General Random Conversation..

[Gemmill 51327]

I listened to that there. I haven't seen any of the Noel being racist stuff before. Him not liking hip hop / saying JayZ shouldn't headline Glastonbury, and not liking Jazz hasn't really convinced me. 

 

He's DEFINITELY come out with some Brexit dad sounding bollocks (although I can't think of examples, I remember thinking it at the time), and I'd need to see the Russian oligarch and schools with metal detectors comments in context, but I wasn't convinced he's racist by the examples provided in that clip. 

 

I'm not defending the bloke. I think it's one thing coming up with some of his nonsense when you're coked up and on top of the world in the 90s, and something entirely different to be wheeling it out when you're sober and in your 50s. A lot of it is embarrassing. 

[Gemmill 51327]

26 minutes ago, Alex said:

The Stone Roses haven’t aged particularly well either. 

 

The thing with the Stone Roses that's truly mad is how comically tone deaf Ian Brown is. It's like he's fucking joking.

 

Like he's barely making it on the actual albums, and then you see them live and he sings the whole song off-key. That is hard to do even as a joke. 

[Alex 37327]

21 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I listened to that there. I haven't seen any of the Noel being racist stuff before. Him not liking hip hop / saying JayZ shouldn't headline Glastonbury, and not liking Jazz hasn't really convinced me. 

 

He's DEFINITELY come out with some Brexit dad sounding bollocks (although I can't think of examples, I remember thinking it at the time), and I'd need to see the Russian oligarch and schools with metal detectors comments in context, but I wasn't convinced he's racist by the examples provided in that clip. 

 

I'm not defending the bloke. I think it's one thing coming up with some of his nonsense when you're coked up and on top of the world in the 90s, and something entirely different to be wheeling it out when you're sober and in your 50s. A lot of it is embarrassing. 

I have heard those quotes before. I think the oligarchs/metal detectors in schools was all in relation to the same thing in the same interview. I’ll admit it’s just my feeling about his prejudices. But I also think that’s why it feels more insidious to me. Still, that’s only ever going to be an opinion. There’s not a hint of a nod to black music in their sound though. Which doesn’t make them or him racist of course. But he seems to have little or no time for it, which gives a very narrow perspective of not only music but the history of British music too. 

[Sonatine 12102]

46 minutes ago, Alex said:

The Stone Roses haven’t aged particularly well either. 

 

Never understood how much praise their debut album gets, it's patchy as fuck imo.

[Gemmill 51327]

Aye you're right about the black music thing, and that is odd. I don't know whether he just has very set views on music and how his band should sound. I remember early on him saying that he would never be in a band with anyone that played a Fender guitar (he now plays one). And things like "music should never be avant-garde or experimental". 

 

Like he writes all of his songs from basically 5 open chords. He thought All Around The World was revolutionary cos it included a key change.  

 

I just don't think there's the intellectual curiosity there to try and understand anything else musically. 

 

I also think he probably found something very early on that catapulted them to global fame, and he didn't want to fuck with it. 

 

I bet he loves Clarkson's Farm these days. 

 

I'm rambling here, and I'm not really arguing one way or another on the racism thing. It's just never jumped out at me and I wasn't convinced by that bloke's examples - I think he just really doesn't like Noel and (whilst very engaging) he sounded quite prone to hyperbole tbf. 

[Meenzer 16623]

A blogger nerd I follow (who's writing about every UK number 1 single and so will shortly be tackling "The Importance Of Being Idle") wrote this yesterday and I thought it was quite decent:

 

__

 

When I heard the news Oasis were reuniting, my first thought was, “thank God, an angle on the ‘Idle’ entry”. It’s not impossible that this might even end up only being their penultimate Number 1. It would be a surefire news story if Wonderwall finally got there, the charts’ existence these days in the eyes of the media being a way to retcon quirks of the 20th Century or update long-standing records.

 

Like - I suspect - a lot of people, the fact of Oasis’ non-existence didn’t seem particularly vivid to me anyway. Both Gallaghers were alive and vocal and making music, and music that seemed like it could have happily come out under the Oasis brand name. There is a parlour-game-stroke-cottage-industry of using solo work to make post-split Beatles albums, complete with baroque alternative histories of what the Fabs got up to as a working band in the early 70s. A similar exercise for Oasis would have been trivially easy. I wonder if anyone bothered.

