Does anyone listen to Jimi Hendrix

i cant wait for their new album, its gonna be huge!

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseWell Oasis were/are massive in the UK and rightly so.[/quote]I have never once heard Oasis do anything new, sing a challenging vocal part, write any profound lyrics or generally do anything to in any way bring something original to the table.

All I've ever heard them do is play stuff that is simple and catchy but was unfortunately done a lot better 30 years ago.



[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]but take your average UK teenager in the 90s, and they'll know most of the lyrics to this band. They were a band that even girls really got into.

Of course, they're riding on the coattails of three of the best songwriters in the last century.

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovAll I've ever heard them do is play stuff that is simple and catchy but was unfortunately done a lot better 30 years ago.

Of course, they're riding on the coattails of three of the best songwriters in the last century.

*shakes head*

Your right, the beatles were better, we should all stop encouraging bands like Oasis touring and making records :rolleyes:

Very 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.

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

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.

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:

Very 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.

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

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.

The point is, is that what makes a band good is the ablity to create original sounds that sound cooler then the last ones. Oasis lacks this talent as such they suck. The Beatles were so great because they knew how to do it. A professional band playing an out dated sound is pathetic.

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.

YOU GOT RASKED!!!

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson
YOU GOT RASKED!!!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovYes. Oasis and bands of a similar ilk have no business going on national or world tours nor being on major record labels.[/QUOTE]

Thats ridiculous considering there is the demand for these bands. The only reason a band like Oasis gets into a position to record and tour is because of their local success and fan base. Should they stop and say "wao, we are getting too successful, we dont deserve it, we should limit ourselves to local pubs and clubs!". Dont be ridiculous.

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovI 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?[/QUOTE]

True. But what about the massive proportion of people who love music, yet dont go in search of these bands. The guys who listen to the radio in their cars on the way to work and enjoy a band like Oasis. What right do you have to look down on their taste because they have more important things in their life than to care about the origin on a band like Oasis.

[QUOTE=Raskolnikov]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?

Yea, you should. because Velvet Revolver played infront of about 75,000 Uk fans this year and blew them away. For many fans their it was the first time to see their idols, and a day they'll never forget. Or should we have all said "wao... this band is a GnR ripp off... outa principle Im gona deny myself this opporunity to see them because its just not right what they are doing!


[QUOTE=Raskolnikov]1). Popularity does not mean a band is necessarily good.

Im aware of this. But popularity is a sign that people are appreciating a band on some level. Be it their actual music, or image/status.


You just cant condemn people for liking a band like Oasis. Most people have far better/worse things to worry about in life than how one of their fave bands is actualyl unoriginal and guilty of plaigarism. Im going to see oasis in the summer, I like thier music, it'll be a great day out, but according to your believes I and the other 75,000 people that will go to that gig are all fools and shouldnt be encouraging a band like Oasis.

Basically I think you need to get a life because none of your comments bare any relevance to actually listening to, and enjoying music.

Im sorry but when bands like Oasis come on the juke box in the pub, everyone will enjoy it. When one of their songs comes on the radio when Im driving I'll sing along and it makes me happy.

I used to be like you. I used to defend and attack certain bands based on stupid principles. Hating all songs that were in the pop category and trying to appreciate all the bands from the genres I liked. I spend hours exploring bands that my heros used to like, ending up not realyl liking them. Its a waste of time. Music isnt like that. I like some songs and not others. Some make me happy, others have no effect on me, some bore me. Im not gona change the radio station over, or avoid a gig with a band like Oasis just because of what people like you say.

Seriously, get a life. Music is music. Its their to be appreciated. If you dont appreciate a band then dont listen to em, and dont get jealous of their success becasue you think they dont deserve it.

Your first comment on how they shouldnt go on national tours etc sums it all up. Thats just utterly stupid.

"Don't look back in anger" by Oasis is disturbingly similar to John Lennon's "Imagine". In fact, before the Don't look back drums kick in, I thought it's Imagine.
That's a bit like writing a song and calling it "Stairway to Heaven". It's not illegal or anything, but...
I haven't heard a lot of Oasis songs, but if that's how they do their thing, then no wonder Raskolnikov's posts sound like his avatar!!

