you have to give them credit for not getting involved in these really irritating charities.
Its like this. http://drownedinsound.com/articles/2983921
There aren't many more annoying things a musician can do than to try and save the world from doom. As if they give a toss. Its like Live 8. Geldof and that Scotch nobody asked them to cancel their show they had planned for City Of Manchester stadium. They told them to fuck off. This is brilliant to me. I went to said show and it was great.
I think that not getting involved in 'causes' shows first of all that they're not willing to be guilted into doing something. It also shows they're not prepared to start patronising the public into changing their minds on stuff. Music and politics shouldn't mix, and Oasis are one of the only bands that seem to know this (apart from Noel's idiotic backing of Blair way back when).
Oasis. Best band ever?
Nope
If you really want to see how Geldof's bollocks and guilt-tripping should be dealth with, see Live Aid first time round and Tears For Fears
What did they do?
Gave the middle finger to him and his bully boy tactics
then ignored him slagging of them in the press and supported various charities in private. Moral high ground FTW
Is that why Wikipedia says:
Live Aid
In 1985, Tears for Fears was scheduled to perform at JFK Stadium in Philadelphia for Bob Geldof's Live Aid charity event; however, on the morning of the historic event, 13 July 1985, it was announced that Tears for Fears had pulled out of the show. The official reason given for their non-appearance was that two of their backing musicians had quit - guitarist Andrew Saunders and saxophonist Will Gregory, due to the expiration of their contract. In place of appearing, the band pledged to donate proceeds from their world tour played in Tokyo, Sydney, London and New York.
In 1986, a slightly rewritten version of one of their biggest hits was recorded and released for the British fund-raising initiative Sport Aid, a splinter project of Band Aid in which people took part in running races of varying length and seriousness to raise more money for African projects. The slogan was "I Ran the World"; therefore Tears for Fears released "Everybody Wants To Run The World" (#5 in the UK and #4 in Ireland). They were indirectly involved in the earlier Band Aid single "Do They Know It's Christmas?" of 1984 which featured a slowed down sample from their song "The Hurting" in the introduction.
------------------------------------
But doesn't say what the 'unofficial' reason was? Still, they did change their song as mentioned after...
I remember seeing an interview a few years ago
with one of them talking about how unimpressed they were with the way Geldof got artists involved and then treated them
If that's the case that's definitely the way to do it.
I won a quid from myself over who started this thread.
Get in!
why shouldn't they mix ?
Musicians are entitled support whatever cause they want to, just like everyone else.
^This, musicians are people you know.
P.S Oasis are a mouldy sack of dinosaur shit.
^5
best description of oasis ive heard in ages
I agree,
but going public about it isn't necessary.
I'd bet three golden coins that Noel gives to a charity regularly, but doesn't like to shout his mouth off about it.
Instead, he makes hilarious jibes towards crap bands like Bloc Party. He's almost perfect.
I found them hilarious around the time of their last album
in that they had turned into stereotypical old men.
Calling Bloc Party "students" and criticising the Kaiser Chiefs for wearing make-up isn't the behaviour of hilariously witty rock stars but what your Dad starts to do when he stops getting "modern music".
"Calling Bloc Party "students"..."
That wasn't the jibe. Liam said they looked like University Challenge Contestants.
As for the Kaisers, they were saying they didn't go for the whole wearing make-up nonsense, which to me, is fair enough. I don't think there's anything old-fashioned or dad-like about disliking a feminine style when it comes to rock'n'roll.
Obviously, its totally homophobic and hugely uncool, but opinions are opinions.
yeah
Liam likes Bloccers
Yep
I think it only gets frustrating when musicians act as though they think should be sanctified for helping "good causes". Which some do obviusly. But that doesn't mean that no musicians should get involved with poltiics ever, just they should so for the right reasons (and most importantly make themselves informed on the subject before acting as a spokesman for it!)