 

The obvious point to make about this alternative history is that at no point would it have involved the Oasis people are joining 500,000 strong online queues about. The Oasis that are returning and the Oasis that split up are two very different animals: nobody is paying half a grand because they are desperate to hear songs from Don’t Believe The Truth, and obviously Noel and Liam know that too. Entertainment is multiversal nowadays, and the Oasis people are paying for split up in 1997 and rejoin us from Earth-B to play only the bangers.

 

The guarded voices of dissent on Reunification Day came from people who remembered the Oasis of the 00s rather than the Oasis of the mid-90s. Both in practical terms - 00s Oasis were notoriously inconsistent live - and because the 00s band spent half their time insisting they were the 90s band in a state of perpetual, album by album reformation. Every record, it seemed, Noel would admit that the last one was shite but this one is the Oasis people wanted. The reunion is a way to finally put that decade to bed, pull out a couple of tracks tops from the later records - “Stop Crying Your Heart Out” seems big on streaming - and play the songs that made them famous. Bringing up how mediocre they were for how long feels beside the point. Though on a blog like Popular, long tails of underachievement have a habit of wagging. And are there any other artists with 14 year careers whose public would expect them to stick almost entirely to the first 4?

 

And yet. For all the carping I can muster, it’s impossible to deny the fact that the reunion has uncovered a huge degree of goodwill and excitement about this band. So what’s going on?

 

One of the noticeable parts of the response for me has been veteran journalists getting excited about the fact that young people like Oasis too. It is always interesting who finds an audience among people in their teens and early 20s, and it’s not always who you might expect. But I feel like it’s being mentioned as a kind of “gotcha” to the Oasis haters - look! They’ve stood the test of time! It’s an approach I’d respect if it came from people who showed the slightest interest in any other music ‘Gen Z’ likes, rather than using young listeners as a way to validate nostalgia.

 

But let’s take it seriously. What do younger listeners like about Oasis? What is the band giving them that they aren’t getting elsewhere? It’s unclear what proportion of their 27 million Spotify listeners are under, say, 40, but Spotify stats still give a reasonable picture of what modern audiences (however old they are) value about Oasis. And the answer is pretty clear: hug rock. The big, lighters aloft, stadium rock ballads. Wonderwall. Don’t Look Back In Anger. Stop Crying Your Heart Out. Stand By Me. Live Forever. Champagne Supernova. The only “rocker” that tops 100m streams is “Supersonic”. Oasis are a band best loved for their mid-tempo scarf-wavers.

 

To which you might say, duh. But it’s true, I think, that this particular kind of heart-on-sleeve blokey pop is genuinely not well served by current bands. Sheeran does it a bit. Coldplay when they’re not fannying around. We’ve seen a kind of half-hearted revival of it from Benson Boone this year. But - “Hey Jude” aside - Oasis probably are the hug rock GOATs, and the fact I dislike a lot of those songs speaks to my squeamishness at the genre rather than the band’s facility with it.

 

But if that’s what people want from Oasis, it’s worth thinking about what they don’t want, as over the next six to nine months all sorts of claims are going to be made about the meaning of the Oasis revival. I don’t think it means people are longing for the 90s, or Britpop, or rock in anything beyond its most capacious stadium sense. I don’t think the Oasis reunion presages the return of “the guitar” to prominence, and I certainly don’t think the early heat and venom of the band are on people’s minds. I even doubt that the idea of “rock stars” and the Gallaghers themselves are much of the appeal - it’s not like they’ve been reclusive, or refrained from public sniping. Some of those things might find new appeal in the slipstream of the reunion, but I think there’s one thing Oasis did that people loved and don’t have easy access to, and it’s a thing huge open air gigs are particularly responsive to. Good luck to them.

[Gemmill 51327]

3 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

A blogger nerd I follow (who's writing about every UK number 1 single and will soon be tackling "The Importance Of Being Idle") wrote this yesterday and I thought it was quite decent:

 

__

 

When I heard the news Oasis were reuniting, my first thought was, “thank God, an angle on the ‘Idle’ entry”. It’s not impossible that this might even end up only being their penultimate Number 1. It would be a surefire news story if Wonderwall finally got there, the charts’ existence these days in the eyes of the media being a way to retcon quirks of the 20th Century or update long-standing records.

