Radiohead, Oasis

[funyun]

Why the hate between the fans?

Both bands definetely own and are the best thing going for music right now.

 

[nadroj1985]

Why the hate between the fans?

Both bands definetely own and are the best thing going for music right now.

Well... while I don't hate Oasis by any means, I also don't think they're anywhere near the best thing going for music right now. Actually, I wouldn't say Radiohead is either, although I love them. But I definitely like them better than Oasis.

Perhaps the fans hate each other because Oasis and Radiohead get lumped together as "Brit-pop," when they are really miles away musically.

 

[funyun]

Well... while I don't hate Oasis by any means, I also don't think they're anywhere near the best thing going for music right now. Actually, I wouldn't say Radiohead is either, although I love them. But I definitely like them better than Oasis.

Perhaps the fans hate each other because Oasis and Radiohead get lumped together as "Brit-pop," when they are really miles away musically.

There is no doubt in my mind that they are the two leading bands in existance right now that are keeping rock and roll alive. Bob Dylan was awesome in Time Out of Mind, but showed he's slipping with Love and Theft. And he's the wise old man on the scene.

What I love about them is, as you say, they are miles away from each other. They are keeping their respective sides alive. Oasis plays more to a conventional rock crowd, more in the vein of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and The Who, whereas Radiohead is more experimental, reflecting in many ways Pink Floyd and The Doors. They're peanut butter and jelly, and to me epitomize the seperate faces of modern rock and how that's relevant to older rock.

I think the reason the fans hate each other is because of the bands' fights. I mean, Thom Yorke has called Oasis "primitive music" and did that Wonderwall spoof with the Pixies. Oasis has said some things about Radiohead too that weren't very complimentary. They've gotten better recently though. I find the fans are much worse.

 

[nadroj1985]

There is no doubt in my mind that they are the two leading bands in existance right now that are keeping rock and roll alive.

Ah, well I'd have to disagree very strongly. I think if you look harder, there's quite a bit of brilliant music being made right now. If you have looked hard, and still think that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree At the very least, the Fiery Furnaces, Wilco, Interpol, the Decemberists, and Sigur Ros are all wonderful.

Oasis plays more to a conventional rock crowd, more in the vein of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and The Who, whereas Radiohead is more experimental, reflecting in many ways Pink Floyd and The Doors. They're peanut butter and jelly, and to me epitomize the seperate faces of modern rock and how that's relevant to older rock.

Maybe, but I don't really think that way. It's too focused on the past. I don't want to hear the next Beatles/Pink Floyd/*insert favorite classic rock band here*. I want to hear something new. Not that I think Radiohead isn't doing something new; "Hail to the Thief" is only a disappointment when compared to their other albums. I don't see anything particularly special in Oasis, but you probably like them a lot more than I do.

I think the reason the fans hate each other is because of the bands' fights. I mean, Thom Yorke has called Oasis "primitive music" and did that Wonderwall spoof with the Pixies. Oasis has said some things about Radiohead too that weren't very complimentary. They've gotten better recently though. I find the fans are much worse.

Yeah, generally the fans care more about competition than the bands do. I agree with Yorke's statement, though

 

[funyun]

Maybe, but I don't really think that way. It's too focused on the past. I don't want to hear the next Beatles/Pink Floyd/*insert favorite classic rock band here*. I want to hear something new. Not that I think Radiohead isn't doing something new; "Hail to the Thief" is only a disappointment when compared to their other albums. I don't see anything particularly special in Oasis, but you probably like them a lot more than I do.

I'm just saying that you can hear these old bands in their music, not that they are just copies of older bands. They are definitely original in their own senses. I mean, listen to Subterranean Homesick Alien and tell me you don't hear Pink Floyd. Listen to Born On a Different Cloud and tell me you don't hear the Beatles. I don't think that makes them any less original. It just means they have visible influences.

 

[blackwasp]

I like both bands to an extent, but Radiohead more. I think, however, that both bands have already peaked and placed their mark on music. I think the bands that are changing music are the White Stripes and Modest Mouse. I, too, am waiting on a band to knock the world on it's bum. I think the stage is set for a band to come along and change the scene just as the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Guns n Roses, and Nirvana did. I'm just curious as to how it will be done. This could be a thread in itself, so I'll try not to stray too much more from the OP, but I think the next band to come along may have to demolish almost every foundation set up in music.

 

[goat37]

Oasis is playing music again?

I was sure one of the brothers had killed the other by now

 

[twosteppin]

Oasis is playing music again?

I was sure one of the brothers had killed the other by now

lol. What was the concert they had where the one brother was sick and was in the audience being obnoxious and really ticking of his brother?

Ok, sorry, carry on with the topic at hand...

 

[theFijian]

Oasis were very popular for a few years back in the mid to late 90s but to call them 'the best thing going for music' is stretching things a bit. There's no doubting that they have written some catchy pop-rock tunes but I fear that in 10 years time or so (if they last that long) they will become like Status Quo are today, musically irrelevant and playing to crowds of ages 40+ and unable to get airplay cos they're just a teensy bit of an embarrassment.

