|
Comments / Notes
and johnny also deserves better than that...to be second hand to the gallaghers would be insanity!...and in effect, would be analogous to the notion of morrissey opening for bush! parish the thought!
state of emergency
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 12:35:52 (PST) | #1
I'm glad Marr isn't joining Oasis, Bonehead was a better guitar player anyway and Marr would have added all those crappy solos that ruined Morrissey's songs 15 years ago. And before people start telling me how good Johnny IS, compare the sales of Oasis and Electronic and you'll find most people agree with me.
fast n' bulbous
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 12:51:37 (PST) | #2
Johnny is the gratest guitar player and songwriter in the world. He is very clever too. Would someone please explain to me who are the so called "Oasis"?
Fabio Pagano <fpagano@apsystem.it>
Italy - Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 13:37:33 (PST) | #3
Marr's talent's would be wasted in Oasis. The job on offer is afterall only second guitar (just strum a few chords and stand at the back).You can't judge the better band by way of record sales. Art shouldn't be judged by revenue. Steps have sold more records than Velvet Underground. Does that make them better? However it would like to say (and this is based on the last time I saw Marr on TV so all may have changed) Marr should get his haircut and stop looking like a Noel wannabe. Whether Marr has more song writing ability than Noel has yet to be proven, but in pure musical terms is a far superior guitarist. Ramble over. Ta muchly
paolo's one chop <ceiberman@btinternet.com>
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 14:49:50 (PST) | #4
Steps are much better than The Velvet Underground, at least they have some tunes. Marr is an Oasis wannabe and whether or not he is a better guitarist TECHNICALLY than anyone in Oasis.... his playing still sounds @#!!!!! You see the difference. Some of Morrissey's solo stuff is good (esp. Southpaw Grammar) but, The Smiths???!!!??? Y'all should listen to decent bands instead, like Oasis, or Thin Lizzy, or The New Radicals
Sweet Meat
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 15:04:49 (PST) | #5
Oasis are horrible, simply horrible. Their lyrics are childish and meaningless (Champagne Supernova??? Wonderwall??? What the hell are these things). It's as if Noel got a children's book on how to write poetry (simply rhyme words at the end of sentences sometimes, Noel.) Their guitar work is pretty good, but not inspiring. Nothing they've ever done is close to Barbarism Begins at Home, or as simplistically beautiful as Please Please Please.... I hate to even hear the name Oasis mentioned on this site. And as for Johnny's guitar solo's, they did anything but ruin Smith's songs. What a joke to even say that. It is the lack of Johnny's input to Morrissey's work that has kept his album's out of the top 10 for so long. Alain and co. simply have no sense of pop and very little talent, they are very "run of the mill" as far as bands go. It's just the style that they play that makes them sound good.
Sizzling Blood <richrich_7@yahoo.com>
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 17:16:10 (PST) | #6
If Marr was actually as good as people make him out to be, then he wouldn't have spent the last 12 years or so on Bernard Sumner's "side project" rather than hooking up with a real band. He isn't half the musician Bonehead was and thus doesn't deserve to be a part of one of the greatest bands to ever come out of Britain. We'll miss you Bonehead! Good luck!
Robbie
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 19:33:50 (PST) | #7
well.. this might be an unpopular opinion, but... oasis are much better than the smiths, morrissey, or marr. noel isn't squire or hendrix, but he gets the job done. every note he plays has a purpose. he might not know the harmonic minor scale or the lydian mode, but he knows a good tune and a good hook. more than anything noel is a songwriter, and a damn fine one at that. however, i think it's good marr didn't join simply because it's noel's band.. and i don't think it would be good to put another talent like marr in that situation. only my opinion though... "i'm free to say whatever i, whatever i like if it's wrong or right it's alright."
owen <owen@slide-away.com>
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 20:17:01 (PST) | #8
Stop kidding around. You love the Smiths.Johnny Marr is dead brilliant. He wrote all that Smiths stuff and produced most of it. Oasis are okay, but they don't rival the Smiths either musically or lyrically. They don't have a Morrissey, and they don't have a Marr. Johnny (an idol to so many) would be taking a big step downwards to play second guitar in someone else's band. He's a creative guy, not just a session man. (I still think 'Headmaster' has the best guitars in pop history.)
the singing defective
- Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 21:17:29 (PST) | #9
Fast n' bulbous your a moron and anybody else claiming Oasis is a better band than The Smiths or Morrissey/Marr. Johnny Marr was gracious enough to say he wasn't a good enough guitar player to play with Oasis but what he was really thinking is Oasis sucks and he wouldn't waste his talent or time strumming one lick with that sad bunch of saps. Good for you Johnny your better off staying solo and never making a dime than hitching up with those sorry bunch of losers who are on their way down anyway.
