Hi all, First time poster to the hallowed Metacritic forums! (Merry Christmas by the way)

I've made use of metacritic for a few months now and I'm always looking for music I've missed during the year in as many end of year polls as I can find.

The Observer newspaper here in the UK includes a good music magazine once per month and here's a link to their end of year top 100 albums.

Observer Music Monthly 2005 Top 100

Rob

It's not a bad list, but I've noticed all the British publications tend to rate Coldplay and Oasis much higher then they deserve. I can almost understand Coldplay, because despite "X&Y" not being as solid as "A Rush of Blood to the Head", it did have a few great tracks on it. But Oasis? That's a band that should've ceased to exist about 1996. How they're still making records and getting people to notice is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
But Oasis? That's a band that should've ceased to exist about 1996. How they're still making records and getting people to notice is beyond me.

I'm not sure if you've listened to the new Oasis, ericg75, but it's pretty good. It, and the rest of the post-Wonderwall stuff, hasn't been that dissimilar to the early stuff. If you hated Oasis from the get-go, then you'll still hate them, but I'm puzzled as to why so many people who once liked (even loved) them, have suddenly jumped off the bandwagon. They became uncool quickly, and I'm guessing it's because people don't like the Brothers Gallagher, but they're still one of the best live bands going.

I agree that some of the UK publications tend to over-rate their own (James Blunt, anyone?) but I think the exact same thing happens with any niche publication: alt-country publications overrate certain artists, indie publications overrate certain artists, electronica publications and so on. I admire Q and The Observer for standing behind a group (Oasis) that it's not fashionable or cool to like but who are, for the most part, still making good music...and music that is not significantly different than what they've always made.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
I'm not sure if you've listened to the new Oasis, ericg75, but it's pretty good. It, and the rest of the post-Wonderwall stuff, hasn't been that dissimilar to the early stuff. If you hated Oasis from the get-go, then you'll still hate them, but I'm puzzled as to why so many people who once liked (even loved) them, have suddenly jumped off the bandwagon. They became uncool quickly, and I'm guessing it's because people don't like the Brothers Gallagher, but they're still one of the best live bands going.

I agree that some of the UK publications tend to over-rate their own (James Blunt, anyone?) but I think the exact same thing happens with any niche publication: alt-country publications overrate certain artists, indie publications overrate certain artists, electronica publications and so on. I admire Q and The Observer for standing behind a group (Oasis) that it's not fashionable or cool to like but who are, for the most part, still making good music...and music that is not significantly different than what they've always made.

I think my problem with Oasis, is that their new album isn't terribly different from what they were doing ten years ago. Considering how often Noel Gallagher likes to compare himself to John Lennon, you'd think he'd mix things up a bit. I don't recall Lennon recording the same album a half dozen times. I sort of liked Oasis when they first came out. Definitely Maybe spawned a couple decent singles, and What's the Story... was fairly solid, but I listen to their new album and it just sounds like a huge rehash of the past. Compare them to Blur, another band that came out of the mid-90s Brit Rock scene. Blur has managed to develop their sound and go in new directions with every release. They're still relevent. Oasis has just become England's version of Bon Jovi.

You're right about Oasis still doing the same basic thing 10 years later, although some of the tracks on Don't Believe The Truth are experimental, for Oasis ("Mucky Fingers", "The Meaning of Soul") and even the single, "Lyla", is more of Stones-cop than the usual Beatles cop.

For my money, there are some artists who can experiment and succeed, and others who are best suited sticking to the formula. You mention Blur, and they've certainly gone in a totally different direction since their Madchester beginnings, but I'll be honest: I NEVER listen to their most recent album. When I want to listen to Blur, I always grab for Parklife. I've listened to Graham Coxon's most recent solo record (which sounds like earlier Blur) more than the last Blur record sans Graham. I don't think making the same kind of records is necessarily a bad thing, if the songs are good.

Noel, despite his claims about his own genius aside, is gifted at writing a certain type of song. Lennon could write almost anything (although I personally steer clear of the really experimental Yoko/primal scream stuff) and I don't think Noel is close to that ability...but I don't hold that against him. I just take his self-confidence with a huge grain of salt...but I understand why people hate him. At least you listened to the new album...I know plenty of people who claimed to hate it, but never listened to anything past "Lyla."

Oasis were a very powerful band in America in the 90's, however they are a powerful band everywhere else right now. They sell millions of records, sell out 50,000 seat stadiums in an hour, and maintain critical kudos as well. I can certainly understand the backlash they have experienced since their 1997 release Be Here Now (coke fueled blandness), however with Oasis it has always been about the swagger, and with Don't Believe the Truth, you can hear the swagger coming back.

As for their lack of experimentation, you must be forgetting their 2000 release, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. but that record is not the Oasis that everyone wants. That record includes elements of trip-hop, and NO ONE BOUGHT IT!

Always liked Oasis's (What's The Story) Morning Glory?, but their others don't impress me.