Quote:
Originally Posted by Revol
You've described The Smiths and Roses better than I could. The whole aesthetic of The Smiths was based on pre-Thatcherism working class culture and pop icons from the 40s and 50s. Whereas the Roses had a very "dreamy", as you put it, feel about them. It's hard to describe but whenever I listen to the music of the Roses I can feel the chills down my spine and sometimes even the tears in my eyes!
Oasis are (well, were) a great band. Some classics in their back catalogue but they owe a hell of a lot to the Roses. They've come out with some stuff that has stood the test of time but the Roses...well, I can't really describe what they've done!
|
I`ve actually gotten around to finally listening to "second coming" and its certainly far more hard rock orientated than I was expecting with some riffy styling guitar in an almost Led Zeppelin style sound, problem is that Ian Brown`s voice is just not suited to doing this type of music.
I`ve always disliked Oasis immensely and the only album that I enjoy and think is a great piece of work, is probably their highest regarded "(Whats the Story) Morning Glory" but that`s because it has a whole load of great songs that are worthy to fit on a classic Beatles album, I suppose this is the highest praise that somebody could give the band anyway, its plagiarism to a level of perfection
Threaded Mode