1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

BBC 7 ages of Rock - starts Saturday

Discussion in 'music' started by prowla, May 18, 2007.

  1. Robn

    Robn pfm Member


    Strikes me that Indie was initially as much about a DIY ethos, rebellion against what had become an anodyne music scene and unfettered self-expression. With some exceptions little of this seems to apply to the current crop of identikit indie bands who often seem as though being in a band is simply a career choice. The notion of Indie has been commodified, pastuerised and is very popular with my daughter.
     
  2. prowla

    prowla pfm Member

    Well, I think the current Indie thing is MySpace.
     
  3. Anex

    Anex Señor Member

    That's somewhat questionable, given the ownership of myspace
     
  4. Joe Hutch

    Joe Hutch Mate of the bloke

    I think this is the usual argument about what is 'proper indie' (see arguments about what is 'proper punk' 'proper metal' 'proper rock' passim). Essentialy, it is a categorisation of 'stuff I like' (the 'proper' stuff) and 'stuff I don't like' (the rest).

    But the Boo Radleys were a great group, whether or not they were 'proper' indie.
     
  5. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    TheCaptain said "but I Am The Resurection is so central to UK indie, the crossover to the Manc Hacienda scene etc, that just that half a song puts them musically more innovative/ important than every oasi* song put together!"

    As someone who lived in Manchester during the arrival of both The Stone Roses (my mate used to go and see them when they were a dodgy Goth band and even had that single that ended up being worth £300) and Oasis I can tell you that the effect of both bands and the experience as a natural member of their audience was markedly similar. This is not surprising in some ways given that Oasis were basically formed as a result of being Stone Roses fans and shared most of their musical influences. I would also defend Oasis and still think their first album is a minor classic. Ok it's one of those albums you almost certianly never play except in moments of extreme nostalgia but as a function of its time it was great.

    When Supersonic came out Manchester was a-buzz like it hadn't been since the Modays/Roses era and Oasis played some fantastic gigs. Yes it's pastiche, yes it's dead simple music, yes it's nothing remotely original or influential (all of which applied to the Stone Roses) but at the same time it, and they, had a swagger and sheer joy about it that lifted it above the ordinary. At the end of the first UK tour they were the new Indie darlings (this is pre-WTSMG mainstream success) and returned to Manchester to play a sell-out gig at the Hacienda. They opened with "Rock and Roll Star" and Liam, the boy from Burnage -- and always a natural performer unlike the shuffling, heads down nerdishness of the Roses -- singing "Tonight I am a rock and roll star" on the stage of the definitive Manchester club in front of an adoring crowd and it was something truly special.

    Yes it was ephemeral and a function of time and place as much as music but then pop music often is; taken in itself Spike Island, for example, was actually a really average gig and a shit day out (10,000 people and 48 cans of lager never works). But that Oasis gig still gives me a little shiver of excitement when i think about it and that Summer still holds very fond memories and Oasis were a big part of that. Oh and Oasis were 1000x times better live than the Stone Roses at least during the time when you could see them on stage without needing binoculars.

    The big problem with Oasis of course is that everything was wonderful until they released the second album. Brazen flaunting of your influences on your first album is great if you have the verve to get away with it (which they did) but for the follow up everyone was expecting their "Rubber Soul". Instead we literally got "Rubber Soul" and I recall the huge disappointment and lukewarm reviews (the music press conveniently forgets this given the alumbs later success). teh subsequent car crash of a career and terribly underwhleming, instally forgetable music does somewhat undermine what came before but I still rate the first album and singles and that first year as somethign special. They never made anything as toe-curlingly bad as "Second Coming" though; their bad records were mostly just boring rather than actually bad per se.

    Incidentally, although I love the Roses album deeply it was not really very influential. Their most culturally important and enduring record was "Fools Gold", IMHO.

    Oh and the Boo Radley's were not just good but great. "Giant Steps" is a borderline work of genius and one of the very best guitar albums of the 90s that firmly belongs in the same section of rock history as The Smiths, The Stone Roses, etc. etc. When the trumpet comes in on Lazarus is one the truly great moments in rock.

    prowla said "I don't get the "Oasis sound like the Beatles" thing - they don't."

    They don't just sound like The Beatles its borderline pastiche. It's hard to imagine singing "So sally can't wait" and "Don't look back in anger, I heard you say" without imaging Noel with a hairbrush pretending to be John Lennon.

