I think Noel Gallagher was hugely derivative in the early days – hardly an idea of his own, but he has developed his own niche, at least to some extent. I doubt he’d ever claim to be ambitious or ground-breaking, it’s guitar-based rawk and you know what you’ll get when you buy one of his CD’s.
Radiohead seem just about the opposite, kind of what R.E.M. wanted to be. Almost post-grad rather than a college band, and actually in a pretty unpretentious way: Most def interesting and ambitious.
Well, OK, I’ve been avoiding this thread because I knew I wouldn’t be able to contain the snark within. But I can’t keep holding it back …
I can’t stand Oasis. To me, and, mind, this is personal taste, they are one of the most boring and unoriginal “rock” bands that ever hit the big - time. And, yes, I agree with the “whiny” comment, too. I cannot, for the life of me, explain their popularity.
So, in a comparison test, just about anybody beats them. I’d rather listen to, say, Lincoln Park on a bad day (and that is saying something …) rather than submit to more recycling of Beatles/Rolling Stones licks by the Gallagher brothers.
Radiohead? Well, from a strictly musical point of view, I admire their creativity and their “think outside the box” attitude. But I have a hard time listening to most of their stuff, too. Not all, of course, they have a couple songs that I really like ("This is what you get, when you meeesss with us … " :)), but on the whole they’re not really my cup of tea.
I guess I could get on board with the Blur write - in vote.