AND AXL'S WEAK COMEBACK IS PROBABLY GONNA GET RASKED AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by: Axl_Rose

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovYes. Oasis and bands of a similar ilk have no business going on national or world tours nor being on major record labels.[/QUOTE]Thats ridiculous considering there is the demand for these bands.[/quote]There's a demand for assassins, too but that doesn't make it morally right.

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseThe only reason a band like Oasis gets into a position to record and tour is because of their local success and fan base. Should they stop and say "wao, we are getting too successful, we dont deserve it, we should limit ourselves to local pubs and clubs!". Dont be ridiculous.[/quote]So if I'm a locally successful shoplifter, I should move onto becoming an international jewel thief?

What's ridiculous is that you probably consider yourself something of a musician and yet seem to have no concern for the overall quality of your craft nor the intellectual rights of your fellow artists.

Originally Posted by: Axl_Rose

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovI 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?[/QUOTE]True. But what about the massive proportion of people who love music, yet dont go in search of these bands. The guys who listen to the radio in their cars on the way to work and enjoy a band like Oasis.[/quote]Those guys wouldn't have to go looking for good, original music if the industry was making the effort to put it on the radio for them, now would they?

Before Oasis became 'successful' and could be easily heard on the radio by our 'Average Working Man,' there came a point where a record label A&R person heard them and thought "OK, here's a quick buck" not "woah, these guys are good" or "MAN! I've never heard that before!"

The main priorities of record labels are not artistic integrity, the quality of the music they produce or what "musical heritage" we leave behind, they care about selling product. As much of it as possible. They want a large, ignorant market that isn't going to think much about what they're listening to or if they should buy it or not. It's OK if Layne Staley slowly poisons himself to death and Jerry Cantrell eeks by with his solo career; Godsmack is moving a lot of product.

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseWhat right do you have to look down on their taste because they have more important things in their life than to care about the origin on a band like Oasis.[/quote]What "taste" are you talking about? The 'Average Working Person' isn't thinking about they're listening to any more than I think about what brand of toilet paper I wipe my heiny with. They put on a radio station they find listenable and not too distracting. And of course Oasis fits that bill -- they've stolen their material from some of the best songwriters in the past 50 years.

Originally Posted by: Axl_Rose

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovOr 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]Yea, you should. because Velvet Revolver played infront of about 75,000 Uk fans this year and blew them away. For many fans their it was the first time to see their idols, and a day they'll never forget. Or should we have all said "wao... this band is a GnR ripp off... outa principle Im gona deny myself this opporunity to see them because its just not right what they are doing![/quote]1). How can Slash, Duff and that drummer dude possibly plagiarize themselves?

2). Maybe it's because I haven't heard the whole album, but I haven't heard one Velvet Revolver song that sounded like Guns and Roses.

3). You utterly failed to respond to me in context: What is even remotely ethical about a person or group presenting somebody else's artwork as their own, especially for the motives of fame and fortune?

Originally Posted by: Axl_Rose

Originally Posted by: Raskolnikov1). Popularity does not mean a band is necessarily good.[/QUOTE]Im aware of this. But popularity is a sign that people are appreciating a band on some level. Be it their actual music, or image/status.[/quote]And that absolves one of screwing over the person who actually created that music how?


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]You just cant condemn people for liking a band like Oasis.

First off, yes I can. Try and stop me.

Second, since it seems to be WAY over your head, I'm pointing out that if every single member of Oasis had never existed that the world would not have been denied one single original chord progression, lyrical device, melody, bassline, rhythmic pattern, or ANYTHING that could be considered a new idea or sound. I'm also talking about the ethics of taking one person's music and presenting it as your own for your own profit.

And the ONLY thing you seem to be able to say here to justify your support for the band is that "a lot of people (most importantly, you) like it."

A lot of people liked the Holocaust, too.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Most people have far better/worse things to worry about in life than how one of their fave bands is actualyl unoriginal and guilty of plaigarism.

Which is why I don't hold "most people" to the same standards that I hold my fellow musicians or the music industry.