 

Like - I suspect - a lot of people, the fact of Oasis’ non-existence didn’t seem particularly vivid to me anyway. Both Gallaghers were alive and vocal and making music, and music that seemed like it could have happily come out under the Oasis brand name. There is a parlour-game-stroke-cottage-industry of using solo work to make post-split Beatles albums, complete with baroque alternative histories of what the Fabs got up to as a working band in the early 70s. A similar exercise for Oasis would have been trivially easy. I wonder if anyone bothered.

 

The obvious point to make about this alternative history is that at no point would it have involved the Oasis people are joining 500,000 strong online queues about. The Oasis that are returning and the Oasis that split up are two very different animals: nobody is paying half a grand because they are desperate to hear songs from Don’t Believe The Truth, and obviously Noel and Liam know that too. Entertainment is multiversal nowadays, and the Oasis people are paying for split up in 1997 and rejoin us from Earth-B to play only the bangers.

 

The guarded voices of dissent on Reunification Day came from people who remembered the Oasis of the 00s rather than the Oasis of the mid-90s. Both in practical terms - 00s Oasis were notoriously inconsistent live - and because the 00s band spent half their time insisting they were the 90s band in a state of perpetual, album by album reformation. Every record, it seemed, Noel would admit that the last one was shite but this one is the Oasis people wanted. The reunion is a way to finally put that decade to bed, pull out a couple of tracks tops from the later records - “Stop Crying Your Heart Out” seems big on streaming - and play the songs that made them famous. Bringing up how mediocre they were for how long feels beside the point. Though on a blog like Popular, long tails of underachievement have a habit of wagging. And are there any other artists with 14 year careers whose public would expect them to stick almost entirely to the first 4?

 

And yet. For all the carping I can muster, it’s impossible to deny the fact that the reunion has uncovered a huge degree of goodwill and excitement about this band. So what’s going on?

 

One of the noticeable parts of the response for me has been veteran journalists getting excited about the fact that young people like Oasis too. It is always interesting who finds an audience among people in their teens and early 20s, and it’s not always who you might expect. But I feel like it’s being mentioned as a kind of “gotcha” to the Oasis haters - look! They’ve stood the test of time! It’s an approach I’d respect if it came from people who showed the slightest interest in any other music ‘Gen Z’ likes, rather than using young listeners as a way to validate nostalgia.

 

But let’s take it seriously. What do younger listeners like about Oasis? What is the band giving them that they aren’t getting elsewhere? It’s unclear what proportion of their 27 million Spotify listeners are under, say, 40, but Spotify stats still give a reasonable picture of what modern audiences (however old they are) value about Oasis. And the answer is pretty clear: hug rock. The big, lighters aloft, stadium rock ballads. Wonderwall. Don’t Look Back In Anger. Stop Crying Your Heart Out. Stand By Me. Live Forever. Champagne Supernova. The only “rocker” that tops 100m streams is “Supersonic”. Oasis are a band best loved for their mid-tempo scarf-wavers.

 

To which you might say, duh. But it’s true, I think, that this particular kind of heart-on-sleeve blokey pop is genuinely not well served by current bands. Sheeran does it a bit. Coldplay when they’re not fannying around. We’ve seen a kind of half-hearted revival of it from Benson Boone this year. But - “Hey Jude” aside - Oasis probably are the hug rock GOATs, and the fact I dislike a lot of those songs speaks to my squeamishness at the genre rather than the band’s facility with it.

 

But if that’s what people want from Oasis, it’s worth thinking about what they don’t want, as over the next six to nine months all sorts of claims are going to be made about the meaning of the Oasis revival. I don’t think it means people are longing for the 90s, or Britpop, or rock in anything beyond its most capacious stadium sense. I don’t think the Oasis reunion presages the return of “the guitar” to prominence, and I certainly don’t think the early heat and venom of the band are on people’s minds. I even doubt that the idea of “rock stars” and the Gallaghers themselves are much of the appeal - it’s not like they’ve been reclusive, or refrained from public sniping. Some of those things might find new appeal in the slipstream of the reunion, but I think there’s one thing Oasis did that people loved and don’t have easy access to, and it’s a thing huge open air gigs are particularly responsive to. Good luck to them.

