Reviews of (What's the Story) Morning Glory?

(What's the Story) Morning Glory? review

Posted : 1 year, 2 months ago on 20 September 2008 10:01 (A review of (What's the Story) Morning Glory?)

One of the best rock albums of the 90s. Listening to this again was like a walk down nostalgia lane. So much of the music I like is over a decade old now and so many of the bands that came into existence when I was young are over a decade old too. So much for the nostalgia, on to the review.

Oasis backed up their excellent songwriting (mostly by Noel Gallagher) with great rock music.. In the 90s, it was a distinct break from the alt rock sound with it's buzzing guitars. Oasis constructed their songs in a format more reminiscent of the bands of the 60s and 70s. Their music tends to be guitar driven, which I love as well. They combined hard rock, slow rock and acoustic rock, sometimes all in the same song (case in point being 'Champagne Supernova').

This album was, in my opinion, the best they ever put out. The songwriting is consistently good, all the way to the end, this album has almost no throwaway songs. The music is varied and swings between frothy and fun to sombre and heavy. My favourite songs were the brilliant 'Wonderwall' and 'Champagne Supernova'. The former is an acoustic guitar driven song with lyrics about disappointment and longing. The latter starts off slowly but builds up to a big ending. These songs represent what Oasis were capable of at their peak.

1 comments, Reply to this entry

Reviewed on Request.

Posted : 1 year, 8 months ago on 24 March 2008 05:56 (A review of (What's the Story) Morning Glory?)

Imagine the worst accent in the world, curse it upon two people, brothers actually, give one a bit of talent, and one a huge ego, and then teach them to play some instruments on a basic level, tell them a few "ground rules" such as "All songs should be sung on the exact same note to be good" and a few simple formulas that should last a couple of albums or so. Shoot em full of drugs and alcohol, and make them British and you will have one of the most successful (for no reason i can see) bands in the UK.
Oasis are an absolute waste of time, they have about 4 good songs (mainly performed by the talented brother) in their entire discography and perhaps a few more mediocre ones (enough to fill an extremely tedious "best of" album perhaps?) the rest are just a wave of boring drug fueled nonsense.
If this band were American i wouldn't hesitate to guess they would either of a) never been signed or b) been called "the red hot chili peppers" but because they are from my neck of the woods, a baron wasteland where the Kaiser Chiefs roam the place destroying peoples souls, they are popular.
Its my opinion that most "lovers" of Oasis are usually people who tend to just listen to what they are told by the Brit Awards, an award show that is based on my vision of hell, and act upon their suggestions. Absolute idiots who believe Pete Doherty is a hero and Amy Winehouse doesn't deserve to be dead. Manchester United fans, people who generally skim across the top of the talent pool taking it at a 2 dimensional face value and accepting who ever they are told is considered "great" never delving deeper and realizing that actually, sometimes lifeless shit floats upon the top of pools while the purer, nicer stuff is a bit below, like a pint of beer with a bit of head on it.
I really really dislike this band, most of it is due to the above, a lot of it is down to the attitude problem that Liam Gallagher has, and the fact he is a massive PRICK. But none of that compares to how awful his voice sounds, how boring their instrumental abilities are, and how mundane their topic of song is.
That and of course, in the battle of Oasis vs Blur, i was with Blur.

0 comments, Reply to this entry