Just because I don't expect your average consumer to know what I know about my profession (Printing), it doesn't mean that I think it's OK for people within my profession to rip off our consumers or each other.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Im going to see oasis in the summer, I like thier music, it'll be a great day out, but according to your believes I and the other 75,000 people that will go to that gig are all fools and shouldnt be encouraging a band like Oasis.

Well, I can't speak for 74,999 of them...


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Basically I think you need to get a life because none of your comments bare any relevance to actually listening to, and enjoying music.

Of course not. I could fart into a microphone and find PLENTY of people who thought it was GREAT. Individual taste in music is irrelevant here because, for all practical purposes, it's infinite (and if you get right down to it, if somebody hears something enough times, they can grow to like anything).

What is relevant is the question of "does likability or popularity excuse one from having done something morally wrong?"

Is it OK to be a rapist if a lot of people like you and/or like to watch the act? Is it OK to walk around hitting people in the head with a baseball bat if everybody else thinks it's funny?


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Im sorry but when bands like Oasis come on the juke box in the pub, everyone will enjoy it.

No, not everybody.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]When one of their songs comes on the radio when Im driving I'll sing along and it makes me happy.

Good for you.

What about the people they ripped off? What about the countless other bands out there you'd like just as much, if not more who made the effort to do something original who will never get the never get the recognition they rightfully earned because some A&R guy decided to throw some money at a Beatles ripoff band?


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]I used to be like you.

Oh, how cute! It thinks it understands me!


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]I used to defend and attack certain bands based on stupid principles.

What is so stupid about expecting famous bands to not steal their music from other artists?


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Hating all songs that were in the pop category and trying to appreciate all the bands from the genres I liked.

First off, I appreciate and respect a lot more artists and genres than I enjoy listening to. Second, I have very little respect for a lot of bands in the genres that I enjoy because for varying reasons they've shown that they don't deserve it. Third, I'm more than capable of looking past an artist's personal flaws (or positive traits) and evaluate their music objectively; I may think Aaron Barrett from Reel Big Fish is a neurotic prick, but I still think he writes good songs whereas I think the guys in POD are cool people, but their band is horrible.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Seriously, get a life. Music is music. Its their to be appreciated. If you dont appreciate a band then dont listen to em, and dont get jealous of their success becasue you think they dont deserve it.

Your first comment on how they shouldnt go on national tours etc sums it all up. Thats just utterly stupid.

What's "utterly stupid" is that you actually expect people to blindly accept anything you think. Especially since you are so unwilling to accept the opinions of those who disagree with you.

Sorry, I have a free will, I have my own mind and if I think plagiarism is wrong, then I'm going to exercise my right to say so. If I think Oasis (or any band/artist) has made no meaningful contributions to the world of music, then I'm going to say so. In either case, I'm going to cite examples and I'm going draw parallels to firm up my case, and if you can't disprove my logic, then that's your problem. I'm within the forum rules and my rights as a sentient being.

It is not mine nor anybody else's duty to make your thoughts, opinions, or likes any more comfortable or sacred than anybody else's.

ahem...boom

Rask... Im stunned.... what do you do with your life? You have a girlfriend right? Friends? a social life? what?

I skimmed over parts of that crap you posted... and really youre not very smart. I mean your analogies on toilet paper, theives and assassins dont bare any relevance to the issues being discussed here. If you had any intelligence youd tackle the topic of plagarism, its technicalities, not the ethics of shop lifting.

Your not from the UK so I dont see how you can evaluate what the UK public think of a band. Im not a massvie fan of them, my brother owns the albums not me, Im just like the average UK guy who will say "oasis, yea they are good", and perhaps stick some of their songs on on the jukebox when Im in the pub. Im not passionate about them, but I what I cant stand is snobbery in music. People can listen to what they want and thats nothing to do with you.

The velvet revolver bit. That was a misunderstanding. I thought you were attacking them, accusing them of plagarism becasue you mentioned Mr Brownstone and a new singer etc. I still duno what you were on about.

