Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

godber wrote:

wints wrote:I'm many things, but never angry...

My better comment was moderated out, unfortunately, as it perfectly summed up the Bros G for what they were, are and probably will always be. Nothing to do with their music either. Just a subjective observation that many seem to share...

Musically, they are a product of the UK in the 90's. What exactly is that? Subject as ever, and looking at it from the mid 60's on, it's the continual decline of British music, especially when compared to the previous decades.
Well, actually...there simply is no comparison.

We could forward to today, and it's even worse. When you look at it, again, subjectively, it's been extremely poor in terms of pure craft since the early to mid 80's, and apart from the odd bright light, it's still very much heading into the dark. Never has musical mediocrity been more greatly revered than in the last 15 years or so, and the BG's encapsulate this better than anyone from this period.

The defining bands from 40+ years ago, that started a musical revolution, will still be held in high musical grace 40 years from now.

Oasis? Your 'aving a giraffe mate...

Ha! Is this the right room for an argument? You've condemned a whole nation (hey why stop at only one?) and every musical genre it has produced from the mid-sixties onwards. Nice trolling . Buy yourself a time-machine, I hope that you like Frank Ifield.

As I stated, all content is subjective, and discussion, not argument is the objective. No, no arguing here, no sir...

The musical talents of the mid to late 60's, and the seeds sown gave rise to the brilliant early 70's pop/rock work of Bowie, T-Rex, Elton, and more than I could mention. The music from this period is outstanding because of that heritage, and up to the mid 70's. The fruit of the 60's seeds sown.
The explosion of punk in the late 70's as a music and social force showed an edge that had made the UK scene special, and when the 80's new wave and romantics came around, and from that the likes of U2 etc, they still made the UK a force musically across the world. I remember it well as a young teen following bands across the South East and London.

But since then...?

I'm not condemning either, just putting a mark on mediocrity, subjective as ever, and, being British myself, fairly objective about it too...

godber wrote:Buy yourself a time-machine, I hope that you like Frank Ifield.

If we're digressing to '60s icons I'll see your Frank Ifield and raise you a Rolf Harris!

Rolf was the great musical genius of the '60s - inventor of the wobbleboard and pioneer of the stylophone (as used later by Mr Bowie on "Space Oddity"). Anyone who can listen to "Two Little Boys" without breaking into tears is probably stone-deaf... I'm sure I detect his influence throughout Oasis's catalogue.

You guys are killing me............ I am glad that this is a friendly discussion.

wints wrote:

godber wrote:

wints wrote:I'm many things, but never angry...

My better comment was moderated out, unfortunately, as it perfectly summed up the Bros G for what they were, are and probably will always be. Nothing to do with their music either. Just a subjective observation that many seem to share...

Musically, they are a product of the UK in the 90's. What exactly is that? Subject as ever, and looking at it from the mid 60's on, it's the continual decline of British music, especially when compared to the previous decades.
Well, actually...there simply is no comparison.

We could forward to today, and it's even worse. When you look at it, again, subjectively, it's been extremely poor in terms of pure craft since the early to mid 80's, and apart from the odd bright light, it's still very much heading into the dark. Never has musical mediocrity been more greatly revered than in the last 15 years or so, and the BG's encapsulate this better than anyone from this period.

The defining bands from 40+ years ago, that started a musical revolution, will still be held in high musical grace 40 years from now.

Oasis? Your 'aving a giraffe mate...

Ha! Is this the right room for an argument? You've condemned a whole nation (hey why stop at only one?) and every musical genre it has produced from the mid-sixties onwards. Nice trolling . Buy yourself a time-machine, I hope that you like Frank Ifield.

As I stated, all content is subjective, and discussion, not argument is the objective. No, no arguing here, no sir...

The musical talents of the mid to late 60's, and the seeds sown gave rise to the brilliant early 70's pop/rock work of Bowie, T-Rex, Elton, and more than I could mention. The music from this period is outstanding because of that heritage, and up to the mid 70's. The fruit of the 60's seeds sown.
The explosion of punk in the late 70's as a music and social force showed an edge that had made the UK scene special, and when the 80's new wave and romantics came around, and from that the likes of U2 etc, they still made the UK a force musically across the world. I remember it well as a young teen following bands across the South East and London.

But since then...?

I'm not condemning either, just putting a mark on mediocrity, subjective as ever, and, being British myself, fairly objective about it too...

Discussion not argument, quite right Wints, I used the Python sketch as an acid-drop entry point. I stand corrected sir.