Warren
Chespaw - Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 23:37:08 (PST) | #10
fast'n'bulbous, sweet meat & owen,get your stupid asses out of here!
sunny jim
- Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:03:17 (PST) | #11
Oasis is the one band that can select Marr as runner-up. Personally, being totally devoted to both Morrissey and Oasis - I must confess that I would prefer not to mix the two. Marr playing with Oasis is a bit incestuous and it is beneath him, at this point in his career. He has seen and been where Gallager and Co. is now. Besides, does Marr really need to play with a band that allowed Johnny Depp to play a slide on their album? That is too silly.
Meg Matthews
Nippon Budokan - Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 07:39:57 (PST) | #12
Hey Meg - What do you mean by incestuous? What overlap does Oasis have with The Smiths or Morrissey? The only thing they have in common is geographical presence and the fact that Marr was even associated with the band, briefly speaking.
Mozzamillion
the pleasure and the privilege is mine - Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 09:43:40 (PST) | #13
Oasis are just a tribute BEATLES band and nothing else...Sack their Drummer!overstep their mark in America(we're more popular than jesus!!} ...'try to look like Lennon..oh and theres the little point of ALL THEIR *!"£ING! MUSIC SOUNDS LIKE THEM!! Please don't anybody tell me this is influence.....ITS RIP OFF.
Ordinary Boy
- Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 12:11:29 (PST) | #14
Mozamillion,
Duh!!! Stop stating the obvious. Enlighten
us with something original for a change or kindly watch from the stands. OUT!!!!
Mayor Quimby
Springfield IL - Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 12:16:20 (PST) | #15
Look, I am sick of everyone on this site taking each comment so personally. I simply asked Meg to comment on how she sees any relation in the bands. Completely different sounds, different fan base and the rumors that attach themselves to Oasis are horrific. Not to mention I would think that more incestuous would be someone from Blur not Johnny Marr. When I heard that Bonehead was calling it quits after 8 years with Oasis, I was upset. Contrary to Manchester word - Liam was genuinely surprised by the departure - who gives a damn what Noel thinks, his arrogance can blow air up Bernard's ass.
Mozzamillion
the pleasure and the privilege is mine - Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 13:10:26 (PST) | #16
I think Marr now looks like one of the original members of the Monkee's with his current hairdo. He would have looked stupid playing with Oasis, but it would have sounded great. He's able to add so much texture to a simple song, and I think it's time he finds his true home back on stage with a full reunion with the Smiths. Maybe it's Morrissey that has been refusing a reunion until Marr cuts his hair back to normal. No matter what happens, I think it's time Marr leaves the electronica scene and gets back into a band that uses just guitar, bass, and real drums.
Grundy Boy
- Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 13:13:54 (PST) | #17
Open your eyes, everyone knows that The Smiths were a bunch of talentless queers (Marr left so soon because his arse was getting sore). Oasis are real men and everyone outside this site sees that. The Smiths were unnatural and that's why Marr shouldn't join Oasis. NO GAYS ALLOWED in a decent band!!!
Rock 'n' Roll Star
- Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 16:45:16 (PST) | #18
The Smiths unnatural???????? rock n' roll star maybe you should be in oasis. I mean I'm sure you have way more talent than the Smiths??? Dude your so cool man. hhmmmm let me see I think i'm going to form a sad band and look like the Beatles? That's not exactly natural or original either. The Smiths not natural? what a total moron. Hey no wonder you like Oasis I guess that does make sense. In another 20 years how many more people are going to discover The Smiths and love them and the music they made.Now Oasis, how many have already forgoten or will never even bother picking up one of their sorry albums in 20 years?? WELL I WONDER!!!!!!!!!!!
bloodflowers
- Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 21:06:09 (PST) | #19
perhaps not to forget that Paul Weller wrote the music for "Champagne Supernova"
possibly before your time of The Jam, Style Council, and a fabulous solo career...
squandor
- Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 21:23:00 (PST) | #20
I Hate Oasis!!!! Blur & Suede are way better. Just Oasis is more comercially successful.