And where are you getting it from the Radiohead and Oasis fans hate each other? Do you have any news articles to demonstrate this?

 

[funyun]

I like both bands to an extent, but Radiohead more. I think, however, that both bands have already peaked and placed their mark on music. I think the bands that are changing music are the White Stripes and Modest Mouse. I, too, am waiting on a band to knock the world on it's bum. I think the stage is set for a band to come along and change the scene just as the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Guns n Roses, and Nirvana did. I'm just curious as to how it will be done. This could be a thread in itself, so I'll try not to stray too much more from the OP, but I think the next band to come along may have to demolish almost every foundation set up in music.

You obviously have your own taste in music, and I respect that. But the White Stripes, while good, don't try hard enough. Jack White is a great guitarist, but he never applies himself on his albums. Instead he writes songs like "Seven Nation Army" that are catchy but are just minimalist to a fault. He could do much more than what he aims for on his albums. That said, I've heard his stage performance owns.

Oasis were very popular for a few years back in the mid to late 90s but to call them 'the best thing going for music' is stretching things a bit. There's no doubting that they have written some catchy pop-rock tunes but I fear that in 10 years time or so (if they last that long) they will become like Status Quo are today, musically irrelevant and playing to crowds of ages 40+ and unable to get airplay cos they're just a teensy bit of an embarrassment.

They alone are not the best. Radiohead and they are sustaining rock. If it weren't for those two bands, I'd go crazy and completely lose hope for modern music. And please, do not ever call something with guitars, bass, and drums "pop". Britney Spears is pop. Backstreet Boys are pop. A band that writes their own music shouldn't be judged so harshly.

And where are you getting it from the Radiohead and Oasis fans hate each other? Do you have any news articles to demonstrate this?

They do hate each other, though I have met a few other people who, like myself, really love both bands. I'm talking mainly from personal experience here, but you can go look on the internet yourself. You’ll see Radiohead fans sites dedicated to making fun of Oasis and vice versa. I think a lot of it is just following suit after what the bands themselves have done in the past. Monkey see monkey do.

 

[nadroj1985]

You obviously have your own taste in music, and I respect that. But the White Stripes, while good, don't try hard enough. Jack White is a great guitarist, but he never applies himself on his albums. Instead he writes songs like "Seven Nation Army" that are catchy but are just minimalist to a fault. He could do much more than what he aims for on his albums.

No accounting for tastes, eh? I think "Seven Nation Army" is wonderful, and most of the White Stripes' music, precisely because it is so minimalistic. That's what distinguishes them, IMO.

 

[funyun]

No accounting for tastes, eh? I think "Seven Nation Army" is wonderful, and most of the White Stripes' music, precisely because it is so minimalistic. That's what distinguishes them, IMO.

I never said it wasn't a good song. It's a great song. But ya know, what the heck is original about having every single song on your album be a song I could write myself in 20 minutes? Practically all their songs are based around one or two simple riffs and/or a slight progression, overdubbed "bass" line, and drums. They're a good band, and as I said earlier, Jack White is actually an amazing guitar player, but there's nothing significant or special about their studio albums when all their songs follow the exact same formula.

If I had written and recorded Elephant and gave it to you to listen to, you'd probably criticize it as being minimalist and half-baked. Bust when a well-established group does it, it's "distinguished".

 

[nadroj1985]

I never said it wasn't a good song. It's a great song. But ya know, what the heck is original about having every single song on your album be a song I could write myself in 20 minutes? Practically all their songs are based around a one or two rifguitar riffs and/or a slight progression, overdubbed "bass" line, and drums. They're a good band, and as I said earlier, Jack White is actually an amzing guitar player, but there's nothing significant or special about their studio albums.

Well, it all depends on how you look at it. In my opinion, music doesn't have to be complex to be good, and it doesn't even necessarily have to take that much effort. It appears that Jack White would agree, since he probably could play amazingly complex guitar parts, but chooses not to. Music is all about emotion for me, and minimalism can certainly pull that off, so I have no problems with it.

If I had written and recorded Elephant and gave it to you to listen to, you'd probably criticize it as being minimalist and half-baked. Bust when a well-established group does it, it's "distinguished".

Hmm... well I think that's unfair I'd like to think I like the music as it is, not because of the band that plays it, but it's hard to keep that mindset, I admit. But I wouldn't criticize it as being minimalistic, because I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing; "half-baked," maybe, that's a criticism.

 

[funyun]

I just love it when I type out a long reply, then submit it and it gets deleted. Anyway...

Well, it all depends on how you look at it. In my opinion, music doesn't have to be complex to be good, and it doesn't even necessarily have to take that much effort. It appears that Jack White would agree, since he probably could play amazingly complex guitar parts, but chooses not to. Music is all about emotion for me, and minimalism can certainly pull that off, so I have no problems with it.

