NME - Noel Gallagher slams Keane but loves U2!

[babyman]

Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory sold over 25 million (combined) worldwide.

So what? Does this make them big? It was the phenomenon of the moment. If it's for sold records, then even someone like Madonna, who can neither put 2 notes together, can be taken as an "artist". They had a fair start, but tell me Oasis songs you can put on the same history level of a U2's "One", a Beatles's "Yesterday", a Stones's "Gimme Shelter" ,a Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The Usa", a Bob Dylan's "Blowin In The Wind" or a Pearl Jam "Alive", just to mention the first examples that pop into my head. From these guys we could mention tons of great songs who remained in history. I'm not saying Oasis is all crap, they have some good songs, but never in the world songs you can even compare with many out there who made truly music history. I say this, because if someone states that this this this and that is shit, he should say it from a perspective of someone who has never missed a shot. Oasis are just one of the many, but they will be never the one. It's not professional at all from a musicians point of view to bash other musicians like drinking a glass of water. Everyone has taste, but I have never heard Bono Edge, Springsteen or Vedder talking shit about someone else. That's what makes the difference. Oasis throw shit on people like Keane by claiming themselves as the best: It's like in football England would spit over Andorra saying they're a crap team while they're much stronger. Then, when Noel claims U2 as one of the best bands, this is nothing else than an arse licking methode people like him have, because if he would say the same things over U2, his all credibilty wouldn't be worth 2 cents. What I suggest is just one thing, be a serious musician, just don't think that the world needs your bad comments about this and that band.

 

[LemonMelon]

So what? Does this make them big?

Kind of, yeah.

I can't begrudge them of their success, regardless of how I personally feel about their music (and I dig their first couple of albums). Live Forever, Wonderwall, and Some Might Say are well on their way to reaching timelessness, and I simply refuse to debate the correlation between commercial success and artistry with you. It's quite clear that they can (and often are) mutually exclusive, but Oasis has nothing left to prove in either regard.

 

[babyman]

Kind of, yeah.

No. I don't measure Art by sold records..............................

 

[BVS]

No. I don't measure Art by sold records..............................

You never said anything about art, you said they were never big, you are confusing two entirely different things, one's objective one's subjective.

 

[LemonMelon]

Shit. I hate it when I edit a post a step too late.

 

[babyman]

You never said anything about art, you said they were never big, you are confusing two entirely different things, one's objective one's subjective.

It's understood. Only the biggest make art

 

[babyman]

Kind of, yeah.

I can't begrudge them of their success, regardless of how I personally feel about their music (and I dig their first couple of albums). Live Forever, Wonderwall, and Some Might Say are well on their way to reaching timelessness, and I simply refuse to debate the correlation between commercial success and artistry with you. It's quite clear that they can (and often are) mutually exclusive, but Oasis has nothing left to prove in either regard.

So Bono stated more or less "2 crap records and you're out", "You want a new U2 record because you want the best, or what's the point?". What means that? Maybe that a musician has always something to prove? Even after 30 years? You can call this humility, what Mr.Gallagher misses

 

[LemonMelon]

It's understood. Only the biggest make art

Now this is a very interesting statement. Care to expound on it?

 

[BVS]

It's understood.

No, it's not.

Only the biggest make art

There's all kinds of things wrong with this statement. First it completely ignores the fact that there will always be Brittneys, etc that will be worldwide phenomenons. And secondly it ignores those truly brilliant artists that somehow never got known outside their hometown...

 

[Vlad n U 2]

So what? Does this make them big? It was the phenomenon of the moment. If it's for sold records, then even someone like Madonna, who can neither put 2 notes together, can be taken as an "artist". They had a fair start, but tell me Oasis songs you can put on the same history level of a U2's "One", a Beatles's "Yesterday", a Stones's "Gimme Shelter" ,a Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The Usa", a Bob Dylan's "Blowin In The Wind" or a Pearl Jam "Alive", just to mention the first examples that pop into my head. From these guys we could mention tons of great songs who remained in history. I'm not saying Oasis is all crap, they have some good songs, but never in the world songs you can even compare with many out there who made truly music history. I say this, because if someone states that this this this and that is shit, he should say it from a perspective of someone who has never missed a shot. Oasis are just one of the many, but they will be never the one. It's not professional at all from a musicians point of view to bash other musicians like drinking a glass of water. Everyone has taste, but I have never heard Bono Edge, Springsteen or Vedder talking shit about someone else. That's what makes the difference. Oasis throw shit on people like Keane by claiming themselves as the best: It's like in football England would spit over Andorra saying they're a crap team while they're much stronger. Then, when Noel claims U2 as one of the best bands, this is nothing else than an arse licking methode people like him have, because if he would say the same things over U2, his all credibilty wouldn't be worth 2 cents. What I suggest is just one thing, be a serious musician, just don't think that the world needs your bad comments about this and that band.