If Johnny joined their band and he contributed to their songwriting - maybe they woukd come up with something interesting. However, I think it best that Johnny didn't join up with them and concentrate on his solo album.The year 2000 should see all of the Smiths with new bands and CD's Morrissey - solo
Johnny Marr - solo
Andy Rourke & Mike Joyce - Aziz Can't Wait for the tours!!!!!!!
Ken <KenB1973@hotmail.com>
Long Island - Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 06:00:53 (PST) | #21
Maybe Warren could become the new guitarist for Oasis. That way maybe the Gallaghers could beat the crap out of Warren instead of hating each other all the time. It would be a great tension reliever for them.
Buck toothed girl from Luxembourg
Chespaw Grammar School - Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:42:41 (PST) | #22
Speaking of Warren, where has that little pain in the ass been lately?????
Stacey
Portland OR - Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 12:28:46 (PST) | #23
marr is too good for oasis. besides they suck.
Moe <Bpp427@aol.com>
LOS ANGELES - Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 17:43:13 (PST) | #24
Hey I am trying to figure out the phrase in the article about Johnny Marr.. It says he can't play guitar good enough.. Who Johnny or Noel.. I have seen both live.. Noel is amazing, but Johnny blows him out of the water. When Johnny was playing with the amazing The The, he was astonishing on guitar.. Per pound in the history of music, Johnny is probably the most talented musician ever.. He not only plays in many guitar styles and effects, the harmonica, the synthesizer,piano, and other isntruments.. He produces,does, session work, and on top of all this he can out write any of your guitar greats such as ,Eric Clapton,Stevie Ray Vaughn , and the late great Jimi Henrdix. As good as they were, they do not hold a candle for the actual songwrting craft he posesses.. He also plays more genres of music.. Noel, at this time probably is a better songwriter, but give Johnny sometime.. He has a new album coming out, seesion with with Beck, and who know, a Smiths reunion creeping up.. I hope to GOD it happens.. The Smiths technically were the closest thing to catchy pop appeal compared to The Beatles.. And Morrissey, hey they guy has the greatest wit I have ever come across.. Hey it's all good to me...
Jason Harvey <jbharvey101@yahoo.com>
- Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 20:22:28 (PST) | #25
Let me just start by saying to all the people who commented that Oasis is better than The Smiths, Marr, and Morrissey: Why the @$%*!& are you here and not on some bull@#!!! Oasis webpage.Number 2, Oasis is not a form of the Beatles, yes they sadly try to compare themselves, and shamelessly borrow cords here and there; but they in no way will ever be able to reach the standard of the Beatles with their alternative, ripoff, average sound and talent. Thridly, Oasis is not a good bad! They are crap, wait about seven years and no one will remember who the %$*!& that they are. They are nothing but a mistake, part of this 90's rush of crappy bands. Anyone who belives that they are good should seriously have their musical taste checked.
Shiela take a bow <intheassoftheworld@misery.com>
- Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 20:12:10 (PST) | #26
Oasis does not sound like the Beatles at all.. What is funny is that Oasis technically are probably better musicians and live musicians at that.. I love Oasis personally, but THe Smiths rewrote a way of making music when at the time most bands were doing nothing creative at all except for a hand full of bands.. Hands down Marr rules on guitar, Morrissey is probably the greatest writer ever , and all of the bands most of us like are great in their own right.. Can someone still answer my question about that article? The part where it says he can't play good enough..
Jason Harvey <jbharvey101@yahoo.com>
- Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 21:46:03 (PST) | #27
Johnny Marr is talented. The Gallghers are arrogant. If somebody talks about how wonderful they are, or how Beatlesque they are, it doesn't neccessarily mean that it is true. The Smiths have achieved pop icon status. Oasis is ear candy.
Jeremy
Salt Lake City - Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:05:12 (PST) | #28
Ear candy, would imply some sort of real talent....ear crap is more like it. As for being like the Beatles, yet again they may try; but they really can in no way ever compare. The facts speak for themselves, as will the lack of remembrence of the band in future.
Shiela take a bow <intheassoftheworld@misery.com>
- Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 15:45:46 (PST) | #29
|