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

    • It was open yesterday evening (Saturday) and fairly busy, too.
    • Has she been out before?  Bengals love to explore and have a high prey drive.  Put her litter tray and bed outside which may help her to find her way home.
    • Hello I have been with EE for years -10 ? - never had a single outage which is great when WFH. I had virgin before and it was terrible - so many outages - I live on Whateley Road - hope this is helpful 
    • This may be somewhat out of date but virtually no environmental benefit & almost entirely grass... really? https://www.gigl.org.uk/sinc/sobi09/ Description Peckham Rye was established as an open space in the late 19th century and includes several valuable habitat features spread across the park. The park is a Grade II Listed landscape, and has recently been restored with assistance from the Heritage Lottery Fund. A small community garden within the site is managed by the Friends of Peckham Rye. Peckham Rye Park won a Green Flag Award again for 2022. The site is used by the Southwark Health Walks project as part of a Walking the Way to Health (WHI) scheme. Wildlife This large park has several valuable habitat features. The most important of these is the only remaining above-ground section of the River Peck and the most natural stream in the borough. The stream is heavily shaded by native, unmanaged wet woodland dominated by alder, ash and pedunculated oak with a ground cover of pendulous sedge and bramble. Alder dominated woodland is a rare habitat in Southwark. Although somewhat altered with weirs, other artificial structures and ornamental planting, some sections are still in their natural banks and includes yellow flag, watercress, water figwort and cuckooflower. The largest of three ponds supports marginal vegetation including hemp agrimony. A variety of waterfowl nest on the wooded island, including tufted duck, coot, Canada goose and mallard. Substantial flocks of gulls visit the park in winter and bats are likely to forage over the water. Small blocks of predominantly native woodland, mostly on the boundary between the Park and the Common, are dominated by oak and ash with a well-developed understory, but sparse ground flora. Spring bulbs have been planted in previous years. These and several dense shrubberies support a good bird population and small numbers of pipistrelle bats are present. Infrequently mown grassland is located in one large area and was seeded in 2009. It's composition includes giant fescue, ladies bedstraw, meadowsweet, black knapweed and wild carrot. The rest of the park consists of amenity grassland with some fine mature trees.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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