That is spot on, babyman.

 

[LemonMelon]

So Bono stated more or less "2 crap records and you're out", "You want a new U2 record because you want the best, or what's the point?". What means that? Maybe that a musician has always something to prove? Even after 30 years? You can call this humility, what Mr.Gallagher misses

U2 also has nothing left to prove. But having nothing left to prove doesn't mean you should stick around and satisfy the few who still care. If anything, it's quite the opposite. Bono wants his band to keep making great records. If they are no longer able to keep producing albums that are of a certain level of quality (EG: not crap), then he believes that it would only serve to tarnish their legacy if they continued. Call it humility, but I call it not beating a dead horse.

 

[babyman]

Now this is a very interesting statement. Care to expound on it?

What's to expound? A bricklayer who builds a house, makes art ,and he's big, an architect who buys a project, doesn't make art, and he's not big........

 

[MikeyJB]

Let me get this straight, you met a couple of Americans in Italy that like Oasis, therefore they are the biggest they've ever been in America?

That's just funny and wrong...

well...I don't know exactly what he is trying to say cause he's being vague...but your jumping to a conclusion that isn't clear cut.....he never actually said that because he met these Americans, Oasis is bigger than ever in America....maybe he was just sharing a little holiday story in America!

whatever...I don't know what he meant

Whoa chill out guys, jesus. No BVS of course me meeting 'a couple' of Oasis fans on holiday doesn't mean they are big, I'm just saying that 2 different groups of Americans from West and East coasts both knew all Oasis' stuff and were fans - for a band that most people think are fairly anonymous and suffer from Robbie Williams-syndrome in the States, I thought that was enlightening.

Also, how can you claim Oasis are not big in America when they sell out multiple nights at Madison SG and their last (and probably current, ive not checked) US arena tour pretty much all sells out?! If that ain't being sucessful in America then I dunno what is.

 

[babyman]

No, it's not.



There's all kinds of things wrong with this statement. First it completely ignores the fact that there will always be Brittneys, etc that will be worldwide phenomenons. And secondly it ignores those truly brilliant artists that somehow never got known outside their hometown...

Well, it ignores now, and it will always ignore Britneys and co.
The 2nd point, well.................I have never seen someone born big...........everyone who is big (truly big) came from his hometown........................this is another question actually......you can be big even when no one knows you, it's not the condicio sine qua non

 

[LemonMelon]

Is "big" an obscure euphemism for "good", or is this some kind of inside joke? That's what I want to know.

 

[MikeyJB]

So what? Does this make them big? It was the phenomenon of the moment. If it's for sold records, then even someone like Madonna, who can neither put 2 notes together, can be taken as an "artist". They had a fair start, but tell me Oasis songs you can put on the same history level of a U2's "One", a Beatles's "Yesterday", a Stones's "Gimme Shelter" ,a Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The Usa", a Bob Dylan's "Blowin In The Wind" or a Pearl Jam "Alive", just to mention the first examples that pop into my head. From these guys we could mention tons of great songs who remained in history. I'm not saying Oasis is all crap, they have some good songs, but never in the world songs you can even compare with many out there who made truly music history. I say this, because if someone states that this this this and that is shit, he should say it from a perspective of someone who has never missed a shot. Oasis are just one of the many, but they will be never the one. It's not professional at all from a musicians point of view to bash other musicians like drinking a glass of water. Everyone has taste, but I have never heard Bono Edge, Springsteen or Vedder talking shit about someone else. That's what makes the difference. Oasis throw shit on people like Keane by claiming themselves as the best: It's like in football England would spit over Andorra saying they're a crap team while they're much stronger. Then, when Noel claims U2 as one of the best bands, this is nothing else than an arse licking methode people like him have, because if he would say the same things over U2, his all credibilty wouldn't be worth 2 cents. What I suggest is just one thing, be a serious musician, just don't think that the world needs your bad comments about this and that band.

