Oasis are ghastly ...

Assuming you did select Bring it on down, what to mash up with it? Well I dunno if it is easy to seperate elements of it in the first place, its such a tumbling-over-itself chaotic rush of a song that seperating elements to make the basis of a bootleg might be tricky.

But assuming you did manage to deconstruct Bring it on Down.. I'd suggest pairing it with one of the following.

Mungo Jerry - In the Summertime
Brass Construction - Movin
Gorillaz - Latin Simone (or anything else, savour that irony!)
Sticky Fingaz - Erm can remember the title the one that goes 'Im 175 in dog years' Cabaret Voltaire - Is that me finding someone at the door again
(thats enough suggestions - ed)

"Super Sonic" vs., like, "Roll Out" is something I'd really like to hear.

People liked Oasis because they were an energetic pop group doing something nobody else at the time was doing. God knows why any of those same people like them now, if they do - fondness, habit, and hope spring to mind.

Oasis really have sucked since day 1, though

I don't mind people who like Oasis, or people who think they are of no interest. But I can't understand why people who think that the fact that they don't like Oasis is somehow IMPORTANT. That they are entitled to jeer at people who do. That they need to shout from the rooftops how much they HATE Oasis.

An mediocre band is a mediocre band. Some of them are successful nonetheless. That's life and it won't change. Get over it.

Oasis didn't invent the syndrome of bands saying this in interview. Who did? I'm sure I've read hundreds of interviews where bands said they either were, or wanted to be, 'the best band in the world'. Of course in 99% of cases no-one believes them.

The reason for their success is that they came in at the right time, just as grunge was fading, here there was something the 'industry' could make money from. Kurt cobain's power chord was substituted by noel's power chord. It's that simple.

Oasis were one of the forst bands i got into. I have a lot of good memories but that's no reason to listen to it. Nostalgia is something i'm not into.

None of this has much to do with the discussion of a bands merits. To be fair, much of the discussion on this particular thread HAS been about the band's merits and not just the kneejerk contempt I've seen on other threads.

That behaviour is typical on this type of board that doesn't make it OK or beyond criticism. Nor is it impossible or even difficult to be ostentatious here and some people have been pretty damn ostentatious in expressing their contempt for Oasis and their fans. I can't believe you haven't read at least some of the posts.

Of course being mediocre is not in itself normally enough for a band to attract this kind of vitriol. It is usually also necessary for the would-be-hipster to believe that there are other would-be-hipsters who rate the band. People he must distinguish himself from and whose patent inferiority needs to be illuminated. The "hatred"has more to do with the angst arising from this kind of tribal hostility than it does with the often fairly bland music being discussed. That some posters don't appreciate how few hipster points there are to be got by despising Oasis these days just adds to the dreary banality of their views.

For me, the question of what exactly people see in bands I really can't stand is a very interesting one - and sometimes it can be hard to ask that kind of question without appearing to belittle the fans.

As for the rest of it, sure there's a certain amount of 'positioning' that goes on here vis a vis tastes and attitudes, and on any board - call it hipsterism if you want - and it is a bit tiresome sometimes, though sometimes it's quite fun. I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative, though. I don't think anyone is saying they don't like Oasis when really they do, for instance.

This kind of positioning is inevitable I think - you're doing it too, actually, with your little e-mail address asides ("repelboarders"; "notinclique"; "outsideralert"), setting yourself up as the outsider who can criticise a community and giving yourself a cast-iron excuse if that community rejects what you're saying. (And no I'm not saying you're consciously doing that, just that it's another one of the in/out-crowd differentiaton techniques you're complaining about viz. Oasis hatred).

For me, ILM seems to be a place for sharing not thoughts about music and your *experience* of music. For example, many threads can start ... "I was just listening to X again, and it rawks!" By which the writer just wants to share his / her momentary enthusiasm for X and get some people to join in, going "yeah ... X, cool!" or "my first experience of X was" or any other X related thoughts.