I have no disagreement with your cited examples above (although possibly Elton John… ), but I just don’t buy into a theory which I think essentially says that our best musical days are behind us. The kids in their teens are having their musical “sixties” whatever the decade may be and whatever our opinion is of it.

I mentioned Frank Ifield because he personified the disappointment I felt when listening to Jimmy Savile's Old Record Club on a Sunday afternoon – sixties charts were full of rubbish excepting a startling gem by The Who or The Beatles etc., seventies charts were full of rubbish excepting a startling gem by Bowie or The Clash (diverse decade that ), eighties and nineties charts would be the same. No decade of highs or decade of lows, just the odd little gem, like an oasis in the desert (did you see what I did there…)

I'm not going to essay on the history of pop, but here’s my subjective tuppence worth. The older “pop/rock” gets, the less “new” it is, the more recycled it is, the harder it is to sell. The all-too convenient journalist-defined periods and cults are smaller, less significant, even more manufactured (Brit-pop), eeked out, weak. Despite the “business” decline, superb music has always been made, but not always heard.

Is Paul Weller better than Eric Clapton? Is Peter Doherty on a par with Frank Ifield? We will all have different views.
I liked Oasis, you didn’t. That’s OK innit.

winston wrote:You guys are killing me............ I am glad that this is a friendly discussion.

Sure, we all love a Rickenbacker.

collin wrote:

whojamfan wrote:Oasis fans, gimme the best record to get and I'll give it a go

Most fans agree the first two albums are the best, by far.

I'm partial to their 2nd- What's the Story, Morning Glory?. Though, the first (Definitely, Maybe is a fine album as well.


I'm sure this whole thread won't do much to "convert" anybody's opinion on the band---there will be fans and critics of pretty much everything out there. For instance, I cannot (and will not) be convinced that Rush, for instance, is a cool or decent band, but I probably won't stomp on their grave after they break up one day.

Thanks, for a minute I thought my post was taken the wrong way. I'll give those a listen, especially realizing how polarized people seem to be about them. Some of my favorite groups share such descriptions.

Thanks to you too Mark.

Their first few few albums/CD's were actually very good IMO. It is just the drama and the posturing associated with this band that got a bit tiresome for me.

winston wrote:Their first few few albums/CD's were actually very good IMO. It is just the drama and the posturing associated with this band that got a bit tiresome for me.

Actually, I'll agree with ya there, Brian.

Heck, I bet even Noel would agree with you about the drama--that's why he's flown the coop!

The posturing isn't so bad, IMO. I think that much of their posturing, particularly Liam's, was a reaction to the early 90's "shoegaze" scene, which is essentially the antithesis of posturing. Poor stage presence and plenty of reluctant pop stars. I think Oasis was trying to say, "_ _ _ _ it! We want to be huge and we're not ashamed of it. Let's give the people something to watch." etc.....but after all these years, yeah---they could've tamed it down a bit.

What is stage presence but attitude and posturing of one kind or another? And people obviously love it, or they wouldn't show up or tune in by the thousands to watch it on stage and screen. The problem for me is when it overshadows or detracts from the musicality of a group or artist.

godber wrote:Is Paul Weller better than Eric Clapton? Is Peter Doherty on a par with Frank Ifield? We will all have different views.
I liked Oasis, you didn’t. That’s OK innit.

It is...

Choice....A wonderful thing!

kiramdear wrote:What is stage presence but attitude and posturing of one kind or another? And people obviously love it, or they wouldn't show up or tune in by the thousands to watch it on stage and screen. The problem for me is when it overshadows or detracts from the musicality of a group or artist.

+1

wints wrote:

godber wrote:Is Paul Weller better than Eric Clapton? Is Peter Doherty on a par with Frank Ifield? We will all have different views.
I liked Oasis, you didn’t. That’s OK innit.

It is...

Choice....A wonderful thing!

+1 Wints, +1.

collin wrote:

whojamfan wrote:Oasis fans, gimme the best record to get and I'll give it a go

Most fans agree the first two albums are the best, by far.

I'm partial to their 2nd- What's the Story, Morning Glory?. Though, the first (Definitely, Maybe is a fine album as well.


I'm sure this whole thread won't do much to "convert" anybody's opinion on the band---there will be fans and critics of pretty much everything out there. For instance, I cannot (and will not) be convinced that Rush, for instance, is a cool or decent band, but I probably won't stomp on their grave after they break up one day.

Just ordered both Collin, will get back to you guys when I give them several listens, as I know I have to do that to really get the full picture. Thanks for the info.

Rock on.

Of course, coming from Amazon, they'll probably arrive after the reunion show