NOEL GALLAGHER: a genius or a dumb?
 

I think he's a genius and I love his songs....

U?

Well he's not a genius, one awesome album a genius does not make (as Yoda would say)
He's not dumb though, he can be quite witty at times and he must be doing something right to have that fanbase.

The word Genius describes very few musical artists and he is'nt one of them. The debut rocks like your gran on speed though.

If he is then explain the last 5 albums.

Bag of arse?

Maybe he's such a genius I couldn't see it on those records.

*inserts and picks third option*

A. Genius
B. Dumb
C. Major @$$hole...

lol. what is a genius anyway. he's a genius of sorts, in that he had the whole-make-a-brilliant-pop-hook thing down to a science...

(i.e. rip off the hooks of all the best artists of the last 30 years)

"Talent borrows, genius steals"

Neither, really great songwriter & a even better guitar player, but he's neither. I look forward to his solo album.

Here, let me show you with this computer...

It might even actually sound different to Oasis. I can't believe I'm saying that but I think it well might. That is, if he decides to focus on his acoustic stuff.

Because taking The Beatles sound and watering it down for the Hootie & The Blowfish crowd is just so f*cking genius.

I don't think Oasis sound anything like the Beatles, and anyway, I don't think it is possible to water down the Beatles' sound: it is already presented in the pop format.

The Beatles were pop, but they were not bland by any means, even in their early years they wrote some pure genius pop songs.

Oasis took that sound, mainly the poppy side from it, without taking risks like The Beatles did. Then they just made it more generic and more appealing to the "adult alternative" crowd, I hear songs like Wonderwall and Champagne Supernova being played on the radio alongside songs by Barenaked Ladies, Matchbox Twenty and The Goo Goo Dolls. Compare them to those bands and tell me how they stand out, they don't.

I never said they, or pop, was bland. I'm a fan of the Beatles. But I never got the Oasis comparisons. They sound nothing like the Beatles at any stage of the Beatles' career. Oasis sounds nothing like Merseybeat, the Beatles' mid-period folk rock or "Brill Building", the later orchestral and psychedelic stuff, or anything else that the Beatles did for that matter. It's a lousy comparison that people have been making without any justification for the last 15 years. The only thing Oasis have in common with the Beatles is being a particularly hugely popular English band from a city in the north of the country.

And yeah, alright, so they did rip off a few Beatles melodies here and there. But never the style.

Wouldnt exactly call him a musical genius. More of a musical loser.

yes, indeed, what is a genius ?? he's maybe a kind of genius but why only him ? Maybe we have to talk about OASIS in general, it's a band , he's not alone.

ps: I'm a new member !

Well he's Oasis's principal songwriter and was their only songwriter during their first two albums which are held as the best. He's quite clearly the talent behind the band. It would be cool if Oasis experimented on their next album, like stopped using the word "shine" for instance.

he was a good songwriter

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." - Albert Einstein.

Einstein 1 Wilde 0 i think.

A multi millionaire musical loser...some loser.

NOEL GALLAGHER: a genius or a dumb?
Or a dumb what?

Noel Gallagher is no genius, neither is he dumb.

Genius - a twonk with exceptional originality and intellectual ability.

Noel Gallagher: a twonk with neither.

he's an ******* in my opinion. no where near genius stature.
oasis is one of the most overrated bands in existence behind metallica and nirvana.

Blur>Oasis


couldn't help but chuckle at that.

Oasis sounds nothing like the beatles and it's Liam not Noel that wants to be John Lennon. I actually perfer their cover of 'I am the Walrus ' to the original. And in my mind Oasis is Noel Gallagher, but I do perfer Liam's 'songbird' over Noels' 'wonderwall'.

Wow. Blasphemer.

yeh so compare

to


Liam's Voice really goes with the song, and Noel's guitar work is great as always

So do i to be honest, i love his drunken slurring.

What that tells me is that neither you nor sweet_nothing appreciate or even respect what was good about I Am The Walrus in the first place! Lennon's quirky and idiosyncratic, disturbing, ominous, sinister, brooding depiction of a schizophrenic nightmare... ripped out, chewed up, and spat out as an Oasis cookie-cutter staple. A bastardization if ever there was one...

^ I don't entirely agree with this...

...but that ^ is a great description of I am the Walrus.

It is but its fairly inaccurate seeing as I Am the Walrus was just Lennon making fun of Dylan.

Is that true?
If it is, that's even more interesting than Rainard's take.

Yeah it was him trying to write Subterranean Homesick Blues style, the lyrics are intentionally nonsense only the chorus has some slight-meaning to it because its a Through the Looking-Glass reference.

The intent of the song was not "making fun of Dylan", it was attempting to write obscure like Dylan was. Even if there were elements of parody, that was not the sole intent of the song at all. Some of the lyrics were written on various acid trips and whatever the writer's vision was, the effect is a menacing schizophrenic nightmare in sound.

Lennon was very proud of I Am The Walrus and considered it one of his most innovative efforts. Due to this he was extremely pissed off and in disbelief when McCartney's Hello Goodbye was made an A-side single, with I Am The Walrus as the B-side.

Only the first two lines were written on acid trips most of it were admittedly nonsense and even the opening lines are a play on an old folk song. It's completely a parody on Dylan's lyrics at the time which were frankly 90% rubbish and I'm sure as an excellent lyricist himself John was fully aware Dylan's lyrics we're written for the sake of being written and didn't have any sort of meaning behind it.

Doubtless, the lyrics are meaningless. The imagery though I'm sure is inspired by hallucinations and whatnot, in spite of the meaninglessness.

BTW just what was Dylan's stuff of the time? I'm unfamiliar with late 60s Dylan, I know him from the 60s mostly for Blonde On Blonde and Return to...

Of course i appreciate and respect that song, i just respect the other version more. Its one of the rare moments (i think anyway) that Oasis seemed to be having any fun on record. Fact is I Am The Walrus is a lot more fun than you have it made out, and Oasis stayed true to that.

We talking about the same band? Oasis was always having fun!