Albums that You Wish Weren't in the Top 1000 - Music

nutso42

Dingerbell wrote:

Why do people find Oasis so bad? Is it not "cool" to like them? They're fun, easily likeable and write very good songs. I know the Gallagher's are pricks and unbelievably arrogant, but surely that can't be the reason for hating them.

Because Oasis has never made a single original song in history. Every song and album they've ever released are crappy ripoffs of great songs, or recycled versions of songs that sucked in the first place. They haven't a creative bone in their collective bodies, yet demand to be treated as the second coming of John Lennon.

That's why people hate Oasis.

Plus, they just suck.

benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?

Age: 27
Location: California

nutso42 wrote:

Plus, they just suck.

I was waiting for the real reason ... there we go.
_________________

. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make

Listmeister

Gender: Male
Location: Ohio

nutso42 wrote:

Because Oasis has never made a single original song in history. Every song and album they've ever released are crappy ripoffs of great songs, or recycled versions of songs that sucked in the first place. They haven't a creative bone in their collective bodies, yet demand to be treated as the second coming of John Lennon.

That's why people hate Oasis.

Plus, they just suck.

Just wondering, did Oasis have a bigger impact in the United States than Britain? With that accent, they sounded different from anything else playing on the radio in 1994. "Champagne Supernova" instantly became one of my favorite songs that year.

Listening to (WTS)MG? [Listmeister #69 and climbing] as I write this.

sp4cetiger

Listmeister wrote:

Just wondering, did Oasis have a bigger impact in the United States than Britain? With that accent, they sounded different from anything else playing on the radio in 1994. "Champagne Supernova" instantly became one of my favorite songs that year.

Listening to (WTS)MG? [Listmeister #69 and climbing] as I write this.

Much more popular in Britain than the US, especially now. I actually quite like WTSMG, it's a great combination of melancholy and grunge-like disdain/apathy. That's more or less how I felt as a teenager.

nutso42

Listmeister wrote:

With that accent, they sounded different from anything else playing on the radio in 1994.

Sure, it sounded different than anything else in '94, because they were ripping off older stuff.

sp4cetiger

nutso42 wrote:

Sure, it sounded different than anything else in '94, because they were ripping off older stuff.

I see you have Led Zeppelin on your chart...

Listmeister

Gender: Male
Location: Ohio

nutso42 wrote:

Sure, it sounded different than anything else in '94, because they were ripping off older stuff.

They were carrying on a tradition of British vocal harmonies. It sounds evil the way you say it.

nutso42

sp4cetiger wrote:

I see you have Led Zeppelin on your chart...

Oooooh snap!!

Dingerbell

Gender: Male
Age: 27

sp4cetiger wrote:

Much more popular in Britain than the US, especially now. I actually quite like WTSMG, it's a great combination of melancholy and grunge-like disdain/apathy. That's more or less how I felt as a teenager.

Yeah, I share this opinion. It's definitely not my favourite album, but I think it's a decent album. Definitely doesn't deserve the abuse it gets.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

nutso42 wrote:

Because Oasis has never made a single original song in history. Every song and album they've ever released are crappy ripoffs of great songs, or recycled versions of songs that sucked in the first place. They haven't a creative bone in their collective bodies, yet demand to be treated as the second coming of John Lennon.

That's why people hate Oasis.

Plus, they just suck.

Jesus. God forbid that a band sounds like another band. Like pretty much every band on this site.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...