For years I've co-existed peacefully with Oasis, noting nothing but the fact that I didn't like anything by them much (except maybe Don't Look Back in Anger) And generally ignoring them and the hype about them.

However, sometimes something triggers me to listen to something and I suddenly change my mind.

When I saw the BoomSelector call for Oasis bootlegs I had a short moment of thinking "hey, that's true I haven't heard an Oasis bootleg. Maybe that would be cool! I wonder what would work. Actually I wonder what Oasis sound like (beyond the few singles I've heard) ... let's check them out."

So that's what I did. And part way into the project I had a strong sense of "my god! I really, really don't like this music."

So that's all it was folks : sharing a (probably not very interesting, but for me, powerful) musical experience; with a group of people who like to talk about their experiences of music.

Phil have you lost your mind?

That said, I still have some fond memories of Morning Glory, though I haven't listened to it in years. Some of their b-sides were good. Definitely Maybe had one or two decent songs. Oasis were a phenomenon, and there's no arguing with a phenomenon. Often, there's no understanding it, either.

This is my favorite ILM post in a while.

He was on Match Game last nite. Ouch.

Now dissing a band like Oasis has perils for the would-be hipster. Sure, there are cool points to be got by disparaging unhip bands. But the risk is that readers may unreasonably assume you actually listened to their music before forming an opinion. To be fair, you got that ugly suggestion out of the way quickly:

"I've spent my life trying to avoid Oasis".

So not only did you not commit the cardinal sin of actually listening to Oasis, you dedicated you entire existence to avoiding them. Literally.

One can only imagine the aesthetic horror you imagined listening to Oasis would be before you found it necessary to dedicate your life in this way. But, seduced by the possibility of "instant fame" - obviously there had to be an incentive to listen to this appalling band - you decide to brave it. It couldn't possibly match the extravagant horrors you had imagined surely?

But astonishingly it is "far, far worse" even than the imagined horrific experience you had dedicated your life to avoiding.

Are we seriously expected to believe that in this context listening to Oasis was an open minded "musical experience". We're certainly not left in much doubt what you think of the sort of people who like this "ugly, retro, tuneless drivel".

But I like to think I'mthe kind of woman who would generously try to understand why you have this prejudiced contempt for Oasis and their fans. And you might equally try to understand my prejudiced contempt for people who who try to pass off this kind of pompous, self-regarding shite as

"sharing a (.......... for me, powerful) musical experience; with a group of people who like to talk about their experiences of music."

My initial reaction is going to be "My God! What did you hear? You haven't heard enough. Let me explain ... listen to *this*."

All of which I'd find perfectly acceptable responses from an Oasis fan.

wowyourcool : I'm not particularly asking for my original post to be taken literally. It's meant to be emotional and provocative. It's the second where I was just trying to explain in a neutral way.

Was I predisposed to dislike Oasis before hearing them? I can't remember. Probably the first time I became aware of them was when there was that Oasis vs. Blur thing ... and at the time I didn't particularly like Blur either. (Although someone had evangelized and given me a copy of Parklife.) So I was already aware that they were comparable to (and I guessed in some way similar to) a band I didn't like.

Now I think about it, probably the first Oasis song I heard was "Roll With It" and I think I probably reacted by thinking ... "Oh that's this Oasis everyone talks about. I don't think that's very good."

However what happened next was there was a lot of talk about Oasis and how they put Burt Bacharach on the cover of their album, and how they represented a renaisance of melodic songwriting. Now if there's one thing I do care about it's melody. So I got interested.

My next couple of Oasis experiences were probably confusion along the lines of "huh? that doesn't sound a bit like Bacherach."

I DID enjoy the Mike Flowers Pops version of Wonderwall. But when I heard the original I felt pretty much that what I liked was added by Mike Flowers.

So it's fair to say I was possibly prematurely prejudiced against Oasis on the grounds of the genre of music they played (britpop / guitar pop) which I don't like anyway. And the gulf between the hype of the Bacharach comparison and the reality.