Im sorry I dont agree with this at all. Oasis will be remembered as long as those artists you have mentioned because they define British music in the 90s, the cultural change that the UK went through, and their impact still resonates through to the indie dirge the British music scene is currently flooded with.

The Sex Pistols are thought of as being one of the most significant and important bands of all time and yet did you hear them paying respect to those before them?? No, Johnny Rotten created a stir by wearing an 'I hate Pink Floyd' shirt.

Lastly, Oasis have never ever ever claimed to be 'serious musicians', they are just a group of lads who just 'ave it', play rock and roll and act rock and roll and thank god they do, in my opinion we need more people like them instead of all the countless faceless bands with no personality at all, exactly like Keane.

 

[babyman]

U2 also has nothing left to prove. But having nothing left to prove doesn't mean you should stick around and satisfy the few who still care. .

Are you sure about that? Then, why were there many bashing down How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, and they keep saying U2 is no longer the biggest, greatest, largest and whatsoever band of the world? Opinions change very fast, even when you've done lots of magnificent things. You get from stars into mud in a few seconds, without knowing why and how. Figure this out, if U2's new record won't stay true with all the expectations and with all the nice frames they're drawing, do you think people will say: "Oh, U2's new record is a crap record, but they've done The Joshua Tree, anyway...." or "U2's new record is a crap record, they're off the business..."
I would go with the 2nd one.......................
Everytime you put your face among the people, you will be always judged, even by yourself............that's why you have always something to prove, first of all to yourself.

 

[BVS]

Also, how can you claim Oasis are not big in America when they sell out multiple nights at Madison SG and their last (and probably current, ive not checked) US arena tour pretty much all sells out?! If that ain't being sucessful in America then I dunno what is.

I'm just saying at one time they were bigger...

 

[babyman]

Is "big" an obscure euphemism for "good", or is this some kind of inside joke? That's what I want to know.

Big can be a synonymous of good

 

[BVS]

What's to expound? A bricklayer who builds a house, makes art ,and he's big, an architect who buys a project, doesn't make art, and he's not big........

Interesting analogy

Well, it ignores now, and it will always ignore Britneys and co.
The 2nd point, well.................I have never seen someone born big...........everyone who is big (truly big) came from his hometown........................this is another question actually......you can be big even when no one knows you, it's not the condicio sine qua non

So basically you are subsituting 'big' for what you consider good. You've turned something that the rest of the world considers to be objective into something subjective.

 

[BVS]

Big can be a synonymous of good

big definition |Dictionary.com

Where? and since when?

 

[babyman]

Im sorry I dont agree with this at all. Oasis will be remembered as long as those artists you have mentioned because they define British music in the 90s, the cultural change that the UK went through, and their impact still resonates through to the indie dirge the British music scene is currently flooded with.

The Sex Pistols are thought of as being one of the most significant and important bands of all time and yet did you hear them paying respect to those before them?? No, Johnny Rotten created a stir by wearing an 'I hate Pink Floyd' shirt.

Lastly, Oasis have never ever ever claimed to be 'serious musicians', they are just a group of lads who just 'ave it', play rock and roll and act rock and roll and thank god they do, in my opinion we need more people like them instead of all the countless faceless bands with no personality at all, exactly like Keane.

Well, it might be that I'm wrong, I don't have the truth in my pocket. The fact is that Oasis had everything in their hands to be a great band. But they kinda didn't make that. But my point mainly is this: U2 gave us music we never heard, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen, gave us music we never heard, though their influences. I don't see Oasis did the same. They were on a good way, but they didn't go forward. You will remember Oasis for what they've done in the past,but not for what they're doing now. Maybe their ever best record has still to be written, but in the moment, I don't put them at the same level of Pearl Jam (because they almost started in the same periods)

 

[babyman]

Interesting analogy


Yes, it is, I know



So basically you are subsituting 'big' for what you consider good. You've turned something that the rest of the world considers to be objective into something subjective.

