Oasis vs Midnight Oil

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

vs Nickelback

― dave q (listerine), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 05:44 (twenty years ago)

Midnight Oil were good maybe a "great" in 4 beers time.

― Nic de Teardrop (Nicholas), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 05:56 (twenty years ago)

Sheepfukk3rz vs mongrels. Vs. Nickelback

― Aaron A., Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:09 (twenty years ago)

Oasis, by far...

― Bryan Moore (Bryan Moore), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:21 (twenty years ago)

Anyone miss the days when Nickelback were really big? I do.

God I'm sick.

― Frogman Henry, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:23 (twenty years ago)

Midnight Oil have done more interesting things on their worst album than Oasis and Nickeback have done in their entire discographies.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:43 (twenty years ago)

Johnny OTM. Midnight Oil were a lot more interesting than either band.

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:44 (twenty years ago)

Head Injuries alone mops the floor with the other two.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:53 (twenty years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/midnite.bmp

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 06:59 (twenty years ago)

Oils. Thread closed.

― Autumn Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 07:16 (twenty years ago)

Midnight Oil played too many songs from the 90s in their secret gig (warm-up for a charidee one-off reunion the next day) on Friday night (ie 1). Definitely Maybe probably shits on two or three albums from that decade, but the creativity of the run from 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 to Red Sails In The Sunset to Species Deceases towers over everything Noel Gallagher's ever thought of.

And I dare say their lamest US radio acoustic audience freebie destroys Oasis best most rockin' gig in history.

― kit brash (kit brash), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 10:17 (twenty years ago)

"And I dare say their lamest US radio acoustic audience freebie destroys Oasis best most rockin' gig in history"

Yeah, probably. What a ridiculous thread.

If only more rock n roll bands were more "interesting". Jesus.

― oats (oats), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 13:48 (twenty years ago)

Midnight Oil had a least four or five great songs, notably "Power & the Passion," "Read About It", "Best of Both Worlds", "When the Generals Talk" and even their post-success period had some fine moments. Oasis, meanwhile were always MEDIOCRE EVEN AT THEIR VERY BEST. Midnight Oil are so far above Oasis, that their antipodean ears must be popping and clicking.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 14:30 (twenty years ago)

To this day, I truly can't fathom why people got actively excited by Oasis. It's not that they were bad, but their music is just so utterly drab and lifeless. No punch. The lyrics were complete shit, and they couldn't have been more openly derivative if they tried. Nothing to say and not the slightest inkling of an interesting way to say it.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)

Alex, I'm going to have to stand in here and defend my (former) intense love for Oasis. After spending the first 4 years of the '90s immersed in the grunge thing (I was 17, gimme a break) I was excited to hear a band that wasn't afraid to reach for the big time. Being stuck in a pissant town in the Midwest made Oasis all the more "exotic" to me at the time, with what few interviews I could gleam out of rock mags at the local university's library. I played the shit out of Definitely Maybe and was just enthralled by the whole thing. I think deep down I knew it wasn't amazingly classic music, but something about the band's attitude and style interested me. After Nirvana, P-Jam, et al it was kinda cool to my young mind to see somebody playing the part of classic rock n' roll asshole. Shamelessly ripping off the past, striving for epic status way before time. The period between the debut and Morning Glory was my biggest time of obsession, as I tracked down all the import singles (not an easy task for me back then). Which was another reason I loved the band, it was the first time I discovered a band with this glorious treasure trove of hard-to-find stuff. As I went to college and got my ears opened to a lot of new music, my love for Oasis faded quite a bit - but for a couple years I was madly in love with that band. Looking back, it was more the image than the actual music, but to this day I think they put out 10 or 11 tracks I'd never want to live without. Sorry this wasn't as well thought out as I'd like, but I'm pressed for time and wanted to get a reply up.