 

That's really good ta. I haven't been able to work out wtf people (my friends in particular) are so excited about, and I think he's nailed it. 

 

I'm also not a "get legless before the gig" person (I'm not really a get legless ever person). My mates are. Add that to the "hug rock" and that's probably what they're excited about. 

 

Maybe I'll stop pouring cold water over everything they say in our WhatsApp groups. At least for the rest of today.

 

[Gemmill 51327]

 

 

What's going on at The Guardian. 

[Alex 37327]

38 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Aye you're right about the black music thing, and that is odd. I don't know whether he just has very set views on music and how his band should sound. I remember early on him saying that he would never be in a band with anyone that played a Fender guitar (he now plays one). And things like "music should never be avant-garde or experimental". 

 

Like he writes all of his songs from basically 5 open chords. He thought All Around The World was revolutionary cos it included a key change.  

 

I just don't think there's the intellectual curiosity there to try and understand anything else musically. 

 

I also think he probably found something very early on that catapulted them to global fame, and he didn't want to fuck with it. 

 

I bet he loves Clarkson's Farm these days. 

 

I'm rambling here, and I'm not really arguing one way or another on the racism thing. It's just never jumped out at me and I wasn't convinced by that bloke's examples - I think he just really doesn't like Noel and (whilst very engaging) he sounded quite prone to hyperbole tbf. 

He’s an ex Melody Maker journalist who did the TOTP podcast (which that’s from). He died quite suddenly about a year or so ago. Not saying that to make you feel bad  just you might have remembered SpongeBob and PaddockLad mentioning it at the time. He’s from Coventry so has that 2Tone Records sound embedded as part of his musical influences. His parents were immigrants from India. Which doesn’t mean he’s right or gets to define what is racist, but it’s a different perspective certainly to that of a white person. 

Edited September 1, 2024 by Alex

[Gemmill 51327]

I actually looked at the podcast after listening to the clip, but those episodes are so fucking long. Do you need to be watching the episodes of TOTP along with them for it to make sense, or can you just listen without that?

 

I might not anyway like, just wondering. 

[PaddockLad 19362]

3 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I actually looked at the podcast after listening to the clip, but those episodes are so fucking long. Do you need to be watching the episodes of TOTP along with them for it to make sense, or can you just listen without that?

 

I might not anyway like, just wondering. 

Chart Music pod isn’t a podcast, it’s a way of life 😆

 

I can listen easily in my van. I can do an episode in 2/3 days. I get some folk won’t have time for it. You being (am led to believe) an actual musician you might get a lot out of it if you can stick with it. It also has Taylor Parkes, who makes Frankie Boyle seem like a dandyish fop.., and it obviously helps if TOTP was a central part of your week when you were a kid… 

[Alex 37327]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

I actually looked at the podcast after listening to the clip, but those episodes are so fucking long. Do you need to be watching the episodes of TOTP along with them for it to make sense, or can you just listen without that?

 

I might not anyway like, just wondering. 

Nah. You just need to be old enough to remember TOTP imo. And have a bit of an interest in pop music. Even the older TOTP might bring some nostalgia. I know you’re not as old as me and lived abroad a bit but I say that because the early 70s glam stuff still crept into early 80s school discos. And I’m young enough to remember disco first time round (I always say the 70s didn’t end in Newcastle until about 1983). A lot of it is just talking about how shite and unprepared the presenters were. Noel Edmonds and DLT being particular standouts for their fucking rank patter. 
There is a playlist if you want to look at clips just to see how bad Bruno Brookes’ fashion sense really was or how weird a Legs and Co routine was. I also think they feel a lot shorter than their 2-3 hours and you don’t really need to listen to each show in a single session. They’re a bit sweary at times so nsfw in terms of listening without earphones 

[Gemmill 51327]

Thanks chaps.

 

Hats off to PaddockLad for this dismissive, passive-aggressive use of brackets.

 

16 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

You being (am led to believe) an actual musician

 

[PaddockLad 19362]

10 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Thanks chaps.

 

Hats off to PaddockLad for this dismissive, passive-aggressive use of brackets.