    Oh and Ringo, Harrisson and McCartney and both gallaghers all think they do sound very much like The Beatles to the point of it being worth public comment.
     
  6. Lucce

    Lucce pfm Member

    Anyone remember the ridiculous situation in the early nineties when some people wanted to ban any SAW production from the independant chart (even though they were on an indie label) because they did not sound `indie` enough.
     
  7. RickyC6

    RickyC6 Infuriate the frog-men

    Matthew - for a West Ham fan you don't half talk a lot of sense about music.

    Cheers

    Rich
     
  8. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    Oh and an interesting and far from complete list for people who critcise people for copying other people:

    PS : Thanks Ricky.
     
  9. manicatel

    manicatel pfm Member

    Sounding LIKE the Beatles/copying them is one thing. A lot of us can do that.
    Being as innovative/creative/good/inspirational as them is quite another, & something which the gallaghers pub-rock band can only ever dream of.
    Matt.
     
  10. Sid and Coke

    Sid and Coke and so the rebuild continues..

    Pub-Rock ? with reference to the TV programme content. It was 'Knebworth' they were playing , not The Knebworth Arms.
     
  11. The Captain

    The Captain ~~~~~~~~~~

    Spot-on. 'Fantastic' big crowd gigs, album sales.. thats just pop, and not remotely as important as one influencial independently recorded album by a band regardless of their live gigs. Joy Division didn't do any huge gigs or sell bucket loads, the music they recorded is what remains important (live nostalgia relatively meaningless after 25 yrs have gone by say): Oasis are not truly musically important whatsoever (If they were, Peel would've been the 1st to sing their praises too- Id put my HOUSE on the fact that he quietly loathed them!).
     
  12. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    I don't think anybody claims Oasis to be musically significant. They are just a rock band albiet one that was distinctly better before they made the music that made them rich and famous.

    And if we all have to empty our collections of stuff that is "musically important" then I guess most of us will be throwing away a goot 60% of what we currently own.

    "thats just pop"

    Well so are The Beatles. And The Beach Boys. And The Stone Roses. Absolutely nothing wrong with being "just pop".
     
  13. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    Music is significant or important only to the extent that it stimulates an emotional response in the listener - however superficial, ephemeral or enduring that is.

    Beyond that music has no significance or importance.
     
  14. The Captain

    The Captain ~~~~~~~~~~

    No Im not saying 'one must own only important music only'; but rather in terms of the 7 Ages programme banging on about Oasis being musically significant enough to fill half an entire programme who, as you correctly point out are "just a rock band": that hits my whole point dead-on.

    There's nothing wrong with being just pop no- my point is amongst independent music though its surely the fundamental opposite of what it means musically as a genre thats all, as if its roots were completely lost- exactly what happened- until it got back to its roots by The Libertines and others' use of t'internet.
     
  15. Anex

    Anex Señor Member

    Captain- you weren't just making that point when you were slagging a load of stuff off on the other page. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you some of it is utter crap, and even the stuff I think you're wrong about ain't that great and it certainly isn't important or innovative but that doesn't mean you can't like it. I think there is more danger in ONLY listening to that than there is in liking bits of it.

    BTW, Boo Radleys for the win.
     
  16. The Captain

    The Captain ~~~~~~~~~~

    no, its a list of blandness that I think Oasis/ britpop are the cause of thats all. If bland is your thing (not personally Anex) then if it stirs your emotions then I guess it is important to you.
     
  17. Anex

    Anex Señor Member

    I think there's a time for that though, like beans on toast- not exactly an exciting meal, but very occasionally I might really want to eat it and nothing else will do. Very occasionally I might feel the need for bland pop- I think I bought the first oasis album after hearing super sonic on the radio and really wanting to hear it again. Probably played it twice since I bought it, but it's there on the shelf if the need arises again.
     
  18. The Captain

    The Captain ~~~~~~~~~~

    very very occasionally I like beans on toast too, but really its only if there's bugger all left in t' cupboard. One better than very occasionally is never at all.
     
  19. prowla

    prowla pfm Member

    I love beans on toast, preferably a cheese toastie, and with ground pepper on top.
     
  20. DarrenW

    DarrenW Oxygen User

    I think beans were just a tomato derivitive - they never really added anything new to the "on toast" scene - just more of the same with a different kinda beaniness.

    Followers of beans are simple folk who don;t appreciate the true wonder of tomatoes on toast - they set the pace, shifted the paradigm, broke new ground... if peel were alive he'd shun beans I have no doubt!

    Darren
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice