Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I love the stone roses, but with hindsight that's a fine point. It stands the test of time, I've gone off many an album I love, but the songs are still good, however right time right place is spot on, I can't see it appealing much to those who weren't there, say in the way that Dark Side of the Moon continues to make every 17 year old who's just started smoking gear and stumbles upon it think he's the first to do either, or both.


In the spirit of honesty I'll add My Bloody Valentine, top work by Shields bankrupting a label and all, but...

Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Just horrible. Dark Side of the Moon remains sublime as does The Stone Roses. Great Albums are few and far between and are usually distinguished from merely good albums as containing no fillers just wall to wall top tunage. Musics entirely subjective though and has fuelled many a row in my household and over an ale. My Brother admitting to being a 'bit of a Coldplay fan' over the festive period was tantamount to a declaration of war and I fear Xmas suffered as a result.

Anyone who does not rate Oasis, is a schmuck.

Did Jeremy suggest that a lack of appreciation of The Clash, suggested that the suggestee was an an utter c*nt?

If he didn't then take it from me, they are a knownothing c*ntbollox. And that's the truth.

If you suggest The Beatles are overated, you're a fool. A foolish lunatic with a hatred for pop music.

The next you'll be telling me that you don't like Bob Dylan.

Honestly, you will.

Bob Dylan I could leave... not that I have really listened to enough to judge.


However, I have never understood anyone who claims not to rate The Beatles. I can't think of any other band that has come close to producing so many amazing songs with such a variety of styles in such a short period of time. Ok, they was some dross in there too (most songs ringo ended up singing) but the sublime ones more than compensate.


Oasis.... well, the first two albums were pretty great... the third was dreadful, they've got better in recent years, but not sure they have ever got back to their original heights... feels a bit like the moment has passed - unlike Blur they didn't really evolve much.

Oasis are simply rock.

They have one of the all time great front men in Liam, can sing when he wants to and drops into being a vocalist when necessary.

He can hold an audience by standing still, with his hands behind his back, and is one of only a few people who can look good wearing shades indoors.

His older brother writes fine songs, and though they reference the Beatles, I think that 70's glam rock is more his bag.

But that's just me.

I agree, I don't like Oasis and never will.

Not sure if they qualify as a band or a group but Take that are a gang of wankers.

The Kooks = the cocks.

Most of the bands mentioned at the beginning of this thread are before my time. Foe some reason I find that if I don't like a member or members of a band or group this usually if not always results in me disliking the music they play.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree, I don't like Oasis and never will.

> Not sure if they qualify as a band or a group but

> Take that are a gang of @#$%&.

> The Kooks = the cocks.

> Most of the bands mentioned at the beginning of

> this thread are before my time. Foe some reason I

> find that if I don't like a member or members of a

> band or group this usually if not always results

> in me disliking the music they play.


So BBW, Oasis are not your 'thang'. And you'll never like them? I think then you're not keen on the rock, generally.

As for Take That, what of Back For Good? I reckon anyone who doesn't reckon that as a fantastic song, is somneone that I wouldn't be able to cuddle up to.

And I'd not do that with a Kook.

I'm not entirely sure HonaloochieB. I always thought that Oasis were classed as Brit pop. I agree that rock doesn't feature very much in my collection but I wouldn't dismiss the whole of Rock altogether. Craig David is another Twat I forgot to mention but I've dealt with him already.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Craig David is another @#$%& I forgot to mention but I've dealt with him already.


Dealt with him? Is that why we've been saved from any recent releases from him?


As for Brit pop.... in my opinion a bit of an unhelpful label placed on pretty much every British band who played their own instruments from about 1994 - 1996. I am not sure some of them had much more in common than that.


Was a time I remember with some affection though - lots of good music around, and I was fresh out of university so not yet disillusioned by the world of work and enjoying having more than two pence to rub together after the student years. Ho hum, I'm going to get all nostalgic now!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...