Oasis and The Beatles

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

"We'd be no bloody good at all without our amplifiers", as John Lennon once said in a comic Northern club accent.

BN.

[Ian Thumwood]

"We'd be no bloody good at all without our amplifiers", as John Lennon once said in a comic Northern club accent.

BN.

Wondered if anyone caught Liam Gallagher on "Front Row" last week ? I am staggered that someone decided he was worth interviewing as he is like a character created by Steve Coogan. Can't see the point of "Oasis" - Beatles' music played by a pub band.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Wondered if anyone caught Liam Gallagher on "Front Row" last week ? I am staggered that someone decided he was worth interviewing as he is like a character created by Steve Coogan. Can't see the point of "Oasis" - Beatles' music played by a pub band.

I think it enraged George Harrison when Gallagher said they looked to the Beatles for "inspiration", which they admitted was blatently reversing Beatle chord sequences or taking the minor in a line and rejigging its place. John Harris, who now laughably writes for the Guardian on " politics " (WTF), thinks they are significant. Says everything...

[Ian Thumwood]

I think that "Oasis" were one of the groups that certainly defined pop music in the 1990's but so much of this was media generated at the time when guitar-based bands started to break the monopoly on the then current dance music. The interview was a fascinating insight into irony with LG not appreciating that he had become a caricature of himself. I know very little about Lou Gare but the contrast with the likes of Oasis is salutary insofar that the one enjoyed the kind of media attention that the other more fully deserved. The media's enduring fascination with Oasis no longer has anything to do with the music either brother's bands are making are making and rather more to do with the morbid fascination at playing one sibling off against the other. It is a sad reflection of so much of the music media in the UK but more alarming that a high brow programme like "Front Row" considers them still worthy of attention nearly 25 years after their heyday. The interview revealed little about the music other than the ridiculous issue of ownership of the songs.

I was unaware that Oasis had admitted to tinkering with chord changes and wasn't appreciative of how much they had actually taken from the Beatles. It plugs in to the contra-fact thread a few months ago. I was also unaware of George Harrison's thoughts about Oasis which are intriguing as he was probably the most "musical" of the four Beatles although I think that the music really owed far more to George Martin than anyone else. The Beatles were his muse and maybe the main "musical" elements in the recordings should be credited to him more than any of the Beatles themselves. Setting aside Lennon's song-writing abilities, both Starr and McCartney were extremely fortunate to enjoy careers in music as neither are particularly remarkable musicians. The obvious debt owed to them by Oasis is immediately apparent and it is fascinating to learnt that Harrison was apparently not flattered. Both groups are over-rated. Listening to Prince this afternoon om the radio, it is fascinating to see how close his harmonic language was to jazz. Musically, The Beatles and Oasis are not in the same league as Prince, I find but then again, the latter relied heavily on both Claire Fischer and his son to write his charts.

[Conchis]

I think that "Oasis" were one of the groups that certainly defined pop music in the 1990's but so much of this was media generated at the time when guitar-based bands started to break the monopoly on the then current dance music. The interview was a fascinating insight into irony with LG not appreciating that he had become a caricature of himself. I know very little about Lou Gare but the contrast with the likes of Oasis is salutary insofar that the one enjoyed the kind of media attention that the other more fully deserved. The media's enduring fascination with Oasis no longer has anything to do with the music either brother's bands are making are making and rather more to do with the morbid fascination at playing one sibling off against the other. It is a sad reflection of so much of the music media in the UK but more alarming that a high brow programme like "Front Row" considers them still worthy of attention nearly 25 years after their heyday. The interview revealed little about the music other than the ridiculous issue of ownership of the songs.

I was unaware that Oasis had admitted to tinkering with chord changes and wasn't appreciative of how much they had actually taken from the Beatles. It plugs in to the contra-fact thread a few months ago. I was also unaware of George Harrison's thoughts about Oasis which are intriguing as he was probably the most "musical" of the four Beatles although I think that the music really owed far more to George Martin than anyone else. The Beatles were his muse and maybe the main "musical" elements in the recordings should be credited to him more than any of the Beatles themselves. Setting aside Lennon's song-writing abilities, both Starr and McCartney were extremely fortunate to enjoy careers in music as neither are particularly remarkable musicians. The obvious debt owed to them by Oasis is immediately apparent and it is fascinating to learnt that Harrison was apparently not flattered. Both groups are over-rated. Listening to Prince this afternoon om the radio, it is fascinating to see how close his harmonic language was to jazz. Musically, The Beatles and Oasis are not in the same league as Prince, I find but then again, the latter relied heavily on both Claire Fischer and his son to write his charts.

Oasis are probably the worst band ever to come out of Britain.

Your assessment of McCartney is just plain wrong. Even if you don't like him as a lyricist (I generally don't - though he has his moments) or as a tunesmith (I generally do), his bass-playing is utterly superb and has been since about 1966. He may not be a virtuoso bassist like Jaco Pastorius or Stanley Clarke but his bass-lines are always very creative and stimulating. He was also, by some distance, the best musician in the Beatles - quite a few of the guitar solos routinely attributed to Harrison were, in fact, played by McCartney. He was also, needless to add, the band's best drummer.