At the end of the day, if people actually look at what your writing, theyll see your condecending and elitist. You have this vast knowledge of music and its history, and you think people like me are foolish for encouraging 'plagarism' by bands like oasis. You likened it to shoplifting which was hilarious.

I like oasis. I stuck on one of their songs, a metallica one and a couple of queen ones on in the pub tnonight. I have an oasis t-shirt! I bought it because it looked cool, not because its a label, or to make a statement. Im going to see oasis this summer with my girlfriend because she likes them.

If your condeming me for all that then you need to take a look at yourself. You need to lighten up because people wont think much of you if you act like that.

Most of my pals like dance music! And cheesy pop bands. but I have more respect for my pals than to critisise them about their muscial tastes.

Seriously Rask, get a life, back off and drop it.

Right that is enough of that

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseRask... Im stunned.... what do you do with your life?
You have a girlfriend right? Friends? a social life? what?[/quote]What? You think this takes up my whole day or something?

Learning Primus basslines = fast fingers. Debate and a lot of reading = fast brain.

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseI skimmed over parts of that crap you posted... and really youre not very smart.[/quote]How can you assess my intelligence if you only skimmed the post?

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseI mean your analogies on toilet paper, theives and assassins dont bare any relevance to the issues being discussed here.[/quote]How do you know? You only skimmed, remember?

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseIf you had any intelligence youd tackle the topic of plagarism, its technicalities, not the ethics of shop lifting.[/quote]How do you know I didn't?

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseYour not from the UK so I dont see how you can evaluate what the UK public think of a band.[/quote]First, people are people. Second, you'd be surprised at the number of people I know from the UK.

Originally Posted by: Axl_RoseIm not a massvie fan of them, my brother owns the albums not me, Im just like the average UK guy who will say "oasis, yea they are good", and perhaps stick some of their songs on on the jukebox when Im in the pub. Im not passionate about them, but I what I cant stand is snobbery in music.[/quote]I don't know about you, but "snobbery" very nicely sums up my perception of Oasis' public persona.

But maybe they put on a different face when they're talking to the media in the UK.

Originally Posted by: Axl_RosePeople can listen to what they want and thats nothing to do with you.[/quote]When have I said otherwise?


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]The velvet revolver bit. That was a misunderstanding. I thought you were attacking them, accusing them of plagarism becasue you mentioned Mr Brownstone and a new singer etc. I still duno what you were on about.

And I'm the unintelligent one... :rolleyes:


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]At the end of the day, if people actually look at what your writing, theyll see your condecending and elitist.

So, I can't know what people in the UK think about bands, but you can know what everybody thinks of me.

RIGHT.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]You have this vast knowledge of music and its history,

If you say so.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]and you think people like me are foolish for encouraging 'plagarism' by bands like oasis.

No, I think you're foolish to elevate a band who has never done nothing new to greatness and dismiss the artists they've blatantly copied as "dated."

I think it's a tragedy that the general public doesn't care who gets ripped off so long as they enjoy what they're listening to, but I really expect more from other musicians. Then again, maybe you don't write. Putting your heart and soul into your own music tends to put a whole new perspective on the issue for people.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]You likened it to shoplifting which was hilarious.

Yet again, saying you disagree without ever showing any evidence of why or how I'm wrong.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]I like oasis. I stuck on one of their songs, a metallica one and a couple of queen ones on in the pub tnonight. I have an oasis t-shirt! I bought it because it looked cool, not because its a label, or to make a statement. Im going to see oasis this summer with my girlfriend because she likes them.

If your condeming me for all that then you need to take a look at yourself. You need to lighten up because people wont think much of you if you act like that.

Why should I (or anybody) turn a blind eye to plagiarism? We're talking about an act that hurts people.

Yet you excuse it just because you like to listen to the end result.


[QUOTE=Axl_Rose]Most of my pals like dance music! And cheesy pop bands. but I have more respect for my pals than to critisise them about their muscial tastes.

I could care less about your musical tastes (or anybody else's). I am criticizing you because you excuse plagiarists just because you like their music. That and you seem to be totally incapable of supporting your arguments with anything resembling facts or logical thought. Only "I like it, so it's OK."