I certainly agree that minimalism does not mean a song is bad at all. My argument is not against the quality of the White Stripes music, but against the idea that they distinguish themselves from other bands with their style. Everything I hear on the radio is pretty minimalistic. I will give the White Stripes this though: at least they write their own minimalism, whereas most bands nowadays have their songs written by ex-musician producers and receive it shrink-wrapped within days of signing a contract.

Hmm... well I think that's unfair I'd like to think I like the music as it is, not because of the band that plays it, but it's hard to keep that mindset, I admit. But I wouldn't criticize it as being minimalistic, because I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing; "half-baked," maybe, that's a criticism.

We all do it. We all, to a degree, judge music by putting it in context. You may not like some song by Band A, but may like it had it been made by band B, for a variety of different reasons. We also judge alot by the method and sequence in which it is presented to us. As our own little music critics, we don't like to think about it, but really it's a very psychological subject.

 

[nadroj1985]

I certainly agree that minimalism does not mean a song is bad at all. My argument is not against the quality of the White Stripes music, but against the idea that they distinguish themselves from other bands with their style. Everything I hear on the radio is pretty minimalistic.

Ah, well then our difference is probably in what we listen to most of the time. I never listen to the radio, so the minimalism I'm talking about generally doesn't have much to do with bubble gum pop music. And I might've been jumping the gun in saying that minimalism is what distinguishes the WS, but it's certainly part of their charm.

I will give the White Stripes this though: at least they write their own minimalism, whereas most bands nowadays have their songs written by ex-musician producers and receive it shrink-wrapped within days of signing a contract.

True. I don't really listen to that kind of music at all, anyway.

We all do it. We all, to a degree, judge music by putting it in context. You may not like some song by Band A, but may like it had it been made by band B, for a variety of different reasons. We also judge alot by the method and sequence in which it is presented to us. As our own little music critics, we don't like to think about it, but really it's a very psychological subject.

Agreed. Another reason why I think judging music on any sort of objective scale is impossible.

 

[theFijian]

And please, do not ever call something with guitars, bass, and drums "pop". Britney Spears is pop. Backstreet Boys are pop. A band that writes their own music shouldn't be judged so harshly.

'Pop' isn't a swear word you know, it's a label for categorising a style of music. I'd describe 'pop' as simply music which has a straightforward uncomplicated sound and a catchy tune. And the instruments can have very little to do with it actually, I've heard a guitar, bass and drums in Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, and even Backstreet Boys songs.

There's now an obsession with clean-cut pop-punk bands in the UK, McFly and Busted are a both prime examples. They all play their own instruments and actually write some of their own material, but they are pop through and through.

They do hate each other, though I have met a few other people who, like myself, really love both bands. I'm talking mainly from personal experience here, but you can go look on the internet yourself. You’ll see Radiohead fans sites dedicated to making fun of Oasis and vice versa. I think a lot of it is just following suit after what the bands themselves have done in the past. Monkey see monkey do.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your honesty, just wondering you can point me towards these websites

 

[theFijian]

But ya know, what the heck is original about having every single song on your album be a song I could write myself in 20 minutes? Practically all their songs are based around one or two simple riffs and/or a slight progression

LOL! You've just described the entire Oasis back catalogue!

 

[funyun]

The Fijian, "pop" is a swear word.

There's a difference between "popular music", in the marketable sense, and "pop music", as in the categorical sense.

LOL! You've just described the entire Oasis back catalogue!

Are you a musician? If so, you should know better, and I suggest you slap yourself for making an incorrect statement.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your honesty, just wondering you can point me towards these websites

Trust me, look at fans sites, message boards, etc and you will see stuff. More commonly, though, just go up to a friend and ask them which they like. 9 times out of 10 I bet you'll get a polarized response.

 

[nadroj1985]

The Fijian, "pop" is a swear word.

There's a difference between "popular music", in the marketable sense, and "pop music", as in the categorical sense.

I'm pretty sure that your differences are merely semantic. Andy (TheFijian) is using "pop" in a much different sense. Particularly if you are a fan of independent rock, as Andy and I are, you run into quite a bit of music that is quite good, but can only be accurately described as pop.

Are you a musician? If so, you should know better, and I suggest you slap yourself for making an incorrect statement.

I would venture a guess that many musicians might agree with him, not that their opinions matter much more than anyone else's. In any case, it's hardly meaningful to call any statement about musical preference "incorrect."

 

[funyun]

I would venture a guess that many musicians might agree with him, not that their opinions matter much more than anyone else's. In any case, it's hardly meaningful to call any statement about musical preference "incorrect."

What was incorrect was that Oasis' songs are as simplistic in structure as The White Stripes, which they are not (and which is also not a musical preference argument). Many of Oasis' songs are indeed very simple, especially the guitar parts, but trust me, your average Oasis song is much more complicated than your average White Stripes song.