[MrGongGong]

Wondered if anyone caught Liam Gallagher on "Front Row" last week ? I am staggered that someone decided he was worth interviewing as he is like a character created by Steve Coogan. Can't see the point of "Oasis" - Beatles' music played by a pub band.

The Beatles - music hall variety act with amplification
and dying in reverse order of talent

Oasis were a great band (not to my taste really) who captured a moment for many people.
The fact that lot's of old people (like me) aren't impressed is a good sign IMV

Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals, no matter how great they are or were

[Verse 2: Scroobius Pip]
The Beatles were just a band
Led Zeppelin, just a band
The Beach Boys, just a band
The Sex Pistols, just a band
The Clash, just a band
Crass, just a band
Minor Threat, just a band
The Cure were just a band
The Smiths, just a band
Nirvana, just a band
The Pixies, just a band
Oasis, just a band
Radiohead, just a band
Bloc Party, just a band
The Arctic Monkeys, just a band
"The next big thing", just a band

[Serial_Apologist]

The Beatles - music hall variety act with amplification
and dying in reverse order of talent

Oasis were a great band (not to my taste really) who captured a moment for many people.
The fact that lot's of old people (like me) aren't impressed is a good sign IMV

Crass, just a band

A lifestyle too, surely, out there somewhere where the only way is...?

[MrGongGong]

A lifestyle too, surely, out there somewhere where the only way is...?

indeed

[Richard Barrett]

Your assessment of McCartney is just plain wrong. Even if you don't like him as a lyricist (I generally don't - though he has his moments) or as a tunesmith (I generally do), his bass-playing is utterly superb and has been since about 1966. He may not be a virtuoso bassist like Jaco Pastorius or Stanley Clarke but his bass-lines are always very creative and stimulating. He was also, by some distance, the best musician in the Beatles - quite a few of the guitar solos routinely attributed to Harrison were, in fact, played by McCartney. He was also, needless to add, the band's best drummer.

Ian's only criterion for musicianship is how jazzy someone is.

During the final phase of the Beatles' existence McCartney was by far the most musically inquisitive and adventurous member of the band, whatever ill-conceived things he may have gone on to do later. Also, Ringo may not have been a technical virtuoso but he constantly came up with things nobody else would have thought of, and played them in a way nobody before or since would have been able to do ("Tomorrow Never Knows" for example). His playing is almost always unmistakeable which must count for something, even to those for whom technical sophistication is the only true measure of musicianship. (I guess such people wouldn't have much time for Monk or Ornette.) Then there's the question of the synergy between the band members, which made possible things that none of them would have come up with alone (including the vocal harmonies). And then there was George Martin. IMO none of them did anything really significant after they split up, but what they did as a group I think absolutely deserves all the attention given to it. "Music hall variety act with amplification" - don't be silly.

[Conchis]

Ian's only criterion for musicianship is how jazzy someone is.

During the final phase of the Beatles' existence McCartney was by far the most musically inquisitive and adventurous member of the band, whatever ill-conceived things he may have gone on to do later. Also, Ringo may not have been a technical virtuoso but he constantly came up with things nobody else would have thought of, and played them in a way nobody before or since would have been able to do ("Tomorrow Never Knows" for example). His playing is almost always unmistakeable which must count for something, even to those for whom technical sophistication is the only true measure of musicianship. (I guess such people wouldn't have much time for Monk or Ornette.) Then there's the question of the synergy between the band members, which made possible things that none of them would have come up with alone (including the vocal harmonies). And then there was George Martin. IMO none of them did anything really significant after they split up, but what they did as a group I think absolutely deserves all the attention given to it. "Music hall variety act with amplification" - don't be silly.

Lennon - John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band

Harrison - All Things Must Pass

McCartney - Band On The Run (and bits of McCartney and Ram)

I think these are strong albums. The first may be the first (and only?) example of the rock album as psychotherapy, the second is a largely triumphant V-sign waved in the faces of his former taskmasters (though I'd wish someone other than Phil Spector had produced it) and the third is a full of attractive melodies, harmonies and great rhythm section work (PM doing double duty there). Although I do find myself missing the other three and wondering how much better these albums would have been had they been BEATLES ALBUMS.

I like Starkey's drumming on Rain, TNN and A Day In The Life.

[MrGongGong]

"Music hall variety act with amplification" - don't be silly.

I wasn't being entirely serious
BUT Macca and his daft ideas about music have done great damage to music IMV

[muzzer]

When I first heard Oasis I thought their sound was brickwalled, as it came to be known. History has imho proven that this was their sole innovation. I do think Noel is a bright bloke and I admire his tenacity, given how few of our generation (we’re the same age give or take) have matched the achievements of the baby boomers. But to compare them favourably to the Beatles is heinous, frankly.