Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Wonderwall - opinions

How good is the song 'Wonderwall'?

  • Excellent

    Votes: 17 18.5%
  • Good

    Votes: 15 16.3%
  • Average

    Votes: 18 19.6%
  • Bad

    Votes: 12 13.0%
  • Total shite

    Votes: 30 32.6%

  • Total voters
    92
You are rubbish at arguing

Only when there is no point.

Your argument was pointless as you could not grasp what I said and ended up just chasing your tail.

In the end it was only right I put you out of your misery before you wore yourself out :D
 
Only when there is no point.

Your argument was pointless as you could not grasp what I said and ended up just chasing your tail.

In the end it was only right I put you out of your misery before you wore yourself out :D
You contradicted yourself. You quoted evidence of commercial success and then denied that it meant anything to you. You are indeed rubbish at arguing.
 
A good record and very much of its time.

It draws heavily on other artists for most of its ideas.

Just like many bands that have one or two very popular albums Oasis thought they were more important/influential than they actually were.
 
Oasis were one of the most successful bands in UK history and their music still sells today and is played on the radio to date.

That says it all tbh.
That statement is not just about sales. It's pointing out that after 20 years, they are still being played and still sell records. Popular at the time is one thing, what with the vagaries of fashion. But popular after 20 years is generally worth a certain degree of consideration.

Not that I personally put any stock by such things. If I was going to use my formal music training to identify the most accomplished music of all time, I'm not sure I'd include any popular music of the last 60 years in the top 50. But that doesn't stop me mostly listening to popular music of the last 60 years. What you enjoy is not necessarily the same thing as "objectively the best", so trying to argue about one by invoking the other seems a bit of a fool's enterprise.
 
the were the first band to appeal to the working class masses for a long, long time. hardly irrelevant.

I can't believe we're this far into this bunfight and no-one has called you on this crap - THE STONE ROSES for fuck's sake
set the template that Oasis rode in on with even less imagination.

as for this sales/snobbery bollocks Jesus H. Christ poor Orang must have a bloodied forehead from banging it against that wall
Everyone on here is aware of their success - it is neither here nor there in regard to whether the song is any good
when you have an opinion that's more interesting than 'it sold a lot of copies' get back to us
 
A good record and very much of its time.

It draws heavily on other artists for most of its ideas.

Just like many bands that have one or two very popular albums Oasis thought they were more important/influential than they actually were.

Yes, I think it's a good trk too but also I think Oasis had a rawness and energy to their music that still carries through to this day and makes them still very relevant for many.
 
I can't believe we're this far into this bunfight and no-one has called you on this crap - THE STONE ROSES for fuck's sake
set the template that Oasis rode in on with even less imagination.

as for this sales/snobbery bollocks Jesus H. Christ poor Orang must have a bloodied forehead from banging it against that wall
Everyone on here is aware of their success - it is neither here nor there in regard to whether the song is any good
when you have an opinion that's more interesting than 'it sold a lot of copies' get back to us

Fools gold :D
 
Oasis had a rawness and energy to their music that still carries through to this day and makes them still very relevant for many.
Well that's entirely subjective because I just hear a bunch of whining twats sucking the joy out of every tune they ripped off. But that's my opinion. I've always concluded (again in my opinion) that the reason they did so well here (and not so well abroad) especially within the 90's lad culture is because of a very British cynical reservedness that turns up its nose at anything overtly enthusiastic or original so the only logical conclusion was success for a band made of very average musicians who borrowed old songs and rewrote them at a just below mid tempo beat.
 
I'm intrigued who you're referring to now.

I'd have thought creation had the money via sony already to launch Oasis without needing to go out for more funding, unless you're referring to tours etc. Might be wrong though.

i think i'm not being very clear tb. what i mean is that to get a successful band in the 90s requires lots of different people doing lots of different work. there was no such thing as genuine success back in the day. if a band were charting high, getting played on tv, getting booked into prestigious gigs, getting good reviews in the music press, etc etc, a lot of backs had to be rubbed. bands were product to be sold.

it's a bit different now.

now bands can do it on their own a bit better, and create a following on their own, and the labels have created a number of ways of training young people to be product from a young age, such as the brit school.
 
here's something i am just going to make up to annoy people further.

it's 199whatever. the great british public are sat at home watching MTV and wonderwall comes on. i would have a bet that a whopping 80% of under 30 year olds stopped and thought, "that's a good song." and watched it through. across class lines, across lines of education, from the posh twat at oxford to the lonely suffering herion addict, from the crusty grunge kid to the gurning acid house kid, they would have stopped what they were doing and thought, "that's a fucking good track."

not many rock groups can or have done that.

a classic tune, a great rock and roll track of our times.
 
here's something i am just going to make up to annoy people further.

it's 199whatever. the great british public are sat at home watching MTV and wonderwall comes on. i would have a bet that a whopping 80% of under 30 year olds stopped and thought, "that's a good song." and watched it through. across class lines, across lines of education, from the posh twat at oxford to the lonely suffering herion addict, they would have stopped what they were doing and thought, "that's a fucking good track."

not many rock groups can or have done that.

a classic tune, a great rock and roll track of our times.

Well said
 
it's 199whatever. the great british public are sat at home watching MTV and wonderwall comes on. i would have a bet that a whopping 80% of under 30 year olds stopped and thought, "that's a good song." and watched it through. across class lines, across lines of education, from the posh twat at oxford to the lonely suffering herion addict, they would have stopped what they were doing and thought, "that's a fucking good track."

not many rock groups can or have done that.
I don't believe that's true. In fact I would say that while a lot of people don't particularly like the Beatles for instance it's a very small percentage who would actively dislike them whereas Oasis were generally hated by those who didn't think they were great (certainly in my circle of friends at the time).
 
I don't believe that's true. In fact I would say that while a lot of people don't particularly like the Beatles for instance it's a very small percentage who would actively dislike them whereas Oasis were generally hated by those who didn't think they were great (certainly in my circle of friends at the time).

you were part of the 20% then, next.
 
i think i'm not being very clear tb. what i mean is that to get a successful band in the 90s requires lots of different people doing lots of different work. there was no such thing as genuine success back in the day. if a band were charting high, getting played on tv, getting booked into prestigious gigs, getting good reviews in the music press, etc etc, a lot of backs had to be rubbed. bands were product to be sold.

it's a bit different now.

now bands can do it on their own a bit better, and create a following on their own, and the labels have created a number of ways of training young people to be product from a young age, such as the brit school.

That may well all be true but I think Oasis's music and talent was the major driving force to their success and continued success albeit in a lesser way to this day.

Hard to believe people can rip so hard into a genuine quality home grown working class boys come good band.

But each to their own opinions of course.
 
you were part of the 20% then, next.
Give reasonable evidence for your 80% claim then. Given that a large proportion of young people were turning their noses up at any guitar music at the time and of those that didn't a goodly proportion thought Oasis were shit I'd say it was more like 80/20 the other way.
 
Give reasonable evidence for your 80% claim then. Given that a large proportion of young people were turning their noses up at any guitar music at the time and of those that didn't a goodly proportion thought Oasis were shit I'd say it was more like 80/20 the other way.
I have no evidence.

Evidence, this evidence that, blah blah blah. :D
 
Give reasonable evidence for your 80% claim then. Given that a large proportion of young people were turning their noses up at any guitar music at the time and of those that didn't a goodly proportion thought Oasis were shit I'd say it was more like 80/20 the other way.

No, Bigmoaner got it right.
 
Focus on what you love, not what you hate, and you will be much happier.

Maaaaaaaaan.
 
Back
Top Bottom