The first prejudice wasn't insurmountable. In comparison, I'm equally predisposed to be uninterested in Travis. And the early Travis songs I heard I disliked. However, occasionally an overheard Travis song lodges itself in my head and I realize I quite like it. (The same is true for Don't Look Back in Anger, but to a lesser extent.)

We're certainly not left in much doubt what you think of the sort of people who like this "ugly, retro, tuneless drivel".

I do think that the music ugly, retro, tuneless drivel. But I never said anything against the fans. I asked "how come people liked this", refering to people in general; and implicitly inviting people on ILM to explain. I didn't ask "what sort of people like this" which would imply making a distinction between the kind of person I am and the kind of people who listen to Oasis. I don't have that kind of discourse or attitude towards fans of one band or another. (Check my history of posts to ILM if you want to verify this.)

you might equally try to understand my prejudiced contempt for people who who try to pass off this kind of pompous, self-regarding shite as

"sharing a (.......... for me, powerful) musical experience; with a group of people who like to talk about their experiences of music."

Your claim that I'm "passing off" suggests that one is pretending to be the other. But I don't see an incompatability. Maybe what I wrote was "pompous, self-regarding, shite" but that doesn't mean that it's not also quite truly "sharing ... experiences of music".

I suppose now it's hard to like them without feeling guilty, without a horde of people sneering at me, I feel almost cornered into giving them a rabid defense that they don't really deserve. But in the US they were never the megalo-media force they were in the UK, they have a different context for me... and looking at my lonely CDs, damn, they had an 18-month run of pure pop-singles genius. I can't deny it. Everything is catchy and loud and big and fun (I'm hearing Andrew WK parallels) - T. Rex guitars, sneering vocals, Beatle-y melodies, huge productions. The scale of it is just so grand and hopeful (albeit completely emotionally empty). "Don't Look Back in Anger", "Whatever", "Some Might Say", "Rocking Chair", "Masterplan" great great stuff. And it all went horribly horribly wrong. Ah well - doesn't it always...

"Don't Look Back In Anger" is completely uninvolving to me. It's supremely bland and uninteresting, combined with some singing that seems to think it's better than it actually is (I forgive a lot of what happens in "Wonderwall" because it sounds like it's in a more comfortable part of the range and ergo bears less resemblance to the howls of a bored torture victim).

The other Oasis song I like is that first single off of _Be Here Now_; was that called "You Know What I Mean"?

well, they encouraged the Beatles comparison by stealing riffs and phrases from them left and right

I'm not familiar enough with T.Rex to comment on those similarities, and as far as The Stone Roses are concerned, I thought they were trying to do a "we're the new Beatles" type thing themselves.

Also, Oasis did do a cover of "I Am The Walrus".

They did rip-off riffs, but the production on those Oasis records is totally anathema to the usual Beatles method of "four guys and some nutty overdubs".

There are no Beatles songs constructed in this manner (except maybe Helter Skelter).

I was just listening to "Wonderwall" and the entire song sounds to me like several Beatles songs put into a blender ("She's Leaving Home" + "Helter Skelter" + "Eleanor Rigby") with big pounding drums underneath it.

Liam has fuck-all to do with Johnny Rotten's singing style beyond having a nasal accent.

What I'm really getting at is that where Oasis would use a million guitars, some strings, very loud drums, and endlessly repeating riffs to build their songs, the Beatles would tend to use just a couple guitars, throw some left turns in the song structures, and color the songs with odd overdubs (a french horn there, some tape loops here, etc.)

If you meant strictly in the present tense, then maybe. But he certainly HAD a lot to do with it early on: Listen to "Rock 'n' Roll Star."

Also, in my previous Beatles melange, strike out "Eleanor Rigby" and put in "Yesterday".

Just so we're on the same page, when I see "songwriting", I think of the chord progressions/melodic lines/basic rhythms and tempos that make up a song, while "arrangement" is how the notes are assigned to the various instruments playing the song.