smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Gene Good <javagene@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Stewart Mason's 25 overrated thingies |
| Date | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:54:18 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain Windows-1252 (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Would never argue about Oasis.In fact I agree with what you wrote.But I have to add that I loved their last album,"Don't believe the truth".I thought they turned a corner with that one.Particularly the first 5 tracks in a row.I thought the sneer was tempered,the songwriting much better,and find it very entertaining."Mucky Fingers" reminds me of early Mott the Hoople.And when they do a Beatles take on "Let there be Love" it works well.It made my top 20 that year.They surprised me.
> From: amilenski@hotmail.com
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: Stewart Mason's 25 overrated thingies
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:27:56 -0500
>
>
> Wouldn't it be fair to say that any artists labelled as "the best" will be overrated
> even if they actually are the best?
>
> I mean, there are people who will argue that Dylan isn't the best singer/songwriter,
> the Beatles were not the best band, the Stones were never the world's greatest band,
> the Who weren't the best live band, Elvis wasn't the best rock and roll singer, Joni
> Mitchell wasn't the best female singer/songwriter, Miles Davis and John Coltrane not
> the best jazz artists, Sinatra not the best singer, etc...
>
> Any list of "most overrated" will by necessity be a list of the most acclaimed or
> most popular.
>
> I think the easiest artist for me to list is Oasis, because I can explain very clearly
> why they are overrated. I don't need to mention that the sneering vocals annoy
> me, because that's subjective criticism, but objectively I say this, based mostly
> on their first two albums, because those are the ones still listed among the best
> ever by critics who should know better:
>
> The songs are simple, repetitive, overlong, and arranged blandly. Almost every
> song would be improved by removing 20-50% of it. And the lyrics, while not
> bad or inconsequential, are nothing especially memorable (and occasionally
> suffer from the usual rock star decadence pose that is so tired that it has
> no use any more.)
>
> To compare them to the Beatles, since so many have, just look at the chord
> progressions---the songs are basic and do not go in unexpected directions.
> They don't have hooks that pop up inside a song (or that change during a song.)
> They also fall into the trap of repeating rather than expanding...these songs
> just plain aren't challenging, and if you're going to write unchallenging pop
> songs, they need to cut off at 2:30 or so...but even that would make them
> a lesser band. There is nothing they've ever done that has the harmonic complexity
> or brilliant song structure of, say, "She Loves You." And when the Beatles finally
> did bring repetition into their songs (i.e. "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"), it was
> done with purpose, in a song that was quite complicated, and in the context of other
> songs that were compact.
>
> What Oasis had was energy and some really good melodies. They did not have
> the ability (or, should I say ambition?) to turn those into truly interesting songs
> that have staying power.
>
> Can anyone contradict me in a reasoned way, something beyond "but the
> songs are great?"
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_102007
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.