I agree that Oasis shouldn't feel obliged to support such things if they don't want to but I find Oasis' "active indifference" (i.e. them making a needlessly big deal about how they're not doing anything) every bit as patronising as those that make a big deal about doing something.
If they just shut the fuck up, you'd have a point but the big deal they make everytime they're not doing something for charity makes them every bit as annoying as the bands you chastise.
Evidence of this 'active indifference'
would be firmly appreciated.
You already gave it.
You explained how you admire them because they told Bob Geldolf to fuck off and haven't helped other causes. How do you know that? Because Oasis spill their guts to the NME or whoever every time they don't help whatever cause it is.
Most bands don't feel the need to make a PR issue out of such things.
...Not really.
"them making a needlessly big deal about how they're not doing anything"
This isn't the case at all.
I didn't give it either.
They didn't make a point about not doing Live 8. They didn't cancel their show, that's all. I don't recall it being spilled all over the NME, either. It was more of a case of them saying "the show is still on". Which in my eyes, is a nicely subtle way of telling Geldof to fuck off.
Again though, where's the "PR issue" stuff?
Not the best example
but I've got a job and can't spend all day looking for stuff and this is the first one I found:
http://www.nme.com/news/oasis/26316
If Oasis didn't want to make PR capital out of it they wouldn't give interviews like this.
True.
Pretty in-depth slag-off of Live 8 there.
'He said: “Play ’One’, shut the fuck up about Africa.”'
Well, exactly.
If he's not gonna make an in-depth argument why bother saying "shut the fuck about Africa". What the hell's that gonna achieve except a few headlines saying "Noel Gallagher says the 'shut the fuck up about Africa'. Isn't he all shocking and rock n' roll?'
Doesn't Noel
usually get involved in the Teenage Cancer Trust shows?
Yes.
But I don't think its similar at all. Things like Live 8 are much more political. Everyone would like to stop cancer, its sort of a given, and so its not as if anyone makes a point out of being 'opposed' to it. You feel?
I think everyone would like to stop poverty and stop destruction of the planet too
you massive dolt.
I don't.
There are a lot of doubters when it comes to climate change stuff. Scientists etc., calling it a load of over-the-top crap. There was one recently on BBC Breakfast who was going round schools, telling kids not to worry as much as they're being told to.
And when it comes to Live 8, I don't think that many people are very bothered about Africa these days, as sad as it may be.
no.
There are very very few scientists who doubt whether climate change is actually happening and that it is caused by human activity.
There ARE admitedly some who believe the billions that would need to be invested to combat it would be bettered used elsewhere.
well if it was on the BBC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5evS-ApSNQ
well maybe you should
which vindicates my point.
Maybe I should what?
Think everyone is bothered about climate change and Africa?
wut?
maybe you should care about climate change and africa.
Do some research
into climate change before making foolish statements like this one. There are a miniscule number of 'scientists' (and the majority of those aren't actually climate science experts) who can be counted as 'doubters.' You might as well throw your lot in with creationists if this is the best you can come up with...
all major world bodies, governments and scientific insititions accept climate change.
even the US government.
who are all these scientists? there's basically a handful of prominent ones that doubt climate change (and they're usually in the pay of shell or whoever) - 90-something per cent accept it.
Scientists
...that work for lobby groups in the USA mainly, lobbying for the interests of petrochemical companies.
Sadly though, climate change is only a"theory"
An almost certainly true one at that, and one we should all be paying a serious amount of attention to, but not something that has ever been proven 100%. That's how eejits like Chris Moyles lap up the very very very very remote possibility that it has nothing to do with us, as do other members of the public claiming it's all "cyclical" and therefore we may as well go about our business of pumping shit into the ground.
But yeah, if you say 90% then I accept your point. It's just the remaining percent that worry me.
I don't like celebrity charity involvements
but your argument that they're not chimps is stupid. Of course they are.
Ignoring what's going on and what's important in the world makes you stupid. They've got that whole british "fuck poverty, fuck climate change, let's just get leathered and have a fucking good time" attitude which exemplifies what's wrong with this country right now.
Seriously Noel and Liam represent British political and cultural apathy to a t. I can't even state how much I hate them.
I'm not calling your bluff,
but I'd like to read some of their 'fuck poverty, fuck climate change' press.
If anyone's got any links please.
I'm not saying they've said it
I'm saying they represent people who think like that.
As usual, Wrighty doesn't care about the truth
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=liam+gallagher+charity&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
do people still listen to oasis?
just out of interest?i never "got" the lad rock thing
People as in DiS People: nope
People as in everyone else: yep.
PS: "Arctic Monkeys: 10"
whats the difference?
dis people?everyone else?i reckon a large portion of "dis people" would classify as your "everyone else" as well.and as for arctic monkeys they write catchy pop songs which i love.whats your point?
Arctic Monkeys>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oasis.
And I don't even like The Monkeys that much. I don't undesrtand how the two are even comparible.
It's supposed to have Oasis ath the end of all those arrows.
It didn't show up for some reason.
You're a moron.
That wasn't my point.
Check out the lyrics on Def Maybe for a second.
Now go check out the lyrics on Whatever People bla bla bla.
Actually, find me an Oasis song that has 'lad rock' lyrics, please. Possibly Live Forever, but the lyrics to that song are absolutely astonishing.
But yeah. DiS Challenge. First person to find wrightylew an Oasis track about 'being a lad' etc. gets a special prize.
And you can't have
Cigarettes and Alcohol.
Doesn't matter what class you're from, the lyrics to that song could apply to anyone's life.
How am I a moron.
Are you not allowed to like Arctic Monkeys if you don't like "lad rock", I wouldn't say they're "lad rock" if that's what you're implying. That's what I asume the "Arctic Monkeys:10" bit is all about. It's a shit term anyway and to be honest I never use it, Oasis are terrible whether they're "lad rock" or not.
You aren't allowed to criticise Oasis as part of
"the lad rock thing" and then give Arctic Monkeys 10/10. Sorry.
"So up rolls a riot van
And sparks excitement in the boys
But the policemen look annoyed
Perhaps these are ones they should avoid
Got a chase last night
From men with truncheons dressed in hats
We didn't do that much wrong
Still ran away though for the laugh
Just for the laugh
And please just stop talking
Cause they won't find us if you do
Oh those silly boys in blue
Well they won't catch me and you
Have you been drinking, son
You don't look old enough to me
I'm sorry, officer
Is there a certain age you're supposed to be
Cause nobody told me"
The Arctic Monkeys don't sound like streotypical "lad rock" though.
Although I'm not really sure it's a good term to use to describe any band.
Ok,
so to be a lad-rock band, it doesn't matter what your lyrics are about - its about your sound.
Hmmm.
don't get me wrong,
I still think Definitely Maybe is a great record but I would never call the lyrics to any track on there 'absolutely astonishing'.
Fair enough.
I don't expect other people to agree with me, but I think the lyrics on that album were fantastic.
even...
Up in the Sky ?
Sure you're not confusing fantastic lyrics with the ability to put meaningless rhyming phrases to decent melodies ?
Lot's of bands do this, but Noel Gallagher's vocabulary seems fairly limited...
Especially Up In The Sky.
Its one of my favourites on the record.
Noel's 'limited' vocabulary is all part of the Oasis parcel. If he was an Oxbridge graduate with a degree in Linguistics, I don't think Definitely Maybe would have the same appeal, somehow.
I think the "lad" thing relates to interviews and the whole Brit Pop culture they were apart of.
Not many of their lyrics about being a "lad". Not many of their lyrics are about anything really. Their psychedelic claptrap that, simply because it's intangible, sixth-formers wrongly assume to be deeply meaningful.
