Noel Gallagher Leaves Oasis

Weezer's first two albums weren't anything special, really. I have listened to Blue Album and Pinkerton several times, and while I found Pinkerton very sad, nerdy and complete emo garbage, I do enjoy most of Blue Album. Though, I consider Undone and Say it Ain't So the only songs that really stand out on the album and on Weezer's entire repertoire (along with Green Album's Island in the Sun,) it's not a bad album and, again, considering all the crap that was released in the 90s, you could even say it was above-average. I just can't stand Pinkerton, though; I think Green Album and Maladroit's power-pop sound is much better than the half hour-long emo rant that is Pinkerton.

Pinkerton is one of my favorite albums because every song is extremely catchy, and its Rivers Cuomo's most lyrically advanced album. Its a concept album expressed with great honesty and sincerity. I guess I love the album for the same reason you hate it, so to each their own.

Oasis' first two albums are, in my eyes, especially (What's the Story?) Morning Glory, among the top 10 albums of the mid-late 90s (after the death of grunge.) Rock'n'Roll Star, Up in the Sky, Columbia, Live Forever, Supersonic, Cigarettes & Alcohol, Digsy's Diner, Slide Away, Married with Children, Roll With It, Wonderwall, Don't Look Back in Anger, Cast no Shadow, She's Electric, Morning Glory, Champagne Supernova... All of these are very well-written, well-received songs both commercially and critically.

The songs that I don't think are very good are bolded. I can't believe they spent their entire third album trying to remake Champagne Supernova.

I don't care what anyone says: while I agree that, more often than not, commercial success does not equal musical talent or skillfulness, the amount of copies these two albums put together have sold is almost 40 million. That's not something you can just ignore, it means something, and it means that both albums were pretty damn good. So, there's no argument here, what you said, again, is pure idiocy.

Well, "Millennium" by the Backstreet Boys alone sold in excess of 40 million copies. "Baby One More Time" 25 million on its own. "Mamma Mia!" was the highest grossing film in 2008, does it mean it was good?

Many people think Kanye West is musically gifted, does that actually make him musically gifted?

He is a terrible rapper, but he is a phenomenal producer, and knows how to make a great pop song. His music might not be "good" but it certainly is enjoyable. (Cue counter point: "You like Kanye? Well, then I rest my case")

Blur's albums, and I mean all of them, were emotionless and their message wasn't really meaningful like Oasis'. Parklife was a fine album, fun to listen to, really complex and accomplished when it comes to the music, but the lyrics are just a bunch of words put together that just don't say anything to me. And I understand wanting to change musical direction, but to do it as drastically as Blur did in Parklife, within the same album, is never ideal. Blur's albums were always new and different, true, but they were never as good as Oasis'.

Oasis' albums had overarching meanings? Definitely Maybe was about wanting to be famous, and Morning Glory is them trying to make an album entirely consisted of singles (and they got more than halfway there). Parklife was a jukebox album, but didn't really change musical direction within the album. Just because they didn't have the same tempo, subject matter and instruments in every song isn't a shift in musical direction. Its what separates it from their previous album, "Modern Life Is Rubbish". And I don't know where you got the lyrics criticism from. "Girls And Boys" isn't a deep song, but some of the songs are narratives, others love songs, breakup songs, and the songs about Britain and America, which I'll talk about later. Oasis tried to be like the Beatles, but failed because rather than change and evolve, they kept regurgitating the same music over and over again, with diminishing returns. Firing your drummer in favor of Ringo Starr's son doesn't get them any closer to emulating their idols.

And their anti-americanism, "hooray-Britain!" propaganda is just pure cockney crap. While Blur were busy trying to make a then-pretty horrible country like the UK look good, and making overweight, idiotic, pro-monarchy Londoners feel good about themselves and reassuring them they were the best human specimens on Earth (as if southern Englishmen weren't already the most pretentious people on Earth,) Oasis actually bothered to point out everything that was wrong with it.

When did Oasis do that? All of Oasis's songs seem to either be about fame or stupidity. Sure, Blur criticized America, but part of the reason why he was labeled "the people's prick" after their disappointing follow-up album The Great Escape was because he had songs criticizing Britain. You either ignored Tracy Jacks and London Loves for the sake of argument or you just weren't listening.

I guess there's something we can agree on, then. Although I believe Pulp would've achieved much more if they wouldn't have changed, like 350 drummers and 200 guitarists throughout their history. The Verve's A Northern Soul and Urban Hymns were also pretty good Britpop efforts.

Yeah, Pulp managed to put out three very good albums and one instant classic. Most of the roster shuffling was during the 80's, before Jarvis Cocker seemingly knew how to write good songs. Even Pulp's 1992 album Separations, which came out two years before Different Class is awful and unbelievably dated. Suede's first three albums were uneven and inconsistent, but also solid. Not sure if the Manic Street Preachers count as Britpop, but after their songwriter disappeared, they went from being a punk band to being an excellent pop band. Everything Must Go deserves to be in the best Britpop albums discussion.

:lol: You're just saying that because you're French.

For anything else about the Brits that could be true, but nah, I simply despise this type of music.