Favorite 90's British Band

[LonelyWreckage]

Bush are more American than...apple pie? Which isn't really all that American, but it's 7AM and I can't think of 'owt else.

[Shiri]

Yeah, they have an American sound, except for the accent, that's why I hardly think of them when it comes to 'British' rock.

 

I used be real into the Stereophonics and they're still pretty solid. Other than that I can't really think of any other British bands that weren't mentioned.

[bishopx]

Okay, I guess Bush was pretty American sounding.

 

Republica?

[LonelyWreckage]

Republica ?! I wouldn't have known Bush weren't American if you hadn't said them.

 

It's funny, I never think of Stereophonics as 90's.

 

I can't get away with the Charlatans. Stone Roses are a good shout though, but perhaps they're 80's.

 

I'd prefer The Sundays, Suede and Bluetones over Blur.

Edited September 25, 2008 by LonelyWreckage

[here is no why]

Oasis.

 

should have been more options though.

 

Radiohead / the Verve could have both been considerations. The Stone Roses would be another choice... but their album was '89 and the next, 5 years later. Not sure you could count that.

Edited September 26, 2008 by here is no why

[borntohula]

I was listening to Blur this morning and I realized just how boring they were. I'll stick with Oasis.

boring? because?

 

i can see how someone might think that oasis are boring, especially since people only seem to listen to them because of habit (and hope that they will somehow match the success, energy, and creativity that they had a decade ago). but blur?

 

damon albarn has more musical ambition than any of the (rotating) members of oasis combined, and he's just a 1/4 of blur. sure, you could commend oasis' efforts for plodding through the same style & sound they've been at since day one, because it's what they do best, but that to me is far more boring than trying to do things differently, at the cost of isolating fans in the process.

 

if you're going to say something disparaging about a band, you should at least substantiate it so we can actually discuss your point and not just end the conversation with it.

[LonelyWreckage]

I'm guessing he didn't realise Damon Albarn was signed up, and any uncomplimentary opinion of Blur would then be scrutinized.

 

What makes you think Oasis fans only listen out of 'habit' ? You'd soon break the habit if you're no longer getting anything out of listening to them, wouldn't you ? I thought they're still listened to because they've made some fucking brilliant albums.

 

You can't wrap your head around why someone might find Blur - a band, boring, but if it's through lack of experimentation then it's fully understandable ? Surely it's all down to what's released at the end of it.

[Jarrod]

boring? because?

 

i can see how someone might think that oasis are boring, especially since people only seem to listen to them because of habit (and hope that they will somehow match the success, energy, and creativity that they had a decade ago). but blur?

 

damon albarn has more musical ambition than any of the (rotating) members of oasis combined, and he's just a 1/4 of blur. sure, you could commend oasis' efforts for plodding through the same style & sound they've been at since day one, because it's what they do best, but that to me is far more boring than trying to do things differently, at the cost of isolating fans in the process.

 

if you're going to say something disparaging about a band, you should at least substantiate it so we can actually discuss your point and not just end the conversation with it.

I just find them to be boring. Just like I think Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, and countless others boring. They're just not my cup of tea. No need for a rant about a band that I don't care for.

[here is no why]

how can you think Pink Floyd or Zeppelin are boring? What is boring about these bands?

Edited September 28, 2008 by here is no why

[MissEmily]

how can you think Pink Floyd or Zeppelin are boring? What is boring about these bands?

Hey, some people do think they're boring. My mom can be quite vocal about the fact you can't really sing to Zeppelin or Floyd (and you can to the songs played on the lite hits station), and near the end of our relationship, my ex turned his car radio as soon as the last verse of Money ended because it was boring him and the urban station out of Detroit was so much better. (Remind me to never date guys that do that again...it's not so much he didn't like Floyd, it's the fact he changed it as soon as he possibly could after I told him it was the first song I learned on bass.)

 

As for the Oasis/Blur debate, honestly I don't have a preference. I really like them both and usually when I want to listen to Brit-Rock/Pop in any form, they're always side by side on my mix.

