Lloyd Webber theme night on BBC 2.
>
> oh shush ...
Don't shush me; I fought in the baggy wars of '89 so you could wear
those appalling flares. Show a bit of respect.
> i was asking if anyone thought the last three oasis lps sound better than
> the first two. not to prove that MY OPINION IS RIGHT, but out of curiosity.
> are you going to answer it? if not, then shush!
FFS... no, I don't think the first two albums sound BETTER than the last
three, just DIFFERENT. If Oasis made five albums over a period of eight
years that all sounded the same, they'd be faking it. Get it? No, I
didn't think so. Let me spell it out for you...
When they made DM, Oasis were a bunch of unemployed scallies from
Burnage dreaming of becoming rock'n'roll stars. And that's exactly what
DM sounds like.
When they made MG, Oasis were bona-fide rock'n'roll stars living the
dream of a million working-class kids with tennis rackets. And that's
exactly what MG sounds like.
When they made BHN, Oasis were a bunch of working-class millionaires
with country houses and chocolate-coloured Rolls-Royces. And that's
exactly what BHN sounds like.
When they made SOTSOG, Oasis were a band disillusioned with the
shallowness of fame and falling out of love with their wives and each
other. And that's exactly what SOTSOG sounds like.
When they made HC, Oasis were wounded souls finding redemption in simple
rock'n'roll music again after years of marriage break-ups, lewd tabloid
headlines and copious drug-taking. And that's exactly what HC sounds
like.
So, in summary: why should I moan about the last three Oasis albums,
when they sound exactly how they're supposed to sound?
> > I wouldn't. All five lps sound different, cos they were recorded at
> > different times under different circumstances. If HC sounded like DM,
> > Oasis would be fakes. Is that what you want?
>
> gay off.
Er... does that involve anal sex with a man? Or would fancying Tim
Burgess suffice?
> it keeps cropping up in your post that i want definitely maybe again - i
> don't, i've got it,
So why do you compare everything Oasis ever record to DM? Why can't you
judge each Oasis album on its own merits instead of being an arse and
saying if it ain't as good as DM, what's the point?
> i want something good.
"Heathen Chemistry" IS good. It's you that's crap.
> i'm just complaining about the
> badness of it, i've enough rants stating that -it doesn't matter what kind
> of music it is, if it's good it's good- to corroborate that. they can go
> disco if they want, if it's good it's good, if it's bad it's bad.
But you rate The Music and think The Streets are shit. By that logic,
you saying the last three Oasis lps are rubbish is actually a pretty
good recommendation.
Mr.Psychosis
"ferris bueller" <i...@reason.to.be.happy> wrote:
> i don't really dig comparisons, but i think that putting a fast guitar based
> tune like hung in a bad place or full on against a fast guitar based tune
> like headshrinker or fade away is pretty worthwhile, just cos it's - well,
> this one's better than that one!, or whatever you think.
In that case, you should follow your own logic and compare The Music's
debut album next to Led Zeppelin (I) and The Stone Roses, and conclude
that The Music are indeed rubbish.
Mr.Psychosis
"jamiec补: prude" <noemail=nos...@mail.com> wrote:
> yeah, but what i'm saying is that HIABP isn't made any better or worse
> by anything that headshrinker has. i believe that each and every song
> should be judged on it's own merits and not be weighed down by pointless
> comparisons.
I wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoint.