oh yeah goddit

Trying to remember who has been mentioned in this fred, I will try to keep this concise (don't hold ya breath)

Annie Lennox - Loved Eurythmics, Sweet Dreams are Made of This is berrrilliant. Her material as a solo artist - no. (I remember seeing the Eurythmics make their debut performance on Razzmatazz years and years ago)

Dire Straits - The only song of theirs I ever liked was Walk of Life. But to me Mark Knopfler just sounds like he's bored and constipated.

Oasis - Genuis! They launched at the perfect time and led the way for so many more indie bands. Thank God they did, until then it was SAW pop produced fizz bubble shite, headlined by Jason Donovan and Kylie Minogue aiming for global domination. Their early stuff was fanbloodyacetastic.

The Beatles - The originals.

Duran Duran - I wasn't an avid fan but thought their material was great considering it was mid 80's and at least they were a real band who played instruments and could play live. Their image was good too, with the 'something to suit everyone' theme. (Nick Rhodes was proper odd but cool but still odd)


Can't remember any of the rest!

Huh, Oasis?  Until then Stock Aitkin and Waterman?

What about 'indie dance' and 'Madchester' scene of 1989-91?  The Happy Mondays, 808 State, Blur, The Charlatans, The Shamen, James, The Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets and some I've forgotten.  All predate Oasis by around four years and all had quite a lot of success.

..... and are all vastly superior.

(Of course some of us, if we had been able to knit, would have been knitting scarves for Paul Rodgers)

But didn't achieve the same widespread success, Oasis spoke to a new audience and made an alternative genre of music a lot more accessible, not heard by a dedicated audience in the way the bands you mentioned were. (And bloody good bands they were, too). Wasn't their fault, or Oasis's fault, it was the media who didn't hype up the aforementioned bands in the same way they did Oasis. People had to 'seek' out the good bands as airplay was mainly dominated by and targeted towards the pop end of the spectrum. Yes, the bands were played, but I don't recall the same level of hype that surrounded Oasis when they launched. Almost everybody knew Wonderwall and Don't Look Back in Anger, whereas before only 1 in 4 people say, would have been familiar with the work of The Shamen, Stone Roses, Inspiral Carpets...etc.

Just my opinion

Oh and I remember in '94 Blur and Oasis were going head to head so from memory those 2 bands were at chart war at the same time.

Not so sure about that Karma_.  Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree here.  Stone Roses Spike Island concert was attended by 27,000, most of the other bands I mentioned were in around the top 10 quite often at the time.  I forgot Suede and Primal Scream.   Nirvana in 1991 of course. The big touring bands pre 1990s were the likes of U2, Simple Minds and the Smiths, To my recollection, house/acid house/techno - its various offshoots and indie dance killed off Stock, Aitken and Waterman long before Oasis.

Oasis did nothing to kill the scourge that is the harmony vocal boy band, sadly.

I really can't agree with this Karms. I think they became successful on the back of their first album which was quite good then they commercialised themselves as dreadful Lennon wannabes, capitalising on the ignorance of a younger audience who never really knew the Beatles so to them this was all 'new'. 

The songs you mentioned (Wonderwall and Don't Look Back In Anger) was the start of a long string of tracks and albums that were nothing but mediocre middle of the road dross but somehow it became fashionable to like them as some kind of indie sensation when the reality of the situation was they were pretty much the opposite of that. I don't think there was anything 'alternative' at all about them after their first album.

Maybe New York Dolls.

Agree with you to an extent about Oasis Prom.

Thought they were good at the start though.

I WAS AT THAT!!!

27th May...  twas on my birthday!!!    Was the first big concert I ever went to!

Was bloody amazing!

Morrissey - His songs depress me. 

I agree Prom.  That's the thing about slavishly emulating your heroes.  Without sounding too pompous and pretentious, when the Beatles (and their peers) did it in the 1960s, it was a new sound, spirit of the times and progression from what had been before.

By the time Oasis did it and increasingly did it by numbers, them and other similarly retro sounding bands like Ocean Colour Scene justifiably earned the derisory tag, 'dad rock'.

I bought "Don't believe the truth" a few years ago and I thought it was a good catchy album and a partial return to form but I couldn't help thinking that Oasis were trying on different 'classic' rock hats so there was Oasis as T Rex, as the Kinks and as the Velvet Underground along with the usual Lennon homages.

I bought a CD....  & attended one of the concerts....    and I only liked one of their songs!    

the rest were cack

I like that!

Thinking about it, you're right. I've missed out a couple of years I'm just thinking back to what was being played on mainstream radio, and '87-'90 was the SAW revolution and (shite), '90-92 was (from memory) more of a dance period, with hip hop and dance becoming more mainstream. (I listened to pirate stations and alternative stations like Kiss FM and Choice back then too). I was well aware of the bands you mentioned, but don't remember the mainstream DJ's going nuts over them or the sound dominating the airwaves like the other 2 genres did. Every day there seemed to be a new act popping up with another new SAW soundalike or dance record.