 

 

 

Yeah… don’t mention it Hendrix

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4301]

Stop giving the ball away you useless fucks

[spongebob toonpants 4450]

4 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

Chart Music pod isn’t a podcast, it’s a way of life 😆

That's the sbsolute truth 

 

I did some courier work for a couple of months at the start of the year and listened to it all day every day while driving. It was fucking glorious

 

 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4301]

2 hours ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Stop giving the ball away you useless fucks

I was searching through the match thread wondering what the fuck I had done with this post.

[PaddockLad 19362]

@Monkeys Fist

 

Did you ever do this in your climbing career? 😬

 

 

[RobinRobin 12688]

3 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

@Monkeys Fist

 

Did you ever do this in your climbing career? 😬

 

 

 

Needs a psychiatrist 

[wykikitoon 23351]

7 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

@Monkeys Fist

 

Did you ever do this in your climbing career? 😬

 

 

How to design risk out of a situation eh?

Typical MEP wankers

[strawb 4671]

36 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

How to design risk out of a situation eh?

Typical MEP wankers

Hahaha I act as Principal Designer on our high rise jobs, if I put this in my maintenance schedule/existing hazard register I would lose my job.

[wykikitoon 23351]

Absolutely bonkers init?

 

Last week I was doing a job where they had plant on top of a 'standard' loading bay.  One of my first questions 'How do we get access to that'  blank faces from the Architect and MEP.  FFS.

[PaddockLad 19362]

To get the pipes and cabling into that service riser they would’ve had to have drilled from the inside and shoved them through ready for Bonnnington/Fist there to swing round and connect so why didn’t they just go the whole hog and drill out an access hatch?

[Alex 37327]

I got vertigo from watching that

[Howmanheyman 37228]

Well, here's a sorry tale. Late last year I made a small purchase in a shop of a couple of quid, didn't think anything of it but coincidentally, a month or so later the wife's card got scammed, we spotted it, got our money back quickly, card cancelled etc but as we were going through our bank account checking out for what was legit payments and what wasn't I spotted something from a shop that was £92 odd. When I checked where the shop was I remembered the small purchase and it isn't a shop where you could spend much so wasn't a scam. I went in the shop and saw what I bought and it did match up with what I'd bought but plus £90! So by this time the receipt was long gone so I went in, saw someone there who was one of the partners, showed them the part of my bank statement with the money coming out, explained what I bought, how everything matched up but plus 90, told them I realised it was probably just a mistake by whoever put it through and asked for the overpayment back. I gave them my details and asked them to look for their end of day receipts record, stock etc. No bother so far, the lass said they'd check it out and pay me if it tallied up, seemed genuine to be fair and she'd mention it to her partner. Here's where things start to go wrong.

 

No contact for a couple weeks so I pop back in, this time the male partner is in, gives me some tale about getting on to it soon so I leave it that. Nothing happens again. I keep going back every few weeks and keep getting some bollocks about his card machine handling company not giving him access to the end of day receipts. A couple of times he was slightly cocky and I knew he was full of shit. Guess where he sounded like he was from?  By this time the missus has checked him out through the power of women's Facebook stalker protocol and his timeline had loads of stuff such as mags 0-3 lads.  So now I've went from being a bit pissed off with the fobbing off to full on, do I go in, turn everything over and stott his head off his till or do I go in, look down at my feet, being embarrassed knowing that I'm inherently inferior to him and fear a good kicking and apologise for pestering him?  I of course decided to use common sense and tell him he has a week to get in touch with his so called receipt company problems or I'm taking him to the small claims court and basically telling him he was full of shit. He then told me to go ahead as that was the best outcome clearly thinking I wouldn't bother. Two months later a letter gets posted to me by him telling me that I'm owed money and could he have the details, please?  he then spends almost a week not paying me before I get in touch again before he comes out with some bollocks about his solicitor forgetting to pay me and forgetting to sort the court details. (He obviously didn't bother his arse defending it). Anyway, I looked today and he's finally paid me back plus the small court costs. What a stewpid, thick MLF, morally sewperior bull's knacker. He can now update his facebewk account to lads 0-1 Mags.

 

P.S. I also looked up his company and he's been fined before by the authorities for selling shit, out of date stuff etc. As Tammy Wynette almost sang, 'sometimes it's hard to be morally sewperior'. 

 

PPS.

Maybe I should start a rival business up if the opposition is as thick as this mackem cunt? 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2024 by Howmanheyman