 

Each to their own.

Edited September 29, 2008 by MissEmily

[borntohula]

I'm guessing he didn't realise Damon Albarn was signed up, and any uncomplimentary opinion of Blur would then be scrutinized.

 

What makes you think Oasis fans only listen out of 'habit' ? You'd soon break the habit if you're no longer getting anything out of listening to them, wouldn't you ? I thought they're still listened to because they've made some fucking brilliant albums.

 

You can't wrap your head around why someone might find Blur - a band, boring, but if it's through lack of experimentation then it's fully understandable ? Surely it's all down to what's released at the end of it.

i don't understand why my asking for some sort of elaboration on his feelings beyond a mere "they're boring" is problematic to you. had he just said that he liked oasis better, that'd be fine. but he said blur were boring and not knowing what he meant by that or why, i pushed for elaboration. simple. it bothers me when people have opinions, and can't even articulate why they have them. i'd call that a cop-out on a music forum. or laziness.

 

i said that oasis fans only listen out of habit because there's no way anyone could listen to something so obnoxious and humourless unless they had listened to it first when they were 11. what do they do that's so exciting? what's "fresh" by oasis standards? copying t.rex licks instead of beatles ones?

 

i've always thought the dynamic between the bros. gallagher has always overshadowed their actual output. plus they just don't seem to be all that consistent. by your own admission (in another thread), i'm pretty sure you stated that the bsides from their older days are actually stronger than their output now. which i would definitely agree with. they're a decent singles band, but they honestly have not made a solid album in more than a decade. don't get me wrong, they have their place, but just not in my record collection.

 

You can't wrap your head around why someone might find Blur - a band, boring, but if it's through lack of experimentation then it's fully understandable ?

 

i think you misunderstood what i said. what i was trying to get at was that damon was just 1/4th of the creativity in blur, and look at all the different directions he's gone in, and been successful at. i wasn't citing him as an example for lack of creativity. sure, blur started out as britpop, even a little shoegazy, but they never let that box them in. to me, blur are by far one of the more creative bands from their time. just the way in which they reconciled their influences is reason enough to exempt them from ever being cited as "boring." oasis are the antithesis of experimentation, and i'd think that they'd be the first to admit that.

Edited September 29, 2008 by borntohula

[Jarrod]

Jesus Christ! I didn't realize that I was going to get chewed out for finding Blur to be boring. They're just not my taste in music. I don't like the vocals, I don't like the music, and I don't like the lyrics. That's about as far as I can go with Blur. And I've heard more than just Song 2, like Park Life, Blur, Think Tank. I think the only song by them that I do like is Music Is My Radar.

 

Now, I do like Gorillaz a bit, so that doesn't mean I don't like Damon Alban. Perhaps it's because they're more mainstream I don't know.

 

On another note, perhaps I like Oasis because their simplicity and me knowing what I'm going to get with them. Sometimes I don't like experimental and just liking the same old same old.

 

Again, I wasn't knowing that I was going to get chewed out just for saying that Blur was boring. I didn't realize that I had to go into great detail into why I find them boring.

 

Anyway, I'll take Radiohead over any of them.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Jarrod

[LonelyWreckage]

i don't understand why my asking for some sort of elaboration on his feelings beyond a mere "they're boring" is problematic to you. had he just said that he liked oasis better, that'd be fine. but he said blur were boring and not knowing what he meant by that or why, i pushed for elaboration. simple. it bothers me when people have opinions, and can't even articulate why they have them. i'd call that a cop-out on a music forum. or laziness.

 

Similarly I don't understand why you're so bothered if the lad thinks Blur are boring, it's not hard to find a band boring if you dislike them. I imagine I'd be bored silly if I was stuck listening to a group I no longer liked. But the only reason it became 'problematic' was when you started saying shite like this:

 

i said that oasis fans only listen out of habit because there's no way anyone could listen to something so obnoxious and humourless unless they had listened to it first when they were 11. what do they do that's so exciting? what's "fresh" by oasis standards? copying t.rex licks instead of beatles ones?