― jonviachicago, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 14:47 (twenty years ago)

just thinking about this makes me want to vomit.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

I respect that, Jon (I went to college in the Midwest, so I can sort've relate to briefly being starved for the exotic), but reading about Oasis and actually hearing Oasis never matched up for me. To hear the British press tell it, they were the most exciting thing since the `Pistols. I agreed with the British press when they lost their marbles over the Jesus & Mary Chain, the Sugarcubes and the Stone Roses, but Oasis just left me rather cold and clammy. Like I said, it's not that they suck (like many other bands who get fawningly championed by the British press), but just that they were so workaday. But even if you concentrated on their image, I have a hard time understand the appeal there too. I mean,....the brothers' feud is mildly amusing, but it never went beyond that. And as a live act, they made the oft-maligned shoegazers look like fuckin' Kiss. Back to this particular Taking Sides, I saw Midnight Oil circa Red Sails.., and they practically blew a hole in the fuckin' back of the club. Peter Garrett was a non-stop whirling dervish of ridicuous movement, and the rest of the guys played like their fuckin' pants were ablaze. Oasis live was DULLLLLL. That would've been alright if their music was exceptional....be we all know it wasn't. And still isn't. And probably never will be.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 14:58 (twenty years ago)

Well, since I never got the chance to see either band live, I'll have to admit that I am unable to speak about that. As for the image, you are 100% correct about that - even now I'm somewhat ashamed to see how the image (and yes, the NME/Melody Maker hype) drew me into a mediocre band. But what I was trying to get at, though, is that Oasis was very important to me at one point in my life and because of that I will always have a soft spot for them. If nothing else they were the band that introduced me to music fan obsessiveness.

I do have to admit that all this talk makes me want to investigate Midnight Oil more, as I've always previously dismissed them.

― jonviachicacgo, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

If nothing else they were the band that introduced me to music fan obsessiveness.

And you're grateful for that? It's a sicknes, Jon. I know of what I speak, as I too am plagued by it.

I'm curious as to why Oasis were pitted against Midnight Oil. There's really no common thread there at all.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 15:06 (twenty years ago)

"And I dare say their lamest US radio acoustic audience freebie destroys Oasis best most rockin' gig in history"

Are you for reals?

― 57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 16:54 (twenty years ago)

"Oasis live was DULLLLLL"
I suppose there should be more dancing on the stage, then?

― 57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

Oasis weren't really about 'rockin' though, they were a post-MBV group

― dave q (listerine), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

Definite at the beginning and definitely at the end, but, I'd argue, they tried to rock around the middle somewhere though their drummer wasn't up for it.

― dan. (dan.), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 17:03 (twenty years ago)

I'm curious as to why Oasis were pitted against Midnight Oil. There's really no common thread there at all.

Maybe band names that start with the letter 'O'?

Been turning it over in my head all morning - how about lyrics with no meaning versus lyrics with too much meaning?

Not being an Aussie, I don't know what Garrett is going on about half on the time. Somebody should do a website with annotations for all the lyrics.

Anyway, it's the Oils for me, as well. That's a live performance honed over many years to playing tiny bars with hostile audiences.

― Edward Bax (EdBax), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

Ugh.

That should be "going on about half of the time" and "many years of playing".

― Edward Bax (EdBax), Wednesday, 2 February 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

Are you for reals?

I've seen Midnight Oil live, and I've seen Oasis live.

― kit brash (kit brash), Thursday, 3 February 2005 10:51 (twenty years ago)

I suppose there should be more dancing on the stage, then?

There's a difference between having too much stage presence (the `Oils) and having absolutely none at all (Oasis).

Oasis weren't really about 'rockin' though, they were a post-MBV group

I doubt the Gallaghers would support that theory.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 3 February 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

re MBV - "Columbia", "Supersonic" ("the lyrics aren't inaudible, just unbelievable" - R. Christgau on Blue Oyster Cult's 'Tyranny & Mutation')

― dave q (listerine), Thursday, 3 February 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.