Well, if you talk about a big hamburger, then maybe it's not necessarly good. This can be objective or subjective
If you talk about a big artist, it's good. This is objective and subjective

 

[LemonMelon]

Are you sure about that? Then, why were there many bashing down How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, and they keep saying U2 is no longer the biggest, greatest, largest and whatsoever band of the world? Opinions change very fast, even when you've done lots of magnificent things. You get from stars into mud in a few seconds, without knowing why and how. Figure this out, if U2's new record won't stay true with all the expectations and with all the nice frames they're drawing, do you think people will say: "Oh, U2's new record is a crap record, but they've done The Joshua Tree, anyway...." or "U2's new record is a crap record, they're off the business..."
I would go with the 2nd one.......................
Everytime you put your face among the people, you will be always judged, even by yourself............that's why you have always something to prove, first of all to yourself.

To some extent, I can understand what you're saying here. However having "something to left prove" insinuates that you haven't already done it yet. U2 have already been the biggest band in the world. They've already released a number of critically acclaimed albums. They've already embarked on massively successful world tours. Apparently, the only thing U2 has left to prove is whether or not they can continue to release albums that are better than "crap", if Bono's words are anything to go by. And I think that's a realistic way of looking at things, because I don't believe a band should be expected to top themselves artistically and commercially EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

I'm just saying at one time they were bigger...

For Oasis to be more successful than they've ever been in America, eclipsing Morning Glory's sales of 4 million with Dig Out Your Soul would be a necessity.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

My opinion is what matters to me.

Oasis suck.

They are overrated and crap.

 

[babyman]

To some extent, I can understand what you're saying here. However having "something to left prove" insinuates that you haven't already done it yet. U2 have already been the biggest band in the world. They've already released a number of critically acclaimed albums. They've already embarked on massively successful world tours. Apparently, the only thing U2 has left to prove is whether or not they can continue to release albums that are better than "crap", if Bono's words are anything to go by. And I think that's a realistic way of looking at things, because I don't believe a band should be expected to top themselves artistically and commercially EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

I see your point, and I'd have your same opinion. The fact is that the outside pressure makes you crazy, how many antiU2 criticians are waiting out there like vultures with bleeding teeth? It's up to U2 to not get in their claws, by getting out a great record and make another successfull tour. In this world, you're always running on a thin thread. Then, I agree with you that you don't have to get on the "top" (what top?) everytime you're out. But, who is up to give you mercy when you don't do this?

 

[babyman]

My opinion is what matters to me.

Oasis suck.

They are overrated and crap.

Well, ok, but it's also important to respect other tastes when your opinion has been said. Sometimes we get squeezed by our own opinion
I used to be a big Oasis fan, I used to buy even all their singles........mine it's just a love who broke because I was deceived by Oasis's music after the period of Be Here Now. That should be the turning point for Oasis. And it wasn't, in my opinion. And then, their mouth..................just pulled me away and away from them. Because if you're good, why must you go down on someone who is "weak"?

 

[BVS]

Well, if you talk about a big hamburger, then maybe it's not necessarly good. This can be objective or subjective
If you talk about a big artist, it's good. This is objective and subjective

Once again, which one of these fits with your definition of big = good?

big definition |Dictionary.com

I think you misspoke and now you don't want to admit it, that's cool

 

[babyman]

Once again, which one of these fits with your definition of big = good?

big definition |Dictionary.com

I think you misspoke and now you don't want to admit it, that's cool

Don't need any dictionary. I don't speak of grammar or what a dictionary tells.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Well, ok, but it's also important to respect other tastes when your opinion has been said. Sometimes we get squeezed by our own opinion
I used to be a big Oasis fan, I used to buy even all their singles........mine it's just a love who broke because I was deceived by Oasis's music after the period of Be Here Now. That should be the turning point for Oasis. And it wasn't, in my opinion. And then, their mouth..................just pulled me away and away from them. Because if you're good, why must you go down on someone who is "weak"?

Indeed.

I usually do respect other peoples music tastes, unless its unforgivable.