Examples obviously including "tomorrow never knows what it doesn't know too soon", "after all you're my wonderwall", "slowly walking down the hall faster than a cannon ball" and "all your dreams are made of strawberry lemonade". All entirely meaningless (most admitted by the band to be so) but all lyrics that some gullible fan at some point or other has tried to convince me as concealing some great wisdom about the world.
*"They're", obviously.
No-one's disputing that.
I'm not in the slightest bothered about lyrics.
Your point is irrelevant. 'Their lyrics aren't about anything.' How's that criticism? Have you heard Piper At The Gates of Dawn?
A Hard Day's Night is one of my favourite Beatles albums. "If I fell in love with you would you promise to be true and help me understand? Cos I've been in love before and I've found that love was more than just holding hands."
Its not Wordsworth, but its a million times better than that Bright Eyes song where he sings about Iraq / every Bright Eyes song ever.
Possibly. Bright Eyes has passed me by completely. I'm quite glad about that.
My point is they aren't "astonishing" lyrics. If you're not bothered about lyrics that's fine. But I always find it both comical and depressing when people tell me Noel Gallagher's a brilliant lyricist.
Live forever
astonishing!
How exactly?
Like I said,
I don't expect it to appeal to everyone, but to me, its a brilliantly optimistic song. Its a very basic way of him expressing the idea of being uninterested in everything apart from enjoying himself.
Round Are Way?
Verse 2
"The game is kicking off in around the park
It's twenty five a side and before it's dark
There's gonna be a loser
And you know the next goal wins
Cab it to the front as it's called a draw
Everybody's knockin at yours once more
Ernie bangs the sound
And no one's spoken since half past four"
It does sound a *bit* like it's about 'being a lad' ...
Not really.
Its about playing football with your friends. Faris from The Horrors does that.
hmm
Friends being 25 other lads. Apart from that, not about "being a lad" in any way.
Arctic Monkeys write brilliant songs
that even people not usually into 'lad-rock' can enjoy.
Wasn't there a time when Oasis used to do the same?
I mean obviously Alex Turner pisses all over Noel Gallagher as a lyricist
but they used to have some decent tunes. Obviously "Live Forever", "Supersonic", "Whatever", "Don't Look Back in Anger," "The Masterplan" and the one that goes "We need each other/we believe in one another" are excellent, as is "The Importance Of Being Idle".
It's amazing how much of the rest doesn't stand the test of time though.
234324
"It's amazing how much of the rest doesn't stand the test of time though."
lololol. How would you define standing the test of time?
Go into any indie club North of Birmingham this weekend, and if you don't hear at least two Oasis songs, I'll give you a fiver.
But seriously, how do you mean? They don't sound dated at all, do they? I mean, something like Blue Monday, played ten years later, sounded hilarious. In 2004, if you'd heard Up In The Sky for the first time, you wouldn't call it 'outdated 90s shit'. Unless you were an idiot, obviously.
I actually think they do sound dated. Or maybe I got older.
I listened to "What's the Story" a while back (having really liked it when I was about 14) and realised there were basically about three good songs on there.
Don't get me wrong - their best songs are extremely good. But once you get past the best stuff, you've got a lot of average rock n' roll and middling psychedelic ballads.
I don't think the Arctic Monkeys
will be able to sell out stadium tours, fifteen years after their debut came out.
Anyone in this country who doesn't know an Oasis song that means something special to them has no soul.
Yep, "An Oasis song".
That's my point right there.
have you been on the stupid pills?
My point is that the Arctic Monkeys don't.
I know your point is that.
But that wasn't in response to any point I was making so I was just clarifying what my point was.
I don't defend the Arctic Monkeys as the best band in the world and they'll probably never have the same impact as Oasis (for one thing Artic Monkeys' lyrics are too specific - Oasis pull off the neat trick of having meaningless and vague lyrics so everyone listens to them ascribes their own meaning and assumes the song relates to them). But that doesn't change how weak the majority of Oasis back catalogue actually is.