Hope you can see what I mean, I'm in no way saying the bands weren't any good, on the contrary, they were bloody awesome and wrote some fantastic stuff, but their audience didn't have to be converted or media manipulated to hear or know of them.

LOL Ditty.. I quite liked OCS but originality certainly wasn't their best quality.

bon jovi are fantastic... they are much more than `livin on a prayer` (which is crap)   the beatles are overrated.. as is mariah carey..biffa cole.. westlife.. beyonce...michael jackson.. and a lot more i cannot think of at this point

As someone who was still 'young' then, I disagree with that. Anyone I knew who liked them, did so for their own work whether they knew of the Beatles or not. As an avid Beatles fan since as far back as I can remember, it didn't cross my mind once that Oasis were trying to emulate them in any way. I just saw them as this fresh, new, exciting band with a great sound and thought they were amazingly creative. I was bored of the dance and over studio produced stuff that just seemed to dominate all the pubs and had done so since the SAW days. (Funny enough I first heard Wonderwall in a pub on a night that traditionally played RnB/Dance).


Reference:
I refer you to the bit above where I said fresh, new and exciting.


Some people follow genres of music to fit on or impress. I don't.

I agree Karma_ on the mainstream popularity thing, Oasis had a huge popularity in the mid to late 90s, far exceding the indie dance bands.  They were in the tabloids like Cheryl Cole is in the tabloids now.

Oh God Beyonce gets right on my friggin norks   Yes she can sing but her voice grates on me like a dose of the thrush. Plus she tries too hard and it looks so contrived. Put her against Dusty, Ella or Aretha and she'd look like a dickhead. Those 3 made it look effortless, Beyonce makes it look like she's having open heart surgery with no anaesthetic. Twunt.

Yaaaaay we agreeeeeee In yo FASE Promeeeefeus! HA!

really?

I was bang into Oasis (for the first two albums)...  was never that into The Beatles (before my time).. had nothing against them... just wasn't my music...    but even I eventually came to the conclusion that Oasis were trying to be The Beatles of our decade.


oh... & as someone that was also right into The Stone Roses, Happy Mondays etc..     I loved the "Madchester" era...  it was exciting..    but then it faded (Stone Roses got tied up in a contract war with their label, Shauny got a little bit too off his face, THe Shamen teamed up with MrC & went mainstream (in the best & funniest way ever), etc etc).... and then there was a lull...    This was when I started raving...   so mainstream music slipped from my radar...  nothing interested me, til Oasis came along.

But...  I don't think Oasis rocked the music world more than the Madchester Indie bands mentioned...  I think it was more than when Oasis released their first album it was the only decent thing about at that time.

And... I think Oasis spoke to a certain demographic...  which if you were in that demographic it felt like the whole world was listening to the same album together at the same time.

Yep. Really.

I was more into the dance scene in the Madchester days, my main raving days were between 88-95, admittedly it was Oasis who caused me to take a deeper interest in the indie stuff (even though I was well aware of it, liked it and had some of the music, my main focus was the dance house/garage/jungle/DnB scene around those times).

I'm not saying Oasis were better than their predecessors, I'm saying that to me, they were bloody brilliant at what they did. And thanks to the media interest it enabled them to gain a much wider audience and put indie on the map in a different and much wider way than before.

Fresh, new and creative can hardly be applied to a band that sounded desperate to be some kind of modern Lennon tribute. You may not see them that way but loads of people do and there has to be an obvious reason why so many people come to the same conclusion. I really don't know why you refer to them as indie, they are a mainstream rock band there's nothing faintly 'indie' about them. The first album had an indie sound, after that I think the term applied to them by I think it was Carnelian i.e. 'dad rock' fits them like a glove.

yeah... I'll agree with that.

one of my major irritations when discussing music with my daughter is when we get onto the subject of genre...  (the youff of today are bastardising the meaning of established genres ...  and overcomplicating it)...   but til today I had never thought of Oasis as being in the same genre as the other indie stuff..... weird innit!

In YOUR opinion!


Because everyone's different. It doesn't mean that those who love them are right or those who don't are right. It's down to individual taste, as is everything. You might like marzipan, 50% of the population may not, it doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong. Everyone's perfectly entitled to state their opinion but to me, it seems a bit silly to say that just because a certain percentage do not find Oasis appealing for whatever reason makes their opinion to be the right one.

As for my reference as an indie band, to me, they opened up doors for indie bands who before, might have had to struggle to be heard or noticed. They created a platform for new ears that were ready to listen. I can say this cos I was one of them.

Stop verbally beating me up man Gawd you're pesky today. I'll put it down to being post-menopausal

We'll just have to agree I'm right and you're wrong to disagree 

I hate you