Originally Posted by: Axl_Rose*shakes head*

Your right, the beatles were better, we should all stop encouraging bands like Oasis touring and making records :rolleyes:[/quote]Yes. Oasis and bands of a similar ilk have no business going on national or world tours nor being on major record labels.

I think they make good local bands, but that's about it.

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseVery few bands are original. Most bands are just a combination of influences of 2 or 3 others. I wouldnt say oasis are any less original than the average band. Yea they are notably similar to the beatles.. but what band wasnt influenced by the beatles? Id say Oasis were/are more similar to the Stone Roses actually.[/quote]And how many Stone Roses songs have they copied note for note?

Yes, most bands have influences. However, "influences" and "plagiarism" are two entirely different things.

When I listen to Hendrix, I can hear Buddy Guy and Albert King; Steve Earle, Dead Hot Workshop and The Gin Blossoms when I listen to Roger Clyne's work (with The Refreshments and The Peacemakers); Pink Floyd, The Residents and King Crimson in Primus; Kyuss, The Meters and Bad Brains in Clutch; The Gits in 7 Year Bitch, Morphine in The Presidents of the United States of America; Billy Joel and Elton John in Ben Folds (Five); Led Zepelin and The Beatles in Stone Temple Pilots; Stravinski and Varèse in Frank Zappa's compositions (I can do this all night) -- but you will never confuse one of those "child" bands for their "parent" bands and that goes for the "average" bands I've listed just as much as it does for the revolutionary artists.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]It really bugs me when people look down on bands liek that. Or speak of them like they are worth less. Everything in life evolves from what was there before it. Should we start slagging our children because they are newer, unoriginal versions of ourselves! :D

Why shouldn't we be critical of plagiarists? I can think of many ORIGINAL artists who are making much better music and doing things nobody has ever heard before. I can think of a lot more who may not be doing anything revolutionary but for damn sure have a unique voice and have put forth the effort to write original songs. Shouldn't we be supporting artists like that?

Or should I start a band that sounds WAY too much like Guns n' Roses with a less-capable vocalist, has a note-for-note copy of Mr. Brownstone (with different lyrics), but uses the most up-to-date, ultra-modern studio techniques?


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Oasis were massive in the UK. They still are big. They have amazing songs that young people of this generation can relate to. My mum likes the beatles but their sound is utterly dated. Im not knocking anyone who still enjoys their music but its just a long way from what music has evolved to.

1). Popularity does not mean a band is necessarily good. Mili Vanili and The New Kids on the Block were extremely popular at one time and I'm sure we can all agree that they're some of the least important groups ever to exist in terms of musical legacy and influence.

2). What is so dated about the Beatles' sound or their music? What makes it so tough to relate to? Especially in light of the fact that Oasis has made some very determined efforts to cop the Beatles' sound.

I mean, let's get right down to it: you're talking about the evolution of music in defense of a band who hasn't commited to record a single idea that isn't almost TWICE your age.

Oasis doesn't represent an evolution, they represent a regression.