 

How is Oasis' music obnoxious ? They themselves might be, but how does that affect their musical validity ? Humourless ? I didn't realise they were trying to make people laugh (I guess you could class Bonehead's Bank Holiday as a comedy number, but then that's a b-side). I'm sure there are literally thousands that disprove your ridiculous point, but then you know that already, don't you ?

 

Definitely Maybe is so packed with euphoria it's almost a laughable question. What is Rock N Roll Star if not self-assured gleeful rockiness ? Then there's the infectiously anthemic hits like Live Forever, you've got impassioned angriness (Bring It on Down), epic beauty (Slide Away) - I honestly can't listen to it without coming away uplifted.

 

What, that whole one riff from T-rex in Cigarettes and Alcohol. Oasis have never denied their influences, and while some bits and bobs do border on plagiarism, they're hardly the first to do it, are they ? In the same vein do you write off every artist who uses samples ?

 

It's your thinly-veiled incredulity that someone, somewhere might dare to find Oasis more exciting than Blur that made me respond.

 

i've always thought the dynamic between the bros. gallagher has always overshadowed their actual output. plus they just don't seem to be all that consistent. by your own admission (in another thread), i'm pretty sure you stated that the bsides from their older days are actually stronger than their output now. which i would definitely agree with. they're a decent singles band, but they honestly have not made a solid album in more than a decade. don't get me wrong, they have their place, but just not in my record collection.

Whether their antics have overshadowed their music remains to be seen, but the fact that Definitely Maybe is still often cited as one of the greatest debuts ever, and Morning Glory being one of the biggest albums in British history, suggests that perhaps they're being talked alongside one other (maybe it's truer in North America ?).

 

I did say that, and I stand by it, but that's only because they set the bar so high in the first place. Their albums have been patchy since Be Here Now, but for me, there's enough quality songs there to justify their continual output. Had they used songs like Gas Panic or Sunday Morning Call as the early b-sides, and their earlier b-sides made up the fourth album, I'd still class them as exceptional b-sides.

 

i think you misunderstood what i said. what i was trying to get at was that damon was just 1/4th of the creativity in blur, and look at all the different directions he's gone in, and been successful at. i wasn't citing him as an example for lack of creativity. sure, blur started out as britpop, even a little shoegazy, but they never let that box them in. to me, blur are by far one of the more creative bands from their time. just the way in which they reconciled their influences is reason enough to exempt them from ever being cited as "boring." oasis are the antithesis of experimentation, and i'd think that they'd be the first to admit that.

I think you've misunderstood my point, actually ! I knew you weren't citing him, or Blur, as an example of lack of creativity (quite the opposite). What I meant was: I can't work out how anyone could have trouble understanding why someone might find a certain band boring (Blur), but could immediately understand why, if it's through lack of experimenting (Oasis). Experimentation is often over-rated, like as if now you MUST experiment to be respected. What's so horrifically bad about sticking to your sound ? It's only ever needed if you've lost confidence in your direction, or you're yearning to try something radically different - which I don't think either relate to Oasis.

 

I do appreciate how experimentation can help bands enhance their career musically, but it can also turn out disastrous and to say Blur and Damon have achieved each direction successfully depends entirely on who you ask.

 

Lastly, I think it's a little unfair to say Oasis have never experimented, because they have, if only a little. What do you call Standing on the Shoulders of Giants if not experimentation ? Can you imagine TIOBI on Definitely Maybe ? I mean, they've went from Definitely Maybe; a fast-paced, almost punky - in-your-face rock album, to Don't Believe the Truth; a slow-paced, mellow musing at their life that passes by. There's no monumental variation but there's definitely growth, and that's fair enough - Oasis are honest in that they're not about to start making albums they don't like.

[bishopx]

Elastica

[here is no why]

the fact you can't really sing to Zeppelin or Floyd

I don't buy this at all though. I know, "to each their own" blah blah blah... but I just don't see it.