Oasis, The 90's Beatles(?)

by **Liam OSM** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:16 am

I think that's probably what's helped to make Liam a much more common name than it used to be. It was quite rare when I was a nipper, and I kinda liked that. Being something different. But now, because of the huge Oasis thing, lots of people have named their kids Liam after Mr Gallagher. Oh well, so much for relative uniqueness. Maybe I should see about getting my name changed by deed poll . . .

The difference between genius and insanity is merely the difference between success and failure.

by **dakota** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 5:55 pm

I remember a guy in my jr.high school back in the late 70's. His full birth name was John Lennon. I always thought that was a trip.

His parents by the way were from England.

I don't think he was a big Beatles fan however.

by **skyjude** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:13 pm

Okay - well I have two beautiful daughters who I have actually named after Beatles songs (and my wife's not even a Beatles fan!). Lucy Sky is now over 3 years old and Eleanor Jude is just over 8 months. I personally love the fact they have names that can be both a little special and yet 'normal' enough not to sound outrageous.

And that's why my logon is SkyJude...

by **Ram1** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:42 pm

SkyJude, I think that's awesome. Beautiful names of your daughters indeed.

by **shorty** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 8:19 pm

those are great names for your daughters:]

on the oasis question though I have not read many of the posts, I can say this: anyone who is musicaly trained can tell that many oasis song's that sound like beatle songs are simple reverse either in the minor or major. Its like they took a beatle song and played a dsharp instead of a dflat

I know paul has said that at least they are compying good music. But I have to disagree if you can't come up with your own music then who the heck wants to hear it.

so long see ya never

by **Chris Speers** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 10:33 pm

Oasis is over-hyped and i don't think that talented.

I think XTC is a true Beatle influenced band. Andy PAtridge is the lyrical genius of Lennon with the melodic talent of Macca. Very good band.

I dug Tears for Fears and i dug Prince when he went psychedlic. I think Lenny Kravitz's first three albums were very cool and Beatle like. I dug Jelly fish and they were hot shi%. I like Terence Trent D'arby cause he is a master singer and song-writer. How can you not like Brian Wilson and Billy Joel (Nylon Curtain is a Beatle record)...

by **denby** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 4:33 am

OASIS - well, what people like about them is that they are one of the true BANDS of the 1990s. Look at the charts (here in the UK especially) and you will see that most artists are not artistic anymore - they are just in it for the money (P Diddy, anyone?) or just DJs mixing / ripping off other people's music. OASIS are a genuine group who write thier own material - and 70% of it is really good. I do not think that they sound that much like the Beatles - they are much more like the Stones, ELO and that great British band, Slade.
Anyway - one band who are very similar to the Beatles (I mean that in a very complimentary way) is Crowded House - get your hand on their 3rd album 'Woodface', of the follow up Together Alone - both truly awesome.

by **Brains** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 4:48 am

There's nothing wrong with sounding like the Beatles: they're the best band ever!
Oasis' music isn't bad or anything. I do think that they tend to repeat themselves and that they don't grow in their music, like the Beatles did. Compare Wonderwall, their first hit (I think, I don't know them that well), to The Hindu Times, their most recent. Not much has changed in 5 years. Now compare Please Please Me to Strawberry Fields...
And I think they should drop their act. Liam & to a lesser degree Noel don't so much more than causing one "riot" after another. Like talking about boxing with Robbie Williams. Liam once even said that Oasis were bigger than Jesus... Come up with your own scandals, Liam! No one gives a ***censored*** what they say anyway. They're not that big.

by **Liam OSM** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 6:13 am

I must say, from what I've heard, Oasis haven't changed a huge lot. Their stuff does tend to be all the same. Stereophonics are another band like that - they've only been around about three years, but not much changing. And one of my best friends absolutely loves them! Some people - no taste for the greats. He should be hung from his Meddows

The difference between genius and insanity is merely the difference between success and failure.

by **Brains** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 7:02 pm

Yeah, why would anyone listen to Stereophonics or Oasis when they could listen to the Beatles? I mean, they're OK and all, but the Beatles did everything they did soooo much better.

Oasis, The 90's Beatles(?)

Who is online